http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-gurnee_websep29,1,2744653.story


OK. So the kid said some "racially charged" comments to other students. We now arrest people for making racial statements? Notice they did not say he made "threats". I know that we are supposed to have freedom of speech aren't we? Look, I am no racist, and I don't know what race this guy is against, but damn, even if he is making racist statements, doesn't he have a right to say them? No matter how stupid it is?

So the kid drove with a noose hanging from his mirror. This makes him a criminal? A confederate flag displayed? Doesn't South Carolina display this flag on their Capitol building?

In my town of Lakemoor in 2005 there was a teenager who spent 2 months in prison for telling a Latino pedestrian in front of his house to "Go back where you come from". They charged a 16 year old with a hate crime. Was that a political statement coming from someone on their personal property? Was it threatening? Was that a hate crime? I think the kid was railroaded.

I am worried that with these hate crime laws, we may be in danger of punishing "unpopular speech".

Can a legal eagle help me here? Is this not a violation of this young man's right to free speech?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

freedom is slavery.

Without knowing all the details, it certainly looks like it is a violation of free speech, especially because this is a public school. Private schools could kick the student off the premises, expel him, etc, but public schools have to respect the student's First Amendment right (students were deemed to have substantially the same free speech rights, even in a classroom or school setting, as other individuals, in Tinker v. Des Moines). Furthermore, the state has no leg to stand on as far as charging him, unless he was disturbing the peace in general, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Furthermore, most states don't have general "hate crime" statutes. Hate crimes offer additional penalties to already existing crimes, but one cannot commit a hate crime without some other underlying crime, like assault. You can't charge someone for merely stupid speech.

By the by, this is a very significant issue on public college campuses, where administrations have written more and more onerous speech codes despite the fact that courts have stricken them down many, many times. Many campuses seem to take the attitude that "we don't care, if it's unconstitutional, file a lawsuit", and you can't do that unles there's an actual controversy, i.e. I've been punished by the speech code. The courts have been pretty unanimous about this, but school administrations don't seem to care. I guess this attitude is beginning to seep into high school administration mindsets as well.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

I vote me - meaning you, Darkside

Freedom of speech doesn't allow you to verbally assult others.

I seem to remember a case when someone got arrested for giving a cop the bird. It was viewed as assult.

_________________
“Mmmm. Move over, eggs. Bacon just got a new best friend - fudge.”

Verbal assault? I could say that for anything I view as derogatory against me. It's too subjective to say verbal assault. It must be black and white. Again, I submit that this was inapproptiate, possible asshole behavior, but, protected nevertheless.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

I'm not a lawyer, but here is what a quick search yielded:



The noose may have been the key.

_________________
“Mmmm. Move over, eggs. Bacon just got a new best friend - fudge.”

Assault was originally attempted battery- I'm not sure how you batter someone verbally, so I'm not sure how you can attempt to batter someone verbally. Most assault statues now combine assault and battery (just as most theft statues combine mutliple larceny crimes), but the fact is the same: unless I'm provoking others to attack you, or my speech puts you in physical danger, that is constitutionally protected speech. Private entities- businesses, private schools, etc.- can take actions to limit that speech, but government entities cannot. Freedom of speech isn't absolute, but it comes pretty close, and there are only a very few exceptions (libel, obscenity, and fighting words come to mind.) Those exceptions weren't broached, and the speech is constitutionally protected.

Freedom of speech does allow you to make others feel uncomfortable, even if it's stupid to do so.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

The noose in this case, if I'm reading the facts correctly, is irrelevant in that it was not the impetus for arrest.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

"Only who can prevent forest fires?...You pressed 'You', referring to me. That is incorrect. The correct answer is 'You'!"

_________________

So Nas. We should arrest anyone making racially charged comments? Can you imagine how insane that would be? This is dangerous talk indeed. We are talking about making a law that abridges the freedom of speech. That is just unconstitutional.

Do not misunderstand me. I do not support this man's statements. What I do support however, is his right to say them. We need to understand that unpopular speech, such as the speech of the Klu Klux Klan, while having the potential to, as you put it, incite a group of people, has been repeatedly proven in courts of law to be protected speech.

If you support the supression of speech that can "incite a group of people" then you support the supression of speech such as Malcolm X, and Jesse Jackson, and MLK. Didn't their speech incite certain groups? Didn't they say by any means necessary?

Our country is founded on the principal that you have the right to speak your mind. Others have the right to call that man a bigot, or a moron, or Lucifer himself if they choose. You do not however, have the right to restrict his rights to said speech. This man's arrest creates fear in the minds of people who will try to exercise their right to free speech.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Jena has nothing to do with this case at all.
So, why couldn't the protesters in Jena be charged with Disorderly conduct Nas? They certainly had more potential to start a riot, or as you put it escalation into violence. This was one man, with ignorant comments to two people.
As a Black man, Nas, you should be worried about this man being charged with disorderly conduct. Because if that's disorderly conduct, so could three black men standing on a street corner saying the n word be considered disorderly.
Do not make the mistake of confusing the words he used (inappropriate in my opinion) with his RIGHT to do so.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Like Die Hard 3:

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?

Nas I understand your viewpoint. I really do. i am only fearful for the next time. How much further will we go? Will pundits be arrested for making statements on air supporting the minutemen who are patrolling our borders? Will it be punishable with jail time the next time we have a county board meeting and we state our desire for immigration reform (because you better damn well believe supporters of these measures are being labled as racists). What about the man I referenced in my town who, on his own property, told a latino to go back to where he came from and was charged, and compounded with hate crime status?

If things like this are allowed to happen, the next MLK will be put in jail for disorderly conduct and they'll attach hate crime status to it.

Race wars breaking out in Gurnee? Cmon man, this was one dumbass meathead talking stupid shit.

I am worried about free speech, Nas. We are already limiting it too much as it is with the FCC and so on. Unpopular speech today is tomorrows patriotic speech. I fear that when things like this happen, it is a first step down the slippery slope.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Well. We're copecetic. I like it.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

the gurnee thought cops could have saved tank johnson and the bears a whole heap of trouble.

_________________

@ Darkside getting most of the votes.

_________________

That guy that told the latino to go back where he came from is just plain ignorant to the fact that he came from someplace else as well at one time or another. I use that point every time I hear someone use that dumbass comment. The only people that have any validity when using that phrase are obviously native amercians. This kid was wrong and freedom of speech should not protect people like this who are obviously trying to start shit.

_________________
Andy Rooney= biggest PUTZ of the dead

The Supreme Court has ruled that there is "fighting words", i.e. words that only attempt to create a situation where violence will ensue, exemption to the 1st Amendment. "Go back to where you came from" would not qualify as fighting words. You may not like the sentiment, but those aren't fighting words.

I'll repeat it again- you may not like the sentiment, but mosre often than not, they are not fighting words. Saying "I hate blacks" is not fighting words. Saying "I think black people are ignorant" to a black person is not fighting words. Saying "I think that your sister should be raped" IS fighting words. Saying "let's go and kill some black people!" to a crowd IS fighting words.

It can be even more difficult to discern the constitutionality of symbolic speech, but the noose is almost certainly protected. Under Brandenburg v. Ohio, the standard used to determine whether imflammatory speech is protected is whether that speech is meant to provoke imminent unlawful action. If I decided to burn a cross on my lawn this evening, that would be constitutionally protected speech. Now, if I burned a cross on my lawn this evening because my neighbor was black, and I pointed it towards his house, and my purpose was to intimidate, then it would not be protected. But the action itself cannot be assumed unconstitutional. Having a noose in your car isn't reason enough to assume that the speech is unconstitutional.

I'm going to say it one last time: You may not like the sentiment of the speech, but the 1st Amendment still, more likey than not, protects it. The reason for that is because, if you protect really odious speech, you're also going to protect the stuff on the margins, and you're going to certainly protect core political speech (or so the theory goes- campaign finance restrictions and the like raise questions as to the viability of that model.) In this case, the speech is pretty clearly protected, although now that I think about it the student can probably be punished by the school, since they have greater latitude to restrict speech than, say, a public university would.

If you're looking for some bedtime reading to get acquanted with the relevant caselaw, I'll provide some links in the post below.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

Early speech restrictions: Clear and Present Danger test- Schenck v. U.S. "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Full text of decision: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0249_0047_ZS.html

Brandenburg v. Ohio: In creating a "Clear and present danger", the speech must not just create a tendency towards bad behavior, but it be liekly to incitie imminent unlawful action.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Text of decision: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=395&invol=444

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire: Fighting Words exemption (note- the court has held a more restrictive view of "fighting words" than the Chaplinsky case would indicate. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if the facts of the case came up today, Chaplinsky would be overturned as not fighting words. Still, Chaplinsky is good law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0315_0568_ZS.html

Later cases:

R.A.V. vs. St. Paul: Laws cannot be crafted that specifically object to particular viewpoints, even if those viewpoints are objectionable. In other words, you can't pass a law saying "all fighting words pertaining to race are outlawed" because it wouldn't outlaw all manner of other objectionable speech, and the law is written to exclude one particular viewpoint in mind.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._V._v._City_of_St._Paul

Virginia v. Black: Symbolic speech cannot only be banned if its purpose was to intimidate. A law cannot assume that certain symbolic speech is meant to intimidate; for example, Chicago can't pass a law banning cross burnings and say "it will be assumed that the purpose of burning a cross is to intimidate." Very complicated case, and the court split many, many different ways.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

Late to the party, but consider this. We don't know what this jackass specifically said, nor the manner in which he said it. He very well could have been standing on school grounds, screaming loudly enough to disturb the "peace", even profanely. We also don't know if what he said or did may later result in assault charges being filed, since there is a very real possibility that this prick placed the other two students in a reasonable fear of physical harm being done to them.(a possibility, but doubtful).

As to the kid in your community, consider that you may not know the full extent to which he acted. It's like this, in jail/prisonmost are innocent to hear them tell it, and when was the last time you remember some meathead teenager (already up a creek) telling the whole truth anyway.

Although the defenses of this kid and the 'assault' on the freedom of speech seem to ring as hollow as Daley and his claims of racism.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.