I think in this case it’s considered an incitement to violence, which is also generally illegal.
Europe’s having a problem with the “incitement to violence” aspect of hate crime.
See, when people make cartoons of Muhammed and the like, an appreciable segment of the population goes ballistic. And the response makes absolute perfect sense given a legal framework based on an expectation of a violent response. Followers of Islam can ensure that behavior blaspheming their religion remains illegal under that framework by exhibiting behaviors that show that the blasphemy incites violence.
I think in this case it’s considered an incitement to violence, which is also generally illegal.
Europe’s having a problem with the “incitement to violence” aspect of hate crime.
See, when people make cartoons of Muhammed and the like, an appreciable segment of the population goes ballistic. And the response makes absolute perfect sense given a legal framework based on an expectation of a violent response. Followers of Islam can ensure that behavior blaspheming their religion remains illegal under that framework by exhibiting behaviors that show that the blasphemy incites violence.
It’s definitely a double-edged sword given these two examples. Still, the common goal is to prevent riots and it seems to do that in spite of unintended consequences.
It’s definitely a double-edged sword given these two examples. Still, the common goal is to prevent riots and it seems to do that in spite of unintended consequences.
I think the question is how to determine what counts as incitement to violence. Blasphemy isn’t enough. It has to be the legal equivalent of ‘hate speech or fighting words’ which are not typically protected by the First Amendment.
There is a difference between, say, poking fun at someone’s belief system using a traditional editorial form of humor, and planting a large, flaming symbol on someone’s lawn during the night, which traditionally has meant, “You are all in danger of being lynched.” To suggest that there is no difference here is a form of sophistry.
Why is, then, the circulation of the Black Panthers’ “dead or alive” posters not considered an incitement to violence?
It could be; I think it’s legitimately a borderline case. I imagine the prosecutors might think in this fashion: historically there have been lots of meaningless “dead or alive” posters in social and political fights throughout the ages; they have the faint odor of a 1950s cowboy film. I think they are taken less seriously as a result.
It’s definitely a double-edged sword given these two examples. Still, the common goal is to prevent riots and it seems to do that in spite of unintended consequences.
I think the question is how to determine what counts as incitement to violence. Blasphemy isn’t enough. It has to be the legal equivalent of ‘hate speech or fighting words’ which are not typically protected by the First Amendment.
There is a difference between, say, poking fun at someone’s belief system using a traditional editorial form of humor, and planting a large, flaming symbol on someone’s lawn during the night, which traditionally has meant, “You are all in danger of being lynched.” To suggest that there is no difference here is a form of sophistry.
So why were these two arrested? (In Florida, no surprise) LINK
To suggest that there is no difference here is a form of sophistry.
Hopefully you’re not suggesting that somebody suggested there is no difference between the two (that would be sophistry).
The two examples have a least one thing in common: Neither gives any apparent “actual injury.” Sometimes what’s in common is just as important as what’s different.
There was a KKK cross burned in my Bay Area town in the late 70s and another 20 miles away in Contra Costa County in the 80s. I have been told, but have not verified, that there is an active KKK which meets in the library down the street from my home..
There was a KKK cross burned in my Bay Area town in the late 70s and another 20 miles away in Contra Costa County in the 80s. I have been told, but have not verified, that there is an active KKK which meets in the library down the street from my home..
It is hard to believe how incredibly naive I was as a young man in the early 70’s. I assumed having grown up in the era of Martin Luther King, Jr. and with his impact on our society, that racial conflict in America was soon to be a thing of the past.
There was a KKK cross burned in my Bay Area town in the late 70s and another 20 miles away in Contra Costa County in the 80s. I have been told, but have not verified, that there is an active KKK which meets in the library down the street from my home..
That’s one hell of an oxymoron, the KKK meeting in a library! Ignorance surrounded by learning.
When I was in high school, a kid I knew brought in some pics of artwork that featured a swatstika weaved into the drawings - he got them from online. This was in like 1997/98, so the internet was not as much of a widespread thing quite yet; a teacher saw the kid with the pics and took him to the principal; the kid told school admin that the symbol was not necessarily a Nazi thing - that many pagan indo european societies used it. He still got suspended, and the rest of us laughed and mocked the admins for their fear of losing their jobs over P.C. bullcrap. Ironically, I wore a t-shirt that said Jesus was a faggot, and I was never threatened with suspension, I was told to wear my jacket over it.
The German and Austrian postwar criminal code makes the public showing of the Hakenkreuz (the swastika) and other Nazi symbols illegal and punishable, except for scholarly reasons. It is even censored from the illustrations on boxes of model kits, and the decals that come in the box. Modellers seeking an accurate rendition often have to either stencil on the marking, or purchase separate decals. It is also censored from the reprints of 1930s railway timetables published by the Reichsbahn. The eagle remains, but appears to be holding a solid black circle between its talons. The swastikas on Hindu and Jain temples are exempt, as religious symbols cannot be banned in Germany.
So it depends on how the symbol is intended [EDIT: probably better to say it depends on the context in which the symbol occurs], which strikes me as the correct procedure. (Of course, the Nazi symbol comes from a very ancient Hindu symbol. “Swastika” is actually a Sanskrit word meaning, “well being”).
