Anti-noose bill in New York (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Level -> Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 6:34:40 AM)

quote:

Following a rash of cases involving nooses, the state Legislature Monday moved toward making it a felony to display the symbol of lynchings in the Old South in a threatening manner.

"We won't tolerate this," said Sen. Dean G. Skelos, a Long Island Republican who sponsored the measure that passed Monday in the Senate. "There is no place for racism and intimidation in America."

The bill also covers etching, drawing or painting the symbol. He said that, as in the case of Nazi symbols and burning crosses, an intent to threaten or harass would be part of an anti-noose law.

The Democrat-led Assembly may convene Tuesday and could consider the measure then.

Skelos said the recent "rash of incidents clearly demonstrates the need for tough new penalties."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071023/ap_on_re_us/anti_noose_law



mnottertail -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 6:39:47 AM)

Are they a capital punishment state?  Gonna kinda put a crimp in that style, wot?




Alumbrado -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 8:06:23 AM)

This is just a reaction to that Pace salsa commercial, disguised as concern over civil rights.



Pernicious -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 8:19:52 AM)

How does this affect noose play?



Marc2b -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 8:51:55 AM)

That's right, give the imature little dinks the attention they crave.  "look at me, look at me mommy, I'm being naughty."



Sanity -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 8:54:05 AM)

Tough new penalties for drawing, etching or painting a noose.

Well, it's about time!!!



LadyEllen -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 8:58:18 AM)

Its the "intent to threaten or harass" bit that concerns me - for instance, I could in theory display such a symbol to deliberately threaten or harass, but when the cops come (assuming those I'm threatening/harassing havent beaten me to a pulp by then), simply deny such intent to evade prosecution?

How will intent be established such that prosecution can take place?

Yes - accompanying evidence of intent could be used (KKK get up for instance), but if a bunch of sweet old ladies does it with intent, how do we establish that they should be punished?

E



AquaticSub -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 9:05:23 AM)

So does this mean an artist can't do a painting about lynchings or any other incident of human suffering where a noose was part of it?



mnottertail -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 9:16:08 AM)

Well my bondage knots for dummies book idea just went out the window.

Goddamit!!!!!!!!



Alumbrado -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 9:16:46 AM)

quote:

So does this mean an artist can't do a painting about lynchings or any other incident of human suffering where a noose was part of it?



Sooner or later, that is where things seem to be headed.



Estring -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 9:21:11 AM)

Just more of that slippery slope... if it offends then it needs to be outlawed.



Archer -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 9:30:02 AM)

Criminalized thought. Like hate crime bills designed to give a harsher punishment if your motive was socially unacceptable.
If I kill you for $12 I get a much shorter sentance than if I kill you because you are a minority and happen to take the $12 to boot. In this case as someone already pointed out someone is going to be tasked with establishing the noose depiction's reason for being. It's dangerous ground for sure.




LadyEllen -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 9:31:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

Just more of that slippery slope... if it offends then it needs to be outlawed.


Not to pick on you particularly!

But this is why its important that "intent to threaten or harass" is part of such legislation - it would be crazy to simply ban anything which someone finds offensive; after all, I find the Christian cross offensive at that level.

Its vital that intent is established. The priest from down the road isnt displaying a cross to say to me "you fuckin' heathens deserve to be killed like in the old days", so I accept his right to wear his crucifix. If some nutjob was waving a cross at me using those words though, I'd have very right to consider it an issue - kick his ass from here to next week and see him jailed for it.

But then we get into the sticky point of establising intent - my word against another's isnt good enough. Without corroborating evidence of intent, I dont see how it can be established? And the UK system - where the victim's view is taken as being sufficient to establish intent, is a problem too - you speak one word against certain groups and its a racist incident, even though that was not the intent.

E



SirRober -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 9:56:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

Just more of that slippery slope... if it offends then it needs to be outlawed.


so would that mean that we need to outlaw each other??


This comes to one of my many rules.

IF YOU are offended by what another person has. ie a pic of a noose 

and you can look somewhere else...THEN DON'T look at it



popeye1250 -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 10:44:51 AM)

Oh shit!
That doesn't bode well for my new chain of stores, "Popeye's Nooses."
Funny, they'll ban that but on the other hand that Nutjob of a governor up there wants to give driver's liscenses to Illegal Aliens!
What's next, guns for armed robbers?
Clubs and handcuffs for rapists?
Master keys for auto theives?
They need to have a recall election on that Spitzer.

You could have a lot of fun with that.
Call the Cops and say, "Hey, I just tied a noose!"
Then, right when they get there un-tie it! lol
Then tie it again!
Call the Cops again! lol
Or, tie about a hundred nooses and ride around town throwing them out the window!
Think of all the paperwork you could create!



Celeste43 -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 10:57:39 AM)

I live in a small town in NY. A couple of years ago the village mayor decided that he would perform gay marriages and did a few dozen before the legislature shut him down. We were a little bemused by all the news vans clogging our 300 year old streets but no problem.

Until some religious leader from somewhere in the MidWest came to town, decided to hold a hate rally and picked the middle school parking lot and fields to do so in. Without a permit obviously, interfering with town recreational leagues trying to hold games. Their followers decided that threatening to kill all the townfolk for not overthrowing the mayor was insufficient. And yes, some of the placards carried said that. The synagogue was defaced and had broken windows. Parents and ums going to baseball and softball games were grabbed and threatened. Etc.

The year after he was back but not here, up at the county seat 15 miles north holding an illegal hate rally outside the high school and threatened black students, some of whom were hurt.

So we are in no mood for any more such hate rallies and we want it stopped now. I have no doubt that this bill was inspired by these episodes and others of the same sort.



philosophy -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 11:08:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

But then we get into the sticky point of establising intent - my word against another's isnt good enough. Without corroborating evidence of intent, I dont see how it can be established? And the UK system - where the victim's view is taken as being sufficient to establish intent, is a problem too - you speak one word against certain groups and its a racist incident, even though that was not the intent.


..but we already have the concept of proving intent as part of the law. Mens Rea or something like that....the guilty mind. Murder and manslaughter are differentiated by intent. Given that proving intent is such a large part of modern prosecution anyway, i'm not sure that it is that difficult....or at least any more difficult.



Kana -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 11:10:12 AM)

Its not like we need more laws clogging the books, its more like we should just enforce the ones that we already have established.



popeye1250 -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 11:10:23 AM)

Celeste, but now you'll get "Anti-Hate- Anti -Hate" rallys.



philosophy -> RE: Anti-noose bill in New York (10/23/2007 11:14:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirRober


so would that mean that we need to outlaw each other??


This comes to one of my many rules.

IF YOU are offended by what another person has. ie a pic of a noose 

and you can look somewhere else...THEN DON'T look at it


...and if you can't look away, what then? Hate crime legislation seems to me to come down to a single question. Was the Nazi holocaust any different to mere mass murder......did the fact that they singled out specific groups for such treatment make it a different crime compared to just killing x many people? If it did, then there is such a specific thing as hate crime, if not then no such thing exists.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125