lawrocket 3 #26 October 23, 2007 QuoteIs a burning cross "speech"? Has the SCOTUS ruled on that? Not specifically. In Virginia v. Black the Supreme Court struck a statute banning cross-burning because it put the burden on the defendant to prove the intent was not to intimidate as opposed to the prosecution having to prove intent. Dicta suggests that cross-burning COULD be banned. But my personal opinion is that banning cross-burning, like banning nooses, is a content-based restriction. Throughout many places in Europe, Nazi symbols are banned. Civil libertarians find that to be abhorrent. WHy don't we start banning nooses, cross-burning, cross-hanging (Christians can be oh so nasty), Stars of David (they offend Nazis), chains, whips, and dildos. Are there other ways of syaing it? Yep. Are less less offensive ways of putting forth an idea? Of course. So shoudl be ban them? I dont' think so. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #27 October 23, 2007 QuoteAnyone know how many times nooses (left on display) have been used as a form of intimidation in the last 60 years or so? I know of at least one...only takes one to set legal precedence. GEORGIA POWER: Admits Disparities in Promotion but Denies Race Bias -------------------------------------------------------------------Georgia Power Co., responding to a racial discrimination lawsuit brought by seven employees, denied that "any unlawful discrimination or harassment'' occurred at the utility company. In its response, the company acknowledges a number of apparent disparities in promotion and compensation between white and black employees. In addition, Georgia Power acknowledged that in 1998 African-Americans accounted for 19.2 percent of its work force but only 22 of its top 408 employees, or 5.3 percent. But the company's actions "were not malicious, egregious, in bad faith or in willful or reckless indifference or disregard of any legal rights of any plaintiffs,'' the company contends. The company added that "even if any unlawful discrimination or harassment occurred (which the defendants deny), such conduct was prohibited by defendants' policies and was not committed, countenanced, ratified or approved by higher management.'' The company's formal response to the July 27 lawsuit is in a 67-page brief filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of Georgia Power and parent Southern Co., both defendants in the civil case. The lawsuit alleges that the company "maintains a pattern and practice of discriminating against African-American employees'' in employment. A " reckless indifference'' to a racially hostile workplace environment, including tolerance of the display of a hangman's noose at a company facility, is also alleged. The suit seeks class-action status to represent all 2,100 employees of Georgia Power and Southern. In its response, the company again acknowledges that a "rope tied in a noose" was present at its operating headquarters in Cornelia between 1997 and 1999. But it denies claims that management allowed "one of the most chilling representations of racial harassment'' to be displayed. The company "exercised reasonable care'' to prevent the type of misconduct alleged and "promptly investigated and took prompt action to investigate reports of alleged harassment, discrimination or retaliation," the filing says. While steadfastly denying unlawful discrimination, the company acknowledges a number of facts in the original lawsuit. For example, two African-American employees were the lowest-paid data processing operators in a particular department, it acknowledges. One employee who sued was paid less than white- co-workers in comparable posts. Another advanced much more slowly than a white co-worker with less experience at the company. Steven Rosenwasser, an attorney for the employees, said the admissions validate his clients' claims. "They (Georgia Power) admit the facts that prove discrimination but refuse to admit discrimination,'' he said. The next step in the case is for U.S. District Judge Orinda Evans to issue an order that lays out a schedule for gathering and hearing evidence, including access to company records for lawyers representing the seven plaintiffs. The process could take years. (The Atlanta Journal and Constitution) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #28 October 23, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteHow irrelevant. Only in your opinion. Of course, you explaining it's relevance is out of the question, eh? I'm quite sure you can figure out the relevance. I suspect you already did.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #29 October 23, 2007 Back when lynching was widespread, burning crosses were actively used to intimidate blacks. The message was typically one of two things - "get out of town" or "know your place". Quote I don't recall nooses being used (with any frequency) for the same purposes. They were only used for those who didn't get out of town or learn their place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #30 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I notice you didn't respond to: Anyone know how many times nooses (left on display) have been used as a form of intimidation in the last 60 years or so? Why don't YOU tell us. I'm guessing anyone would be hard pressed to find any statistics on this. Outside of recent incidents, I doubt there are many cases of nooses being left out, as a form of intimidation. Well, we didn't have iPhones or DVD players 60 years ago, either. Someone is always coming up with new ways of doing things. Or space shuttles or supersonic aircraft. Or any number of things. Christ , Kallend, can't you stay on topic for once? That remark is about as far into left field as I've seen you get. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #31 October 24, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote How irrelevant. Only in your opinion. Of course, you explaining it's relevance is out of the question, eh? I'm quite sure you can figure out the relevance. I suspect you already did. You mean that iPhones or DVD players are symbols of hate speech, used to intimidate minorities? Yeah - that's brilliant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #32 October 24, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote How irrelevant. Only in your opinion. Of course, you explaining it's relevance is out of the question, eh? I'm quite sure you can figure out the relevance. I suspect you already did. You mean that iPhones or DVD players are symbols of hate speech, used to intimidate minorities? Yeah - that's brilliant. You know perfectly well what I meant, you are not stupid. Do you REALLY want me to spell it out for you?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #33 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I notice you didn't respond to: Anyone know how many times nooses (left on display) have been used as a form of intimidation in the last 60 years or so? Why don't YOU tell us. I'm guessing anyone would be hard pressed to find any statistics on this. Outside of recent incidents, I doubt there are many cases of nooses being left out, as a form of intimidation. Well, we didn't have iPhones or DVD players 60 years ago, either. Someone is always coming up with new ways of doing things. Or space shuttles or supersonic aircraft. Or any number of things. Christ , Kallend, can't you stay on topic for once? That remark is about as far into left field as I've seen you get. OK, re-read what I wrote. I have highlighted bits to make it easier for those who have difficulty making connections.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #34 October 24, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote How irrelevant. Only in your opinion. Of course, you explaining it's relevance is out of the question, eh? I'm quite sure you can figure out the relevance. I suspect you already did. You mean that iPhones or DVD players are symbols of hate speech, used to intimidate minorities? Yeah - that's brilliant. You know perfectly well what I meant, you are not stupid. Do you REALLY want me to spell it out for you? Yes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #35 October 24, 2007 This coming from one who reads all other posts exactly as written...no more, no less. Now you complain and want people to understand what you mean from a vague reference. Talk about hypocrisy! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #36 October 24, 2007 QuoteDo you REALLY want me to spell it out for you? Again. Yes. How about it Kallend??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #37 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteDo you REALLY want me to spell it out for you? Again. Yes. How about it Kallend??? Intelligence is all about the ability to make connections, draw parallels, etc. but if you insist: ------------------------------------------------------- Anyone know how many times nooses (left on display) have been used as a form of intimidation in the last 60 years or so? interpretation - is a noose a tool of intimidation? Look to the past for a precedent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why don't YOU tell us. Interpretation - do your OWN homework. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm guessing anyone would be hard pressed to find any statistics on this. Outside of recent incidents, I doubt there are many cases of nooses being left out, as a form of intimidation. Interpretation - it hasn't happened much before -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, we didn't have iPhones or DVD players 60 years ago, either. interpretation - what was, 60 years ago, isn't necessarily what is, now. People are always coming up with new ideas. Someone is always coming up with new ways of doing things. Interpretation: just because nooses may not traditionally been used as tools of intimidation does not mean they are not now being used as tools of intimidation. Smart people, even evil ones, are quite creative. Satisfied?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #38 October 24, 2007 QuoteI'm guessing anyone would be hard pressed to find any statistics on this. Outside of recent incidents, I doubt there are many cases of nooses being left out, as a form of intimidation. Interpretation - it hasn't happened much before --------------------------------------------------- Well, we didn't have iPhones or DVD players 60 years ago, either. interpretation - what was, 60 years ago, isn't necessarily what is, now. People are always coming up with new ideas. Someone is always coming up with new ways of doing things. Interpretation: just because nooses may not traditionally been used as tools of intimidation does not mean they are not now being used as tools of intimidation. Smart people, even evil ones, are quite creative. Satisfied? Yeah. That's what I thought you meant. Why is it now being given so much power? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #39 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteI'm guessing anyone would be hard pressed to find any statistics on this. Outside of recent incidents, I doubt there are many cases of nooses being left out, as a form of intimidation. Interpretation - it hasn't happened much before --------------------------------------------------- Well, we didn't have iPhones or DVD players 60 years ago, either. interpretation - what was, 60 years ago, isn't necessarily what is, now. People are always coming up with new ideas. Someone is always coming up with new ways of doing things. Interpretation: just because nooses may not traditionally been used as tools of intimidation does not mean they are not now being used as tools of intimidation. Smart people, even evil ones, are quite creative. Satisfied? Yeah. That's what I thought you meant. As I wrote previously: "You know perfectly well what I meant, you are not stupid." Quote Why is it now being given so much power? I'm not the right person to answer that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #40 October 24, 2007 Quote Quote Why is it now being given so much power? I'm not the right person to answer that. Oh. Like that's a prerequisite for you offering an opinion? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #41 October 24, 2007 What's the harm? ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 October 24, 2007 wow - this thread got derailed into boredom. Not sure who wins in such a stalemate. too bad, it's a interesting topic for free speech. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #43 October 24, 2007 Quotewow - this thread got derailed into boredom. Not sure who wins in such a stalemate. too bad, it's a interesting topic for free speech. nonsense, it's just a rehash of: various idiotic t-shirts at schools, idiot protestors at funeral, idiots burning flags (that they own, not that others own), idiotic fake 'art', etc etc any anonymous, impotent, cowardly gesture that we have to protect under free speech - for the sake of good and real speech that has actual value and meaning It's an important topic, but no more interesting than any other gambit of the same thing. We have to protect the stupid with the good, else it will eventually all be taken away ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #44 October 25, 2007 QuoteWe have to protect the stupid with the good, else it will eventually all be taken away Put another way, it's the reason we don't eat our young. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #45 October 25, 2007 But what about Halloween ? We used to go to these great 4th of July parties hosted by two brothers who were Brits. They'd always fly the Union Jack and have a noose dangling from a tree limb, but it was always one hell of a party. As long as the noose doesn't go around anybody's neck, I think they're fun. As a 7 year old kid, I labored long and hard figuring out how to tie one, and when I finally figured it out I was so proud of myself. Fuckin'a assholes just want to make everything illegal, we can't do shit anymore without permisiions from ze authorities. Sieg fuckin' heil. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #46 October 25, 2007 How can careful and sophisticated Noose Displayers be caught? Rope sales should be restricted and rope registration should be required. All legal rope must be traceable to the original purchaser through the use of Microtaggants incorporated into the fiber matrix of the rope. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #47 October 25, 2007 QuoteHow can careful and sophisticated Noose Displayers be caught? Rope sales should be restricted and rope registration should be required. All legal rope must be traceable to the original purchaser through the use of Microtaggants incorporated into the fiber matrix of the rope. And shady characters will entice you into dark alley to offer you DVDs like "Hang 'Em High", or "Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge", because you won't be able to rent them at video stores anymore. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
