Comments on: Noose Bill Already Controversial

By: JGFitzgerald

JGFitzgerald — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:04:48 +0000

For a series of articles on jail suicides, a fellow editor and I fashioned a noose out of a piece of thick cable and photographed it silhouetted against a bright window. While he went to the darkroom to see how the pictures came out, I tossed the noose where we could find it later in case we had to re-shoot. The advertising manager came through the area in question, saw it draped over a pipe, and ran to the publisher’s office to announce that newsroom employees had hung a noose as a warning to the new managing editor.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said in Schenk vs. U.S. that to abridge freedom of expression, you needed to show a clear and present danger from the expression, such as shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre. Or, I suppose, shouting “noose” in a crowded newsroom.

0 likes

By: eso

eso — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:36:51 +0000

“Can I ask a stupid question?…What is a “Truck Nut”?”

http://www.truck-nuts.com
Might by iffy for work.

0 likes

By: David Miller

David Miller — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:36:31 +0000

Good points, and I might add that this proposed legislation does not fulfill the ‘smarter legislation” need. I’m both surprised and interested to see this problem being addressed by right wing lawmakers but would like to see the suggestions within this post and following comments addressed in any such legislation and on the federal level.

0 likes

By: Brent Finnegan

Brent Finnegan — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:39:20 +0000

Thanks, Grant.

eso, as I mentioned before, “ACLU liberals” are essentially at odds with SPLC anti-racists, while conservative Republican lawmakers and prosecutors are at odds with rank-and-file libertarian conservatives who would rather allow judge and jury to decide the context and intent of an individual noose-hanging.

Many issues, including this one, don’t break down neatly into Republican-Democrat or conservative-liberal categories. I tend to agree with Waldo when he wrote, “…we can keep playing whack-a-mole by banning specific acts, or we can just pass a reasonable law that makes no reference to specific acts.”

I also agree with the ACLU when they said “you can prosecute hate crimes without attacking freedom of expression.”

We need smarter legislation. Quality over quantity.

0 likes

By: Grant Penrod

Grant Penrod — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:34:19 +0000

Just a few points of clarification on the cross burning case. The Klan rally happened near Cana, Virginia, a small town south of Blacksburg near the North Carolina border. The Klan had notified police of the rally, which was held with permission on private property. Local police (possibly the sheriff’s department, I can’t remember) stationed an officer on the highway in view of the rally and were reportedly wanting to take action about the cross burning. A black family did stop on the road to ask the officer what was happening, prompting the arrest of Barry Elton Black, the Klansman from Pennsylvania who organized the rally.

A good discussion of the legal issues in that case and the Virginia Beach case (they were combined on appeal) can be found in the Virginia Supreme Court’s opinion at:

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1010123.pdf

and the US Supreme Court’s opinion at:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1107.ZS.html

Those opinions should also provide some insight into this noose issue. Sorry if the links don’t work well, I’m not quite sure how to post them properly.

0 likes

By: eso

eso — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:38:38 +0000

I am surprised by the politics in this case. I would have thought it would have been the liberal politically correct crowd trying to pass this law. Instead, it is the Republican Commonwealth Attorney.

0 likes

By: Jimmy L.

Jimmy L. — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 15:55:46 +0000

I am against using a noose to intimidate anyone, unless they are about to be hanged by the State. I am not really for that as I am against capital punishment. Didn’t Mr. Mason go to his supervisors and find recourse. Wasn’t the employee let go or not allowed to return after quitting? Isn’t the company facing legal action? Has anyone looked closely at the case of the high school beating that brought this whole noose thing to the fore? We seem to worry so much about intimidation on the part of Whites yet chastise anyone when they bring up the actual violence and killing done by Blacks.
One things that seems to be forgotten or passed over here is that this is the United States of America. I have a right to say what I want to and a right to hate who I want to. If I want to walk around Court Square saying, “Repent and bellieve the Gospel”, I have that right. If I want to say, “I hate all White people”, I have that right also. A preacher can stand in the pulpit and say gays are going to hell. They can say you are going to hell if you sleep with someone and are not married to them. Nazi’s can get a permit to march just like the local girl scout troop can. Gays can also get a permit to march. I have a right to hang a noose in my front yard if I want to. I don’t have a right to hang one in anyone else’s yard however. Crosslighting laws are done to protect the right people not to be intimidated by having them burned near or on their property. Yet, the KKK is allowed to Light their Cross if done out of the public view. This is obviously not an act of intimidation. To perserve our freedom we have to allow more than we might be comfortable with. I recently sat in a judges chambers in KY. where the judge told the defendent in a lawsuit that he, (the judge) would see to it that the defendent did not get information he was legally entitled to to defend himself. The judge tried the case and the defendent ended up looseing, having every one of his motions denied. A lawyer observing from the gallery, while not agreeing with the defendents stand, came forth after the trial to take the case on appeal as he said justice was obviously denied and the defendent’s Constitutional right of free speech denied. We are headed down a slippery slope. I know I come across like an ultra-right conservative, but on issues like these I still hold to my many years of Socialist liberal humanism views. I ask that liberals think thru their position closely in light of history and keep integrity in the liberal tradition of ethical and political philosophical thought.

0 likes

By: Draegn88

Draegn88 — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:26:02 +0000

I find myself opposed to this. For I feel that if passed it will become another blacks only allowed thing. Just as blacks can go around today calling each other n****rs without any complaints. Yet if a white says n****r, he’s a racist.

If passed, down the road you’ll see blacks displaying nooses as their symbol, to use to threaten and intimidate as they wish. No one will say one word against it. Just as today with the word n****r. But let a white display a noose and it will be a hate crime, and if not charged with a hate crime there will be the endless marches and threats of riots.

How far will we have to go before the liberals and appologists wake up? Will America have to become another Zimbabwe?

0 likes

By: The Valley Progressive

The Valley Progressive — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 01:38:22 +0000

If VA doesn’t have specific laws against certain forms of racial discrimination and intimidation, the feds do. (I’ll have to defer to Dave and Republitarian to cite the exact statutes as they are much more versed in law than I). If you notice the way that the proposal is written it says, “displaying a noose for the purpose of racial intimidation.” I respect the need to pass laws against racial intimidation, its the fact that we are now getting so specific as to the act and prop that I have a problem with. Again, going back to the judges, let them decide if it was for “the purpose of racial intimidation.”

0 likes