Letter -- Edwin Aiwazian

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution protects free speech. However,

this protection can be limited when speech incites hate crimes. Although

Iva Carrico’s bigoted remarks during a City Council meeting on April 2

did not rise to the level of incitement that generally demands criminal

punishment under our legal system, civil liability should be imposed upon

her if a victim of a hate crime can show a direct and causal link between

Ms. Carrico’s verbal attack and an incident of hate crime.

Ms. Carrico categorized Armenians who live in Glendale as “evildoers”

who are “intent on destroying Glendale.” Referring to the Armenian

Genocide, Ms. Carrico asked, “What were they doing so badly that they had

to be killed off? If they acted in such a way as they have been doing now

in Glendale, you can surmise why.”

Because Ms. Carrico used the word “had” in the phrase “had to be

killed off,” a logical inference that follows from her remarks is that

Armenians in Glendale should be killed off for what they are doing in

Glendale today. This sort of mindless rhetoric will impact the future of

Armenians in Glendale. If this future happens to include hate crimes,

then Ms. Carrico should be held liable for damages stemming from her

speech.

If someone who is defamed can sue to recover damages caused by speech,

should not victims of hate crimes be able to sue for the same speech?

Even though defamation involves speech, liability from defamation centers

around the damages caused by the speech. The culpability for hate speech

should also be measured by the damages it causes. Speech may be protected

in America, but its adverse consequences may not be.

Ultimately, Ms. Carrico and others who cannot control themselves from

recklessly engaging in hate speech should either wear a muzzle in public

or hire a good lawyer to defend themselves in court.

EDWIN AIWAZIAN

Glendale