Monday, November 08, 2010

Louisiana: Man gets prison time for noose



We read:
"A Ruston man has been sentenced to 12 months in federal prison for placing a hangman's noose underneath the carport of a Honduran immigrant and Hurricane Katrina evacuee.

Robert Jackson, 37, pleaded guilty June 24 on a charge of violating the Fair Housing Act by intimidating and interfering with another's housing rights because of race. He was sentenced Friday in U.S. District Court by U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen L. Hayes.

According to court testimony, the victim and her children arrived home June 13, 2008, and found a hangman's noose suspended from a bird-feeder underneath the carport of their home. The victim and her family relocated to Ruston from New Orleans following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.

Jackson later admitted placing the noose there in order "to send a message" to African-American males who visited the home.

"A noose is an unmistakable symbol of hate in our country, and using this symbol to intimidate a family will not be tolerated," said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general of the civil rights division. "The Justice Department will vigorously prosecute those who resort to violent acts motivated by hate."

Source

Hanging a noose is a "violent act"?? It isn't. It would only be a violent act if it was around someone's neck. It certainly can be seen as a form of hate speech but hate speech is protected free speech.

Attorney Perez got carried away with himself. The fact that he used such an fanciful description of the act suggests to me that he knew had a weak case in law from the beginning.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

his punishment is unconstitutional

Anonymous said...

"Hanging a noose is a "violent act"?? It isn't. It would only be a violent act if it was around someone's neck. It certainly can be seen as a form of hate speech but hate speech is protected free speech."

The drawing of a cartoon of the prophet Muhammed is "protected" under the constitution as well, but..............Well, you know it hurts the Muslim's feelings and then throw a violent temper tantrum. So the Liberals have sucessfully, it seems, squashed that right.

Anonymous said...

"The fact that he used such an fanciful description of the act suggests to me that he knew had a weak case in law from the beginning."

You go with what works. Tough luck for Mr. Noose.

Anonymous said...

"A noose is an unmistakable symbol of hate in our country". Agreed.

But then so is a placard stating "Behead those who insult Islam".

Anonymous said...

It certainly can be seen as a form of hate speech but hate speech is protected free speech.

Virginia v. Black says otherwise.

Anonymous said...

hangmans noose is not violent speech, bad form, but not criminal.

Lucas said...

The "hate speech" nonsense in the hands of liberals is a deadly weapon. They can call "hate speech" to whatever they want, and use the law to silence the opposition.

Dman said...

Okay... gotta chime in here. I agree that the "hate speech" thing is pretty stupid in general. And Perez' use of the term was just sensationalism for the press.

But on the surface, I have to side with the court on this one. It's all about context (about which, admitedly, the Left usually doesn't care).

Wearing a noose around your own neck at a protest, could be a political statement. A noose hung on Halloween *should* be taken as decoration (even though the Left has subverted that). A noose hung on somebody else's property to "send a message" is analogous to phoning the person and saying, "We're going to kill you" or "You better watch your back." In other words, it was *intended* to be a threat of harm, which of course is a crime. So before you get all upset about restrictions of "free speech," remember threats to harm aren't protected.

Anonymous said...

Once upon a time, a person was considered to be a criminal when they committed a crime.

Then, society began to mature, and it became a crime to plan a crime, even though the crime was never actually carried out.

Then, as society continued to mature, it became a crime to talk about or suggest committing a crime, even though no crime was planned or ever carried out.

I'm sure once technology matures enough, it will become a crime to even think about committing a crime.

Oh, how I long for a less mature state of society.

-sig

Liz said...

When you hang a noose on your own property, or at a protest it is free speech. You are just an obnoxious asshole. When you hang a noose on a black person's property to scare them off, it is an implicit threat and harassment. You are a criminal. Anyone with half a brain can tell he wasn't trying to express his opinion, which is what free speech is all about. He was trying to terrorize that woman into moving. It is a totally different thing.

Anonymous said...

Presenting a person with a noose is unspoken, "I will hang you."

A threat of violence.

Anonymous said...

Please explain just how "unspoken" means legally binding? It may be "accepted" or "assumed" but it may not hold up in a court of law.

-sig

Spurwing Plover said...

So burning the flag is a protected form of free speach but showing a noose isnt what kind of two faced popycock is this?