Freedom of expression - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CityOfAngels · 01-18-2005, 09:48 AM

This is in regards to the following article: http://www.local10.com/news/4090500/detail.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Local10

HIALEAH, Fla. -- The people who live in a Hialeah neighborhood say they are outraged by displays of hatred on a house there.

The home has six swastikas splashed across a fence and another one etched into the door. But it is a message apparently directed at President George W. Bush that has caught the attention of the Secret Service.

Yanis Leidy, who lives near the home that is located on the corner of East 52nd Street and 9th Court, is worried.

"It concerns me," Leidy said. "It worries me that this person might do something else."

Hialeah police records show code enforcement and animal control officers visited this home last September, following complaints. Police say they were looking for owner Billie Morgan.

Monday, despite three visits Local 10 made to the house and leaving telephone messages, neither Morgan nor his wife would give us a comment.

But the Anti-Defamation League did make a comment and they expressed alarm.

Art Teitelbaum, with the Anti-Defamation League, said, "People in almost any neighborhood will recognize that the swastika represents everything that America stands against: bigotry, hatred, war, and destruction -- and the Holocaust itself"

The fence has other prominent signs and warnings, but most disturbing may be a spray-painted message the U.S. Secret Service will investigate as a possible threat against the president.

While displaying swastikas is not illegal, the message could be another matter.

Prominently painted on an awning are the words, "Die Bush."

Teitelbaum said, "… the message is to disturb and to shock people and to express a message, that in this case, appears to be against the president."

There's been much more scrutiny of public signs like that one by the department of homeland security 9-11. Local 10 has learned the Secret Service is sending an agent by the Hialeah house to check out that message to the president.

The Anti-Defamation League says it will also launch a probe if the agency gets complaints from the public.

Tuesday morning, while Local 10 was at the home still trying to get a comment from the owner, a man who claimed to be a friend of Morgan arrived at the house. The man spray-painted over all of the swastikas and the anti-Bush message.

It is unclear at this time if the man was asked to spray paint over the symbols or if he did it on his own.

Now, the part in this article that quirks me the most is the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Above article

While displaying swastikas is not illegal, the message could be another matter.

Prominently painted on an awning are the words, "Die Bush."

Teitelbaum said, "… the message is to disturb and to shock people and to express a message, that in this case, appears to be against the president."

Since when has expressing anything been illegal? This is why there are so many Bush-haters, including myself: He wipes his ass with the Constitution. Although I would agree that the whole "Die Bush" graffitti is both an immature and ineffective way to convey your message, it is still only a message. On top of it all, all it says is "Die Bush." It doesn't say, "People, take up arms and attack Bush," and it doesn't say, "I am going to kill Bush." It simply says, "Die Bush."

Lest we forget...

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

All opinions aside, this is a simple publication that should have the same protection that any other publication would have. I would understand any other law or code that would make the publication illegal (such as a residential code that prohibits grafitti), which should warrant the message being painted over, but as for the actual message being illegal...well...let's just say that is a scary thought.

Charlatan · 01-18-2005, 10:00 AM

There is a law that forbids making death threats to the President. The Secret Service takes this very seriously.

CityOfAngels · 01-18-2005, 10:04 AM

But what constitutes a death threat? How is telling someone to die a death threat? An actual death threat would be, "I am going to kill you," or "Bush will die." But, "Die Bush" is just wishful thinking.

Charlatan · 01-18-2005, 10:04 AM

I suppose that is what the Secret Service will investigate...

roachboy · 01-18-2005, 10:17 AM

i guess that you could see this as the functional equivalent of yelling "fire" in amovie theater......or not.

on the surface, it seems ridiculous that this----um---ornamentation of the front of a house could be construed as a death threat. on the other hand, i suppose the secret service has reason to be jumpy about it. had i been doing it, i probably would have left off the "die bush" part for that reason.

usually, i am pretty annoyed about what i take to be censorship, particularly of political speech, particularly when that speech comes from those opposed to bushworld in all its manifestations. but this case seems right on the line.

01-18-2005, 10:28 AM

Remember that episode of "The State" (Mid-90s sketch comedy on MTV) wherein they are in a classroom setting and the teacher says something along the lines of "...and thats why it's a crime to make a threat to the president's life, even in jest" and the student says "So wait... i could be arrested just for saying 'Hey, I'm going to kill the president'" and then the secret service busts through the window and arrests him?

Willravel · 01-18-2005, 11:12 AM

"Art Teitelbaum, with the Anti-Defamation League, said, "People in almost any neighborhood will recognize that the swastika represents everything that America stands against: bigotry, hatred, war, and destruction -- and the Holocaust itself""
People in other countries recognise our flag the same way. "Bigotry, hatred, WAR, murder, destruction, etc." could just as easily be a quote by someone burning an American flag. Freedom of interpretation? I dunno. The swastikas are irrelevant, and should not have even been mentioned in the article. That bears repeating. The swastikas are irrelevant, and should not have even been mentioned in the article. While I don't agree with someone writing "Die Bush", I see nothing illegal about it. Bush will eventually die of something. Whether that is old age or these people? I'd put my money on old age. Any actions the secret service take to persecute these people will not only be unconstitutional, but ignorant and alarmist. Leave the people to themselves. If they commit a crime, arrest them. In the mein time, leave them be.

Fourtyrulz · 01-18-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

There is a law that forbids making death threats to the President.

Isn't it pretty much illegal to make death threats to anyone?

On an entertaining side note, my friend's older sister and her husband went rug shopping at Home Depot a couple weeks ago and were looking for a cheap rug to put in front of their door...it is winter afterall and who wants snow being tramped on the floors? They pick out this cheapo rug, get home, and lay it down on the floor. Then as soon as they stood up it dawned on them. The rug was a pattern of swatikas and flowers! In kind of an alternating checkerboard pattern, perfect swastika in one square, some kind of flower in another! Me and her husband were talking about some of the implications later and realized that someone at the rug factory had to come up with the design with swastikas on it, someone at the rug factory had to approve and print that design, Home Depot purchased the swastika rug for retail sale, and he ended up buying it. Some people are pretty observant huh?

The_wall · 01-18-2005, 12:09 PM

Keep in mind the nazis were not the first ones to use the swastika as a simbol, and the real meaning is much different then what we know it to be.

Paq · 01-18-2005, 12:42 PM

so wait, what if the person had neighbors named bush. It's not that uncommon of a surname. I curse my neighbors quite often as they do me. We do actually get aong well, but it's more of a jest thing. I would not be too offended to walk outside and see a HUGE banner across the street saying, "DIE PAQ" but i don't think even the local PD would investigate...

I think it's more of an intent vs the message itself. I'm sure the SS could reasonably knock on the door, see a few people who are totally incapable of committing an act of violence against the president, and either they will suggest the sign be changed or they will really do something unconstitutional...

on the one hand, i can honestly see the SS taking this as a serious threat for the simple reason that the SS takes any threat against the president as a serious issue. I would raise more hell if they came in, arrested the people, and said it was for presidential security when there is no clear and present threat.

as for the swatstika inclusion in the article...i believe that is simply to instill an ill will in the reader towards the family in question. I am often more afraid of the person dressed in normal clothing with a real will to harm than the swatstika covered loudmouth in the subway.

Willravel · 01-18-2005, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

as for the swatstika inclusion in the article...i believe that is simply to instill an ill will in the reader towards the family in question. I am often more afraid of the person dressed in normal clothing with a real will to harm than the swatstika covered loudmouth in the subway.

I couldn't agree more. The mention of the swatstika was obvious and in bad taste. Is it so difficult not to call people nazis all the time?

theusername · 01-18-2005, 01:20 PM

The law also prevents odious symbols. I would argue that the swastika classifies as an odious symbol. We can also not tolerate threats to the presidents life. I'd have no problem seeing this guy arrested.

Willravel · 01-18-2005, 01:41 PM

A middle finger is an "odious symbol". Winking can be an "odious symbol". All flags are decroate propoganda in one way or another. How often do you see the flag of the Confederate army (commonly known as the Confederate flag, though it did not represent civilians of the Confederation of States)? That flag represents the right to own slaves. The swatstika originally was a hieroglyph that represented the sun. Neo-Nazi is a political party.

The point? Unless they actually, clearly brake a law, they should be left alone.

Mephisto2 · 01-18-2005, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The swastikas are irrelevant, and should not have even been mentioned in the article. That bears repeating. The swastikas are irrelevant, and should not have even been mentioned in the article.

I disagree.

They set the context.

Picture this.

One neat front lawn, white picket fence, flower beds, maybe even a US flag in the window or flying in the yard, but a large sign with "Die Bush".

Across the road, you have another house with "six swastikas splashed across a fence and another one etched into the door." And a large sign with "Die Bush".

Which do you think is more likely to be a "person of interest" for the Secret Service?

The reference to the swastikas was entirely relevant. As I said, it set the context of the location where the "threat" or "statement" was placed and it goes some way to communicating the state of mind of the individual.

On a (kind of) related note, there was a story in Australia last week. Some guy who had swastikas plastered all over his house (in Australia?!!!) was shot dead at his front door. Whilst I lament all human death, it's rather ironic to see someone murdered for promoting symbols of death, persecution, genocide and murder.

Mr Mephisto

Paq · 01-19-2005, 12:04 AM

Mr Mephisto, i woudl certainly HOPE that the SS would take both seriously as everyone has heard stories containing the words, "He seemed so normal, how could he have stabbed that guy 17 times in the nuts..." or some such.

The username: I would have no problem with the SS (funny how it's SS of presidential security/etc, and not SS of gestapo style germany....) questioning the party in the article, but an outright arrest would be unwarranted and unconstitutional. Saying "die bush" is nothing, saying, "Die bush" before pulling a trigger on a gun is something else.. .one is quasi legal and one is outright illegal and will send you away...

jorgelito · 01-19-2005, 12:12 AM

Or, maybe, the Swasitkas are relevant because:

"Die Bush" is really "The Bush" in German and the people there are proud of their German heritage, hence the Swastikas.

Anyways, does anyone actually know what the restrictions on "free speech" are?

For example: One cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theater (if there really isn't one).

That's the only one I can think of (or at least we were taught in school)

I'm also pretty sure "threats" of bodily harm etc. are illegal: i.e.- "I will kill you!", threats to the president especially so.

What about "symbols of hate" or encitement? EX: - Burning cross, a picture of the president in a noose, "Do Wisconsin a favor and kill a Hmong" t-shirts etc...

01-18-2005, 10:00 AM	#2 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	There is a law that forbids making death threats to the President. The Secret Service takes this very seriously. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-18-2005, 10:04 AM	#4 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I suppose that is what the Secret Service will investigate... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-18-2005, 10:17 AM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i guess that you could see this as the functional equivalent of yelling "fire" in amovie theater......or not. on the surface, it seems ridiculous that this----um---ornamentation of the front of a house could be construed as a death threat. on the other hand, i suppose the secret service has reason to be jumpy about it. had i been doing it, i probably would have left off the "die bush" part for that reason. usually, i am pretty annoyed about what i take to be censorship, particularly of political speech, particularly when that speech comes from those opposed to bushworld in all its manifestations. but this case seems right on the line. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-18-2005, 12:09 PM	#9 (permalink)
The_wall Psycho Location: Rhode Island biatches!	Keep in mind the nazis were not the first ones to use the swastika as a simbol, and the real meaning is much different then what we know it to be. __________________ "We do what we like and we like what we do!"~andrew Wk Procrastinate now, don't put off to the last minute.

01-18-2005, 12:42 PM	#10 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	so wait, what if the person had neighbors named bush. It's not that uncommon of a surname. I curse my neighbors quite often as they do me. We do actually get aong well, but it's more of a jest thing. I would not be too offended to walk outside and see a HUGE banner across the street saying, "DIE PAQ" but i don't think even the local PD would investigate... I think it's more of an intent vs the message itself. I'm sure the SS could reasonably knock on the door, see a few people who are totally incapable of committing an act of violence against the president, and either they will suggest the sign be changed or they will really do something unconstitutional... on the one hand, i can honestly see the SS taking this as a serious threat for the simple reason that the SS takes any threat against the president as a serious issue. I would raise more hell if they came in, arrested the people, and said it was for presidential security when there is no clear and present threat. as for the swatstika inclusion in the article...i believe that is simply to instill an ill will in the reader towards the family in question. I am often more afraid of the person dressed in normal clothing with a real will to harm than the swatstika covered loudmouth in the subway. __________________ Live. Chris

01-18-2005, 10:28 AM	#6 (permalink)
thinktank Guest	Remember that episode of "The State" (Mid-90s sketch comedy on MTV) wherein they are in a classroom setting and the teacher says something along the lines of "...and thats why it's a crime to make a threat to the president's life, even in jest" and the student says "So wait... i could be arrested just for saying 'Hey, I'm going to kill the president'" and then the secret service busts through the window and arrests him?

01-18-2005, 11:12 AM	#7 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	"Art Teitelbaum, with the Anti-Defamation League, said, "People in almost any neighborhood will recognize that the swastika represents everything that America stands against: bigotry, hatred, war, and destruction -- and the Holocaust itself"" People in other countries recognise our flag the same way. "Bigotry, hatred, WAR, murder, destruction, etc." could just as easily be a quote by someone burning an American flag. Freedom of interpretation? I dunno. The swastikas are irrelevant, and should not have even been mentioned in the article. That bears repeating. The swastikas are irrelevant, and should not have even been mentioned in the article. While I don't agree with someone writing "Die Bush", I see nothing illegal about it. Bush will eventually die of something. Whether that is old age or these people? I'd put my money on old age. Any actions the secret service take to persecute these people will not only be unconstitutional, but ignorant and alarmist. Leave the people to themselves. If they commit a crime, arrest them. In the mein time, leave them be.

01-18-2005, 01:20 PM	#12 (permalink)
theusername Insane	The law also prevents odious symbols. I would argue that the swastika classifies as an odious symbol. We can also not tolerate threats to the presidents life. I'd have no problem seeing this guy arrested. __________________ ?

01-18-2005, 01:41 PM	#13 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	A middle finger is an "odious symbol". Winking can be an "odious symbol". All flags are decroate propoganda in one way or another. How often do you see the flag of the Confederate army (commonly known as the Confederate flag, though it did not represent civilians of the Confederation of States)? That flag represents the right to own slaves. The swatstika originally was a hieroglyph that represented the sun. Neo-Nazi is a political party. The point? Unless they actually, clearly brake a law, they should be left alone.

01-19-2005, 12:04 AM	#15 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	Mr Mephisto, i woudl certainly HOPE that the SS would take both seriously as everyone has heard stories containing the words, "He seemed so normal, how could he have stabbed that guy 17 times in the nuts..." or some such. The username: I would have no problem with the SS (funny how it's SS of presidential security/etc, and not SS of gestapo style germany....) questioning the party in the article, but an outright arrest would be unwarranted and unconstitutional. Saying "die bush" is nothing, saying, "Die bush" before pulling a trigger on a gun is something else.. .one is quasi legal and one is outright illegal and will send you away... __________________ Live. Chris

01-19-2005, 12:12 AM	#16 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Or, maybe, the Swasitkas are relevant because: "Die Bush" is really "The Bush" in German and the people there are proud of their German heritage, hence the Swastikas. Anyways, does anyone actually know what the restrictions on "free speech" are? For example: One cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theater (if there really isn't one). That's the only one I can think of (or at least we were taught in school) I'm also pretty sure "threats" of bodily harm etc. are illegal: i.e.- "I will kill you!", threats to the president especially so. What about "symbols of hate" or encitement? EX: - Burning cross, a picture of the president in a noose, "Do Wisconsin a favor and kill a Hmong" t-shirts etc...