The civil rights issue stomped all over this guy's right to free speech?

Question

OK so you can burn an American flag and that's ok? But this guy didnt even touch anyone and he got 4 months?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080815/ap_on_re_us/truck_nooses

If the protesters had a right to be there doesnt the other guy have the right to disagree?

Answer 1

Displaying nooses seems like something more than disagreeing, don't cha think? It's called assault. Disagreeing would be holding up a sign supportive of convicting the JEna 7.

There may be a slippery slope with enforcing the laws where that guy was convicted, But the Feds are on dry solid ground with this one.

LOL! Coasty can't even read the Constitution he so righteously posts. What Jeremiah Munsen did was trying intimidate people out of THEIR first amendment rights to peacefully assemble. THAT's the purpose of the laws under which Munsen was convicted! Rather telling how few conservatives are defending that idiot, but  perhaps he can mature.

Answer 2

According to your link...

"Munsen had faced up to a year in prison after pleading guilty in April to a misdemeanor charge of interfering with the marchers' federally protected right to travel."

You don't have the right to interfere with others' rights.

Answer 3

I disagree with his message, but the noose kid had a right to be there too.

There has to be more to this story than just what was in this yahoo blurb.

EDIT- So it would've been ok if he had held up pictures of a noose?

Mebbe this case has more to do with public endangerment by intentionally aggravating a crowd of people??

I dunno, I'm not a lawer, as I stated before, there must be something else in this incident.

Answer 4

The noose kid has his rights to display what he wants to.  Sure, it was a threatening gesture, but he has his rights.  Cops and communities always do this to show their allegiance to 'equal rights', despite being unequal.

People get their first amendment rights violated all the time, it's covered by the news, but if they're white, they don't get defended.  I remember the college kid who asked a politician a tough question and got tasered.  Anyone else remember that?

Answer 5

You got it in one ant this is why so called hate speech and hate crime laws are totally unconstitutional. Why the Judiciary has a problem understanding this is beyond me! I do not approve of the kids actions but he has just as much right to do this is the jerk a few years ago had to put the American flag down where people had to walk on it to see federally funded art exhibits. One of which included a rosary in a mason jar full of the artist's urine.

edit: burned bagels. Displaying nooses seems like something more than disagreeing, don't cha think? No I do not think so. Any more than I agree with the artist listed above.

There may be a slippery slope with enforcing the laws where that guy was convicted, But the Feds are on dry solid ground with this one. The Feds are absolutely not on solid ground on this. the First Amendment is pretty clear!

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.

    Edit 2 BB I spent 9 years in Uniform defending my nations constitution I know it full well and the price I have paid during my service and since. I do not approve of what this kid did however just like the Artist and the jackasses he was supposedly intimidating he was exercising his free speech. Until he does something physical like throwing a rock or running the people he was intimidating down in the street it is still free speech. Maybe you should learn the difference! The US Coast Guard made sure we understood the difference. We are federal law enforcement officers and must take courses on the law and how it is applied. The way I see the “hate legislation” applied is simply a way for the liberals and some conservatives {I am neither of those} to ignore the constitution.