KKK Snowman - freedom of speech?

[horses4courses]

So, where do you stand on something like this?

http://www.kxly.com/news/25976384/detail.html

[boxcar]

So, where do you stand on something like this?

http://www.kxly.com/news/25976384/detail.html

Just because a person can do something within his legal rights doesn't mean he should. :ThmbDown:

Boxcar

[HUSKER55]

Our country would be better off if all racially based organizations were forced to shut down.

good luck with that. I swear, with these people, black, white or whatever, racial hatred is a religon, and they pray ten times a day.

[horses4courses]

So, where do you stand on something like this?

http://www.kxly.com/news/25976384/detail.html

I can accept the argument allowing this under freedom of speech.
I don't agree with it, but I see where anyone who argues for it is coming from.

Let me add this, for argument's sake:

What if there were 2 other families down the street with lawn displays?
The first had a symbol of a Black Panther giving a power salute.
The second had effigies of New York's twin towers with aircraft striking them.

If you think that the KKK snowman is acceptable free speech, what happens to the displays of the other 2 families?

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't think this falls under protected free speech, as it puts the neighborhood (community) at risk of danger in terms of retaliatory violence.

Your speech isn't protected if it has the potential to incite a riot, which something like this definitely has the potential to do...

[canleakid]

LET US HOPE THAT IDAHO HAS A VERY LONG WARM WINTER :cool:
BUT WITH THE CIVIL WAR SESQUICENTENNIAL JUST DOWN THE ROAD, I AM SURE WE WILL SEE MORE OF THIS KIND OF "STUFF" :(

[johnhannibalsmith]

Your speech isn't protected if it has the potential to incite a riot, which something like this definitely has the potential to do...

This is an odd one and I tend to agree with you on the merit of the same train of logic - "fighting words" - beyond that it treads on being a thinly veiled threat and in some places probably deemed hate speech.

But I had remembered reading some story of a case that was somewhat similar and I looked it up - Virginia v Black (2002) - and it dealt with cross burnings. I'm not sure how you compare a snowman that clearly represents a klansman and an actual cross burning, but the supreme court decided that YES, a locality could pass legislation banning the burning of a cross. But, the cross burning had to unequivocally intend to intimidate as a factor for such a law to be applicable. The court also ruled that the simple act of burning a cross could not be evidence in and of itself of an intent to intimidate and that cross burning without clear evidence of an intent to intimidate IS protected speech.

So long story short - I need one of the real lawyers - Bluegrass PRof or Marshall Bennett (???) to clear me up here...

[Tom]

Poor taste, for sure, but legal.
Hey, lots of other BS gets to hide under the 1st amendment - I look at it as all or nothing.

I reject the argument that it might cause retaliation. Rights are not limited by others irresponsible reactions.

Take this down, then stop hip hop stations from playing their garbage.

[ArlJim78]

Offensive and tasteless yes. But I'm not for taking any official actions. My preference is to simply not give these fools the attention they seek. Ignore them. Or the other alternative, neighbors can handle it discreetly. Use your imagination. "Oh my, did hooligans knock down your snowman again? Oh that is a real shame."

[dartman51]

I don't think this falls under protected free speech, as it puts the neighborhood (community) at risk of danger in terms of retaliatory violence.

Your speech isn't protected if it has the potential to incite a riot, which something like this definitely has the potential to do...

Have you forgotten the NBP member with his tirade on killing CRACKERS and CRACKER BABIES??? I don't recall him getting arrested for that. Or does the law depend on your color? :confused:

[PhantomOnTour]

Poor taste, for sure, but legal.
Hey, lots of other BS gets to hide under the 1st amendment - I look at it as all or nothing.

I reject the argument that it might cause retaliation. Rights are not limited by others irresponsible reactions.

Take this down, then stop hip hop stations from playing their garbage.
You missed the boat completely Tom

[prospector]

Our country would be better off if all racially based organizations were forced to shut down.

good luck with that. I swear, with these people, black, white or whatever, racial hatred is a religon, and they pray ten times a day.
starting with the naacp..

[cj's dad]

Owning property does not give unlimited rights to any individual;

This is unnecessary and well over the top of decent conduct and neighborly respect.

[DJofSD]

For me both questions in the poll are answered with a yes.

Of course, people will be offended by such a display. And, in this day and age, the constitutional rights of those to not be offended will trump the rights of freedom of speech and a property owner's rights to be stupid.

[Tom]

You missed the boat completely Tom

How so?

[PhantomOnTour]

Because you are classifying all hip-hop as garbage(which is your opinion) and seemingly also charging that all hip-hop is somehow racially motivated, which it isn't. There's a difference btw rap (hard core gangsta stuff) and hip-hop.
Groups like Public Enemy and NWA, who had strong racial and social themes to their music, are nothing like the Digable Planets who rhyme for rhymes sake to sound clever. Like:
"Food for thought so get a buffet plate-lyrics so phat you might gain weight."

That's all Tom. I'm not trying to ride you outta here on a rail or anything but there's a difference btw hip-hop and rap, and not all is about 'the man' and oppression. Reggae music is the same way...a lot of it is 'poor old me, the system has me down, fight oppression, etc...' but a lot is also non-socially/racially motivated. :ThmbUp:

And remember Tom....I'm a rapper :)
Signed,
BBBB

[JustRalph]

I gotta tell you, arguing the merits of Rap conflicts me. It dovetails perfectly with this thread. Sometimes it is someone's right to do something and say something with either a snowman or a rap song........but that doesn't make it tasteful or less than harmful. I was in a retail outlet yesterday and the music on the sound system throughout the store was "urban" I guess you would have to say. Some of the lyrics were patently offensive, at least to me. I won't be going back. My wife mentioned to me what was playing on the radio as we were leaving, and she noticed it too. I realize now that they probably were not catering to my demographic anyway. But, regardless they have the right. I also have the right to keep my money in my pocket.

Did anybody catch the Grammy awards nominations that came out yesterday?

Up for Song of the year and record of the year: "F#%k You" by Cee Lo Green.

Check out those lyrics............

[Tom]

That's all Tom. I'm not trying to ride you outta here on a rail or anything but there's a difference btw hip-hop and rap, and not all is about 'the man' and oppression. Reggae music is the same way...a lot of it is 'poor old me, the system has me down, fight oppression, etc...' but a lot is also non-socially/racially motivated. :ThmbUp:

And remember Tom....I'm a rapper :)
Signed,
BBBB

You are talking to Tommy Malice here! :cool:
I have no idea what is rap, what is hip hop, I know it is all Crap! :D

I referred only to the obviously garbage stuff out there, like kill whitey and that variety.

Dig it , dangerous dude? :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

I refer back to my original post wherein I said that because something can be done legally doesn't necessarily mean that it should be done. Permit me to elaborate a bit on this statement.

Just as there are bad, immoral laws on the books, so, too, there can be immoral motivations or intentions can be used as an excuse for obeying even good laws.

For example, let's distill this KKK snowman down to its most basic components. Without doubt the builder of the snowman was expressing himself through his creation. It is a form of speech -- perhaps even protected speech. But so are cuss words. Cuss words, too, are a form of protected speech in many situations -- but certainly not all. Cuss out a police officer and see what happens. Cuss at a judge in courtroom and watch your own head spin. Cuss at your boss in the workplace, and chances are you'll be out pounding the concrete looking for a new job. I'm sure everyone gets my point. Most normal people rightly get offended when someone starts cussin' at them -- even if the person's anger is justified and rational. Free speech rights are not a license to act irresponsibly, disrespectfully or even hatefully. Stated differently, our free speech rights should always always be guided with a morally sound compass.

To me, this guy's KKK snowman was his way of expressing his hatred for black people. This hatred obviously is rooted in this person's heart. Looking at this situation strictly from a Christian perspective, Jesus taught that if we hate someone we are in fact a murderer -- not literally but spiritually. Since this is so, the world is filled with murderers, isn't it? All someone has to do is hate another person and in God's eyes, he's no better than a murderer. Therefore, from a biblical perspective, this guy's snowman is his way of expressing the evil that is in his own heart. It is no wonder, therefore, that people of all color would be offended by his form of speech. He is in fact morally reprehensible, and I think most people would view him as such and would treat him as such. This is not the kind of person that most of us wouldn't want to sit down with to befriend. He is sowing the seeds of hatred, so he will not be reaping the fruit of love from the world around him.

By the same token, his non-violent but hate-filled act should not serve as an excuse for violence or to incite riots as PA has suggested. We, too, have the moral obligation to react or respond in a responsible manner. Just because the guy is asking for trouble doesn't mean we have a right to oblige him.

Bottom line: Yes, the guy is within his legal rights to do what he's done. He CAN legally do it. But this is a far cry from saying that he SHOULD exercise his right in the manner in which he has. I think communities, however, also have the right to outlaw activities that they find morally offensive, such as strip clubs, porno shops, etc. Just as there are societal protocols that restrict speech when dealing with people in authority, likewise an entire community can and should establish their own standards of morality.

Boxcar

[PhantomOnTour]

Agree with Boxcar here: just because you have the right doesn't mean that it is right.

[boxcar]

Agree with Boxcar here: just because you have the right doesn't mean that it is right.


:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: Is this the second time you have agreed with me?

Boxcar

[PhantomOnTour]

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: Is this the second time you have agreed with me?

Boxcar
It's only the second time you've been right ;)

[Tom]

The Smithsonian just had an exhibit showing ants crawling over Jesus. They pulled it after complaints, but if it were Mohamed, do you suppose it would have ever been seen at all?

[johnhannibalsmith]

I've got to say, that's one of the rare Boxcarian length posts that meanders into the Bible which did not automatically send the mouse scroller into warp speed. It was an excellent post. ;)

My only disagreement would probably be with your admittedly and utterly correct opinion that the proper reaction is not defiant anger and reciprocal hatred.

I've always wondered if maybe we should just define real, real, real clearly what constitutes blatantly inflammatory speech and protect the right to use it, but not prosecute all crimes committed in direct retaliation to that speech.

You want to stand out in front of a military funeral and spew vile shit - hey, go for it, we grant you the right to do so - but here's the other little thing - we recognize that we waste valuable resources protecting your silly ass from the consequences of what is generally considered speech that lacks any value or other merit and is either intended solely to, or would reasonably be expected solely to provoke a negative response. So, yeah, reap what you sow loudmouth.

If you feel that compelled to be insane publicly and bastardize, even threaten, the protections of expressions for normal humans by demonstrating the fallibilities of such broad liberty -- a few missing teeth and some bruised ribs should hardly be too much to sacrifice for that right. Everyone feels better.

:kiss:

[boxcar]

It's only the second time you've been right ;)

Balderdash! You know by now that even though I may not always be right, I'm never wrong! This is only the second time you've come to your good senses. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I've got to say, that's one of the rare Boxcarian length posts that meanders into the Bible which did not automatically send the mouse scroller into warp speed. It was an excellent post. ;)

Thank you. I appreciate that. When I write my next book, I'll send you a free copy. :lol: :lol:

My only disagreement would probably be with your admittedly and utterly correct opinion that the proper reaction is not defiant anger and reciprocal hatred.

I've always wondered if maybe we should just define real, real, real clearly what constitutes blatantly inflammatory speech and protect the right to use it, but not prosecute all crimes committed in direct retaliation to that speech.

You want to stand out in front of a military funeral and spew vile shit - hey, go for it, we grant you the right to do so - but here's the other little thing - we recognize that we waste valuable resources protecting your silly ass from the consequences of what is generally considered speech that lacks any value or other merit and is either intended solely to, or would reasonably be expected solely to provoke a negative response. So, yeah, reap what you sow loudmouth.

If you feel that compelled to be insane publicly and bastardize, even threaten, the protections of expressions for normal humans by demonstrating the fallibilities of such broad liberty -- a few missing teeth and some bruised ribs should hardly be too much to sacrifice for that right. Everyone feels better.

:kiss:

But how I wish I could reciprocate by telling you what a great response yours was. :( But alas, I cannot because if I were to take your logic and apply it to different situations involving other forms or expressions of "free speech", I would expose it for the sophistry that it is. Sorry, John...but you're skating on treacherously thin ice here.

Since we know that we humans can express our thoughts, our intentions and make all manner of statements about ourselves through various media, other than through our spoken or written words, we should give very careful thought to how we respond to actions or activities of others that we find either distasteful or tasteful, if you get my drift. Permit me to give you one little subtle hint: The clothes we wear, too, can often make powerful statements about us, purposefully. (At least they do if we are to believe Mark Twain.) Just some food for thought that I hope requires no further elaboration for the sake of preserving, propagating perpetuating the peace, unity, tranquility and goodwill which we all know abounds in overflowing abundance on this forum. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

...But how I wish I could reciprocate by telling you what a great response yours was. :( But alas, I cannot because if I were to take your logic and apply it to different situations involving other forms or expressions of "free speech", I would expose it for the sophistry that it is. Sorry, John...but you're skating on treacherously thin ice here. ...

Can I agree with you twice?

I tossed in the "real, real, real" part in clarifying the speech that should be deemed inflammatory with that intended scent of sarcasm without defiling my utopia. I'm a white man. What benefit would my plan have in today's world for a guy with those defining attributes? I could never be deemed justified in retaliating and I'd need chronic laryngitis to avoid getting mauled on the streets.

It doesn't mean that I don't still love the basic premise.

[PaceAdvantage]

Have you forgotten the NBP member with his tirade on killing CRACKERS and CRACKER BABIES??? I don't recall him getting arrested for that. Or does the law depend on your color? :confused:Who said anything about arresting them? And who said that NBP member's speech WAS protected under free speech?

Inciting a riot is not protected under the 1st Amendment. It's up to a judge's interpretation I suppose to decide what does and what doesn't incite a riot.

[boxcar]

Can I agree with you twice?

Of course, you can. Besides, it shows how smart you are. :lol: :lol:

And I thank you for sparing me from having to elaborate further on that last paragraph in my last post. I couldn't handle being called a lump of coal by anyone else,, as 'cap has already done. I'm so misunderstood. :( :( :(

Boxcar

[HUSKER55]

Originally Posted by dartman51
Have you forgotten the NBP member with his tirade on killing CRACKERS and CRACKER BABIES??? I don't recall him getting arrested for that. Or does the law depend on your color?




EASY way to tell is to post a sign in your lawn and change his words from cracker babies to black babies. Won't take long to find out.

[Hank]

Displays like this are sad on many levels.Chief among them might be the fact that the person responsible unwittingly provides a strong refutation to their sad notion of white supremacy.

[DJofSD]

Ya, this version of white supremacy is good 'til the next thaw.

[Tom]

Maybe it's Beldar.

[DJofSD]

Oh, you mean that SNL guy from France?