Freedom of speech, or not?

[DwayneEMTP]

So, I stumbled across this asshat, (in my opinion) while looking at useless shit...

For those of you in the United States...Protected speech or not? And why?

http://www.angryblac...loween-display/

And of course our brothers and sisters from outside the U.S. are welcome, I just have no idea for the most part if the context stays the same..

Dwayne

[JPINFV]

I neither think that it falls under 1st amendment protectionnor that it is something that the government should regulate. Tasteless and tactless? Definitely. Offensive? Sure. However I don't expect the government to protect me from things that are tasteless and/or offensive.

[tcripp]

I agree. Not sure about free speech...but definitely poor form.

[scubanurse]

People will always do stupid stuff. I think two halloweens ago right before the presidential elections, there was a big issue with someone displaying a figure that strongly resembled Sarah Palin hanging from a noose and they were ordered to take it down.

It just bothers me that people still do stuff like that... at least he took it down eventually.

[Lone Star]

I remember a similar situation a couple years ago. While I can't remember the specifics of it, the display in question then was visible from an expressway. The local sheriff's department ordered him to take it down due to the fact that it could be seen from the expressway and presented a distraction to the drivers.

I think the whole display is in poor form, poor taste and should have never been put up in the first place.

While he may be protected under the first amendment, it DOES have it's limitations. Since this display is visible from the highway, he too may be causing a condition that is unsafe for the drivers, and therefore can be prevented from putting it back up; even after he talks to his lawyer....

[Just Plain Ruff]

First amendment protection = Yes

This is no different than the asshat Fred Phelps.

Offensive, YES YOU BET YOUR ASS but protected - yes

Should his house become a conflagration of fire and brimstone - one less scar on society

And as racist as this appears, this still falls under the 1st amendment.

He has every right to put this kind of crap up as I have to burn a cross or Burn the Koran, or put a black Lyncher and a white lynchee.

I know this is truly offensive but he does have the right to do this.

Here is the text of the 1st amendment if you don't already know it

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Now, someone could argue that this is hate crime and the prosecuting attorney could go after him on that line. That is the most logical way for the county to go in my opinion.

[island emt]

If a racist cracker redneck wants to behave this way it is protected by the 1st amendment.

Same as the klan being allowed to hold marches and cross burnings with a permit for the gathering.

Same as the asshat's from the westboro baptist church protesting as funerals for our fallen soldiers.

Does it make it right ??? NO

Do others have the right to protest against this cracker? You bet. Why? because the constitution allows us that right.

As a good friend who is a police officer states " You can't cure stupid" as there is no law against it.

Edited November 2, 2010 by island emt

[Richard B the EMT]

A bit more than a decade ago, a local community parade used as a fundraiser benefiting the community's youth athletics group got some unwanted national publicity, when 3 municipal employees, on a float totally unlike what they'd told the parade committee to expect from them, simulated the dragging death of a black man by a lynch mob in Texas some months before the parade. This took place within NYC, and resulted in the 3 municipal employees, with one wearing black face makeup, and admittedly on their own time, being fired from the NYPD and FDNY, for conduct unbecoming their respective jobs, bringing disrepute on their departments, and a couple of other charges.

In even numbered years, the parade benefits the athletic club, and in odd years, the local VFD. Even though the year in question was benefiting the AC, the Mayor ordered the FD teletype to the VFD disconnected. After the office of the Mayor had received enough proof that the float's designers and riders had done this without advising the parade committee of what they were up to, the teletype was reconnected.

However, there was a protest march against the community, led by Reverend Sharpton, which actually was met by community leaders with a food table set up for the protestors to eat at. Reverend Sharpton and his group left peacefully, after eating, and after it was pointed out that the municipal miscreants didn't even live in the community, and that they had also tricked the parade committee as to their float.

[Lone Star]

If a racist cracker redneck wants to behave this way it is protected by the 1st amendment.

Same as the klan being allowed to hold marches and cross burnings with a permit for the gathering.

Same as the asshat's from the westboro baptist church protesting as funerals for our fallen soldiers.

Does it make it right ??? NO

Do others have the right to protest against this cracker? You bet. Why? because the constitution allows us that right.

As a good friend who is a police officer states " You can't cure stupid" as there is no law against it.

[HERBIE1]

Do I think this is racist and stupid? Yep. Protected?- yes and no.

While I agree with the notion that offensive speech like that of Fred Phelps seems to be protected, I would bet that this will be viewed differently.

Why? Hate crime laws.

Not only will this display NOT be protected, but unlike Phelps, I would bet this guy will be prosecuted.

Double standards.

Now- I am NOT defending this guy in any way, I am merely pointing out that this will not be treated as a simple 1st Amendment issue.