ACLU: Noose Display: Free Speech

[flashl]

Plan to prohibit noose displays runs into static
ACLU chief says bill would curb free speech

BATON ROUGE -- Legislation making it a crime to draw or display a hangman's noose on public property or the property of someone else as an intimidation tactic has been filed for debate at the general session that begins March 31, but civil libertarians said Thursday the proposal may be a violation of freedom of speech.

Rep. Charmaine Marchand, D-New Orleans, said Thursday she has filed House Bill 36 as a way to address a spate of incidents -- including one in Jena -- in which nooses have cropped up in public places and the work force as a threat toward black people. Other noose incidents have cropped up in Jefferson, St. Tammany and Lafourche parishes and other places in the state.

...

Marchand's bill would make it unlawful for anyone "with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons to etch, paint draw or otherwise place or display a hangman's noose on the property of another, a highway or other public place." Black Americans traditionally have viewed the hangman's noose as a sign of racism and oppression in the South, reminiscent of the lynching of many black people starting in the days after the Civil War.

...

But Marjorie Esman, executive director of the state branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said although displaying a noose may send "an odious message" to black Americans, the action still is protected by the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech.

"Government cannot be in the business of keeping people's feelings from being hurt," Esman said. "Prohibiting people from expressing themselves is not the goal . . . even if that message is an abhorrent message. . . . We understand there are concerns about racism in Louisiana. However, curtailing speech is not the answer."

The TImes Picayune

[vi5]

1. Well, they have a point...

Look, putting a noose or ANYTHING on someone else's property would be trespassing and vandalism, and harrassement. So it's already illegal.

Putting it on one's own property while reprehensible and something I personally find offenseive could still be categorized as free speech whether we like it or not. What about in halloween displays on people's yards? Setting up any particular entity to declare what is done with hurtful intent or not is a dangerous thing as we've seen with bushco and company. What if a military family on someone's block is offended or intimidated by a "Stop The War" sign? Would we approve of that? Or if a republican on the block was offended or intimidated by an "Impeach Bush" sticker or sign? Or a Christian intimidated by a Darwin Fish or a Bad Religion logo?

[flashl]

2. If you think free speech is free, wear an anti-bush tshirt when GW is nearby. nt

[vi5]

3. That's my point....

I don't think that should be illegal either. Nor do I think any of the other examples I gave should be illegal. And I would support the ACLU defending people who have been arrested for that, and donated to those causes in addition to my ACLU membership fees.

But saying "They do it too!!!!!" is not exactly an astute constitutional law argument.

[flashl]

4. As its been revealed during this admin the constitution is a dead letter

When this country brings into check its disparity in its application of law, then we can address the letter of the law.

[vi5]

5. Agreed, but if we go about it this way...

..then it's never going to come back. If all we're going to do is try to play catch up in who can be more unconstitutional then not only won't we win at that game but everyone is going to lose.

No thanks. I still believe in free speech and will fight for it even when I disagree with the speech. I'll let the repugs have their facist ways and stifling of dissent. That's not a table I want to even have a place at.

But I guess we agree to disagree on this subject so...

[flashl]

6. Yes, we are in disagreement on this subject.