Should this be legal?

[Vagrant0]

Now, here's an interesting caveat: If I were to live in this same town (which has ordinances about upsetting people apparently), and a neighbour had all this religious xmas stuff up in his yard and I were to file a complaint about it - nothing would be done. I follow what could be termed an "alternative religion" and find 90% of christianity's practises to be an affront to my sense of decency and common sense. My grievance would be dismissed by the city and that would be that, as would any complaint filed by an athiest. But knowing I'm outnumbered, I have to bite the bullet and ignore it.

 

Why?

 

Free speech.

There's a difference between, say, religious practices which don't necessarily infer any hostile act, and one which depicts an individual in clan garb, noose in hand. Racism, is not a religion, despite what some might think, and racists are not a protected group under the constitution.

[marharth]

Now, here's an interesting caveat: If I were to live in this same town (which has ordinances about upsetting people apparently), and a neighbour had all this religious xmas stuff up in his yard and I were to file a complaint about it - nothing would be done. I follow what could be termed an "alternative religion" and find 90% of christianity's practises to be an affront to my sense of decency and common sense. My grievance would be dismissed by the city and that would be that, as would any complaint filed by an athiest. But knowing I'm outnumbered, I have to bite the bullet and ignore it.

 

Why?

 

Free speech.

There's a difference between, say, religious practices which don't necessarily infer any hostile act, and one which depicts an individual in clan garb, noose in hand. Racism, is not a religion, despite what some might think, and racists are not a protected group under the constitution.

 

Racism is a belief and to try to silence the belief would violate the first amendment.

 

Even if it does infer a hostile act, I still think it should be allowed.

 

If we put a USA solider with a gun in there hand for example, we would be called a patriot.

[Vagrant0]

Racism is a belief and to try to silence the belief would violate the first amendment.

 

Even if it does infer a hostile act, I still think it should be allowed.

 

If we put a USA solider with a gun in there hand for example, we would be called a patriot.

There is a difference between acceptable beliefs which are backed by a widely accepted cannon, and the beliefs some sociopath entertains. By your logic, one could claim necrophilia as a "religious" practice and a valid right. In such a case, a person can claim anything they want, and they would still be breaking local and federal laws against such practices. Which is, essentially the thing. You can believe whatever you want, but how you practice those beliefs MUST be done in a way which does not cause harm or distress to others. In your example, that depends entirely how the gun is featured. If it is, say, realistic looking and pointed at someone, it is arguably just as hostile of an act, and could even be treated as assault. And it would be a problem simply because it is INTENDED to cause offense or distress among those who see it.

 

This isn't someone who just happened to have made a casual mistake here. The snowman was intended to look like a KKK member, and brandishes a noose (an object for lynching). Combined with other acts from this individual, their intent toward promoting hostility toward other citizens is rather clear.

[RZ1029]

If you've got a minute or so, watch this video I found interesting. It's a clip of an interview Morgan Freeman did.

 

 

I think he's right, in a way. We've made an mountain out of a fairly small molehill. There's a difference between a racist ignorant *** and an actual Klansman going through town setting crosses on fire. The guy's an *** for sure, but as long as he's not causing physical harm (and no, I'm sorry, you being 'insulted' doesn't count) I believe he has the right, under the 1st Amendment, to 'say' what he wants to say.

 

Now, unless the government intends to re-enact something similar to the Alien and Sedition acts, it's none of their business. Is it uncalled for? Yes. Is it rude and ignorant? Yes. But last I checked, (unfortunately) neither of those are illegal. And if the government intends to re-enact the Alien and Sedition acts, let me know. I'll either join the NRA extremists in some heavily-fortified camp out west or join the French Foreign Legion and get French citizenship.

 

EDIT2.0: If anyone saw my original edit, please disregard, I decided it was too much of a derailment to leave it in here.

Edited December 17, 2010 by RZ1029

[marharth]

Racism is a belief and to try to silence the belief would violate the first amendment.

 

Even if it does infer a hostile act, I still think it should be allowed.

 

If we put a USA solider with a gun in there hand for example, we would be called a patriot.

There is a difference between acceptable beliefs which are backed by a widely accepted cannon, and the beliefs some sociopath entertains. By your logic, one could claim necrophilia as a "religious" practice and a valid right. In such a case, a person can claim anything they want, and they would still be breaking local and federal laws against such practices. Which is, essentially the thing. You can believe whatever you want, but how you practice those beliefs MUST be done in a way which does not cause harm or distress to others. In your example, that depends entirely how the gun is featured. If it is, say, realistic looking and pointed at someone, it is arguably just as hostile of an act, and could even be treated as assault. And it would be a problem simply because it is INTENDED to cause offense or distress among those who see it.

 

This isn't someone who just happened to have made a casual mistake here. The snowman was intended to look like a KKK member, and brandishes a noose (an object for lynching). Combined with other acts from this individual, their intent toward promoting hostility toward other citizens is rather clear.

 

What he is doing might piss people off, but as long as he is not taking any action its fine...

 

Racism was widely accepted just over 50 years ago, a lot of the USA used to support the Nazis after all. I don't think racism is right. I think its extremely stupid but people still have the believe. Most of the country stills supports hating gays I belief... I also think that's extremely stupid but people have that belief today. People put out signs all the time saying stuff like "Gays can go to hell" and half of the country doesn't care. Going to hell seems to be violent don't you think?

 

If a US combat solider is holding a gun in any position then it is a act of projecting violence. US soldiers have killed over 6 thousand innocent people in Afghanistan alone. The KKK probably killed around the same number of innocent people so why do people still support the soldiers in the war?

 

Also just to let everyone know, this is illegal since you can't have a noose showing out on your property where he lives. I don't think that should be illegal for the above reasons, but it is illegal.

[Chaosblade02]

Another thing I would like to share is my grandfather lives in a gated community, and some people have lawn jockeys in their front yard, but my grandfathers was different in the fact that his was a Black lawn jockey, and initially a few members filed complaints against him, but he won and got to keep his Black lawn jockey on the grounds of diversity LOL!!! All of the other lawn jockeys were White, and he had the only Black one. Amazing how diversity works, it ended up offending the same people that seem to be so bent on making it the PC standard, how ironic. It is the very people that would complain about something so simple as a Black lawn jockey, that I would very much like to offend. And it actually started kinda a fad in his neighborhood, out of about 30 tenants only 2 of them had problems with it, and now 5 other neighbors of his have their own Black lawn jockey.

 

The point is that the people who whine about stuff like KKK snowmen and Black lawn jockeys are usually in the vast minority, most reasonable people don't even give a damn. They got a saying, the squeaky wheel gets oiled, but the silent majority doesn't really give a damn about trivial things like this.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Chaosblade02

[BlackBaron2]

He has the right to make an idiot of himself, and everyone else has the right to call him an idiot and make fun of him. That's where I stand on this--free speech is, after all, for everyone, even racist twits.

[Balagor]

As I have said before, this can be a greyzone. Yes, we have free speech, and I will always figth for that (with my "Teachings of Ghandi" book), lol.

However, if you remember the "Muhammed Crisis" started by us in Denmark, started by a single journalist, who wanted to see how much he could provoke the muslim world. Well he succeded indeed, by insulting approx. 1 bill. muslims, with his cartoon drawings. embassies got burned down, export stopped and a lot of goodwill and connections build up over years collapsed in one day. This was a very high price to pay. The gouvernment could have asked him kindly to not release those drawings, and of cause volunterly. But that would still be limiting the free speech.

The "Muhammed Crisis" shows how easely and fast, things can evolve like a brush fire. Imagine with this paticular incident with the KKK snowman. Had that been at a wrong time in another place, it could perhaps get out of hand. But free speech is still free speech. But it has a high price some times.

[marharth]

At the post above me, I agree...

 

I prefer freedom over safety any day.

[Chaosblade02]

At the post above me, I agree...

 

I prefer freedom over safety any day.

 

Ben Franklin: He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

 

And I agree 100%.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Chaosblade02