“If this banner was a blank banner, we wouldn’t be here,” said Gens. “If it said ‘Support Our Troops’ we probably wouldn’t be here. If it said ‘Black Lives Matter’ we wouldn’t be here, because this gives way to all sorts of selective enforcement.”
I see that “if things were different, they would be different” remains a standard for racists and their defenders.
Except in this case, it is directly relevant to the legal issue at hand. When deciding a free speach case, the first part of the analysis is if the restriction is content neutral or not.
A content neutral rule is held to the standard of intermintent scrutiny, and is frequently upheld. A content based rule is held to the standard of strict scrutiny and almost always struck drown.
If the rule against signs on the overpass were enforced uniformly, then the white supremesists would not have a legal leg to stand on. But, at least based on the article, the rule is not being enforced uniformly at all; and is only being brought up now due to the content of the speech. That puts it squarly in the realm of strict scrutiny; giving the government a very uphill battle in court.
“White supremacist banners get taken down more often than other banners” isn’t actually evidence of unequal enforcement, because white supremacist banners almost certainly get reported to the cops immediately by a lot of people, whereas other banners are largely ignored if they aren’t offensive. Especially because it’s entirely legal to put up banners if you have a permit, so people have no reason to call the cops every time they see a banner.
I love how tame those examples are. None of them are targeting groups negatively, it’s a completely different “type” of banner. Even if it said “Support white people in new england”, it wouldn’t be going to court.
Great distinction. Glad you pointed this out. This is a call to exclude and a dog whistle for violence.
“If we were over there, we wouldn’t be here.”
Proceeds to reenact Grover’s near/far sketch
I’m my grandmother had wheels she’d be a bike.
Without reading the article, I’m just going to pretend this is about fighting climate change to keep things snowy in the winter and not racist fuckheads.
So just to clarify, you are saying you support the goals of this banner because you don’t want to understand? Yes?
Don’t worry, there are many people who choose to be ignorant and support the goals of this banner. You won’t be alone. You may be disappointed with the larger climate change view of your peers though.
For fuck’s sake, I was make a tongue-in-cheek joke about not wanting to believe how shitty people can be in hopes of someone getting the tiniest little chuckle out of it.
No, that’s not what they are saying, dipshit.
It’s a joke dumbass
I’m very much a laymen, and this is purely my opinion, but this whole idea that people can say whatever they want because of freedom of speech is bullshit. I get it’s nuanced: you’re free to say what you want, but not free from the consequences. Blah blah blah. Problem is, no one can agree on the consequences. People like this can continue to spew their hurtful hate left and right, and nothing is done to them to punish them for their obvious intolerance. Meanwhile, the people that are affected by this vitriolic bullshit have to keep looking over their shoulders every damn day of their lives waiting for the inevitable escalation that will come.
When people say freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences, they mean consequences like ostracization, shunning, getting fired. That sort of thing.
I think the banner here would qualify as free speech, but I think they also were made to take it down because they didn’t have a permit or something. And the people involved should certainly be given societal consequences.
Oh, it’s totally freedom of speech. But freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to broadcast your speech on public property without exception.
If they hung the banner on their house or private property, there would be nothing to be done to stop them.
But you can’t hang a banner from the governments property without their permission, which must be given in a manner impartial to the content on the banner beyond any compelling interests like “no hanging very distracting banners where it could cause accidents”.They didn’t ask, so they can have their banner removed just as though they hung it from the flagpole in front of the courthouse.
They’re being prosecuted because a racial component to a crime is an aggravating factor that makes it more appealing to prosecutors.
So their claim is entirely correct: they’re being prosecuted because their crime was minor but made worse by being racist. We’ve already decided that it’s reasonable for the government to be particularly harsh on racist crimes because it singles out a type of behavior that’s particularly harmful to society.
Most places have freedom of speech up until it becomes hates speech or makes someone a target. Technically the US intended something similar, and it all went to fuck when one political party made it its entire stategy. Hate and disinformation are basically the only cards the conservatives have.
Whites only isnt discriminatory right so what’s the big deal /s
It pretty obviously does.
The banner is disturbing. The impulse to use the government to suppress offensive speech is also disturbing.
Hate speech needs to be suppressed.
It was hung illegally on government property. Regardless what it said, this was not allowed. They are being prosecuted instead of simply fined because it was racially motivated like a hate crime.
Would you say the same thing if the flag said “KILL THE FAGS?”
Something something paradox of tolerance. Something something hate speech.
