WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. (AP) ― A Halloween decoration showing a mannequin dressed as vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin hanging by a noose from the roof of a West Hollywood home is drawing giggles from some passers-by and gasps of outrage from others.
The mannequin is dressed in brunet wig, glasses and a red business suit. Another mannequin dressed as John McCain emerges from a flaming chimney.
Chad Michael Morisette, who lives in the house, told CBS 2 News that drivers and bus passengers have been stopping to snap pictures of the macabre scene.
Morisette says the effigy would be out of bounds at any other time of year, but it’s within the spirit of Halloween.
He says “it should be seen as art, and as within the month of October. It’s Halloween, it’s time to be scary it’s time to be spooky.”
And to be fair, how long do you think this guys house would be standing if the “objet d’art” was Obama?
Bellecourt v. Cleveland
#58 – Special Ed
‘Tis the season to be Jolly…
apparently the head of the Tenn. GOP considers this the equivalent to the skinhead plot to kill Obama and many others
http://tinyurl.com/5w4sx8
would it be protected speech for me to call this guy a douchebag?
#59. “Any time the speech is slanderous / libelous, threatening, illegal (see National Security Laws), dangerous (encouraging others to commit a crime), … the First Amendment doesn’t apply.”
best brush up on your Constitution – libel is protected speech against public figures, so long as it is not done with actual knowledge that it is false, dangerous speech is protected unless there is a “clear and present danger” that it will be carried out,
and saying that “illegal” speech is not protected by the First Amendment is a tautology.
If the Founding Fathers could hang an effigy of King George III, this dicktard can hang an effigy of Sarah Palin.
A _direct_ threat to do her harm is another thing. Yes, he will get a visit from the Secret Service, but that is not the same thing as actually being prosecuted.
and Bellecourt v. Cleveland ony means that if you commit an act of public arson, the First Amendment will not protect you just because it happened to be an effigy:
“Appellees urge, however, that the right to free speech is hollow if it is exercised at the expense of arrest. Though we generally agree with this proposition, we find it inapplicable here because any suppression of speech was incidental to Cleveland’s important interest in preventing harm caused by
fire.”
#31
Incorrect: brenda lee – And doing a damn fine job of it too!
Correct: brenda lee – And doing a damn fine job of it, too!
#65 doug said, “and Bellecourt v. Cleveland ony means”
Yep, that’s why I posted it.
I would call it as much a hate crime as any other.
#68 deowll said, “I would call it as much a hate crime as any other.”
Except hanging an effigy isn’t a crime…
Hate crime: A crime motivated by prejudice against a social group:
Looks more like Tina Fey to me…
Obama is a horrible Marxist empty suit, but even HE should not be hung in effigy. He is an American, expressing his opinions, no matter how damaging they will be if implemented. The Liberals are more offensive than any conservative ever has been, but they will never see that. Living is Screwed up San Francisco, I am surrounded by the scum. Oh well. Time will tell. Then I will get out of this sewer of a state.
#71 – Digby
If you don’t know what Marxist is, don’t use it.
# 65 doug
“libel is protected speech against public figures, so long as it is not done with actual knowledge that it is false”
Libel is not protected speech and does not require actual knowledge that it is false. I quote from Law.com
“While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. ”
“If the Founding Fathers could hang an effigy of King George III, this dicktard can hang an effigy of Sarah Palin. ”
No because it is a different government with different laws.
“A _direct_ threat to do her harm is another thing. Yes, he will get a visit from the Secret Service, but that is not the same thing as actually being prosecuted.”
Only after they have made their determination will it be clear that he has not broken the law. No one here can claim that it is protected speech until the Secret Service has determined his intent is clear. It is protected if and only when his intent is benign.
Bellecourt v. Cleveland is irrelevant to this instance and anyone not seeing why is just plain stupid.
Cow-Paddy the Ignorant Shit Talker,
Why is Bellecourt v Cleveland relative. What makes that more important in this instance than say US v Miller? Would it have anything to do with your, ahem, opinion on homos and blacks?
You see, Ignorant Shit Talker, this is the point where you get to show us that Constitutional expertise you have.
#71, Digby,
Bye.
#65, doug,
and saying that “illegal” speech is not protected by the First Amendment is a tautology.
If you are part of the military, CIA, police, etc and go around telling everyone State secrets, yes, your butt will be hauled off to jail. Nope, no first Amendment protection there. Kiddy porn is another expressly illegal activity not covered. These activities are illegal because there is statute law against them. So how the hell does it become a tautology? BTW, tautology means redundant or excessively repeated.
My whole point is the First Amendment does NOT protect all speech as so many early posters claimed. Many types of speech are exempt, always has been and always will be.
As for the libel portion of your argument. Libel always looks at was was said. The plaintiff / prosecution has the onus of proving it was wrong, the speaker knew it was wrong, the speaker disseminated the information with disregard, and the victim was injured. Public officials have less protection that private individuals and a much greater onus of proof. Truth is a defense to libel and slander.
free speech or no…im surprised the secret service hasn’t paid these yahoos a visit. you can’t threaten harm to a candidate. or can you??
The secret service doesn’t get to decide wither or not this is protected speech, not even the supreme court, they only get to decide wither or not this guy will be punished for speaking it.
The bill of rights and constitution are about inalienable rights, just because you live in a repressive regime doesn’t mean you don’t have the rights (it just means it can unpleasant to exercise them).
Just because a mugger has a gun doesn’t mean you don’t have a right to keep your wallet, just that maybe it’s not a good idea to exercise that right right now.
We must all *individually* decide what speech is truly “protected” and what isn’t.
I think this guy is an idiot based on this particular “speech” and as much as I hate listening to idiots I *really* don’t want to trust *anyone* to decide what speech is idiocy for me.
And as for the limits to the 1st ammendment, You should be able to say *anything*, you should only be held responsible for the *results* of that speech (in this case, unless someone actually hanged her and claimed that *this* was the reason this guy shouldn’t even raise an eyebrow)
I’m no fan of McCain or Palin, but hanging a person in effigy is advocating violence. We all have the right to “free speech,” but yelling fire in a darkened theatre has its consequences, and so does advocating violence against a presidential candidate and their running mate. I would hope the secret service pays the idiot a visit.
Was the Dean black? That makes all the difference. Double standard when it comes to race. Black Congressional Caucus, ok. White Congressional Caucus, racist.
I swear I had read that Obama was well hung not Palin.
Geez I dunno!
#79–gquaglia==you can bloviate and make shit up all you want but where is your site to a legal case? In Post #51 I relate there are currently many instances of Obama being hung in effigy and no report of any police action being taken.
Evidently you anti free speech do indeed think it should be allowed only for those opinions you agree with.
Hurts like a bitch doesn’t it—-freedom.
#74 – Another fail. Very poor showing. Time to go back to slashdot.
“I would hope the secret service pays the idiot a visit.”
If it were Obama or, Biden, the idiot would already be in custody. Obama campaign workers have been great at sicking the SS on anybody they called who allegedly “back talked” them using allegedly “threatening language.”
#82 & 83,
Dumb and dumber. Only without the cuteness.
#82 “#74 – Another fail. Very poor showing. Time to go back to slashdot.”
He didn’t understand the citation, not unusual for him though.
i had links to all of these, but it keeps getting flagged as spam. the news sources are all local papers, the wall st. journal, and even fox news.
anyway, i bet most conservatives reading this would feel that black folks are over-reacting at that all the below incidents are examples of free speech.
or would they?
Miami U., Ohio
10/31/2007
Authorities say the nooses were discovered on Miami University’s campus Tuesday.
Cal State, California
11/16/2007
The discovery of several nooses at a tolerance rally has upset the normally tranquil Cal State Fullerton campus.
Columbia U., New York
10/11/2007
A day after a noose was found hanging on a black professor’s office door at Columbia University’s Teachers College…
Central Michican U., MI
11/20/2007
A student at Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant, Mich., has admitted to hanging nooses in a university classroom, campus police said Saturday.
University of Maryland, MD
10/10/2007
A noose was left hanging from a tree limb near a black cultural studies center on an American college campus.
New Orleans, LA
11/8/2007
The FBI is investigating allegations that a public works department supervisor displayed in his office two nooses, a bullwhip and a dart board with a black man as the bull’s-eye, an agent said.
Columbus, OH
10/13/2008
Columbus police have alerted the security staff of Mayor Michael B. Coleman, who is black, and asked the homeowner whether the display is meant to be a threat. He says it’s not, but some residents of this well-kept, predominantly black neighborhood say one man’s protest has gone too far.
Fairfield, OH
10/22/2008
Fairfield City and school district leaders have “condemned” the actions of a Fairfield resident who last week displayed a ghost with Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama’s name on it — hanging from a tree by a noose.
Oconto Falls, WI
10/24/2008
Marc Monfort, 18, hung three plywood mannequins outfitted as scarecrows from a tree outside the home where he lives with his mother. The figures have black faces and are hanging from the branches by their necks with rope. A Confederate flag flies in the yard.
Various
In other incidents, a New Jersey school library removed a book on Sen. Obama from an election display after it was defaced with a drawing of a noose. Campaign officials took down an Obama billboard in Michigan after someone painted Ku Klux Klan and swastika symbols on it. In August, police said vandals broke glass windows and a door to an Obama campaign office in St. Paul, Minn.
#87 grog said, “anyway, i bet most…”
Almost impossible to say of such little data. Was anyone successfully convicted in any of those examples?
While it is “symbolic” and individuals may be thinking of nothing other than “Its Halloween” I think a review of lawsuits would show that
1. Hanging in Effigy is more a STATEMENT than anything else, a la “I disagree with this person”
2. While a noose alone is more of a death threat aimed at specific persons or groups. It says “We are going to kill you if you don’t shut up or move.”
3. Now, I know this gets hard, and claims of hypocrisy, double standard, and political correctness will be howled by those completely ignorant of history, but a black figure hung in effigy WHO IS NOT A PUBLIC FIGURE, is also a specific death threat.
Additional facts can further define the situation as more or less free speech compared to more or less actionable threat.
Nothing wrong at all with “the authorities” investigating any human activity included clear free speech. Its how they investigate and what they do after they investigate that becomes relevant.
#88
such little data? paddy, are you kidding me?
wtf? my post represents hits from only the first 3 pages of google results from only two queries “nooses on campus” and “noose display”
give me an hour and i could write a freakin book just listing the incidents.
nooses are displayed nationwide to express racism and the threat of violence against americans. period.
it certainly puts the 1st amendment to its toughest test.
however, if you wanna outlaw flag burning, then you should have no problem with the various anti-noose laws on the books in various u.s. states.
#90 Whatever…
Where there any convictions?
paddy…
it’s interesting that you ask whether anyone was convicted of anything
the answer is no, either the perps are cowardly and don’t own up, or aren’t caught, or aren’t charged with anything.
i would argue that the noose and effigies and flag burning etc. are symbols that defy easy legislation and that we as a society are sort of stuck with having to define them as free speech.
so actually, once again, you and i are in agreement.
but as an aside, why are you interested in the conviction rate? you don’t equate legality with morality do you?