I think the noose has somewhat more threatening implications in a part of the country where it has a history of use than in someplace like Oregon. When the implied message of “we’re gonna kill some niggers and their lovers” has been followed through on within people’s living memory of people in the area, then the threat has much more meaning. The context and history when considering whether something crosses the bounds of legality into outright intimidation.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Personally, though, I think this should be protected by free speech. However, precedent says otherwise, or so I believe.
Agree 100% with the first sentence - not so much with the second.
[/quote]
The second sentence isn’t really an opinion :P. In the past, symbols of racial violence have not been protected by the first amendment, even though I believe they should be.
Freedom of speech means letting every scumbag on earth have their say, as long as their say doesn’t hurt anyone.
[quote]etaco wrote:
I think the noose has somewhat more threatening implications in a part of the country where it has a history of use than in someplace like Oregon. When the implied message of “we’re gonna kill some niggers and their lovers” has been followed through on within people’s living memory of people in the area, then the threat has much more meaning. The context and history when considering whether something crosses the bounds of legality into outright intimidation.[/quote]
It is not a crime to hate black people. That’s not politically correct, but neither is it a crime. It is a crime to act on that hatred, however.
I don’t think displaying one’s hatred should be a crime. Like it or not - it was at one time protected by the constitution.
It’s a piece of damn rope until someone’s head is put through it.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
First, I do not agree with this moron’s actions.
But I do have 2 points that are the issue IMO.
To label criminal activity as a “Hate Crime” seems a bit of a stretch, a crime is a crime regardless of the victim(s).
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.
[/quote]
I take exception to the whole concept of “hate crime”. Has anyone cause harm to another out of love? Aren’t all victim oriented crimes a “hate crime”? It’s just more politically correct bullshit. Since when is it a crime to hate someone or a group of people? It may be unsavory, but not illegal. You cannot legislate “love” and “hate”. You cannot legislate emotions.
Politically correctness is the noose that is going hang all our freedoms on a rope. And we just sit idly by and allow it to happen. People just need to get over themselves. Nobody has an innate right to ‘not be offended’. Be offended, tough shit.
The nooses where a nasty statement, but that is all they were. If flip off somebody is that a hate crime? What a crock of shit.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
To those of you defending the noose as ‘freedom of speech’(which I agree it is)…
What’s your take on flag-burning? [/quote]
burn ´em.
Probably the only flag that is honored when burned, because she stands for your right to do so.
It still is a tad stupid.
It could be worse.
When they tried to burn an Austrian flag they took a Danish flag (as far as I remember) because they either could not find an Austrian one or did not know what it looks like.
I take exception to the whole concept of “hate crime”. Has anyone cause harm to another out of love? Aren’t all victim oriented crimes a “hate crime”? It’s just more politically correct bullshit. Since when is it a crime to hate someone or a group of people? It may be unsavory, but not illegal. You cannot legislate “love” and “hate”. You cannot legislate emotions.
Politically correctness is the noose that is going hang all our freedoms on a rope. And we just sit idly by and allow it to happen. People just need to get over themselves. Nobody has an innate right to ‘not be offended’. Be offended, tough shit.
The nooses where a nasty statement, but that is all they were. If flip off somebody is that a hate crime? What a crock of shit.[/quote]
I think this is what it all comes down to; the government trying to legislate our thought processes. The man didn’t attempt to lynch anyone, and as immature as what he did was, this is what freedom of speech is all about. The government is supposed to protect us from other countries and each other physically, it isn’t supposed to protect our feelings.
[quote]orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
How many not-sensitive subjects need protection from the first ammendment?
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?
Who did he threaten?[/quote]
The protesters waiting for the bus. The man himself admitted that it was his intention.
Cut it out people! This is not about the right to offend, which as far as I can tell, is alive and well. It’s about jackasses trying to intimidate minorities.
[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
How many not-sensitive subjects need protection from the first ammendment?
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?
Who did he threaten?
The protesters waiting for the bus. The man himself admitted that it was his intention.
Cut it out people! This is not about the right to offend, which as far as I can tell, is alive and well. It’s about jackasses trying to intimidate minorities.[/quote]
What about minorities that try to intimidate jackasses?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
How many not-sensitive subjects need protection from the first ammendment?
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?
Who did he threaten?
The protesters waiting for the bus. The man himself admitted that it was his intention.
Cut it out people! This is not about the right to offend, which as far as I can tell, is alive and well. It’s about jackasses trying to intimidate minorities.
What about minorities that try to intimidate jackasses?[/quote]
The mere showing of the noose cannot be prima facie evidence of intimidation. I take this from Virginia v. Black.
If he did not express violent intent as opposed to merely counter-protesting, then I am very confused as to why he would plead guilty, if he has competent legal defense. The fact that he drove by several times, without getting out of the truck, seems to indicate counter-protest.
Now, if he shouted that he would kill the protesters, or even took pictures as he drove by, that seems, in my uneducated opinion, as though it would constitute legitimate evidence of intimidation.
Lixy how do you argue against this, but not long ago defended Dearborn MI muslims right to burn the American flag? Shouldn’t that be viewed as a threat? Oh it’s just clean protest right?