Walking downtown last night with my girlfriend and some out-of-town visitors, your Neoskeptic was shocked and appalled to see some pretty awful hate messages on Our Fair City’s monument to Mr. Jefferson and the Free Speech.
Someone had tried to scribble over the *most offensive part of the offending comments, but it was obvious what it read underneath.
Kids, earmuffs!
It said, “Obama is a n____ kill him ASAP”
Someone had scribbled over the words “n_____ kill”, but I could still read it.
Now, I’m all for free speech, but hate speech and incitement of violence are outside the zone of protected language. My beef is more with the “kill” sentiment than with the “N-word”, though both are unquestionably disgusting.
Whoever wrote this despicable message – you’re ruining it for everybody. Fuck you.
My Fellow Cvillains, what do you think would be an appropriate punishment for this asshole, besides hoping that Cheif Longo’s downtown mall security cams caught the motherfucker on tape and the FBI/NSA/Secret Service is renditioning him to Uzbekistan right now? Put your medieval torture recommendations for the racist wishful-assassin in the comments.
Related posts:
- Obama Victory Speech and McCain Concession Speech
- Stuff We Love to Hate and Hate to Love
- Freedom of Speech
Remember, it’s a monument to *freedom* of speech. No need for medieval torture. The writer is clearly already suffering enough from lack of education.
Ignorance is its own torture. Sigh… Unfortunately it also breeds
I think they should have to take a tolerance class and be forced to watch movies like Rosewood, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Glory.
Fear not the wicked, let them die and they shall perish.
Freedom of speech, without repercussion, allows us to know who the idiots are…
/granted, the above violates federal law and, thus, has repercussions…
Typical non-news story. The wall generally contains about 50/50 on the evil/good side. If you don’t the word “kill” on the wall in at least 10 places you aren’t really looking. The wall is exactly what we wanted, a place to scribble inane commentary…just like a blog.
As a silicon-based creature would say, “No Kill I.”
@5 yes, let’s not forget that hate speech and death threats against elected officials are not protected. we do not have the “freedom” for those types of speech
a possibly irony: we do have the freedom to burn the flag
i wish for them to be placed in a country for an extended period of time where they are the hated minority and there are no laws against discrimination or hate speech so they can feel what it’s like to be the victim.
@3 and American History X, documentaries about the Little Rock 9 and Emmett Till, and shown pictures of lynchings
also, forced to read Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Beloved and attend an HBCU and possibly forced to do many many hours of community service
agree w/ @5 – threatening the president is a felony. the punishment for which is, i’m sure, already outlined somewhere. however, punishing someone for exercising their 1st amendment right is rather contrary to the whole freedom of speech wall idea, don’t you think?
@9 – it is ironic, if the punishment is for protected forms of speech. for example, if we were to punish them for writing “i hate beer” or “this restaurant sucks” – then yes the punishment would be ironic and unnecessary and unconstitutional
Best punishment? Ignoring the hell out of it.
Also, forcing these people to watch movies about racism would be a lot like forcing me to read The Purpose-Driven Life. Congratulations, you’ve bored me and not much else.
@10 – that’s what i said. threatening the president isn’t protected. but sadly, the other part of this person’s statement is. although technically, maybe inciting violence based on race could be considered a hate crime and thus not protected either. i guess this is why i’m not a lawyer.
@12 – yes, that’s the point. incitement of violence/political assassination + racial epithet = hate-crime/felony
No one would have given a shit if it said “kill Bush” two years ago.
I did say “kill bush” two years ago. Jesus wept, as he does now.
“It” not “I”. Crap.
/what’s that black van outside?
@14 actually, Ethan, that would not have been acceptable either. I do not abide that kind of speech, even when it refers to a murderous usurper.
now, “impeach bush” or “arrest bush” is a whole different story.
Shocking.
Commenters 9 and 12 are correct. The original poster and commenter 5 are incorrect. Under the First Amendment “hate speech” is protected by the constitution, at least where it is not “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protected the rights of Ku Klux Klan members to advocate white supremacy and “revengeance” (sic) against African-Americans and Jews. A threat against the President probably falls into the Brandenburg exception. But the hate speech aspect of the statement in question, while clearly distasteful, doesn’t change the analysis for First Amendment purposes.
I find racial hate just as offensive and distasteful as anyone here. However, given that the whole point of the monument is to support people’s exercise of their First Amendment freedoms, people should be allowed to exercise those rights to their full extent–which includes the right to express hate. That’s the spirit of the First Amendment–we have to tolerate even speech we find offensive. That’s what it means to be “all for free speech”–you have to tolerate speech that you find distasteful.
A threat against the President probably falls into the Brandenburg exception
Definitely. Try it and see how fast the SS is on you.
So, no, “commenter 5″ is not incorrect.
/too early to deal with ‘tards….
20: I meant to say 7, not 5–insofar as 7 was claiming that “hate speech” is not protected.
@21 my claim was overbroad, yes, but not entirely incorrect. not all forms of hate speech are protected. legally, “speech” extends to acts such as burning the cross, an act that is not protected and an act that is sometimes considered to be hate speech. the irony is that we can still burn the american flag … it is still a protected form of speech.
saying the N word is generally protected, as are other forms of either homophobic, racist, or generally offensive language. that’s why the westboro baptist church folks can put up their fliers and signs everywhere. however, when that person connects a racial epithet to a death threat of the president, as in the above case, then it’s an entirely different story and my remarks were in that context: the combination of the two. but i should have been more clear.
i guess “‘tards” must be protected hate speech too…
21: My quarrel with your analysis is the “hate speech” aspect isn’t doing any work. Threats against the president, if legitimate, aren’t protected–irrespective of whether they use racial epithets or not. That’s why it’s inaccurate to say that hate speech isn’t protected. In that case, hate speech qua hate speech is not being punished; the fact that the speech uses racial epithets is neither here nor there.
It’s also not quite right to say that cross burning is not protected at all. The Supreme Court in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), struck down under the First Amendment a city ordinance making it a crime to burn a cross “which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” The Court later found Virginia’s cross-burning ban constitutional insofar as it required proof of an intent to intimidate someone. See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003). So cross burning–without additional evidence that a person did so in order to intimidate someone–is in fact protected speech.
I frankly don’t see the irony about flag burning being constitutionally protected. Under the First Amendment, virtually all speech that has any claim to being core political speech cannot be proscribed. That includes burning a flag, and it includes burning a cross (at least insofar as you don’t burn the cross to intimidate a specific person). Far from being ironic, I see the Court’s treatment of these issues as remarkably principled and consistent. Someone might find the principle abhorrent, to be sure–many European countries do not share American absolutism on free speech. But I see no irony.
whoops, in my last post I mean 22, not 21. I’m obviously not very good with numbers…
Actually d, the mere fact that you appeared to be disagreeing with yourself made me quite like you. Now that I know you are not fucking nuts, I think my feelings are waning.