Therein tying this current thread of discussion with the thread about the First Amendment.
Neither “foolish”, nor “offensive”, or even combinations of both forms of expression merit criminal sanctions from government.
Certainly the hanging of nooses could be deemed both foolish and also very offensive to some viewers. Many of them might even proclaim, “This is so offensive it should be made criminal!”
Smart minded Americans should stand up for the First Amendment, even in light of such dramatic pleas from those who feel they have been offended.
(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with—
(1) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from—
(A) voting or qualifying to vote, qualifying or campaigning as a candidate for elective office, or qualifying or acting as a poll watcher, or any legally authorized election official, in any primary, special, or general election;
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;
(C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any agency of the United States;
(D) serving, or attending upon any court in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror in any court of the United States;
(E) participating in or enjoying the benefits of any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; or
In this case, I guess I was wrong. There’s an out for minors.
Smart minded Americans should stand up for the First Amendment, even in light of such dramatic pleas from those who feel they have been offended.
Smart minded Americans should know the law, before they attempt to dissuade others from enjoying public space. Threats and intimidation are not necessarily protected under the First Amendment.
There’s a difference between offended and intimidated. Jury decision?
Better check with local law enforcement before decorating the town square tree.
First off the Jena 6 should have been charged with a hate crime. I realize the assaliants were black and the victim was white, but fair is fair. Now why is it white kids cannot hang around with their own kind by a tree? Wasn’t there another tree the black kids could hang under? Let’s face facts. Racism goes both ways. Just because the accused are black does not give them a reason to break the law.
“Wasn’t there another tree the black kids could hang under?”
It’s a free country. People should be able to and will, stand in any public place they wish.
STUKA accurately notes that usually protected speech loses it’s legal insulation if it can be reasonably deemed to be inciting other acts of violence against people or property.
(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with—
(1) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from—
(A) voting or qualifying to vote, qualifying or campaigning as a candidate for elective office, or qualifying or acting as a poll watcher, or any legally authorized election official, in any primary, special, or general election;
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;
(C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any agency of the United States;
(D) serving, or attending upon any court in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror in any court of the United States;
(E) participating in or enjoying the benefits of any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; or
In this case, I guess I was wrong. There’s an out for minors.
Just get kids to do the dirty work.
Was the school involved Federally funded? The school lunch programs in some schools are federally funded so it might apply if nooses were hung in the lunch room! Whether hanging nooses constitutes a threat of force would have to be decided. The beating of the white student certainly constitutes force in the statute as well as willful injury and attempted injury.
(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with—
(1) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from—
(A) voting or qualifying to vote, qualifying or campaigning as a candidate for elective office, or qualifying or acting as a poll watcher, or any legally authorized election official, in any primary, special, or general election;
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;
(C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any agency of the United States;
(D) serving, or attending upon any court in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror in any court of the United States;
(E) participating in or enjoying the benefits of any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; or
In this case, I guess I was wrong. There’s an out for minors.
Just get kids to do the dirty work.
Was the school involved Federally funded? The school lunch programs in some schools are federally funded so it might apply if nooses were hung in the lunch room! Whether hanging nooses constitutes a threat of force would have to be decided. The beating of the white student certainly constitutes force in the statute as well as willful injury and attempted injury.
First of all, I in no way condone or excuse the beating of the white student. The black students in the school should have pursued legal alternatives. Too bad the professionals associated with this school district didn’t do their job. What are these people getting paid for? Interdiction measures should have been introduced early in this mess.
As far as federal funding, where do you think a small poor town in the south gets funding? I’m basing my take on the law from this statement
According to U.S. Attorney Donald Washington, the FBI agents who investigated the incident, as well as federal officials who examined it, found that it “had all the markings of a hate crime.” However, it wasn’t prosecuted because it failed to meet federal standards required for the teens to be certified as adults
I believe you’re grasping for loopholes concerning the law. I don’t believe it’s legal to intimidate people in order to prevent them from going to any public place. Apparently you believe it is.
Federal laws can be applied anywhere within the USA, of course.
And of course any public school within the USA is receiving significatn support directly from federal funding.
From what I gather, after interviewing the students, the authorities determined that those that placed the nooses in the tree were mimicking a movie they had seen. It was determined their intention was a prank rather than to racially intimidate. That’s why they weren’t charged.
Now the two morons in Alexandria La. that were towing nooses past the NAACP protesters may have a harder time coping to a prank.
Federal laws can be applied anywhere within the USA, of course.
And of course any public school within the USA is receiving significatn support directly from federal funding.
The Federal Government can’t set school curriculums, which they would do if they were providing funding. State and local governments fund schools. Many States are looking for Federal money for schools. If you read the law it only applies to Federally funded programs. It would not apply to a private residence or business. That would be under State jurisdiction.
Did the federal government provide the funding for the tree in question?
The age excuse was likely used because they realized that a hate crimes case would be very difficult to make. Juveniles are charged as adults everyday.
Our nation and world would be a better place to live in if we all learned to be more diversified. Adversity will always exist till we do.
After reading all what everyone said in this thread I still believe. In what I wrote above.
We spend to much money as taxpayers on common sense issues. As long as you want government money wasted this way I guess you are all richer than I am.
It doesn’t make a different what color you are we all do and feel the about same way about life issues. Eating, birthing ,working or just surviving.
Different scares alot. It is a learning experience.
What is so horrible about everyone geeting along in this world. How much would we save in our Defense budget alone . Plus the precious lives that are lost during war.
urg...I typed a response late last night and it’s not here now.
THINK, federal criminal laws can be applied anywhere within the USA.
The who/what/when of school funding is utterly moot with regard to whether the federal DOJ may decide to prosecute charges.
That response is there as is the post which has the Hate Crime law which clearly states that it applies to attempting to prevent access to voting and Federally funded programs by intimidation. I see nothing about sitting under trees. Federal laws can only be applied where the Constitution gives the Federal Government Jurisdiction. Interstate commerce, counterfeiting, threats against Federal officials, tax crimes, crimes that involve crossing State borders etc.
For instance, the Federal Government wanted the maximum speed limit reduced to 55 but the Federal Government has no jurisdiction. Instead they pressured the States into changing their laws by threatening to withhold money from the Federal gas taxes that they give back to the States to build and maintain highways. They have successfully pressured States into lowering legal BACs. It is the same way they are trying to pressure States to ban the Confederate Flag from State property.
The hate crimes law was passed because of threats and violence to prevent blacks from voting and was expanded to cover access to Federally funded programs. To try to apply it to a dispute over sitting under a tree is absurd and IMHO an insult to those who risked their lives and died to get equal rights.
