Tumor: Distress and mental anguish as a reason to put someone in jail. Thats rich.
So your saying that if I hurt your wittle feewings I should go to jail?
Of course not. But a threat is a punisheable offence. When someone threatens a person, it is not treated as a free speech.
If someone tells you "move out of this neighbourhood, I will hurt you", do you have any recourse or does the law have to wait untill you are really hurt?
You may be inclined to take a threat more seriusly than a police officer and move out before your body becomes an evidence sufficient to prosecute.
Offense would not make you act contrary to your interests and rights that but a threat would.
There is no big difference in forcing someone to act against his/her will by violence or by a threat of it.
So this was not a troll, mietla - I am all for a free speech but there is a distinction between a freedom of expression and using vocal/writing facilities of a body in committing a crime. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is an old example.
Threat, planning a criminal act, etc. are done verbally or in writing. But they are parts of a criminal act. Granted, sometimes the distinction seems blurry - in which case I would advocate with "Free Speech" rather that "punish them".
BTW, both cross burning and the college case involved more than freedom of expression even for the 1st Amendment purists - they all included real invasions of private domain.
The cross was burned on the black man's lawn - obviously without his permission. The messages were written on the victim's doors - which, while rented from the college, are somewhat "their". Makes a difference.
When someone posts an offencive slogan on his property, like "Tumor, go away!" - fine, freedom of speech.
When a neighbour's kid throws a ball/stone through your window, that's an innocent minor property damage to be paid by parents.
When that someone wraps that offencive slogan and throws it through your, Tumor's window, it's not freedom of speech combined with minor property damage. That's a credible threat combined with invasion.
The major goal of this post though was to check how many people would care enough to check out this un-reported story by themselves. Cabby.
Those three perpetrators were black.
There was a lot of racial disturbance on campus with all whities appologising and many blacks demanding the most strict criminal punishment for the perpetrators and mandatory sencitivity reeducation for faculty and students - untill the identity of the vandals was discovered.
Of course now it's all down. Their only offence (besides scaring the victims and damaging property) seems to be trying to incite anti-white racial riots - maybe for that they should be forgiven the other two.
It does seem to make sence to replace the term "hate crime" with "white crime".
miko
