Site logo

Prometheus 6

All respect and no restraint

If a terrorist threatened you to your face, would you beat the shit out of him?

in

That's what I keep thinking about the Jena Six.

I also think of this.

The First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation. Instead of prohibiting all intimidating messages, Virginia may choose to regulate this subset of intimidating messages in light of cross burning's long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence. A ban on cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate is fully consistent with this Court's holding in R. A. V. Contrary to the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling, R. A. V. did not hold that the First Amendment prohibits all forms of content-based discrimination within a proscribable area of speech. Rather, the Court specifically stated that a particular type of content discrimination does not violate the First Amendment when the basis for it consists entirely of the very reason its entire class of speech is proscribable. 505 U. S., at 388. For example, it is permissible to prohibit only that obscenity that is most patently offensive in its prurience--i.e., that which involves the most lascivious displays of sexual activity. Ibid. Similarly, Virginia's statute does not run afoul of the First Amendment insofar as it bans cross burning with intent to intimidate. Unlike the statute at issue in R. A. V., the Virginia statute does not single out for opprobrium only that speech directed toward "one of the specified disfavored topics." Id., at 391. It does not matter whether an individual burns a cross with intent to intimidate because of the victim's race, gender, or religion, or because of the victim's "political affiliation, union membership, or homosexuality." Ibid. Thus, just as a State may regulate only that obscenity which is the most obscene due to its prurient content, so too may a State choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm. Pp. 14-17.

That was Clarence Thomas. But the officials of Jena, LA don't care that they are teaching a generation that Black people have no rights a white person is bound to respect.

The neighborhood enablers say the boys made a mistake. Nooses are right up there with burning crosses and everyone knows that. That why the little terrorists hung them up.

Yes, I would.

I have no doubt in my mind that my non-violent self would try and beat these little #*#&s senseless, if they put a noose near me.

 Nooses and Black folk don't mix. Never have. Never will. We understand fully the message of the noose. Period.

 

 

This site best viewed with a jaundiced eye