Seriously, stuff like this is annoying, but, like Piss Christ, it's clearly protected speech and a zilliion billion miles from "fire in a crowded theater."
_XC
If you deny that there is a racial element to hanging a representative symbol of a black guy by a rope over a tree, then you're either retarded (I mean actually retarded, not "retarded" in the colloquial sense) or lying to yourself. That said, do what you want, if you don't mind your neighbors thinking you're a racist douchebag. There's a such thing as free speech (which I am an unwavering proponent of), but there is no such thing as consequence-free speech.
Well you are a racist. While everyone in this story is engaged in lawfully protected first amendment speech the chair guy is a racist piece of shit. Hanging a chair is now a metaphor for hanging president Obama, some racist nostalgia for the good old days when they used to hang uppity niggers like Obama. There is no other reasonable interpretation of his action. The fact that you are trying to defend this reprehensible speech which is in no way being curtailed by anything other then reasonable, decent and protected speech shows where you are coming from. It's not the only reason I think you are racist. Your position on enforcing voter fraud is one that can only be held by a racist or a fool. Disenfranchising thousands of minority and poor voters to prevent voter fraud which has in the modern day never been shown to have any real impact on state or national elections is just a way for people to hid their racism behind a false cause. It's possible you are a fool or have some kind of paranoia that fuel your world view, there are other postings and comments which that make delusional paranoia a possibility, but I'm guessing you are a White Republican middle-aged racist who lives in the south.
I hate that I'm having to do this right now. Shouldn't have to. I live 3 doors down from Cliff. When we moved down here the person that was the kindest to my family was Cliff and his wife, they still are. The first person Cliff introduced me to was someone that he thought I could work well with because they were "really bright and creative", a person named Cory. Cory is black, not that this would matter AT ALL to Cliff, he just thought that we'd hit it off. I was out to breakfast with Cliff once and he excused himself for a moment. He then returned and we finished the breakfast and went to leave when a woman stopped Cliff at the door and said, "Sir, I just wanted to let you know that the soldier you bought breakfast for was very thankful". -Without TELLING ANYONE Cliff went to the register and bought breakfast for an enlisted man. He insisted that the enlisted man not know who had done it. Completely selfless. But the woman broke Cliff's cover. Was it a black soldier, an asian etc? It seriously would NOT MATTER to Cliff. The guy is not perfect, trust me... we've become friends. He has his faults but being a racist is not one of them. Guess again cgod. You'd be lucky to have the convictions Cliff does. He may not hold your political sway, but he's a damned good guy. You're way out of line.
Also, you can click on "cliffelam" and then on to "comments" and get his comment history. I would be interested to know the comments that make him a racist. Truly. Bring it.
Well shit, your right about one thing. Cliff isn't' the voters rights racist. Was totally some Hootsbox comments I had thought were cliffs. Sincerely my bad and I apologies. When combined with some comments he has posted about Obama and Holder that I think are on the verge of totally irrational and those two guys being the most prominent black members of this administration I sensed some good old fashioned Republican I'm not racist just my polices and positions happen to be racist traditionalism. Really, I'm eating a huge turd at the moment, there is no way to fully show the amount of crow pie I'm realize I'm eating. And now on to the racism. Protesting the abridgment of the chair hanging racist speech as a first amendment violation when the only thing he is facing is other citizens exercising their own constitutionally derived right to free speech is something that a you would generally expect a piece of shit racist to do. The idea that speech by a racist deserves the protection of the constitution, but that the speech of people protesting the racist speech should deserve less protection is a pretty racist position to hold. Now maybe Cliff has an idea that speech that protest other speech should be abridged because it has a suppresive effect on a persons ability to freely express themselves (better speak first or you are violation someones rights by voicing your opinion), in which case Cliff isn't a racist, he is just confused about the fact that all speech is equal as long as it's not speech that is specifically against the law (which none of this speech was). This seems like a pretty confusing position to hold. Cliff seems like he is at least reasonably smart guy who is concerned with things like law and constitutional rights. It is surprising to see a reasonably smart guy hold a position like this if he doesn't hold some other irrational position that conflicts with what would otherwise seem like his values, such as being a racist. Maybe I have gone too far, and have ruined any chance of working out why Cliff thinks we need to shelter the racist chair hanger from the speech of his fellow citizens. It really would be worth it, to find out why he has taken the position that peoples speech should be curtailed to preserve the ease of the chair hanging racist.
Serious question to all in this thread: Let's pretend it's 2007 and some dipship put's a giant "W" in his tree hung from a rope in anticipation of the election. Everyone knows that the "W" represents Bush. Is this something that would garner this much attention? Would that fall under a freedom of speech/expression?
Racial degradation is protected speech. Sending putting a menorah is urine, or soap if you prefer, is protected speech. It is ALL protected speech. Notice I'm not saying I like it, I'm just saying it is protected. Just like while I think the Branch Davidians were nutjobs, it's pretty clear that the Clinton Justice department severely violated their Fourth amendment rights. Just like while I don't like drug dealers I think no-knock raids are a violation of their fourth amendment rights. -XC
Sure. If there is no clear or credible threat it would be legal. Dispicable... but legal.
I think it would be tasteless, a la the Sarah Palin target crosshair thing last election cycle, but it wouldn't be as overtly offensive since it doesn't carry the weight of a century of Jim Crow history, where black people who got out of line were hung from trees. While I don't view this as any kind of actual threat of violence, I don't see the difference between this and straight up calling Obama a nigger. There is no way to interpret this other than racial degradation. That said, if this guy is proud that he's a racist, then at least he's being honest about it. He just shouldn't be surprised that so many people are offended. Like I said above, there's free expression but that doesn't mean that there aren't consequences for expressing yourself.
Couldn't this be construed as threatening to assassinate the president?
It's very close IMHO. The chair obviously represents Obama, referencing the Clint Eastwood monologue, and hanging it from a tree represents lynching. If you put a sign in your yard that read "Lynch Obama", I think you might run into some trouble. I would be surprised if the homeowner didn't get the attention of the Secret Service.
I think (and I emphasize "think") that there is a legal difference between saying I will lynch Obama and having subjective "art" that suggests as much. If you had a painting of a crown with a bullet going through it, would it mean you literally wanted to assassinate the queen? I would also submit that my example is far more literal than what is in question here.
Um, other people calling it hate speech doesn't infringe on his first amendment rights. Not remotely. Not in any way, in any universe. And you know this. You can be quite the 'Constitutional Scholar' when you want to be. Burying your head in the sand on this point only to defend bigoted speech seems a little odd to me to say the least. I'll let you sort that out though...
Um, when the usual grievance suspects start bleating about "hate speech" and "fighting words" you know the next thing they'll do is organize social (which is fine) and political (which is not) pressure to stop the speech. They'll pass ordinances - we have one in Cary, NC which prohibits political signs greater than a certain size. I'm not a slippery slope guy, but this movie has already been screened. -XC PS - I think about 99% of what comes out of the mouth of the "civil right establishment" is bigoted and don't care. So I really don't care what some guy who thinks it's a good idea to hang a chair on his front lawn does. I probably wouldn't care if he burned a stuffed bunny. (Manga joke) PPS - Don't be the second guy to call me a bigot today, please. I promise you I've hired more people of color, and more importantly more people of low status, than almost anyone you'll ever meet. Because I just don't care.
The chair is a metaphor for Obama. In the south, they used to hang black people 'who didn't know their place' from trees to keep other black people in their place (subservient to whites). Hanging the chair from a tree is nothing but a metaphor for hanging Obama from a tree because he is a black man who has moved beyond his station and needs to be put back in line. It is a vile and hateful metaphor which uses imagery from some of the darkest most shameful times in our republic. Opposing this speech is something that I would think any decent not racist person would do. Suggesting that opposing this kind of speech is infringement is something a racist would do. I have read nothing about any legal penalty that this man has faced for his hateful speech. If he faced a legal penalty I would hope that any american concerned with the our constitutional right to free speech would take the position that such legal action was contrary to his rights and petition the government to back down. You care enough about the guy to say "Calling it "hate speech" is infringing on the first and setting the guy up for expensive harassment." At no point have you suggested that you think the guys metaphor is offensive and hateful. You have however said that speech leveled in opposition to his speech is infringing on his constitutional rights. I only see you defending bigotry and opposing voices that oppose bigotry. Hiring black people to work for you isn't charity, it's just a financial transaction, it doesn't prove one way or the other whether you are a bigot. My grandpa and father did a lot of bushiness with black people, had em over the house, went to the bar with them and both of them were still racist. Your position that opposing hateful speech is infringement upon the speaker sounds like an extra legal defense of bigotry to me.
Why is it the first thing a liberal does to a conservative is accuse him of racism? Unless the conversation is about women in which case we're sexist. Or poor people in which case we're heartless. The best thing about hubski is.... when the "troll-be-gone" button works. WTF, I just realized this was someone I wanted to ignore. -XC
I think Cliff is a racist because he supports the abridgment of peoples first amendment right to oppose hate speech. He never even acknowledged that the speech he wanted to stop was merely speech in opposition to racist hate speech nor that that the racist hate speech was racist. He pretends to be a great lover and defender of the constitution while at the same time muzzling free expression. I don't know what other conclusion to draw from what he has said. Neither his own defense of his racist position and that of newgreens defense of Cliffs not being racist were arguments that were structured toward the matter at hand. Holding racist positions and positions that support the suppression of Americans rights to free speech aren't disproved by being nice to a black person. I embarrassed myself, and apologized and then more clearly stated my arguments on why Cliffs position was a racist position that wasn't consistent with his stated values. In turn he said that I was calling him racist because he is a conservative, called me a troll and ignored me. I understand that it's often more comfortable to ignore criticism when you find that you can't justify your own position and try to put the burden of that discomfort on the other person but I think that type of behavior is also cowardly and intellectually dishonest.
Whatever you say man. I just think it's a little odd that you trumpet the Constitution so much, then turn around and call free speech that is critical of a bigot infringement. I have to confess that your convoluted logic stating that your fear of the government restricting his speech IN THE FUTURE through a new law passed in reaction due to the support of angry protestors means that the speech of his detractors magically qualifies as infringing under the first Amendment in the present....I dunno. Not making sense to me. At all. And I didn't call you a bigot, -it struck me as quite strange I confess. You seem to be taking on position that you fear the government would adopt in response, -labeling perfectly legal and Constitutionally protected speech as something that is not protected and runs afoul of the Constitution.
It's legal to say we should ship all the blacks back to Africa, an action which if taken would totally be contrary to all kinds of rights. It's legal to say the chair hanging racist should face the death penalty for what he is has done, what would be unconstitutional is to execute him for it. I don't think you understand the first amendment or you have a dog in this fight that doesn't care about the constitution.