Jena Six?

[eflynn 0]

The students would have absolutely NOTHING to gain from hanging nooses from a tree. Nothing. Read the story from the beginning, and get an accurate account of what happened before you start theorizing.

What happened to the students in the Duke case was horrible and what the woman did was awful. It also isn't the first time a woman, or any race, lied about sexual misconduct for some type of gain. Unfortunately it happens fairly frequently. I cannont recall a time where black people placed a noose in a tree to start trouble... Becasue it hasn't happened.

Repeat the following to yourself silently and anyone else who isn't aware should do the same: "Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton speak for and represent themselves and their own agendas. Rarely are their agendas and the agenda of the individual black person the same or closely aligned nor are their methods of achieving said agenda. Just because there's a black person on television, standing behind a microphone, with more black people standing behind him doesn't mean he speaks for all black people or even a large segment. In fact, they rarely do."

Say it again. One more time...

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The Kids that Hung the Nooses should be Arrested and serve some jail time for that.

No, they should not. Speech is not a crime, and it was speech, though ill-advised. ANY restraint or criminal prosecution for speech should be eliminated unless it DOES cause violence. (unfortunately, this seems to me to be a but/for cause of this, but not the PROXIMATE cause of the ultimate event)

Quote

But nothing to me justifies Six Kids Beating one other Kid.

No. Beatings should result in jail.

Quote

The fact that Kid they beat was not even involved in the Noose thing really make it worse.

Which is what seems to make it a hate crime. It wasn't retaliation against the guys who did it. It was apparently taken as retaliation against a white guy.

I personally DESPISE the whole idea of a "hate crime." But if the legislation is there, it should be enforced.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Hung the Nooses ......it was speech,

I hate that passive crap like this, and artwork, and t-shirts, etc are considered "Speech".

This kind of speech is cowardly and allows scared little idiots to propogate the stupidest things.

What about standing up in public, and directly stating your views and positions - while looking at your audience in the eyes?

(for the strawmen constructin crews out there - this is an opinion. In no way am I advocating the OUTLAWing on "indirect" speech, in fact, I'll defend the cowards' ability to 'speak up' without speaking as a necessary part of free speech. I just find it reprehensible and sad that people can't just man up and be direct.)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

No, they should not. Speech is not a crime, and it was speech, though ill-advised. ANY restraint or criminal prosecution for speech should be eliminated unless it DOES cause violence.

So I should be able to Burn a Cross in my Neighbors Yard? Or on Public Property in front of thier house?

To many the burning Cross and Noose hanging from a Tree symbolize the same thing.

The Nooses were meant to strike fear into the Black students. They were placed on Public Property. School Property at that. A Place where the Black students were sure to see. Actions like that should not be tolerated at all and should come with stiff penalties.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

No, they should not. Speech is not a crime, and it was speech, though ill-advised. ANY restraint or criminal prosecution for speech should be eliminated unless it DOES cause violence.

So I should be able to Burn a Cross in my Neighbors Yard? Or on Public Property in front of thier house?

To many the burning Cross and Noose hanging from a Tree symbolize the same thing.

The Nooses were meant to strike fear into the Black students. They were placed on Public Property. School Property at that. A Place where the Black students were sure to see. Actions like that should not be tolerated at all and should come with stiff penalties.

So, you would be OK with it if the white kids actually spoke to them - "Hey nigras, get yo' black ass out'n fum undah hour tree for'in we make us some nooses and hang y'all!" Then since it is actual speech it is protected, or isn't it?

What a wild, wacky world we live in.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

Then since it is actual speech it is protected, or isn't it?

They could do it on thier own property. Even put up a sign that says "Black People stay off our Hill". ON thier property. Once they step on School Property, Speach and/or actions that are sure to cause disruption are not covered under free speach.

Once they entering to a Public Area such as a School, That is where the limitations on Free Speech begin. We cover this in the other Thread.
Cant Yell Fire in Crowded theater, Cant Disrupt a Public Assembly, Cant Burn a Cross outside a Black Church, Cant Hang a Noose in a Tree on School Property if the intent is to terrorize or Strike fear into the hearts of other students.

Free Speech has limitations.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

The Kids that Hung the Nooses should be Arrested and serve some jail time for that.

No, they should not. Speech is not a crime, and it was speech, though ill-advised. ANY restraint or criminal prosecution for speech should be eliminated unless it DOES cause violence. (unfortunately, this seems to me to be a but/for cause of this, but not the PROXIMATE cause of the ultimate event)

Terrorist threats are not protected by freedom of speech so when is something considered a terrorist threat and when is something considered speech?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Thanatos340 1]

Here is the US Supreme Courts latest take on it:

Quote

In Virginia v Black (2003), the Court divided on the question of whether a state could prohibit cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate. A majority of the Court concluded that, because cross-burning has a history as a "particularly virulent form of intimidation," Virginia could prohibit that form of expression while not prohibiting other types of intimidating expression. Thus, the majority found the cross-burning statute to fall within one of R. A. V.'s exceptions to the general rule that content-based prohibitions on speech violate the First Amendment. Nonetheless, the Court reversed the Virginia cross-burner's conviction because of a jury instruction that might produce convictions of cross-burners whose motivation was ideological--and not an attempt to arouse fear. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that cross-burning is conduct, not expression, and therefore its suppression does not raise serious First Amendment issues.

I think the Intent to Intimidate in this case was crystal clear.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

The Kids that Hung the Nooses should be Arrested and serve some jail time for that.

No, they should not. Speech is not a crime, and it was speech, though ill-advised. ANY restraint or criminal prosecution for speech should be eliminated unless it DOES cause violence. (unfortunately, this seems to me to be a but/for cause of this, but not the PROXIMATE cause of the ultimate event)

I don't know about nooses, but I'm pretty sure that burning crosses is against federal hate-crime laws, except on your own property.

[tigra 0]

Quote

.......
Wrong is wrong, nobody should be treated differently under the law.

ding ding ding ding ding......

Isn't that really what the fuss is all about? Where is the precedent for charging these kids as adults with attempted murder?

[kelpdiver 2]

The noose is in a different ballpark than the swastica, with the burning cross somewhere in between. The threat is much more upfront; it's not a stretch to see it as a threat or incite to violence. Then it is no longer a 1st amendment matter. Personally I think they were just being stupid kids rather than having true malice. I think a 2 week suspension would be appropriate, so long as the boys appeared contrite.

In any event, the disposition of those 3 kids is not relevant to the matter of punishment for 6 black kids who beat up another kid, apparently on grounds of race. That certainly should be an expulsion event, as well as an opportunity to visit the juvenile court system.

[wmw999 2,166]

Yep. "discretion" was used in the case of the white boys to have it go easier. "discretion" was used in the case of the black boys to have it go harder. If it wasn't straight-up color, it was family or friend stuff. And if your family and friends are all white, well, duh -- you end up with racial prejudice when you exert your power and discretion.

Discretion is wonderful; unfortunately, uneven application is why we have some of the bullshit zero-tolerance laws out there.

But in this case, the "discretion" was complete bullshit. As of last night the demonstration had been entirely peaceful. I really, really hope it stays that way. Because it's a really righteous reason for a demonstration.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[piper17 1]

Jason Whitlock at the Kansas City Star sheds some light on facts about the case you may not have heard that undermine the presumed racial narrative:

There are undeniable racial and economic inequities in our criminal justice system, and from afar the “Jena Six” rallies certainly looked and felt like the righteous protests of the 1960s. But the reality is Thursday’s protests are just another sign that we remain deeply locked in denial about the path we need to travel today for true American liberation, equality and power in the new millennium.

The fact that we waited to love Mychal Bell until after he’d thrown away a Division I football scholarship and nine months of his life is just as heinous as the grossly excessive attempted-murder charges that originally landed him in jail. Reed Walters, the Jena district attorney, is being accused of racism because he didn’t show Bell compassion when the teenager was brought before the court for the third time on assault charges in a two-year span.

Where was our compassion long before Bell got into this kind of trouble?

That’s the question that needed to be asked in Jena and across the country on Thursday. But it wasn’t asked because everyone has been lied to about what really transpired in the small southern town.

There was no “schoolyard fight” as a result of nooses being hung on a whites-only tree. Justin Barker, the white victim, was cold-cocked from behind, knocked unconscious and stomped by six black athletes. Barker, luckily, sustained no life-threatening injuries and was released from the hospital three hours after the attack. A black U.S. attorney, Don Washington, investigated the “Jena Six” case and concluded that the attack on Barker had absolutely nothing to do with the noose-hanging incident three months before. The nooses and two off-campus incidents were tied to Barker’s assault by people wanting to gain sympathy for the “Jena Six” in reaction to Walters’ extreme charges of attempted murder.

Much has been written about Bell’s trial, the six-person all-white jury that convicted him of aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery and the clueless public defender who called no witnesses and offered no defense. It is rarely mentioned that no black people responded to the jury summonses and that Bell’s public defender was black.

It’s almost never mentioned that Bell’s absentee father returned from Dallas and re-entered his son’s life only after Bell faced attempted-murder charges. At a bond hearing in August, Bell’s father and a parade of local ministers promised a judge that they would supervise Bell if he was released from prison. Where were the promises and supervision before any of this?

It’s rarely mentioned that Bell was already on probation for assault when he was accused of participating in Barker’s attack. And it’s never mentioned that white people in the “racist” town of Jena provided Bell support and protected his football career long before Jesse, Al, Bell’s father and all the others took a sincere interest in Mychal Bell.
Michael Van Der Galien makes the simple moral point that you are not hearing from the race card-playing reverends: Racism does not excuse violence.

Racism should, at all times, be condemned. However, the black students are (no longer) the victims in this case. They turned themselves from victims into aggressors and they should be punished for it. Was it an attempt to murder the victim? I don’t know, it’s not likely. Second degree battery? Quite more likely.

The Jena six are no martyrs for the cause of Civil Rights. They are no heroes. They’re a bunch of cowards who don’t dare take on someone that can actually fight back. Instead of fighting against six others, they singled out one white and beat him. Would Martin Luther King Jr. have supported their crime? I don’t think so. He advocated non-violence, not beating up a single individual with a group of six.

Racism should be fought against, and Jena obviously has some major problems. Excusing the outrageous behavior of criminals, however, isn’t the way to do so.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling