The article.

The reason I want to bring this up is because I'm hearing that people all over the area are calling in the L.A. police department saying that they should arrest or stop the people who put up those Halloween props. I personally think it would be unconstitutional for the police to interfere. It's still freedom of speech, despite how crude their political statement is.

What are your thoughts? Do you think that this prank is abusing the 1st amendment? Or, do you think people are overreacting?

EDIT: Changed title of thread since this is going on more often than just with Sarah Palin.

Freedom of speach and expression.

Quote:

Do you think that this <insert anything here> is abusing the 1st amendment?

This statement is automatically false.

my thoughts: besides it looking like complete crap, tasteless & I needed to be TOLD what it was to actually know what it was, who cares. They're attention whores. No better them forum trolls. Really, they did a horrible job, slapped something together to get on the news, that's it.

BUT DON'T TRY TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT A MINORITY! Minority = non white males over the age of 30 but under 85. If I put up halloween decorations with two gay guys getting killed & burned alive I'd be sued. Where the oboma one: oh that's right, he's black, so if you hang a black manikin you're part of the KKK & are evil & should be killed.

The Happy Friar wrote:

If I put up halloween decorations with two gay guys getting killed & burned alive I'd be sued. Where the oboma one: oh that's right, he's black, so if you hang a black manikin you're part of the KKK & are evil & should be killed.

Speaking of which, I originally heard this story on the radio today. Someone called in to the show and claimed he would do the same with Obama and Biden just to make a point about freedom of speech...he said he really meant it.

Does he really have the balls to face the punishment of the double-standard? I doubt it.

iceheart wrote:

Quote:

Do you think that this <insert anything here> is abusing the 1st amendment?

This statement is automatically false.

That question was rhetorical. I completely agree with iceheart, unless the statement or speech involves threatening someone's life.

These are direct visual threats against the lives of US Presidential candidates and the makers should be charged accordingly. Otherwise, there is no case against these two http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5106 ... tion-plot/

Its silly, immature and in bad taste which is precisely why it should not be taken down.

The Happy Friar wrote:

BUT DON'T TRY TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT A MINORITY! Minority = non white males over the age of 30 but under 85. If I put up halloween decorations with two gay guys getting killed & burned alive I'd be sued. Where the oboma one: oh that's right, he's black, so if you hang a black manikin you're part of the KKK & are evil & should be killed.

Yeah, but the difference here is that there is no real threat or memory in the last 100 years of a woman being lynched and/or burned alive.

On the other hand, you only have to go back 60 or so years and you'll find that the real thing was happening to non-white males, regardless of age on a startling regular basis.

Similarly, if you put up Halloween decorations of two gay men and burn them, then you'll be reenacting a hate-crime that happened as recently as 2002.

In other words, there isn't any recent memory or fear that you're tapping into by burning a Sarah Palin doll. Sure, it's in poor taste and shouldn't be done, but there are some historical differences to be mindful of when saying there's some sort of double standard.

The claim you're making here is yet another sign of racism and heterosexism in our society because it shows the lack of awareness by you of the fairly recent history and how a display like the ones you suggest might go beyond just poor taste and horrible judgment.

Should the guy who did the Palin burning be arrested? I think he should be stopped in the sense that his act "could" result in the incitement of violence, thus passing the test that goes beyond freedom of speech. As to whether or not it's an outright crime against the law... I don't think it would be.

When you give a verbal threat like "I'm going to kill you" there's very little room for interpretation. And while a doll hung by a noose is historically symbolic, the intentions of the person who hung it cannot be ascertained.

I'd go out on a limb here and say that if this doll didn't have any clothes on it, people would assume Obama was the intended target dispite the fact that the doll is white. Why? Because the noose itself is symbolic and people are quick to assume the worst of people.

A old tire swing devoid of a tire is enough to offend people. People in the United States are inherently sensitive to issues of race and look for evidence of racism everywhere including places where it's not to be found.

The Happy Friar wrote:

Where the oboma one: oh that's right, he's black, so if you hang a black manikin you're part of the KKK & are evil & should be killed.

like this?

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31 ... ma-effigy/

pbmax wrote:

The Happy Friar wrote:

Where the oboma one: oh that's right, he's black, so if you hang a black manikin you're part of the KKK & are evil & should be killed.

like this?

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31 ... ma-effigy/

Yep, like that. Someone here was bound to find it eventually. I should probably rename the thread title since this is obviously beyond just Sarah Palin.