Does hanging nooses fall under the auspices of the first amendment?

Question

The Supreme Court has several decisions protecting objectionable speech and actions as falling under the rights of expression and speech in the first amendment. The Klan is allowed to rally, lefties are free to burn flags, the Reverend Phelps can spew his filth at military funerals; wouldn't hanging a noose fall under the same category as that stuff?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071016/ap_on_go_co/jena_six

Some good answers, but I have to equate the noose hanging stuff more with things like Neo-Nazis wearing swastikas, an obvious threat and expression of virulent hate for Jews. While the connotation of lynching strikes at a very tender place in our population, so must many other things. We shouldn't be singling out one and leaving the others intact under the guise of being a perceived threat. The end result of Al Sharpton inciting riots in New York or David Duke espousing violence in Louisiana is no different. Both are either protected, or not.

Answer 1

I find it interesting that you say the Klan as to rallies, and lefties as to flag burners.
I saw people after 9-11 drive around with tattered flags on their trucks, which they thought it was respect.

As you your issue, it is how the speech is made. There was the case that had the F word on a jacket, and that was found to be free speech as the word was not used in a sexual mannor. The ACLU supported the right to the Nazi party to march in Skokie, a place with Jewish Consentration Camp survivors lived. I am a Jew myself, but felt that the Permit should be issued. Now, if you choose to burn a cross on your land, safely, fine. Go for it. Now if you want to burn it on my property, then it should be a hate crime. The same for burning it on a public (open access) area, as the nooses, like the burning cross are hate speech. The hanging of them can create a clear and present danger to lead to a violent reaction. The Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is a form of protected speech, since it is directed at the goverment and not any individuals per se.
So, is hanging nooses free speech? No, not in the way of you other examples.
Lastly, should the white kids who hung the flags be prosecuted? No. They committed no law violation, but expelled, good, that was the right result. If in fact there is some law that they broke they should be prosecuted.
Now, as to the Black youths who beat up the White kid. You can argue that the White kid asked for it, if he hung up the noose, but, I firmly believe that incitement to riot does not give license to riot.

Answer 2

But in Schenck v. United States,16 the first of the post-World War I cases to reach the Court, Justice Holmes, in the opinion of the Court, while upholding convictions for violating the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military service by circulation of leaflets, suggested First Amendment restraints on subsequent punishment as well as prior restraint. ''It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints although to prevent them may have been the main purpose . . . . We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.''

If the purpose of the speech is to cause harm to others it is not protected. Hanging a noose is meant to degrade and could easily be construed as a threat. Therefore it is not covered by the first amendment. On that same ground if a Klan meeting is threatening or if the words are being libel to someone it is NOT legal. But no matter how controversial you may see burning a flag it is not a threat to any person and is not meant to cause dissent and rebellion in the American people but is simply a way of protesting the policy of the current government administration.

Answer 3

Funny- I was just wondering the same thing in church the other day. The cross wasn't something pretty. It was where suffering happened. It was where hearts were broken and people begged for mercy from their pain, where torture reigned supreme. It does seem a little disturbing for us Christians to celebrate it. To a Christian, though, the cross isn't about pain- it's about Christ's sacrifice. It's a reminder of what He did for us. I think it's pretty cool that he took such an ugly, evil, disgusting thing and made it into a symbol of the greatest act of love ever performed. It's not about what men did with it, but what He did with it. So if He were hung, would I wear a noose? Probably. If He were beat, I'd wear a club, or if He were beheaded I'd wear a guillotine. It's not about HOW it happened- just about the fact that it did.

Answer 4

Hey rare2 I was shot by an Indian when i was a kid right in the stomach. Want to see where it came out? Now cult leader phelps only gets away with his trash if there are no bikers like the ones here who put a stop to him. I do know of a town that still has a law on the books that says you can hang a black person after dark. And while we're at it I was harrassed by a black cop for hanging a rebel flag in my window. Oh no are the Jena 6 coming to get me. They better sack a lunch!!!

Answer 5

Depending on the context the hanging of a noose could very easily be interpreted as a threat. You are free to act like a jerk and say mean things as much as you want, threatening others is not protected speech though.

Answer 6

Everything is not under the 1st Amendment, such as "fighting words;" swearing in the presence of a minor in some localities, and terroristic threats. The noose, like a burning cross, falls under the latter. It is intended to terrorize.

Answer 7

The difference is that the noose expresses a threat. It is intended to instill fear. Burning a flag expresses anger or disillusionment with our country. Burning flags are often a protest of killing, whereas the noose shows an intent to kill and a celebration of racial executions.

Our right to free expression does not go so far as to allow us to threaten murder.

Answer 8

Well if burning the US Flag is protected speech then hanging a noose is no more upsetting. Not justifying either mind you but as the old saying goes "whats good for the goose is good for the gander"

Answer 9

I agree with you on the rulings the Court has made even though I disagree with them but the hatred of nooses and the days it brings back to us, to me as a lay man (not an constitutional attorney) are way to much to be considered free speech.

Answer 10

I wonder what would happen if someone were to feign the scalping of a white man, or the placement of a white explorer in a pot of boilng water, or an indian thrusting an arrow thrugh a family of pilgrims, or the head of a white man, severed from his body in deepest darkest Africfa..

humm
(for all of us whie people, reading the above kind of ran a bit of fear through you didn't it. So you see is isn't just the so-called 'minority' who needs to worry about the first amendment.(

omg a flag - burning-----what a comparison.
Huumm
imagine you a white man, hanging from a noose
silly