Laserfiche WebLink
Court’s determination in their upcoming session. <br /> <br />Civil Cause of Action <br />Mr. Lidz noted that the City could create a civil cause action upon which to sue for damages in instances of <br />hate speech and directed the council to the AIS materials outlining the same. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz commented that although the creation of a civil cause of action regarding hate speech was a viable <br />option, the State courts had demonstrated reservations and concerns regarding such tort claims. He noted <br />that while the City could create a civil cause of action, it might be difficult for plaintiffs to recover <br />significant or meaningful damages, much less attorneys’ fees, in civil litigation. <br /> <br />Intimidation III <br />Mr. Lidz commented that the option to create a third degree of intimidation to the City Code would create a <br />“threat of serious physical injury” rather than the “serious threat of physical injury” as defined by second <br />degree intimidation. <br /> <br />Penalty Enhancement <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz expressed that while the enhancement of penalties for hate speech was a legitimate option, City law <br />enforcement agencies did not have adequate jail space now to enforce any enhanced sanctions with <br />measurable effectiveness. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor thanked Mr. Lidz for his efforts regarding the matter and noted that the issue of hate speech was <br />difficult to approach from a criminal perspective. He expressed that he was intrigued by the notion of <br />making hate speech an offense that could be addressed by civil causes of action is it could provide a <br />significant disincentive to hate speech itself if not a means to recover significant damages by the victims of <br />such offenses. Mr. Lidz responded that attempting to create disincentives might backfire as it could <br />conceivably create disincentives to engage in forms of legitimate protected speech. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor indicated that the matter was complicated and she was not interested in doing anything that <br />might be limiting or inhibiting to free speech. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark noted he had participated in several conversations with the Human Rights Commission regarding <br />hate speech. He commented that while he was a strong advocate for free speech in the community, there <br />were some instances of hate speech that crossed the line between opinion and injury and that it was the <br />injurious hate speech that warranted further action. He indicated interest in a continued exploration of the <br />option of amending the City’s harassment ordinance. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Clark’s statement, and further opined that there was a cumulative effect to <br />instances of hate speech, further stating, “a thousand cuts make you bleed.” She felt it was important to <br />take action regarding the matter. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Clark’s statement, but noted that he was not interested in supporting the <br />creation of civil causes of action regarding hate speech. He noted that he would be supportive of the option <br />to create a third degree of intimidation in the City Code since such charges would at the very least become <br />part of an offender’s criminal record. He advocated for additional public hearings regarding the matter. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark noted that it was important to communicate effectively with the public in order to ensure that <br />there was no confusion regarding the City Council’s motivations or perceived reluctance in taking stronger <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 26, 2008 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />