Mtn Dew wrote:
He shouldn't face any legal action for the noose, drunk driving is a bit different.
It's a freedom of expression issue. People have the right to be a-holes. This talk of threats or incitement is crap.
So that MIT students has freedom of expression too right? The one who wore a circuit board with batteries and play-doh has that freedom of expression too right?
If it is viewed as a threat then you don't have that freedom anymore, sorry.
look, I wasn't even saying the guy should be arrested simply for displaying the noose, but you know full well that there are "incitment of riot" and "threat" laws that exist and should exist. You are not arguing THAT point, are you? (that there should be no such thing as a law against threats or incitement of riot ? If you agree that saw laws do and should exist, then the officers can interpret those laws, correct? )
umm.... wrote:
So that MIT students has freedom of expression too right? The one who wore a circuit board with batteries and play-doh has that freedom of expression too right?
If it is viewed as a threat then you don't have that freedom anymore, sorry.
Can you put that in English please?
Mtn Dew wrote:
umm.... wrote:So that MIT students has freedom of expression too right? The one who wore a circuit board with batteries and play-doh has that freedom of expression too right?
If it is viewed as a threat then you don't have that freedom anymore, sorry.
Can you put that in English please?
Read the news. You'll figure it out. It was in English.
chuck d wrote:
really. no bona fide threat. so, in addition to being a virtuoso debater, you're also a mind reader.
Numerous times in this thread you've chosen the ad hominem attack over genuine debate. I have not.
Mtn Dew wrote:
He shouldn't face any legal action for the noose, drunk driving is a bit different.
It's a freedom of expression issue. People have the right to be a-holes. This talk of threats or incitement is crap.
that's a nice opinion. unfortunately, that "crap" is the law. feiner v. new york.
numerous times in this thread you've chosen irrelevance over genuine debate. if you want genuine debate, provide something upon which to genuinely debate.
chuck d wrote:
numerous times in this thread you've chosen irrelevance over genuine debate. if you want genuine debate, provide something upon which to genuinely debate.
Oh he gave you a genuine response/ reply to this debate. He quoted facts meaning to show that blacks are violent thugs who have harmed themselves way more than whites ever did (ignoring the conditions these blacks were in that whites played a huge role in creating), thus proving to you that blacks are criminals and deserve no sympathy. Wasn't that good enough for you?
gosh, you're right. my bad.
Sir Lance-alot wrote:
Oh he gave you a genuine response/ reply to this debate. He quoted facts meaning to show that blacks are violent thugs who have harmed themselves way more than whites ever did (ignoring the conditions these blacks were in that whites played a huge role in creating), thus proving to you that blacks are criminals and deserve no sympathy. Wasn't that good enough for you?
No, YOU'RE the one who is calling blacks violent thugs. YOU'RE the one suggesting blacks are criminals and deserve no sympathy. I posts the crime statistics and all 3 of those noted BLACK celebrities have also used to further this debate.
FBI Facts wrote:
No, YOU'RE the one who is calling blacks violent thugs. YOU'RE the one suggesting blacks are criminals and deserve no sympathy. I posts the crime statistics and all 3 of those noted BLACK celebrities have also used to further this debate.
Ugg..."I posted the crime statistics that all 3 of those noted BLACK celebrities have also used in this debate."
chuck d wrote:
numerous times in this thread you've chosen irrelevance over genuine debate. if you want genuine debate, provide something upon which to genuinely debate.
Typical of white liberal claptrap. If you don't want to hear something, hurl personal insults at the person, then proclaim their point of view doesn't deserve to be heard.
you mean insults like "next dumb question?" typical indeed.
umm.... wrote:
And your point is??...
FBI Facts wrote:
Lynching is irrelevant. The biggest threat to black has always been themselves.
You like to think that you are intelligent, but debating that lynching is irrelevant due to the fact that more blacks deaths are caused by other blacks is simply ignorant.
fgn we ,c sK wrote:
there is a difference between free speach
"There" "speech"
and a death threat. I believe this is the latter.
saying you are in the kkk, not an arrestable offence.
"Saying" "KKK" "offense"
displaying an exicution device
"Displaying" "execution"
as a statement may very well be. considering the current situation in jenna,
"Considering" "Jena"
let alone the long history of jim crow and lynching
"Jim Crow"
in america, it might as well have been a gun.
"America"
so what is the message again that is protected by freedom of speech?
fgn we ,c sK wrote:
there is a difference between free speach and a death threat. I believe this is the latter.
You don't think an angry mob of 10,000 people in a small town is a death threat? Why do you think so many businesses in Jena closed for the day and the owners got out of town. They feared for their safety. The NAACP thrives on creating fear and that's how they always get their way.
I got to see the Duke lacrosse case up close as I live only a couple miles from the university. If you would have seen the Black Panthers in action, you would think nothing of a noose hanging from a car. Heck, they had to agree to be unarmd during their march or the city of Durham would not have allowed it. Are you kidding me? These guys carry firearms on a routine basis just looking for a shootout with whites who will unarmed. They got up in the faces of the Duke lacrosse players and their lawyers and yelled all kinds of threats at them.
If they are going to arrest someone for hanging a noose out of a car (which they should), then it needs to go both ways. Racist hate groups like the NAACP and the Black Panthers who do nothing but create dangerous situations and threaten people's safety need to face arrest, too.
FBI Facts wrote:
Lynching is irrelevant. The biggest threat to black has always been themselves.
Bigot isnt the right word, but it's the first that comes to mind.
I think honkey would be better
I don't know of any Caucasians, zip, nada, zero, who find "honky" even remotely offensive.
And now, my 2 cents......
Ok, when these white kids hung nooses in the trees they may have had no real intent to commit violence. They may have had no actual conspiracy to attempt an execution. Maybe they were just taunting. Sure.
But of this you can be certain: The boys who hung those nooses intended for the blacks at their school to feel physically threatened and afraid. And that is not ok. When your "free speech" is intended to make someone else fear for their own life, whether or not you actually intend to carry out violence, it's not ok.
I went to a public school in the deep South where racial tension was through the roof at times. We had a section where the "good ole boys" hung out, and the "black" section was not far from there. There was always something brewing. Occasionally there were eruptions. Thankfully, no one was ever killed or hospitalized. But the threat was always there. Kids had weapons, and on any given day something really bad could have happened. Hanging a noose from one of the trees in plain view would have been clear intent to incite violence, and it would have potentially endangered innocent bystanders. Arrests would have been warranted.
The Jena 6 should face punishment for the beating. Their reaction of excessive violence was the wrong way to handle the situation. But if the kid who got beaten had anything to do with the nooses, he should have seen that beating coming a mile away. He got what he was asking for.