Nooses a hate crime? I thought freedom of speech, no matter how ignorant was protected?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071116/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/jena_six_rally

I mean, in all due respect the first amendment protects their right to protest to make this a hate crime, but at the same time it also protects the true idiots and ignorant of the world.

To me, this whole case is overblown. From the prosecution of Mychal Bell, to the protests that have occurred since.

What do you think?

Bear Dog: Brilliant analogy. But in that case its a direct threat and trespassing. In the Jena incident, and many more nationwide, they hang nooses on personal property or public property.

A noose by itself is not a weapon, it has to be manipulated in order to cause damage. Unless of course you walked into one.

I do not condone what ocurred, but I also do not codone hate crimes.

If capital punishment is hypocritical (we murder murderers) how are hate crimes not hypocritcal? (we hate haters)?

And not true either on the "Im going to kill all blacks" there has to be a "clear and present danger" in order for a statement to be considered a threat. Otherwise it is exactly what free speech is, the ability to show everyone how stupid and ignorant you really are. (Not you personally).

And thank you all so far for keeping this civil, this is just a conversaton/debate question. I am not going to thumb anyone, I may vote on the best answer, but typically I dont. I let the jury decide.

for the Clear and Present danger part, a threat to one person is a threat because anyone has the ability to kill someone. But hardly anyone has the means to wipe out an entire group or race.

Keep the flow of thought coming. I like this so far.

And again, I am not condoning what either party did.

Ralph Code: It is free speech, they did not waive the noose at a kid, they hung it from a tree for everyone to witness.

It was not an overt act or threat. IMO

Ralph, its not a threat. It could easily be seen as "speaking out" against equality. Thats legal.

And again, a noose laying by itself is not a weapon. I have yet to see anyone running around with a noose threatening to hang people.

Answer 1

A noose isn't a statement- it's a weapon that's been used to kill many people over the centuries (most recently Saddam Hussein). Threatening anyone with a weapon is illegal.

If you woke up one morning to find a large buck knife stuck in your door, would you interpret that as a threat, or as a constitutionally protected expression of Free Speech?

Edit: That doesn't really fly- that's like saying a gun isn't a weapon until the trigger is pulled. It's still a weapon, whether it's used or not. I used the knife as an analogy, because they're common tools. But in such a context, there's no doubt in any one's mind that it's a threat.

Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it hasn't been done. Thank God that lynchings have become so rare, but there are still people alive who remember exactly how dangerous of a weapon a noose can be. People who did see others running around with nooses and stupid hoods, threatening to hang people. It wasn't THAT long ago. But again, it's not the statement- it's the threat. You can't threaten people with weapons and expect to be protected by the constitution. A noose has only one use. It's not that great of a knot for anything else.

Answer 2

A noose is not speech - it is a physical, tangible item. It can be used as a weapon, just as effectively as a knife. And it has an added symbolic value to blacks due to its use for lynching, just as tires filled with gasoline were used for "necklaces" in South Africa 20 years ago.

This kind of behavior is not protected by the free speech, any more than waving a knife or a gun at someone would be.

edit:

The first amendment was written to protect the free expression of opinion, so that citizens could always express their thoughts, and debate issues in the open. Think of it as a safety valve - if you can debate and discuss the issues, you're less likely to act out against someone in a destructive manner. But hanging a noose like these cases is not debate or discussion. It's a threat.

Answer 3

I think they are making a big deal over nothing. Whites have been hanged just the same as blacks. How can a noose be a hate crime?

When I see a noose, I don't think "Black man" I think "Cattle Rustler" or the old West.

People are just too damn "sensitive" these days. What ever happened to men being men instead of whiny little girls.

Added: Many years ago when I was in my early 20's I had a noose in my office. It wasn't a threat to anyone in particular and it most certainly was NOT a weapon.

People need to remember what those round things hanging between their legs are and what they are for.

Answer 4

It is a threat. It is no different than displaying a knife and threatening, you catch a case either way.

But then the Jena 6 are not exactly saints. Some of them already have violent criminal records. You do not handle situations with a boot party to one lone child's face. Six on one is a felony fight. The feller that was bonded out was tossed back in jail for new charges, different than his current assault case.

Bad situation all the way around.

Answer 5

I agree it's on the line.

However, a threat is not protected speech. If I say "do what I want or I will kill you." that is an action (to the law), not speech. A noose is a threat of death if you do not leave.

In other words, saying "All blacks are stupid" is speech, saying "I am going to kill you blacks if you don't leave" is an act.

Answer 6

Freedom of speech is one thing..., but things like that tend inciting riots and/or violence against certain individuals.
There are much better and less dangerous ways to express your opinion.
Especially with the events in history that particular item represents.
You don't want people running around yelling let's kill *******.
There has to line somewhere and when it's crossed and if someones dies..., the first amendment will be of little comfort to that person and his family.

Answer 7

Hate crime legislation is wrong. It is like saying that some murderers should be punished less as long as it wasn't hateful. Get real. We should punish all crime equally, regardless of the motivation.