|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
1st Amend. Free Speech Case; Is dangling a noose a threat? --- Interesting
#7954422 - 01/30/08 03:06 AM (16 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
From Crime and Federalism http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2008/01/is-dangling-a-n.html
I'll share my views later, but I think this is an extremely interesting case. Its also an example of what's wrong w/ the conspiracy and other vague laws like wire and mail fraud: any conceivable offense could likely escape a motion to dismiss when one of these is alleged provided a competent attorney wrote the indictment. ---- Is Dangling a Noose a Threat? Mike
A man in Louisiana has been charged with a hate crime under 18 U.S.C. 245 based on the following conduct:
A white man accused of driving past a group of black civil rights activists with two nooses dangling from the back of his pickup truck has been indicted on federal hate-crime and conspiracy charges, federal prosecutors said Jan. 24.
The issue, of course, is this: Is dangling a noose a threat of force? KipEsquire doesn't think so:
I think, as a matter of reasonableness (not to mention the First Amendment), driving past a rally with two nooses on your truck simply does not rise to the level of using "force or threat of force." More is needed.
If there had been a more proximate display (e.g., brandishing weapons or shouting unambiguous threats), then perhaps the incident could rise to prosecutable "force or threat of force."
I tend to disagree. A noose is indeed a weapon - much like a knife or gun. In fact, nooses have been used for over a century to murder African Americans. If the defendant had pointed a gun at the protesters, there wouldn't even be room for debate. If the defendant had said, "I am going to kill you n-----s," again, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
A noose is a powerful symbol, and it not just a symbol of speech. Nooses have been indeed used to to murder, and likely will be used to murder. When the defendant hung two nooses from a truck, he was saying much more than "I don't approve of civil rights."
That said, I think reasonable minds can differ on the issue. Some would say a noose is just a symbol of hate - much like a swastika, burning cross, or Confederate flag. I would counter that no one has been hanged from a flag, so those analogies don't quite fit. A noose, unlike a flag or burning cross, is indeed a tool that can - and has been - used to kill. Hence, a noose is more than just a symbol of speech.
What do you all think?
|
usg543
◕‿◕


Registered: 02/11/07
Posts: 5,192
|
Re: 1st Amend. Free Speech Case; Is dangling a noose a threat? --- Interesting [Re: johnm214]
#7954425 - 01/30/08 03:09 AM (16 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
just a knot in a rope to me, i can see how you say it is a weapon, but as far as hate crime?? my white friend hung himself with a noose, i don't think instantly of KKK when i see a noose. maybe because it was directed towards blacks??
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: 1st Amend. Free Speech Case; Is dangling a noose a threat? --- Interesting [Re: usg543]
#7954450 - 01/30/08 03:45 AM (16 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I tend to disagree. A noose is indeed a weapon - much like a knife or gun. In fact, nooses have been used for over a century to murder African Americans.
Many things can be used as weapons. A noose is a tool - much like a knife or gun. Like any tool, it can be misused. A knife, for example, can be used to prepare food or whittle wood as well as being used to kill a person.
Fire has been used to murder African American's as well. If I light a fire, am I making a threat of force?
Quote:
If the defendant had pointed a gun at the protesters, there wouldn't even be room for debate. If the defendant had said, "I am going to kill you n-----s," again, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Pointing a gun at somebody is a threat. Holding a knife to somebodies neck is a threat. Putting a noose around somebodies neck is a threat. Having a gun, or having a knife, or having a noose is not a threat. It is the act of using the device in a threatening manner, not the possession of the device, that creates a threat.
Quote:
A noose is a powerful symbol, and it not just a symbol of speech. Nooses have been indeed used to to murder, and likely will be used to murder. When the defendant hung two nooses from a truck, he was saying much more than "I don't approve of civil rights."
A noose is a powerful symbol. When used as a symbol of protest, it is protected by the 1st amendment. It doesn't matter how much he was saying, as speech is protected. End of story.
Having a noose hanging from his truck is no more of a threat than having a rifle in his gun rack. If he takes the rifle and points it at people, then he has made a threat. If he takes the noose and tries to rope somebody, then he has made a threat. Again, the possession of a noose, or the possession of a gun, or the possession of a knife does not rise to the level of threat of force.
Why not call the truck he was driving a threat of force? He could have done much more damage driving into the protesters with his truck than he ever could have done with his nooses'.
> What do you all think?
I think the guy is redneck moron, but in no way should the rights of the People protected by the First Amendment be compromised because the Holy Racist Al Sharpton got his panties in a wad over a couple of nooses.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: 1st Amend. Free Speech Case; Is dangling a noose a threat? --- Interesting [Re: Seuss]
#7957176 - 01/30/08 06:40 PM (16 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
I agree w/ seuss, they posted my comments, so I'll post them here. Note that I was on no sleep when posting this, so excuse the lack of clarity and the somewhat cumbersome comparison between the Sikh's and the noose man. I'm just saying that the first amendment protects behavior that is legitimatly percieved as a threat as long as its not proven that the individual is inciting others to engage in the threatened activity, or that he himself will, unlawfully.
This guy sounds like a jackass, and I would guess he's an anti-black bigot cuz he was charged, and I feel this gives him greater protection. He definitly tried to portray a message, one of lynchings of uppity blacks and perhaps his desire for death to the black civil rights protestors. As long as it can't be shown he intended to act on his threat, the noose is simply a symbol, not a weapon. When the threshold for what is not protected by the 1st amendment rests on others perceptions, rather than objective analysis, we're in trouble.
This reminds me of the politically correct sex-ed shit I've heard about, where if one person claims they were raped or "taken advantage of" they were, cuz both must have the same mindset to consent (and then convieniantly it is always the guy who is the molester when the woman sobers up or is teased by her friends). You can't control others reactions. I wouldn't imagine someone driving w/ a noose was threating death unless he continued to pass by multiple times and made a more clear threat.
As is, I think he was just a biggot blowing of steam by making arts and crafts.
=
I tend to think it should be protected as free speech. Given that the individual was charged, I presume he has demonstrable anti-minority views, and the noose was intending to broadcast these messages.
I think it likens to another first amendment right, religion. Courts in the US have upheld the right of the Sikh's to carry concealed weapons, knives, they are a legitimate expression of their religion.
Now this involves a peacful act, but it implicates the same first amendment right, ablbeit a differenct clause of such. If the Sikh breaks a law that is aimed at preventing dangerous situations w/ armed individual, and the charged defendnats' law violated the rights of the victims to not be threatened, what is the difference?
Clearly the man wasn't attempting to hang the individuals, he was attempting to portray his wish that they should be hanged, or should be in their place, or whatever. I think this is a legitimate opinion. That his message was carried w/ a symbol capable of violence isn't relevant absent evidence he intended to use that symbol for violence.
Just as a Sikh shouldn't be arrested for carrying a knife on the street ( a symbol of his desire to kill for his faith) so too should this guy not be charged for his desire to express his desire that others should be lynched- absent his intention to do so or to coerce others to do so.
My guess is that this noose is also not fitted w/ a proper hangman's knot, which would further tend to show that it was not intended for use as a noose, but for the shock value.
I'm not saying the man didn't broadcast a threat, I'm saying that threat was figurative, and likely not meant to be acted upon. The first amendment should protect such threatening acts absent evidence that someone acually plans for others or themselves to act. Just like writing a letter to the editor advocating for the internment of all blacks, or the government-mediated genocide of them, should be viewed as a threat, but permissible under the first amendment absent evidence the proponent intends to take illegal acts to further his goals.
Simply displaying a noose should be condemned, but not by the govenrment. ---
|
|