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

[Uncensored2008]

I give up. Most reasonable people realize hate speech and hate crime are two different things.

With all due respect, most reasonable people aren't going to waste time discussing issues of law with you.

You are free to continue believing that he was convicted of hate speech. You are free to continue believing that his first amendment rights were violated.

You're an idiot Rati - seriously stupid.

He was convicted for the words he scrawled on the Professors window sill. That is speech - period. That DailyKOS doesn't spell it out to you drones in this way is of no concern to me. This is a hate speech conviction and a violation of the 1st amendment.

The left won this round, meaning the constitution lost.

It won't be the first time I've seen stupid people on the internet and it certainly won't be the last time.

One thing is certain, you'll see stupid people each time you look in the mirror.

I do think having him spend time in jail was wrong, since it doesn't appear he had any prior convictions. But what he did was wrong and even he admitted what he did was racist.

Again, you lack the intellect to grasp the actual issue. I don't give a rats (or even Rati's) ass if he sits in jail, he should be punished for the vandalism. The issue here is one of civil rights. Convicting people for the speech used absent fraud, coercion, or assault (credible threat of physical harm), is a violation of the constitution. Speech CANNOT be regulated per the 1st amendment.

 

[oldernwiser]

Maybe you ought to sharpen your word comprehension skills.

Maybe you ought to contain your demagoguery.

I didn't bring Obama into the discussion - you did.

Of course; the standard tactic of the left is to attack anyone who fails to worship Obama as a "racist." Since you used the same bit of demagoguery in regard to my support of the 1st amendment, it was reasonable to note the consistency of smears.



You made the accusation of racism based on support of the constitution - anyone who supports the bill of rights is a racist. Yours is a common tactic for the left.

And, I don't believe I ever said you were a racist (unless, of course you are - and that would be fine by me).

WTF?

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.

Mantra of the left, support the constitution, you're a racist.

Totally missed the point on all counts - especially the last.
If you got the mistaken impression that I directly called YOU out for being a racist, I apologize.

My initial complaint was that there are tons of bigots on this board who jump at defending criminal action as their constitutionally protected right under the 1st amendment. They don't seem to comprehend that being a racist is OK, but that the problems start to occur when people act out BECAUSE of racism - 1st amendment privilege goes right out the window in that case.

I have no idea why or even how Obama got pulled into the discussion, but that came from YOUR ballpark not mine and was not germane to this topic. I really couldn't care if you worship him or not. The politics of the 1st amendment vs racism was the topic - I tried to stay on that.

The intention of the final statement should have been obvious. The word "you" was used collectively, not personally. The terms in the sentences implied choice - as if I ended each sentence with the phrase "if you want". The context should have been clear enough to understand that - if you wanted to.

 

[MarcATL]

Only right wingers would think of hatred as freedom of speech.

Unequal justice in the past therefore justifies unequal justice today. Got it.

Violent terrorist acts of the past certainly provides evidence today of what is a terrorist threat.

The guy has a history of being a violent terrorist?

Ohh...terrorism is determined by HISTORY now? I see!

 

[MarcATL]

How disingenuous. The 2 Guys is not what terrifies us. It's a DOJ that excuses their Behavior solely because they are black, that scares the hell out of us.

You do realize that was done by the Bush Administration right? They investigated the situation and found it not warranting of any arrests.

So if you got a problem bub, take it up with Dick Cheney 'n' dem.

 

[KissMy]

She is either drunk and stoned or TDM has hacked her account.

It does seem like she took a double dose of stupid today.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYG8PYwjBqo"]Double Dose!!![/ame]

 

[bodecea]

But it's fine for the Black Panther's to stand outside a polling place with billy clubs on election day intimidating white voters. Gotcha! Just wanted to be clear.

You know....I've never seen SO MANY people so frightened of TWO guys who were eventually asked to leave and did....SO MANY YEARS ago. They really really terrified a whole bunch of you. You can't get it out of your frightened little minds.

How disingenuous. The 2 Guys is not what terrifies us. It's a DOJ that excuses their Behavior solely because they are black, that scares the hell out of us.

How disingenuous....that's why you always mention the DOJ and not the two BLACK men.....no, wait.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Totally missed the point on all counts - especially the last.
If you got the mistaken impression that I directly called YOU out for being a racist, I apologize.

My initial complaint was that there are tons of bigots on this board who jump at defending criminal action as their constitutionally protected right under the 1st amendment. They don't seem to comprehend that being a racist is OK, but that the problems start to occur when people act out BECAUSE of racism - 1st amendment privilege goes right out the window in that case.

I've not seen anyone in this thread post anything even approaching racist, nor have they defended the vandalism of the person involved. The issue here is the 1st amendment and the chill that imprisoning people based on speech adds to the concept of civil liberty.

I have no idea why or even how Obama got pulled into the discussion, but that came from YOUR ballpark not mine and was not germane to this topic. I really couldn't care if you worship him or not. The politics of the 1st amendment vs racism was the topic - I tried to stay on that.

Only because the standard refrain is that if one opposes Obama, they are a racist.

The intention of the final statement should have been obvious. The word "you" was used collectively, not personally. The terms in the sentences implied choice - as if I ended each sentence with the phrase "if you want". The context should have been clear enough to understand that - if you wanted to.

Fair enough.

 

[oldernwiser]

Apparently, you just don't like to read. Or is it that you just haven't had your coffee yet?

The felony charge actually proves the point that you are entitled to SAY what you want to say without fear of government interference. But, the 1st amendment doesn't give anyone the right to deface someone else's property in order to get the point across.

Again, he was not convicted and sentenced for defacing property: He was convicted and sentenced for what he said.

This is false.

As already discussed earlier (see the 4am timeframe on this thread) with Quantum Windbag, this boy WAS found guilty of vandalism - it's part of the Illinois law that convicted of a hate crime. You can't be tried twice for the same offense, so it's a 2 part crime - did he commit vandalism, and if so was he racially motivated.

You defenders of justice would be righteously pissed off if I spray painted "Obama 2012" on your front doors in international orange.

Oddly though, you wouldn't be convicted on felony thought crimes, or speech violations.



Of course.

If you were charged for the words you used, rather than for the actual crime, I would as vigorously defend you and your right to expression.

I support liberty against the onslaught of the authoritarian left.



You're banking on the idea that others are as partisan and racially motivated as you are.

And this is rambling AND deflection.

There is no such thing as a "felony thought crime" or a "speech violation".

The point being made is that there are limits as to how far your 1st amendment rights will protect you. In the above example, I would be charged with vandalism no matter what I painted on your house, and no doubt, you would be right there to make sure of it. You would NOT let me off the hook based on my 1st amendment rights to free speech.

Defending racist ACTIONS by touting their 1st amendment rights is just as foolish.

So what makes scratching something equally offensive on someone else's property an act that ought to be protected? We have a law - true, it's not a guaranteed right, but a law nonetheless - that enhances vandalistic crimes when the motivation is purely racial. There is no constitutional protection from the law of the land.

Really? When was the 1st repealed?

The idiot listed in the OP's link got, arguably, less than he deserved - but deserved what he got no less.

"Bad speak" and "Bad Think" should be punishable by death? Or is there an opportunity for reeducation?

You tenaciously cling to the idea that this is about what he said or thought. You can't seem to understand that it's just wrong - on a lot of levels - to allow the illogical motivation of bias to drive a criminal act. Not only wrong, but criminal in this case.

 

[GuyPinestra]

In many states this kid would face a harsher penalty if he got caught in possession of an ounce of weed.

Chew on that for a minute.

In MOST states, you mean...

What does that say about the ridiculousness of marijuana laws?

 

[oldernwiser]

I've not seen anyone in this thread post anything even approaching racist, nor have they defended the vandalism of the person involved. The issue here is the 1st amendment and the chill that imprisoning people based on speech adds to the concept of civil liberty.

Peppered throughout this discussion are all kinds of misguided attempts to wrap this boy's actions in the 1st amendment. In fact the complaint for a while is that he WASN'T charged with vandalism, ergo it's a free speech issue. I believe this is the tack you took as well. But, that line of reasoning is in error.

I have no idea why or even how Obama got pulled into the discussion, but that came from YOUR ballpark not mine and was not germane to this topic. I really couldn't care if you worship him or not. The politics of the 1st amendment vs racism was the topic - I tried to stay on that.

Only because the standard refrain is that if one opposes Obama, they are a racist.

Like I said...
I didn't bring it up.

The intention of the final statement should have been obvious. The word "you" was used collectively, not personally. The terms in the sentences implied choice - as if I ended each sentence with the phrase "if you want". The context should have been clear enough to understand that - if you wanted to.

Fair enough.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is false.

As already discussed earlier (see the 4am timeframe on this thread) with Quantum Windbag, this boy WAS found guilty of vandalism - it's part of the Illinois law that convicted of a hate crime. You can't be tried twice for the same offense, so it's a 2 part crime - did he commit vandalism, and if so was he racially motivated.

And as Quantum pointed out, the actual conviction lists "hate crime," rather than vandalism.

Vandalism is an act of damaging property, no one suggests that one not be held for such an offense.

However, what words are scratched or spraypainted, etc. are irrelevant to the act of vandalism.

The objection is that the WORDS rather than the vandalism are what is being punished. We have a clear violation of the 1st amendment here.

And this is rambling AND deflection.

There is no such thing as a "felony thought crime" or a "speech violation".

This all looks pretty Orwellian to me.

The point being made is that there are limits as to how far your 1st amendment rights will protect you. In the above example, I would be charged with vandalism no matter what I painted on your house, and no doubt, you would be right there to make sure of it. You would NOT let me off the hook based on my 1st amendment rights to free speech.

Nor would I demand that a greater charge be added because I didn't like what you said. That is the issue here, that a felony was tacked on due to illegal words, not even words, but letters that form a common acronym.

The misdemeanor vandalism was overshadowed by the felony hate crime - or more properly "thought crime."

Defending racist ACTIONS by touting their 1st amendment rights is just as foolish.

I defend constitutional rights. The freedom of speech is high on my list. But I also defend the right to religion and the right to assemble - both heavily under assault by this administration.

You tenaciously cling to the idea that this is about what he said or thought.

The fact is that it is precisely what this is about.

You can't seem to understand that it's just wrong - on a lot of levels - to allow the illogical motivation of bias to drive a criminal act. Not only wrong, but criminal in this case.

So, the headlines are "man convicted of vandalism?"

Hardly, this is about words used that the state does not allow. It is a direct assault on the 1st amendment.

 

[GuyPinestra]

How disingenuous. The 2 Guys is not what terrifies us. It's a DOJ that excuses their Behavior solely because they are black, that scares the hell out of us.

You do realize that was done by the Bush Administration right? They investigated the situation and found it not warranting of any arrests.

So if you got a problem bub, take it up with Dick Cheney 'n' dem.

No Marc, you are wrong. The intimidation took place during the 2008 election and it was Holder's DoJ that dropped it, AGAINST the recommendation of the Civil Rights Commission.

 

[MarcATL]

what happened to "do the crime do the time?" why do you oppose personal responsibility?

I can't believe he was in jail for 18 days for chalking a sidewalk, how incredibly ridiculous.

And why wasn't the right up in arms over this? Why no 1000 post thread freaking out over it???

They are hypocrites...iths thimple.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They are hypocrites...iths thimple.

Finally, we have a bonafide racist in this thread.

Hi Marc.

 

[oldernwiser]

This is false.

As already discussed earlier (see the 4am timeframe on this thread) with Quantum Windbag, this boy WAS found guilty of vandalism - it's part of the Illinois law that convicted of a hate crime. You can't be tried twice for the same offense, so it's a 2 part crime - did he commit vandalism, and if so was he racially motivated.

And as Quantum pointed out, the actual conviction lists "hate crime," rather than vandalism.

Vandalism is an act of damaging property, no one suggests that one not be held for such an offense.

However, what words are scratched or spraypainted, etc. are irrelevant to the act of vandalism.

The objection is that the WORDS rather than the vandalism are what is being punished. We have a clear violation of the 1st amendment here.

I'm just not going to argue the same point I already established with Windbag. You're interpretation is flawed. Read the Illinois laws I cited - they're available online.

Read 4:08 response on page 23.

Vandalism would be the arresting charge, the DA had the authority to prosecute under the hate crime law - which addresses MOTIVATION, not SPEECH.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Another attack on free speech in america. Why wasn't Chris Matthews charged with a felony hate crime when he called white people crackers on national tv?

July 10, 2012 12:48PM

Student who scratched

A former Elmhurst College student who scratched “KKK” and a racial slur on a window ledge outside the room of an African-American dorm supervisor was sentenced Tuesday to two years of probation.

Myles Burton, 21, had faced up to five years in prison after being convicted in May of a felony hate crime for the November 2011 vandalism at the college’s Stanger Hall.

DuPage County Judge George Bakalis also ordered Burton to serve 90 days in jail, though he already had served that sentence while awaiting trial.

Prosecutors argued the Libertyville man had been drinking and was angry at a faculty member when he used a rock to scratch the initials and a slur into the window ledge of the 28-year-old dorm supervisor’s room.

Burton, who is appealing his felony conviction, has been expelled from the college

Because of regular church meetings from years ago.

Look! They invited some colored folk. Look at Eddie Snicker, he's got a date.

Showing a picture without context is as mature as your avi.

 

[Ernie S.]

Hate speech is not equal to hate crime.

WTF???? What he wrote, (spoke) was considered a hate crime. How dense can you be? Quaaludes and Mad Dog 20/20 should be avoided especially before noon on a week day.

I give up. Most reasonable people realize hate speech and hate crime are two different things.

You are free to continue believing that he was convicted of hate speech. You are free to continue believing that his first amendment rights were violated.

It won't be the first time I've seen stupid people on the internet and it certainly won't be the last time.

I do think having him spend time in jail was wrong, since it doesn't appear he had any prior convictions. But what he did was wrong and even he admitted what he did was racist.

Look Ravi! He was charged with a "hate crime" for what he scratched on a window ledge. He was not charged with vandalism. The sole reason he was charged was the words he chose. In this case, "hate speech" = a "hate crime". What part of that do you not understand?

 

[oldernwiser]

WTF???? What he wrote, (spoke) was considered a hate crime. How dense can you be? Quaaludes and Mad Dog 20/20 should be avoided especially before noon on a week day.

I give up. Most reasonable people realize hate speech and hate crime are two different things.

You are free to continue believing that he was convicted of hate speech. You are free to continue believing that his first amendment rights were violated.

It won't be the first time I've seen stupid people on the internet and it certainly won't be the last time.

I do think having him spend time in jail was wrong, since it doesn't appear he had any prior convictions. But what he did was wrong and even he admitted what he did was racist.

Look Ravi! He was charged with a "hate crime" for what he scratched on a window ledge. He was not charged with vandalism. The sole reason he was charged was the words he chose. In this case, "hate speech" = a "hate crime". What part of that do you not understand?

Wrong, dude...

Please see page 23 of this topic around 4:08AM to see where you fail.

The short story is that "hate speech" satisfied just one of the requirements for a "hate crime".

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I call bullshit. You probably pulled that load from Drudge or Hannity.

And I take it Eric Holder has destroyed all copies of this film? LOL!

Bullshit called, no response.

I win.

First...I have a LIFE. I don't have time to set around and post to a forum all day on other peoples dime!

OR spend hours searching Fox archives for footage to show a contrarian!

Second, READ Guy's post 2 down from you premature victory dance on page 11! And THEN do a little research...IF you really care, which I suspect you do NOT want the truth!

Sorry but Guy's post doesn't contain a link to anything that says actual voters at that precinct claimed to be intimidated.

Jeez you guys are morons.

Until you are convicted of a felony that would...according to the laws in a particular state...restrict your right to own guns...YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED!

If you posses a gun during the commission of certain felonies that's an additional crime even if you never draw the weapon. If you yell "******" while committing a crime against a black person, that's potentially an additional or enhanced charge. thats the law and its 100% constitutional so grow up and live with it

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe it's just late and I'm not tracking all the way...

mens rae defines culpability - whether he knowingly committed the act or should have known better, which is actually the way 720 ILCS 5/21-1.2 (Institutional Vandalism) is worded: "he or she knowingly and without consent inflicts damage to any of the following properties:".

Under 720 ILCS 5/12-7.1, "A person commits a hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, ... regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits ... disorderly conduct as these crimes are defined in Sections ... 21-1."

This says that in order to get a conviction under 12-7, mens rae would only have to be shown for the act of vandalism under 21-1. Once vandalism is established, there would be no need to re-examine it later.

I don't have transcripts available, but I'm going to assume that the part listed in the news article about how he was going to show his bball coach what being a racist REALLY meant came from the trial itself (there was no attribution as to when the printed comments were made). This would tend to indicate that he knew precisely what he was doing at the time - objective mens rae.

On top of that, his school and community have certain standards which could be construed in such a way that a "reasonable person" would understand that scratching a racial slur would be considered wrong behavior - subjective mens rae, ignorance of the law being no excuse.

Like I said, it's getting late... please show me the error of my ways where I get to admit you're right. I don't see this as anything more than what I just presented.

Why the frack is this so hard to understand? He was not charged with vandalism, he was charged with, and convicted of felony hate crime.

There is no mens rae required for felony hate crime in Illinois, all that is required is that the victim of the crime be perceived to be on account of his race, gender, disability, etc. Taking your earlier example of a person accidentally hitting the gas instead of the brake and extrapolating it so that the vehicle ends up crashing through a field trip of disabled children, the mens rae for the hate crime would be established by the fact that the car crashed through a bunch of disabled children, and the fact that the driver made a mistake would not be relevant. In fact, it is specifically written into the law that no other motivations can be considered other than the act itself. The car hit disabled children, it was a hate crime, end of conversation.

Then, sir, the problem is that you are not comprehending the fact that a hate crime (720 ILCS 5/12-7.1) needs ANOTHER crime associated with it as specified above. It does not take place by itself, and as such, has no need to consider mens rae since the act for which the enhancement is added has already proven culpability.

The boy committed vandalism, the state proved that AND the fact that race was the reason he committed that crime. He doesn't get a separate charge of vandalism since it's automatically part of the more serious one.

Damn, you really want to stick with your position, don't you. Why don't you go through the hate crime law and point out where it says that hate crime is an enhancement to anything. If shouldn't be too hard, unless you have your head up your ass and don't actually know what you are talking about. The simple fact is that, in Illinois, hate crimes are crimes in and of themselves, not enhancements to other crimes. There is no need for the prosecution to prove mens rae in relation to another crime in order to prove a hate crime, all they have to prove is the hate crime, which is why the boy in this story was charged with a felony hate crime, not with felony vandalism with a hate crime enhancement.