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

[Quantum Windbag]

**** you. If he sent an email saying he wanted to see his house burned down with his family inside, it wouldn't have been vandalism, but would have been a criminal threat. What the **** isn't a threat about putting KKK outside the residence of a black person. If a white dude wants to spray paint KKK on their own house you might have a case.

You're a ******* idiot.

Wanna bet?

Name your bet. Even the ACLU supports their free speech, but not their threats and terrorism. Are you pro KKK?

The bet is about writing an email saying I want your house to burn down and whether it is legal, not whether the ACLU likes the KKK.

 

[syrenn]

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?

Funny, I had no idea "free speech" included defacing private property.

You must have missed all the occupy protests.

 

[Dick Tuck]

But he didn't, he wrote “KKK” and a racial slur on a window ledge outside the room of an African-American dorm supervisor. THINK. HARDER.

If he had written "DIE, ******, DIE!" these morons would still be defending him. Threat? What threat? He's just using his freedom of speech!

That is because I actually believe that it is easy to argue that non offensive speech is legal.

So you believe that the KKK is not a terrorist organization, and placing it on the residence of a black man is not offensive? You're fucked in the head.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If he had written "DIE, ******, DIE!" these morons would still be defending him. Threat? What threat? He's just using his freedom of speech!

That is because I actually believe that it is easy to argue that non offensive speech is legal.

The word "******" isn't offensive?

Really?

I see you missed the point, here is some remedial reading.

Protecting Outrageous, Offensive Speech

 

[Dick Tuck]

Wanna bet?

Name your bet. Even the ACLU supports their free speech, but not their threats and terrorism. Are you pro KKK?

The bet is about writing an email saying I want your house to burn down and whether it is legal, not whether the ACLU likes the KKK.

Make your argument, since you so lamely distorted mine.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If he had written "DIE, ******, DIE!" these morons would still be defending him. Threat? What threat? He's just using his freedom of speech!

That is because I actually believe that it is easy to argue that non offensive speech is legal.

So you believe that the KKK is not a terrorist organization, and placing it on the residence of a black man is not offensive? You're fucked in the head.

What I believe about the KKK is irrelevant, what is relevant is that offensive speech is what is protected by the constitution. If it wasn't I could have you arrested for saying I am fucked in the head.

Protecting Outrageous, Offensive Speech

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That is because I actually believe that it is easy to argue that non offensive speech is legal.

The word "******" isn't offensive?

Really?

I see you missed the point, here is some remedial reading.

Protecting Outrageous, Offensive Speech

Its a crime to threaten people with bodily harm, moron. The phrase 'KKK, ******' carved on the anything - dorm window, door, arm, car - what the **** ever - of a black person is a clear threat to any reasonable person. The KKK wasn't a group that went around preaching blacks will burn in hell and disrupting their funerals with offensive displays - they were a group that went around murdering blacks pretty much just for being black. If you can't see the difference you're a complete idiot and its good for you there isn't a group going around murdering people for being stupid. If those funeral protesting idiots had ever made any threats to harm anyone they'd be in prison.

 

[JDzBrain]

Because of regular church meetings from years ago.

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

Look! They invited some white folk to their cinder block party. Look at Damien dance, he's got a new friend.

MORON!!!!!!!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Name your bet. Even the ACLU supports their free speech, but not their threats and terrorism. Are you pro KKK?

The bet is about writing an email saying I want your house to burn down and whether it is legal, not whether the ACLU likes the KKK.

Make your argument, since you so lamely distorted mine.

This wasn't your post?

**** you. If he sent an email saying he wanted to see his house burned down with his family inside, it wouldn't have been vandalism, but would have been a criminal threat. What the **** isn't a threat about putting KKK outside the residence of a black person. If a white dude wants to spray paint KKK on their own house you might have a case.

You're a ******* idiot.

Read and learn.

The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”980 In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.981 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”982 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,”983 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,”’ but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”984 In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., white merchants in Claiborne County, Mississippi, sued the NAACP to recover losses caused by a boycott by black citizens of their businesses, and to enjoin future boycott activity.985 During the course of the boycott, NAACP Field Secretary Charles Evers had told an audience of “black people that any ‘uncle toms’ who broke the boycott would ‘have their necks broken’ by their own people.”986 The Court acknowledged that this language “might have been understood as inviting an unlawful form of discipline or, at least, as intending to create a fear of violence ....”987 Yet, no violence had followed directly from Evers’ speeches, and the Court found that Evers’ “emotionally charged rhetoric . . . did not transcend the bounds of protected speech set forth in Brandenburg. . . . An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”988 While holding that, under Bradenburg, Evers’ speech did not constitute unprotected incitement of lawless action,989 the Court also cited Watts, thereby implying that Evers’ speech also did not constitute a “true threat.”990

Threats of Violence Against Individuals :: First Amendment--Religion and Expression :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

In other words, expressing a desire that somebody's family burn to death is reprehensible, but it is not a true threat, so it would not be a criminal threat.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The word "******" isn't offensive?

Really?

I see you missed the point, here is some remedial reading.

Protecting Outrageous, Offensive Speech

Its a crime to threaten people with bodily harm, moron. The phrase 'KKK, ******' carved on the anything - dorm window, door, arm, car - what the **** ever - of a black person is a clear threat to any reasonable person. The KKK wasn't a group that went around preaching blacks will burn in hell and disrupting their funerals with offensive displays - they were a group that went around murdering blacks pretty much just for being black. If you can't see the difference you're a complete idiot and its good for you there isn't a group going around murdering people for being stupid. If those funeral protesting idiots had ever made any threats to harm anyone they'd be in prison.

Writing the abbreviation for the Union of Communities in Kurdistan is a threat? Who knew?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The bet is about writing an email saying I want your house to burn down and whether it is legal, not whether the ACLU likes the KKK.

Make your argument, since you so lamely distorted mine.

This wasn't your post?

**** you. If he sent an email saying he wanted to see his house burned down with his family inside, it wouldn't have been vandalism, but would have been a criminal threat. What the **** isn't a threat about putting KKK outside the residence of a black person. If a white dude wants to spray paint KKK on their own house you might have a case.

You're a ******* idiot.

Read and learn.

The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”980 In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.981 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”982 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,”983 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,”’ but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”984 In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., white merchants in Claiborne County, Mississippi, sued the NAACP to recover losses caused by a boycott by black citizens of their businesses, and to enjoin future boycott activity.985 During the course of the boycott, NAACP Field Secretary Charles Evers had told an audience of “black people that any ‘uncle toms’ who broke the boycott would ‘have their necks broken’ by their own people.”986 The Court acknowledged that this language “might have been understood as inviting an unlawful form of discipline or, at least, as intending to create a fear of violence ....”987 Yet, no violence had followed directly from Evers’ speeches, and the Court found that Evers’ “emotionally charged rhetoric . . . did not transcend the bounds of protected speech set forth in Brandenburg. . . . An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”988 While holding that, under Bradenburg, Evers’ speech did not constitute unprotected incitement of lawless action,989 the Court also cited Watts, thereby implying that Evers’ speech also did not constitute a “true threat.”990

Threats of Violence Against Individuals :: First Amendment--Religion and Expression :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

In other words, expressing a desire that somebody's family burn to death is reprehensible, but it is not a true threat, so it would not be a criminal threat.

It would appear in this case, the charge is actually property related.

Myles Burton, Elmhurst College Student-Athlete, Faces Hate Crime Charges
"felony hate crime related to criminal damage to property "



I'm pretty sure the government has the right to punish you for damaging the property of others.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Make your argument, since you so lamely distorted mine.

This wasn't your post?



Read and learn.

The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”980 In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.981 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”982 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,”983 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,”’ but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”984 In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., white merchants in Claiborne County, Mississippi, sued the NAACP to recover losses caused by a boycott by black citizens of their businesses, and to enjoin future boycott activity.985 During the course of the boycott, NAACP Field Secretary Charles Evers had told an audience of “black people that any ‘uncle toms’ who broke the boycott would ‘have their necks broken’ by their own people.”986 The Court acknowledged that this language “might have been understood as inviting an unlawful form of discipline or, at least, as intending to create a fear of violence ....”987 Yet, no violence had followed directly from Evers’ speeches, and the Court found that Evers’ “emotionally charged rhetoric . . . did not transcend the bounds of protected speech set forth in Brandenburg. . . . An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”988 While holding that, under Bradenburg, Evers’ speech did not constitute unprotected incitement of lawless action,989 the Court also cited Watts, thereby implying that Evers’ speech also did not constitute a “true threat.”990

Threats of Violence Against Individuals :: First Amendment--Religion and Expression :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

In other words, expressing a desire that somebody's family burn to death is reprehensible, but it is not a true threat, so it would not be a criminal threat.

It would appear in this case, the charge is actually property related.

Myles Burton, Elmhurst College Student-Athlete, Faces Hate Crime Charges
"felony hate crime related to criminal damage to property "



I'm pretty sure the government has the right to punish you for damaging the property of others.

I am pretty sure that punishing you for what you say is a violation of the 1st Amendment, if it wasn't WBC would be in prison.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I see you missed the point, here is some remedial reading.

Protecting Outrageous, Offensive Speech

Its a crime to threaten people with bodily harm, moron. The phrase 'KKK, ******' carved on the anything - dorm window, door, arm, car - what the **** ever - of a black person is a clear threat to any reasonable person. The KKK wasn't a group that went around preaching blacks will burn in hell and disrupting their funerals with offensive displays - they were a group that went around murdering blacks pretty much just for being black. If you can't see the difference you're a complete idiot and its good for you there isn't a group going around murdering people for being stupid. If those funeral protesting idiots had ever made any threats to harm anyone they'd be in prison.

Writing the abbreviation for the Union of Communities in Kurdistan is a threat? Who knew?

Oh, that's what he meant? OK! I'm sure he brought it up at trial then. Lets see the testimony! Or are you telling me it was all a big misunderstanding, but the defendant just forgot to mention that fact?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Its a crime to threaten people with bodily harm, moron. The phrase 'KKK, ******' carved on the anything - dorm window, door, arm, car - what the **** ever - of a black person is a clear threat to any reasonable person. The KKK wasn't a group that went around preaching blacks will burn in hell and disrupting their funerals with offensive displays - they were a group that went around murdering blacks pretty much just for being black. If you can't see the difference you're a complete idiot and its good for you there isn't a group going around murdering people for being stupid. If those funeral protesting idiots had ever made any threats to harm anyone they'd be in prison.

Writing the abbreviation for the Union of Communities in Kurdistan is a threat? Who knew?

Oh, that's what he meant? OK! I'm sure he brought it up at trial then. Lets see the testimony! Or are you telling me it was all a big misunderstanding, but the defendant just forgot to mention that fact? Funny how the jury of his peers wasn't able to determine that he really mean the Union Of Communities in Kurdistan.

No, I am pointing out that the letters KKK are not a threat. The fact that the person who did this was not charged with making threats more than proves that arguing that he made a threat is stupid.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

This wasn't your post?



Read and learn.

Threats of Violence Against Individuals :: First Amendment--Religion and Expression :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

In other words, expressing a desire that somebody's family burn to death is reprehensible, but it is not a true threat, so it would not be a criminal threat.

It would appear in this case, the charge is actually property related.

Myles Burton, Elmhurst College Student-Athlete, Faces Hate Crime Charges
"felony hate crime related to criminal damage to property "



I'm pretty sure the government has the right to punish you for damaging the property of others.

I am pretty sure that punishing you for what you say is a violation of the 1st Amendment, if it wasn't WBC would be in prison.

I never said anything violated the 1st amendment. I said damage to property and criminal threats are not protected speech. Do you disagree?

Q Did he damage property?

A YES


So how is it a violation of the 1st amendment to prosecute him?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Writing the abbreviation for the Union of Communities in Kurdistan is a threat? Who knew?

Oh, that's what he meant? OK! I'm sure he brought it up at trial then. Lets see the testimony! Or are you telling me it was all a big misunderstanding, but the defendant just forgot to mention that fact? Funny how the jury of his peers wasn't able to determine that he really mean the Union Of Communities in Kurdistan.

No, I am pointing out that the letters KKK are not a threat. The fact that the person who did this was not charged with making threats more than proves that arguing that he made a threat is stupid.

Doesn't have to be a threat. He was charged with damaging property - but I guess you think that shouldn't be a crime.

 

[Black_Label]

Quantum at this point has shown beyond all doubts he is a full blown racist and likely KKK member

 

[JDzBrain]

The question is NOT about defacing a chunk of concrete. The question is about a society that is creating protected classes in a society that is SUPPOSE to be class less!

The guy is a MORON for doing it. THAT is not in question. It's a misdemeanor crime...unless it's some priceless historical site or object. The value determines the felony status of most crimes involving property...EXCEPT this one!

The question is, do we REALLY believe that all speech, even offensive speech is protected and that Jefferson was right when he said, "I prefer the inconvenience of too much liberty to the tyranny of too little of it." OR are we too immature to accept it when it is uncomfortable?

So far, the answer is immaturity! Our representatives not only came up with "hate crime" laws that make it illegal to do what was ALREADY illegal in some misguided attempt to masturbate the egos of some group or the other in order to curry favor and win votes, but we have...in what has become the normal abuse of well intentioned legislation, decided to extend that misguided law to speech.

There is a reason that the law that made this kind of PERSECUTION legal could not be passed until liberals had control of both houses of Congress and the White House.

It's ASININE and likely unconstitutional!!!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The question is NOT about defacing a chunk of concrete. The question is about a society that is creating protected classes in a society that is SUPPOSE to be class less!

The guy is a MORON for doing it. THAT is not in question. It's a misdemeanor crime...unless it's some priceless historical site or object. The value determines the felony status of most crimes involving property...EXCEPT this one!

The question is, do we REALLY believe that all speech, even offensive speech is protected and that Jefferson was right when he said, "I prefer the inconvenience of too much liberty to the tyranny of too little of it." OR are we too immature to accept it when it is uncomfortable?

So far, the answer is immaturity! Our representatives not only came up with "hate crime" laws that make it illegal to do what was ALREADY illegal in some misguided attempt to masturbate the egos of some group or the other in order to curry favor and win votes, but we have...in what has become the normal abuse of well intentioned legislation, decided to extend that misguided law to speech.

There is a reason that the law that made this kind of PERSECUTION legal could not be passed until liberals had control of both houses of Congress and the White House.

It's ASININE and likely unconstitutional!!!

Actually, since the damage was done to a school property, it only needs to be greater than $300 to be a class 3 felony, punishable by 2 to 5 years. I think carving several things into the sides of buildings probably costs more than $300 to repair correctly, but nonetheless, if it was less than $300 and done to a school, its still a class 4 felony.


Illinois
Illinois General Assembly - Illinois Compiled Statutes

Did you even bother to read Illinois law? If so, you didn't do a very good job of it. I doubt you did, though. Your type tend to just bullshit your way through everything. Whatever sounds right must be the truth, no need to do any real research to check it out. You've watched enough TV so you know what the law says, no need to look it up!

 

[salem.hills]

Crime is crime hate crime is to subjective and never properly used when whites are victims. Living in the past when you weren't alive is insane just so you liberals understand how you look reliving a past that nobody here actually lived during.