Now it's a FELONY to write KKK on a window ledge!!!

[Uncensored2008]

That's why I said that he should have been charged with vandalism.

Vandalism is a petty misdemeanor, and sends no message to the peasants about what they may say or think.

 

[oldernwiser]

Was he scrolling that crap on his property or someone the property of the University or someone else? How is it a "free speech" issue if he was vandalizing someone's or some institution's property? He should have been charged with vandalism.

He wasn't convicted of vandalism, he was convicted of writing words the state doesn't like.

In point of fact - as explained above and in links presented - he was convicted of committing a crime (vandalism) which had racial motivation (proven by the use of the letters "KKK" and the ensuing slur). Since our Constitution has a Double Jeopardy clause, he didn't get tried for vandalism and THEN the hate crime, he was convicted of the hate crime (which requires the commission of another crime - and both would have to be proven simultaneously).

Only a twisted racist would even make this case into a 1st amendment issue. The guy could have just gotten out a bullhorn and gotten his point across. Instead, he chose to make it personal - and that's where the 1st amendment does NOT give you freedom. It would indeed be pissing all over the constitution to even suggest otherwise.

 

[eflatminor]

Was he scrolling that crap on his property or someone the property of the University or someone else? How is it a "free speech" issue if he was vandalizing someone's or some institution's property? He should have been charged with vandalism.

He wasn't convicted of vandalism, he was convicted of writing words the state doesn't like.

In point of fact - as explained above and in links presented - he was convicted of committing a crime (vandalism) which had racial motivation (proven by the use of the letters "KKK" and the ensuing slur). Since our Constitution has a Double Jeopardy clause, he didn't get tried for vandalism and THEN the hate crime, he was convicted of the hate crime (which requires the commission of another crime - and both would have to be proven simultaneously).

Only a twisted racist would even make this case into a 1st amendment issue. The guy could have just gotten out a bullhorn and gotten his point across. Instead, he chose to make it personal - and that's where the 1st amendment does NOT give you freedom. It would indeed be pissing all over the constitution to even suggest otherwise.

Maybe you'll answer this question then, two others have failed to do so.

Would you demand that if a Black kid were to write 'Black Panthers' on the glass, he should also face felony charges?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I have not urinated on the First Amendment.

You've pissed all over it, as is the way of the anti-liberty left.

If you can prove me wrong, have at it.

Ah, logical fallacy.

The question is whether you can prove you right.

Now if you go straight to the ThinkProgress talking points, you'll spew about yell fire in a theater - but then you won't grasp that there is no law against yelling fire in a theater - have at, have fun. What the law IS in this regard is strict liability, you are strictly liable for any tort resultant from your act. In other words, the 1st is not a shield from liability.

But that isn't the case here, there was no tort associated with the act. We have an act of petty vandalism pursued as a felony PURELY on the basis of speech. This is a direct affront to the first amendment and utterly unconstitutional.

There was a time when we understood that we can't deny rights because we don't like what people have to say - but then the left took power and civil liberties were disposed with.

Yes, you've pissed all over the constitution.

In your first reply to me, you stated (in not so many words) that I was wrong in my assessment, that there has been no violation of the First Amendment. I replied by challenging you to prove me wrong. Since you replied saying I was wrong, the onus is on you to do just that. There was no logical fallacy invoked by me.

I am amazed, that you have taken the liberty of ascribing thoughts to me in your posting, that I are nothing but assumptions on your part. And if that wasn't enough, you use the broad brush of (actual logical fallacy) in including me in some vast group (made up of individuals) that is guilty of doing what you also ascribe to me, even though there has been nothing in my posting to reflect such.

If you would like to debate without wrapping your posts in insults and logical fallacy, I will be glad to engage. If not, I am not going to waste my time.

 

[Uncensored2008]

In point of fact - as explained above and in links presented - he was convicted of committing a crime (vandalism) which had racial motivation (proven by the use of the letters "KKK" and the ensuing slur). Since our Constitution has a Double Jeopardy clause, he didn't get tried for vandalism and THEN the hate crime, he was convicted of the hate crime (which requires the commission of another crime - and both would have to be proven simultaneously).

The first amendment was designed to protect speech and the written word from criminal penalty.

Voltaire said "I may not agree with what you say, but will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

You of the left take the approach of "I don't like what you say, and will fight to the death to silence you."

Only a twisted racist would even make this case into a 1st amendment issue.

Of course. Racism isn't just opposing Obama anymore. Bitterly clinging to the constitution of the old Republic is also racism.

I assume that I face prison? Or will death be meted out to vile miscreants who support civil liberties?

The guy could have just gotten out a bullhorn and gotten his point across.

Wouldn't work. Noise ordinances would allow you to throw him in prison for words you don't like.

Violation of "good speak" is a serious crime, to be severely punished.

Instead, he chose to make it personal - and that's where the 1st amendment does NOT give you freedom.

Right -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, unless the speech is personal or otherwise not approved of by our glorious and absolute rulers.

Yep, you're right, I do see that restriction.

It would indeed be pissing all over the constitution to even suggest otherwise.

You of the anti-liberty left seek nothing less than the complete dissolution of the document and of all civil liberties. You seek the rule of man, not the rule of law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This story deserves it's own thread.

Big Brother Lives!!

There is more to that story. The pastor was ordered repeatedly to cease and desist. The issue was parking, and they were having 3 to 4 services a week.

The issue was not parking, he has over 3 acres for his visitors to park on, they were supposedly worried about how people would get out in a fire.

 

[oldernwiser]

He wasn't convicted of vandalism, he was convicted of writing words the state doesn't like.

In point of fact - as explained above and in links presented - he was convicted of committing a crime (vandalism) which had racial motivation (proven by the use of the letters "KKK" and the ensuing slur). Since our Constitution has a Double Jeopardy clause, he didn't get tried for vandalism and THEN the hate crime, he was convicted of the hate crime (which requires the commission of another crime - and both would have to be proven simultaneously).

Only a twisted racist would even make this case into a 1st amendment issue. The guy could have just gotten out a bullhorn and gotten his point across. Instead, he chose to make it personal - and that's where the 1st amendment does NOT give you freedom. It would indeed be pissing all over the constitution to even suggest otherwise.

Maybe you'll answer this question then, two others have failed to do so.

Would you demand that if a Black kid were to write 'Black Panthers' on the glass, he should also face felony charges?

I already have. You just need to scroll back a few pages.
I'll wait...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, what I stated is he made a terrorist threat. What does it mean when you scratch "I hate black people" and "KKK" into someone's residence? If you don't believe the KKK is a terrorist organization, I don't know what to tell you.

I already explained why what he did was not a threat using actual Supreme Court decisions. That didn't work, so I pointed out that he was not charged with making a threat.

You still insist he made a threat.

And you think I am the crazy one.

Windbag, it isn't the threat. It was the racially motivated act of vandalism that got this guy convicted of a hate crime.

A good summary defining hate crimes :

In crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, sex, or gender identity.

A hate crime is a category used to described bias-motivated violence: "assault, injury, and murder on the basis of certain personal characteristics: different appearance, different color, different nationality, different language, different religion."

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).

A hate crime law is a law intended to prevent bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech.

I keep arguing it isn't a threat, Tuck is the one you need to talk to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Was he scrolling that crap on his property or someone the property of the University or someone else? How is it a "free speech" issue if he was vandalizing someone's or some institution's property? He should have been charged with vandalism.

He wasn't convicted of vandalism, he was convicted of writing words the state doesn't like.

In point of fact - as explained above and in links presented - he was convicted of committing a crime (vandalism) which had racial motivation (proven by the use of the letters "KKK" and the ensuing slur). Since our Constitution has a Double Jeopardy clause, he didn't get tried for vandalism and THEN the hate crime, he was convicted of the hate crime (which requires the commission of another crime - and both would have to be proven simultaneously).

Only a twisted racist would even make this case into a 1st amendment issue. The guy could have just gotten out a bullhorn and gotten his point across. Instead, he chose to make it personal - and that's where the 1st amendment does NOT give you freedom. It would indeed be pissing all over the constitution to even suggest otherwise.

Wow, are you stupid, or do you just play it on the internet?

How does the 1st Amendment restrict my right to make things personal?

 

[Uncensored2008]

In your first reply to me, you stated (in not so many words) that I was wrong in my assessment, that there has been no violation of the First Amendment. I replied by challenging you to prove me wrong. Since you replied saying I was wrong, the onus is on you to do just that.

I just did.

There was no logical fallacy invoked by me.

In fact there was.

{Proving a Negative
(The Objectivist Newsletter, April 1963) "Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on facts that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted - by means of exposing the errors in the interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative.... Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is a breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing." If I say, "Anything is possible" I must admit the possibility that the statement I just made is false. (See Self Exclusion) Doubt must always be specific, and can only exist in contrast to things which cannot properly be doubted. }

Dictionary of Logical Fallacies a Negative

Your demand that I prove a negative is indeed a logical fallacy. One of the more common ones.

I am amazed, that you have taken the liberty of ascribing thoughts to me in your posting, that I are nothing but assumptions on your part. And if that wasn't enough, you use the broad brush of (actual logical fallacy) in including me in some vast group (made up of individuals) that is guilty of doing what you also ascribe to me, even though there has been nothing in my posting to reflect such.

Zzzzz.

I'm sorry, did you have a point?

This is a message board, son - a political one. In this thread, there is a divide between the libertarians supporting the constitution and the leftists seeking the revocation of basic civil liberties. You jumped in on the side of the anti-liberty folk. Around here, that gets you lumped in with the left.

If you would like to debate without wrapping your posts in insults and logical fallacy, I will be glad to engage. If not, I am not going to waste my time.

I defeated your argument already;


A first year law student will argue that the 1st is not absolute because it's illegal to "yell fire in a theater" - but that simply isn't the case; there is no law against yelling fire in a theater - have at, have fun. What the law IS in this regard is strict liability, you are strictly liable for any tort resultant from your act. In other words, the 1st is not a shield from liability.

But that isn't the case here, there was no tort associated with the act. We have an act of petty vandalism pursued as a felony PURELY on the basis of speech. This is a direct affront to the first amendment and utterly unconstitutional.

 

[Pheonixops]

I have not urinated on the First Amendment.

You've pissed all over it, as is the way of the anti-liberty left.

If you can prove me wrong, have at it.

Ah, logical fallacy.

The question is whether you can prove you right.

Now if you go straight to the ThinkProgress talking points, you'll spew about yell fire in a theater - but then you won't grasp that there is no law against yelling fire in a theater - have at, have fun. What the law IS in this regard is strict liability, you are strictly liable for any tort resultant from your act. In other words, the 1st is not a shield from liability.

But that isn't the case here, there was no tort associated with the act. We have an act of petty vandalism pursued as a felony PURELY on the basis of speech. This is a direct affront to the first amendment and utterly unconstitutional.

There was a time when we understood that we can't deny rights because we don't like what people have to say - but then the left took power and civil liberties were disposed with.

Yes, you've pissed all over the constitution.

LOL, I know the poster who you are referring to and talking all of this shit to. He's DEFINITELY a Constitutionalist! Thanks for the laugh!!! You should check out his other posts and stances, then edit and apologize to him.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Now it's a FELONY to write KKK on a window ledge!!!

I guess it would be too-much to expect those folks (like Myles, here)....who've just recently learned to wear shoes, full-time.....to have mastered the fine-art of applying pencil, to paper, when workin' on their spelling-"skills".

 

[oldernwiser]

In point of fact - as explained above and in links presented - he was convicted of committing a crime (vandalism) which had racial motivation (proven by the use of the letters "KKK" and the ensuing slur). Since our Constitution has a Double Jeopardy clause, he didn't get tried for vandalism and THEN the hate crime, he was convicted of the hate crime (which requires the commission of another crime - and both would have to be proven simultaneously).

The first amendment was designed to protect speech and the written word from criminal penalty.

Voltaire said "I may not agree with what you say, but will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

You of the left take the approach of "I don't like what you say, and will fight to the death to silence you."

I'm actually dead center on this issue.
I support the right of any individual to say what he will. Although I may not agree with your point of view, you certainly have the right to it's open expression.

Only a twisted racist would even make this case into a 1st amendment issue.

Of course. Racism isn't just opposing Obama anymore. Bitterly clinging to the constitution of the old Republic is also racism.

I assume that I face prison? Or will death be meted out to vile miscreants who support civil liberties?

Here's a case where it sticks in my craw, but in fact you are as free to be as racist as you care to be. But that assumes that you aren't acting out your unreasonable hatred on other people. Once you have crossed the line between the expression of your opinion and the denial of another person's right to live unmolested by you, you can't expect the 1st amendment to be your defense.

I haven't ever heard of someone being thrown in jail for an utterance - no matter how despicable - by itself. It has always been the utterance AND something else that has caused a problem. You can scream whatever you want as loud as you can without fear that what you're screaming will get you in trouble. Now, if you do it in the middle of the night and a cop comes by to tell you to knock it off, it's not an abridgment of your civil rights - it's an enforcement of civil law that's telling you to stop making an ass of yourself.

Instead, he chose to make it personal - and that's where the 1st amendment does NOT give you freedom.

Right -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, unless the speech is personal or otherwise not approved of by our glorious and absolute rulers.

Yep, you're right, I do see that restriction.

I love it, and it's a nice deflection, but holds no constitutional grounds - as you know - and is NEVER enforced in that manner. I would challenge you to show where simple speech (the kind without committing another act) was ever prosecuted.

It would indeed be pissing all over the constitution to even suggest otherwise.

You of the anti-liberty left seek nothing less than the complete dissolution of the document and of all civil liberties. You seek the rule of man, not the rule of law.

Again, here you're wrong and needlessly defensive. You can be as racist as you want to be. Hold those meetings where everyone wears the sheets. Hate just as hard and as unreasonably as you want to. But, when YOUR civil liberties cuts across MY civil liberties, we're going to have a problem every time. Because you have the right to say and think what you want ought not to interfere with MY right to not want your message scrawled on my door, or burning on my lawn.

It amounts to the same thing as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Your 1st amendment right doesn't give you permission to cause harm to anyone else, and your insistence that it does is, in my mind, tantamount to your pissing on my constitution.

 

[oldernwiser]

He wasn't convicted of vandalism, he was convicted of writing words the state doesn't like.

In point of fact - as explained above and in links presented - he was convicted of committing a crime (vandalism) which had racial motivation (proven by the use of the letters "KKK" and the ensuing slur). Since our Constitution has a Double Jeopardy clause, he didn't get tried for vandalism and THEN the hate crime, he was convicted of the hate crime (which requires the commission of another crime - and both would have to be proven simultaneously).

Only a twisted racist would even make this case into a 1st amendment issue. The guy could have just gotten out a bullhorn and gotten his point across. Instead, he chose to make it personal - and that's where the 1st amendment does NOT give you freedom. It would indeed be pissing all over the constitution to even suggest otherwise.

Wow, are you stupid, or do you just play it on the internet?

How does the 1st Amendment restrict my right to make things personal?

Show me your "right" to make things personal. Explain to me where the Constitution says it's perfectly acceptable to stomp on the civil liberties of another.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Idiotic crime by an idiot, but of course Black Panthers can go on the radio in Florida and make threats about killing white people over that T Martin.....but nothing happens.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Here's a case where it sticks in my craw, but in fact you are as free to be as racist as you care to be.

So racism then, is defined as supporting the 1st amendment?

Voltaire was a vile racist, as he promoted the free exchange of ideas without criminal penalty?

Just want to make sure I understand this?

 

[oldernwiser]

Here's a case where it sticks in my craw, but in fact you are as free to be as racist as you care to be.

So racism then, is defined as supporting the 1st amendment?

Voltaire was a vile racist, as he promoted the free exchange of ideas without criminal penalty?

Just want to make sure I understand this?

Sadly, racism is a form of protected free speech, yes.
Is free speech racism? Not what I said at all.

 

[eflatminor]

Sadly, racism is a form of protected free speech.

The felony charge in this case would suggest you are incorrect.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sadly, racism is a form of protected free speech, yes.
Is free speech racism? Not what I said at all.

That is exactly what you claimed. I support the 1st amendment, ergo you label me a racist. I mean, you already did since I don't support Obama, but I guess bitterly clinging to the constitution makes me a worse racist, right?

 

[oldernwiser]

Idiotic crime by an idiot, but of course Black Panthers can go on the radio in Florida and make threats about killing white people over that T Martin.....but nothing happens.

And why would something happen to them. They also have a right to expression, don't they? It's not much different from what white people get away with every day.