[throwaway010718]

One of most surprising headlines I saw this week is that in NYC you can be fined $250,000 for calling someone an "illegal immigrant".

I can understand that such an accusation may be slanderous under civil law. But the criminal law seems to only apply to that specific phrase, not the accusation.

Does anyone understand how such a seemingly unconstitutional law could get passed ?

[nickloewen]

To clarify, because I wanted to know the details:

This is coming from the "NYC Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Immigration Status and National Origin."

The relevant text is: "the use of certain language, including “illegal alien” and “illegals,” with the intent to demean, humiliate, or offend a person or persons constitutes discrimination." The law does not (in this context) explicitly include the phrase "illegal immigrant."

A news article about this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-illegal-alien-city-law...

The original document: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/...

ETA: "The New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) prohibits discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived “alienage and citizenship status,” and “national origin,” among other categories, by most employers, housing providers, and providers of public accommodations in New York City. The NYCHRL also prohibits discriminatory harassment and bias-based profiling by law enforcement."

[arduanika]

John C. Calhoun is alive and well in his beloved party. Nullification forever.

[devnulloverflow]

> Does anyone understand how such a seemingly unconstitutional law could get passed ?

Things get passed because politicians vote for them. They might or might not listen to legal advice about their constitutionality before voting.

It's possible there is something we don't know that makes the rule constitutional. Other possibilities are:

1. The councilors who voted for it don't care, their strategy is to try to get away with anything and let the courts uphold the constitution.

2. The councilors actively want the courts to strike it down to generate a talking point at the next election.

There are plenty of voters who will reward both strategies, and they are over-represented among the politically active people.

[darkwizard42]

I would recommend reading the article which classifies that if this speech is used to threaten, demean, or discriminate then the fine is imposed.

This is how most free speech laws work, they don't impede your free speech unless you are endangering others with it. Threatening someone or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater are not protected.