Is hanging nooses on a branch an example of "free speech"?

Question

It was idiotic of them to do it. In my simple mind, it is as idiotic as flag burning and demonstrating in front of abortion clinics. And please, thoughtful answers only. We already know how spineless many YA participants can be.

Answer 1

Yes, I suppose so. Remember, freedom of speech does not only apply to nice speech. It also applied to the Nazis marching in Skokie.

Answer 2

I seriously doubt that even a pedantic lawyer could twist and spin this enough to convince most people that this is an example of Freedom of Speech.
Perhaps a threat? An effort to incite violence? A reasonable person would think that after all of the civil rights struggles and numerous laws passed to insure equal rights for all Americans - activities such as this would be a thing of the past.
I think a lot of the activities that you mention in your question are really a stretch when "Freedom of Speech" is used as both the defense and the right. It's certainly a foundation for our freedoms that is essential - but the application of a tiny bit of common sense won't restrict our rights or the rights of people to not be intimidated by others.
I simply try to rationalize these activities by the lack of brain function of a person, for instance, that would burn the very symbol that guarantees him the rights and freedom to do it in the first place - really doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?
A good debate might be to argue about just how far some of these air heads can go and still proclaim Freedom of Speech as their right to burn American flags, hang nooses, demonstrate their hatred or promote supremacy for one group or another. It's obvious that these activities don't promote tranquility in any civilized nation.

Answer 3

While you may find them idiotic...they are both legal and both covered under the first amendment. Demonstrating falls under both free speech and right to peacefully assemble. What you don't have the right to do is intimidate, encourage violence or encourage others to use violence...hanging that noose is pretty darn close to that IMO. The only purpose of a noose is to kill something (by hanging). Sounds like it was hung for intimidation purposes and could possibly encourage others to use violence.

Answer 4

It is a threat. It is the same as burning a cross in someones front yard.

Both are threats and should be considered hate crimes.

The meaning of a hanging noose is crystal clear, especially given the context of nooses and civil rights in the south.

The whole thing is tragic. It is hard to believe that even kids could stoop so low in this day and age.

Answer 5

Depends on who you ask, and what they value, ever sat on the other side of a desk with someone without a noose, but they do the same things that a noose hanger does?

There is even retaliation based on the fear of this; so, where honestly with access does someone go to timely deal with an issue before it escalates.

Maybe consider filing for a "mediation" instead of invoking the hate crime law? nope.

It's easier to dillute the Justice system, than apply it.

Answer 6

It could be construed (or misconstrued -- dependent upon your perspective) as freedom of speech. Kind of goes along the line of painting a swastika. Frankly, I'm tired of the whole thing. They should not have hung a noose from a tree. They should not have taken the law into their own hands. And that the people would protest in support of vigilante-ism and in support of someone who clearly broke the law. They're all pathetically stupid. Perhaps it's time to grow up?

Answer 7

No, I don't think it's covered under the First Amendment. I do think it's covered under laws that other states have, such as terroristic threats or even assault. In some instances assault can be what is construed as an act that causes another to violence--such as 'Fighting Words'. That used to be in Georgia, and in the last few years, Idaho passed a law that one who 'encourages, incites or even invites one to violence is guilty of assault(please double check that, my memory is not great) When someone attacked my car with an axe(never verbally threatening me) I got them on 'terroristic threats', a felony. They did do damage to my vehicle, and they had to pay for it. It would seem to me that in the Jena 6 case they could have charged with simple assault(a misdemeanor) at very least. Of course, a prosecutor isn't going to press charges, incur great expenses, if he thinks he is going to lose---there could be some really good defense attorneys there! It's a really hard judgement call to make there... so sad there is still ignorance such as that...

Just my two cents!

Answer 8

Isn't it annoying as all hell that the concept of "free speech" has to include everyone and every opinion? If we could only think of a way to support freedom of speech...

...and still dunk Ann Coulter into a tank of fish guts.

But - damn! - it just doesn't work like that.

Answer 9

Some examples are easier to judge than others.

It's not hard to see that this was a threat.
Which is criminal, regardless of any first amendment issues.

Can I prove that this was a threat? No. But I'd need strong evidence to believe otherwise.

Answer 10

there is not any way that a noose is racist. it fairly is like asserting swords are racist. there is not any discrimination. there is been a lot of each race killing a lot of people of the different race with those strategies.