T Nation

Noose on Truck

First, I do not agree with this moron’s actions.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/26/jena.noose/?iref=mpstoryview

But I do have 2 points that are the issue IMO.

  1. To label criminal activity as a “Hate Crime” seems a bit of a stretch, a crime is a crime regardless of the victim(s).

  2. Once again, I disagree with his actions, but how is this not protected by free speech? You can burn a flag but you can’t have a noose on your truck, no matter how stupid?

Not trying to turn this into another black vs. white debate, I am more concerned with the gov. telling me/us what is or isn’t offensive.

Has everyone heard of this piece of “artwork”:

I just think it’s crazy how some stuff is allowed and other stuff isn’t.

Sorry, that was just a bunch of random thoughts kinda tied together.

Protected speech does not encompass threats of violence. And given the context and tormented history of the country, this shouldn’t even be debated. The prick should be punished for his actions.

As for that decades old “artwork”, I don’t see any connection with this case. Not even remotely. One is a case of intimidation and threats while the other is a sensationalist urine jar trying to pass for very poor taste art.

I understand the history of the US and all that good stuff. But driving with a noose on your tailgate should be covered by free speech. I just don’t want the good ole USA turning into another “muhammed cartoon” country where everytime someone gets their panties in a wad all hell breaks loose (even tho it appears we are close). I don’t think anyone on here will agree with this idiots actions, but he is free to do so IMO.

Lixy what about the whole “hate crime” vs “regular crime” debate?

Edit: so why is it wrong (legally) to drive with a noose, but technically I could walk thru New York City in a KKK robe.

[quote]dk44 wrote:
Lixy what about the whole “hate crime” vs “regular crime” debate?[/quote]

Can you see the difference between beating up a homosexual because he was talking shit and beating up a homosexual because of his sexual orientation?

A hate crime is a crime that is intentionally committed against a person/group of people because of some sort of bias against them (race, orientation, religion, etc).

[quote]anonym wrote:
dk44 wrote:
Lixy what about the whole “hate crime” vs “regular crime” debate?

Can you see the difference between beating up a homosexual because he was talking shit and beating up a homosexual because of his sexual orientation?

A hate crime is a crime that is intentionally committed against a person/group of people because of some sort of bias against them (race, orientation, religion, etc).[/quote]

I understand what you are saying, but:

If suspect A is white and beats the shit out of a white guy for no real reason other than the suspect being a moron, should he get a weaker or more severe sentence than suspect B who is also white but beats the shit out of a black guy because of his race?

I just think throwing in the “hate” in a crime serves no purpose. If you are beating anyones ass for any unjustified reason you’re in the wrong regardless of race, religion, sex, etc.

[quote]dk44 wrote:
If suspect A is white and beats the shit out of a white guy for no real reason other than the suspect being a moron, should he get a weaker or more severe sentence than suspect B who is also white but beats the shit out of a black guy because of his race?[/quote]

Depends on the circumstances. And that’s why you have courts, judges, juries, laws, precedents and other things that might help you determine what is wrong in that situation.

So the protestors were mad at the cops because they arrested and charged six black men for physically attacking a white guy? That does not seem like equality to me. Although I do not know the extent of the white individual’s injuries, the attempted murder charge seems fair.

When six men attack another guy, who is alone, I believe murder, or a severe beating, is their intention. No matter the race, a group attacking a single individual is just wrong and cowardly. But according to the protesters, the police only believed this was unfair due to race. Anyone else catch that?

dk: You’re 100% bro. Anyone that supports hate crime legislation is a racist. End of story. This would be a non-issue if we lived in a free country.

mike

[quote]dk44 wrote:

I understand the history of the US and all that good stuff. But driving with a noose on your tailgate should be covered by free speech. I just don’t want the good ole USA turning into another “muhammed cartoon” country where everytime someone gets their panties in a wad all hell breaks loose (even tho it appears we are close). I don’t think anyone on here will agree with this idiots actions, but he is free to do so IMO.
[/quote]

I am surprised he didn’t push harder - he pled guilty.

I think there is a 1st Amendment argument to be made, being that the “intimidation” component here wasn’t that tangible. His noose was meant to be a political statement, no matter how noxious, and he should have taken it on.

[quote]dk44 wrote:
I understand the history of the US and all that good stuff. But driving with a noose on your tailgate should be covered by free speech. I just don’t want the good ole USA turning into another “muhammed cartoon” country where everytime someone gets their panties in a wad all hell breaks loose (even tho it appears we are close). I don’t think anyone on here will agree with this idiots actions, but he is free to do so IMO.

Lixy what about the whole “hate crime” vs “regular crime” debate?

Edit: so why is it wrong (legally) to drive with a noose, but technically I could walk thru New York City in a KKK robe. [/quote]

Hate crime, as it stands, is obviously flawed to the point where I’d call it utterly stupid. However, a noose is a threat of violence, unlike a KKK robe, which is just a threat of racism.

As well, you aren’t allowed to wear the hood, so walking through NYC with a KKK robe on is probably a greater RISK for violence upon oneself than it is a THREAT of violence against others.

Personally, though, I think this should be protected by free speech. However, precedent says otherwise, or so I believe.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Hate crime, as it stands, is obviously flawed to the point where I’d call it utterly stupid. However, a noose is a threat of violence, unlike a KKK robe, which is just a threat of racism.[/quote]

What if the noose was being displayed on the pick-up of a black man?

Unless the noose was being waved at someone, there is no way it can be considered a threat. If that is the case - then any white guy carrying a rifle across his back window is guilty of a threat.

If that risk was realized - you should have the definition of a hate crime if there ever was one.

Agree 100% with the first sentence - not so much with the second.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
What if the noose was being displayed on the pick-up of a black man?
[/quote]

Because blacks were lynching whites?

I didn’t think so.

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
What if the noose was being displayed on the pick-up of a black man?

Because blacks were lynching whites?

I didn’t think so.[/quote]

There are “2805 [documented] victims of lynch mobs killed between 1882 and 1930 in ten southern states. Although mobs murdered almost 300 white men and women, the vast majorityóalmost 2,500óof lynch victims were African-American. Of these black victims, 94 percent died in the hands of white lynch mobs. The scale of this carnage means that, on the average, a black man, woman, or child was murdered nearly once a week, every week, between 1882 and 1930 by a hate-driven white mob” (ix).

No stats on who lynched the 300 whites. It looks like 6% of the black victims were lynched by non-white lynch mobs.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
What if the noose was being displayed on the pick-up of a black man?

Because blacks were lynching whites?

I didn’t think so.

There are “2805 [documented] victims of lynch mobs killed between 1882 and 1930 in ten southern states. Although mobs murdered almost 300 white men and women, the vast majorityóalmost 2,500óof lynch victims were African-American. Of these black victims, 94 percent died in the hands of white lynch mobs. The scale of this carnage means that, on the average, a black man, woman, or child was murdered nearly once a week, every week, between 1882 and 1930 by a hate-driven white mob” (ix).

No stats on who lynched the 300 whites. It looks like 6% of the black victims were lynched by non-white lynch mobs. [/quote]

How about you estimate the number of black folks lynched or otherwise executed without due process before 1882?

That should give you an idea on why the subject is so sensitive, and why hanging a noose on a truck while driving back and forth past a group of black protesters is considered a serious offense.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
What if the noose was being displayed on the pick-up of a black man?

Because blacks were lynching whites?

I didn’t think so.

There are “2805 [documented] victims of lynch mobs killed between 1882 and 1930 in ten southern states. Although mobs murdered almost 300 white men and women, the vast majorityóalmost 2,500óof lynch victims were African-American. Of these black victims, 94 percent died in the hands of white lynch mobs. The scale of this carnage means that, on the average, a black man, woman, or child was murdered nearly once a week, every week, between 1882 and 1930 by a hate-driven white mob” (ix).

No stats on who lynched the 300 whites. It looks like 6% of the black victims were lynched by non-white lynch mobs.

How about you estimate the number of black folks lynched or otherwise executed without due process before 1882?

That should give you an idea on why the subject is so sensitive, and why hanging a noose on a truck while driving back and forth past a group of black protesters is considered a serious offense.[/quote]

Seriously offensive no doubt but it is also a form of free speech.

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
What if the noose was being displayed on the pick-up of a black man?

Because blacks were lynching whites?

I didn’t think so.[/quote]

Relevance?

How many black guys did the current noose displayer lynch?

Nice try - but try to stick with answering the fucking question you jihadist baby fucker.

[quote]lixy wrote:
That should give you an idea on why the subject is so sensitive, and why hanging a noose on a truck while driving back and forth past a group of black protesters is considered a serious offense.[/quote]

You haven’t a clue, asshole.

Subjects can be sensitive - and still be prtected by the first amendment.

There is no difference between this, and calling names.

Hardly a hate crime, or a crime at all.

Go back to bombing cars - you don’t have a fucking clue about civil rights in the US.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
What if the noose was being displayed on the pick-up of a black man?

Because blacks were lynching whites?

I didn’t think so.

There are “2805 [documented] victims of lynch mobs killed between 1882 and 1930 in ten southern states. Although mobs murdered almost 300 white men and women, the vast majorityóalmost 2,500óof lynch victims were African-American. Of these black victims, 94 percent died in the hands of white lynch mobs. The scale of this carnage means that, on the average, a black man, woman, or child was murdered nearly once a week, every week, between 1882 and 1930 by a hate-driven white mob” (ix).

No stats on who lynched the 300 whites. It looks like 6% of the black victims were lynched by non-white lynch mobs.

How about you estimate the number of black folks lynched or otherwise executed without due process before 1882?

That should give you an idea on why the subject is so sensitive, and why hanging a noose on a truck while driving back and forth past a group of black protesters is considered a serious offense.[/quote]

How many not-sensitive subjects need protection from the first ammendment?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
There is no difference between this, and calling names.

Hardly a hate crime, or a crime at all.

Go back to bombing cars - you don’t have a fucking clue about civil rights in the US. [/quote]

We’ll see if he gets convicted or not.

[quote]orion wrote:
How many not-sensitive subjects need protection from the first ammendment? [/quote]

Let’s not go around in circles.

Do you or do you not agree that threats of violence should be prosecuted?

Do you or do you not think there was intent to threaten in this case?