From: JTS - MCDLXXXVI (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Nov 30 2000 - 09:51:46 PST
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Tom Whore wrote:
> Therefor should not the focus be on the root of the problem, ie hate,
> rather than usin grains there of as politcal chits to feel either superior
> in compassion and/or conviction?
Nice point, Tom.
> Side bar (hate crimes, who the fuck makes happy crime. If some one is
> leason here is to make sure you are the right race before you beat the
> shit out of some one, or hire some one of the right race to do it for
One-up, tangent from sidebar. Freedom of speech is selective based on race?
My wretched alma mater recently had an incident where a black doll was
hung in effigy, bound and gagged, with a sign on it saying something
nasty, from a large tree in a prominent location on the main campus.
The incident was treated seriously and investigated as a hate crime with
dire predictions made by the administration. The perpetrators were
assured of their doom, with specific unavoidable consequences spelled out.
First amendment rights and protected speech do not apply on private
campuses. This continued for several days until the culprits came
forward. Two black students were responsible.
All talk of punishment vanished, and it was considered a provocative
form of protected speech and a work of art protest.
Yeah, it's asinine. Now, take it one farther. Given the justification
for limiting speech under "fighting words", or inciting to riot, (barring
the "hostile environment" harassment doctrine) ... in this case, what if
the "art" effigy had inspired some jackass to effect the first lynching in
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 10:08:52 PST