[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Nice try - but try to stick with answering the fucking question you jihadist baby fucker.
And the new forum civility takes hold…[/quote]
Dude - that should just be her salutation. It’s not like that’s the first, or fiftieth time I have said that.
Nice to see you can’t stay on the fucking topic, and cherry pick one portion of one post to prove it.
Hypocrite much?
[quote]orion wrote:
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?
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.
[/quote]
In Australia, there is a socialist organization that gives out flag burning kits at universities.
It seems that some people find the process so complicated that they require a kit just to get it right. Maybe they need to introduce these kits in Austria.
[quote]pat wrote:
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.
You cannot legislate “love” and “hate”. You cannot legislate emotions.
[/quote]
It seems you can. Apparently you can also conduct wars against certain words.
Slightly off topic here, but I wonder how piss Mohammed would go down.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
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?
…which minority tried to intimidate you?
[/quote]
Hey now, this is a civil forum.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
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.[/quote]
Word.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Slightly off topic here, but I wonder how piss Mohammed would go down.
[/quote]
Violently.
I am as offended by a noose, as I am a flag burning, as I am a cross burning. But I’ll defend anyone’s right to express themselves in a non-violent manner (non-violent = free of vandalizing and/or trespassing on personal property as well).
I think the issue is more an ethical/appropriateness matter.
This is good re: hate crimes and free speech:
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Slightly off topic here, but I wonder how piss Mohammed would go down.
[/quote]
That’s harder to pull off. For one thing, I don’t know anyone who deifies the prophet Mohammed. Yes, people get pissed (no pun intended) when people call him a pedophile or when gratuitously depicting him as a suicide bomber (which is anachronistic).
Another issue would be the total lack of statues representing him. The best one can do is write his name on a piece of paper and dip it in piss, which I think, would not give the work much artistic value.
So here’s the conundrum: No renowned artist would do it because he’d be viewed as a copycat, and if some unknown person decides to make of Mohammed, it won’t be recognizable the way Serrano’s piece was.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Slightly off topic here, but I wonder how piss Mohammed would go down.
That’s harder to pull off. For one thing, I don’t know anyone who deifies the prophet Mohammed. Yes, people get pissed (no pun intended) when people call him a pedophile or when gratuitously depicting him as a suicide bomber (which is anachronistic).
Another issue would be the total lack of statues representing him. The best one can do is write his name on a piece of paper and dip it in piss, which I think, would not give the work much artistic value.
So here’s the conundrum: No renowned artist would do it because he’d be viewed as a copycat, and if some unknown person decides to make of Mohammed, it won’t be recognizable the way Serrano’s piece was.[/quote]
evidently, all you have to do is draw a cartoon, or write a book, and you car bombing little fucks think that is grounds for a lynching.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
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.
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]
We may be too far chronologically from the worst for things for this to come into play, but at one point displays like this were a part of what can only be described as a sustained campaign of terrorism against a large portion of the population. If we apply the same standards we do for even threats of terrorist acts-- which don’t have to be directed at specific people-- then there is room for prosecution. That said, I’m leery of both hate and anti-terror legislation but I do see them as being of the same cloth. If we’re going to have them and enforce them, perhaps we be somewhat consistent about it.
[quote]rainjack 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.
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]
I doubt it would happen but if a black guy were caught with a hangs man noose, he should be prosecuted same as a white guy. It is a time of heightened sensitivity
Dumb thing to do. But, a crime? No way, I’d be very concerned with a government capable of prosecuting such things. What’s next? Like other’s have asked, flag burners? Westboro Baptists insulting grieving family memebers at their child’s funeral? There’s a lot of disgusting examples of free speech, but they shouldn’t be policed.
I think I’m more shocked that the noose was classifed as a “threat or act of intimidation.” I think there was more of a threat of him getting his ass kicked.
Is it illegal (in theory) to flash gang signs (I know when I was in high school you could get expelled for it but don’t know about the actual law)
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Dumb thing to do. But, a crime? No way, I’d be very concerned with a government capable of prosecuting such things. What’s next? Like other’s have asked, flag burners? Westboro Baptists insulting grieving family memebers at their child’s funeral? There’s a lot of disgusting examples of free speech, but they shouldn’t be policed.[/quote]
I disagree, especially disturbing the peace at a funeral. If that were a funeral for some one I cared a bout they would go to jail if I had to go with them.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I disagree, especially disturbing the peace at a funeral. If that were a funeral for some one I cared a bout they would go to jail if I had to go with them.
[/quote]
You would, but they wouldn’t, unless they fought back.
But you don’t understand the point that was made. Free speech is a quickly dying freedom.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Nice try - but try to stick with answering the fucking question you jihadist baby fucker.
And the new forum civility takes hold…
Dude - that should just be her salutation. It’s not like that’s the first, or fiftieth time I have said that.
Nice to see you can’t stay on the fucking topic, and cherry pick one portion of one post to prove it.
Hypocrite much?[/quote]
I’ve never had a problem staying on topic, just noticed in passing that as you pine for the former days of this forum, and their more intelligent and varied viewpoints, you engage in the same constant nastiness and vitriol that probably had a lot to do with some of those posters leaving. But hey, carry on.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Nice try - but try to stick with answering the fucking question you jihadist baby fucker.
And the new forum civility takes hold…
Dude - that should just be her salutation. It’s not like that’s the first, or fiftieth time I have said that.
Nice to see you can’t stay on the fucking topic, and cherry pick one portion of one post to prove it.
Hypocrite much?
I’ve never had a problem staying on topic, just noticed in passing that as you pine for the former days of this forum, and their more intelligent and varied viewpoints, you engage in the same constant nastiness and vitriol that probably had a lot to do with some of those posters leaving. But hey, carry on.[/quote]
Just this once, huh?
You evidently mistook me for someone else, or read the wrong post.
I don’t pine, for starters. Secondly - I said I enjoyed fighting with people I like.
Don’t think I ran any of them off, not the ones I liked anyhow.
But please - since you have such a hard on for making an example of me - list some of the folks I have run off.
[quote]dk44 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.
So you are ok with a black person doing it?
What do we call that thing when one race is allowed to do it, but another isn’t? [/quote]
/thread.
why did people continue talking after this?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Dumb thing to do. But, a crime? No way, I’d be very concerned with a government capable of prosecuting such things. What’s next? Like other’s have asked, flag burners? Westboro Baptists insulting grieving family memebers at their child’s funeral? There’s a lot of disgusting examples of free speech, but they shouldn’t be policed.[/quote]
Well put, definitley not a crime, but in some peoples eyes cause for catching a severe beating, be it by a single person, or a group of people. I know if my brother-in-law comes home in a box and someone disrespects his service, they will definitley catch said beating.
Man I hope that didn’t come off too “fight club”