- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A white couple who burned a cross in their yard facing Black neighbors’ home....
Posted on 12/21/23 at 10:52 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
Posted on 12/21/23 at 10:52 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
I’m pretty liberal, and if this isn’t protected speech, then the 1st amendment is worthless.
It’s hateful. And they should be shunned by the general public. But the government has no business regulating what views you express on your own property. Buyer beware.
It’s hateful. And they should be shunned by the general public. But the government has no business regulating what views you express on your own property. Buyer beware.
4
Posted on 12/22/23 at 12:22 am to SteelerBravesDawg
Surprised this happened in that area, as it's generally a nice one. It's about 3 miles past CCU on the way to Surfside Beach. A mix of long-time natives, college renters and retirees.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 6:18 am to BilbeauTBaggins
I remember in 1980/81ish there was a burning cross at Glen Oaks High yard. Buses stopped running and everything was chaotic. Later I heard it was the doing of David Duke and the Klan
Posted on 12/22/23 at 6:22 am to crewdepoo
quote:
Christians are insane
You think you could find a broader brush?
Posted on 12/22/23 at 6:30 am to SteelerBravesDawg
They could have said they were celebrating their Gaelic heritage and that it was a Crann Tara. The burning cross represented a signal fire, a method of communication among the clans and the rallying symbol of ancient Scotland and of the Highlanders in times of war.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 6:39 am to SteelerBravesDawg
They should be arrested for drugs multiple code violations , expired license ect.
They are scum and deserve jail, also I think they should be forced to to teach in the inner city and have TLC film it so they can show how they have grown and we are all equal.......
They are scum and deserve jail, also I think they should be forced to to teach in the inner city and have TLC film it so they can show how they have grown and we are all equal.......
Posted on 12/22/23 at 6:41 am to reddy tiger
quote:
I’m pretty liberal, and if this isn’t protected speech, then the 1st amendment is worthless.
It’s hateful. And they should be shunned by the general public. But the government has no business regulating what views you express on your own property. Buyer beware.
Terroristic threats aren't protected speech.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 6:47 am to reddy tiger
quote:
I’m pretty liberal, and if this isn’t protected speech, then the 1st amendment is worthless.
It’s hateful. And they should be shunned by the general public. But the government has no business regulating what views you express on your own property. Buyer beware.
If it had just been burning the cross it would’ve fell under protected speech I believe (and even at that it depends on whether you can burn that on your law by your local municipality laws).
But they also did this:
quote:
Butler also shared the Black couple’s address on Facebook, and posted that he was “summoning the devil’s army” and “about to make them pay,” the report said. According to an arrest warrant, Hartnett also threatened to hurt the couple.
It stops being an isolated expression of protected speech at that point. At that point you’re fully open to the consequences of your speech.
This post was edited on 12/22/23 at 6:48 am
Posted on 12/22/23 at 7:02 am to BilbeauTBaggins
quote:
Burning a cross purely to intimidate your neighbors is a hate crime.
It’s a disgusting act by the merged out racists, but is it actually a crime?
I mean, if the victims were Jewish, and you and your goose-stepping friends got around the camp fire in your back yard and chanted “From the river to the sea Palestine will be free!” - should y’all be arrested for a hate crime?
A simple yes or no will do, unless like most leftists, you don’t have enough integrity to answer the question.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 7:13 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
It’s a disgusting act by the merged out racists, but is it actually a crime?
quote:
A simple yes or no will do, unless like most leftists, you don’t have enough integrity to answer the question.
Yes.
And frick you.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 7:15 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
It’s a disgusting act by the merged out racists, but is it actually a crime?
When it's used to intimidate like this was, you're damn right it's a crime
Especially when it's paired w/this:
quote:
Butler also shared the Black couple’s address on Facebook, and posted that he was “summoning the devil’s army” and “about to make them pay,” the report said. According to an arrest warrant, Hartnett also threatened to hurt the couple.
Yeah, it's a crime. And those POS need to be thrown in jail.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 8:00 am to SteelerBravesDawg
quote:
Butler also shared the Black couple’s address on Facebook, and posted that he was “summoning the devil’s army” and “about to make them pay,” the report said. According to an arrest warrant, Hartnett also threatened to hurt the couple.
100% that’s a threat of violence.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 8:01 am to BayouBlitz
quote:
if the victims were Jewish, and you and your goose-stepping friends got around the camp fire in your back yard and chanted “From the river to the sea Palestine will be free!” - should y’all be arrested for a hate crime?
quote:
Yes
Well at least you are consistent
quote:
And frick you.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 8:05 am to Shexter
Just a few meth heads having some fun.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 8:06 am to reddy tiger
quote:
It’s hateful. And they should be shunned by the general public. But the government has no business regulating what views you express on your own property. Buyer beware.
The First Amendment is truly at work when it protects speech the majority (and especially an overwhelming one) finds abhorrent.
Exceptions for inciting violence and making terroristic threats (and fire in crowded theater) should stay holstered unless there’s a clear and compelling reason to employ them.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 8:11 am to Pettifogger
quote:
don't support hate crime laws. I do think rulings/statutes explicitly stating that stuff like this, when directed at someone in reasonable proximity, amounts to harassment, terroristic threat, etc. And perhaps that's already the case, I'm not sure.
I do think burning a cross in an open area as part of a protest/rally/etc. should be protected speech. It perhaps should get your arse kicked, but not by the state.
You apparently didn't read before commenting. An explanation for the basis of these charges was provided in the OP. I underlined the specific part of importance for you.
quote:
Cross burnings in the U.S. are “symbols of hate” that are “inextricably intertwined with the history of the Ku Klux Klan,” according to a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by the late Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. The justices ruled that the First Amendment allows bans on cross burnings only when they are intended to intimidate because the action “is a particularly virulent form of intimidation.”
Posted on 12/22/23 at 12:13 pm to facher08
quote:
Ribbed
Guessing he earned some time off for a while.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 12:19 pm to Steadyhands
Ok...good?
You're pointing out that a SCOTUS decision provides the states with the ability to make the sort of laws/rulings I'm advocating for?
You're pointing out that a SCOTUS decision provides the states with the ability to make the sort of laws/rulings I'm advocating for?
Posted on 12/22/23 at 12:26 pm to reddy tiger
quote:
I’m pretty liberal, and if this isn’t protected speech, then the 1st amendment is worthless.
That all depends on how you draw the line between protected speech and a threat. This is a non-verbal indirect "threat" that someone could argue the vagaries but it was almost certainly done to intimidate and instill fear.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News