October 30, 200817 yr Reminds me of the "Cheers" episide where they were upset about some sports figure and a bar patron said, "Let's hang him in effigy". Coach said, "Screw that, let's do it right here in Boston."
October 30, 200817 yr I firmly believe that both acts are protected by the Second Amendment (Of course, that and many other traditional rights may change after January 20, 2009.). Many of you see both as criminal in nature. That's fine since all have a right to their opinion. However, my concern is that many seem to feel that the hanging of Obama is more serious than the hanging of Palin. Such a position supports the creation of a privileged group. That is not constitutional. Our country is based upon the premise that all are created equal with equal protection under the law. To advocate otherwise for special treatment of a certain group, regardless of the rational used to do so, is not in the best interests of any of us- even the special group. So are you saying it's alright, even backed by the Constitution, to hang up anyone we so desire?
October 30, 200817 yr So are you saying it's alright, even backed by the Constitution, to hang up anyone we so desire? Hang a person, no. Hang a representative likeness of a person on your own property, yes.
October 30, 200817 yr Hang a person, no. Hang a representative likeness of a person on your own property, yes. This was on UK's campus. Does that change the legality? Someone told me that it did, but I haven't gotten any verification
October 30, 200817 yr I disagree. 1. I disagree with the term hate crime. 2. What crime was committed? :thumb: Really. What's the crime? Was someone injured? Was it a voodoo doll that actually injured Barack Obama?
October 30, 200817 yr So are you saying it's alright, even backed by the Constitution, to hang up anyone we so desire? In effigy, absolutely. It is freedom of expression which has been interpreted to be merely an expansion of freedom of speech (First Amendment). However, an actual lynching is not constitutional without due process of law and without consideration of other applicable laws- state and federal.
October 30, 200817 yr In effigy, absolutely. It is freedom of expression which has been interpreted to be merely an expansion of freedom of speech (First Amendment). However, an actual lynching is not constitutional without due process of law and without consideration of other applicable laws- state and federal. Oh, well in that case, I'll agree with you. I also think it's hilarious when something like this happens, everyone who has bashed said person in the past are the first to say, "oh that's terrible, those people are so stupid," when in reality, they're probably laughing their hiney off.
October 30, 200817 yr It is not a hate crime, or a crime at all, legally or otherwise. Possibly littering since it was not on private property. Might even violate a sign ordinance. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/la-me-palineffigy28-2008oct28,0,3831101.story Many on this board seem to believe that the "hanging" aspect of a character hung in effigy is necessarily an implication and reference to the old southern noose. Possible, but politicians hung in effigy is an ancient and time-honored tradition of political speech. Take, for instance, this NYTimes snippet from an article they wrote in 1854 entreating citizens not to do it: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9504E4DB153DE034BC4F51DFB566838F649FDE&oref=slogin It is also very common abroad. The overreaction, both on this board and nationwide, is a sign of the times. It is JUST as possible, and I believe, in fact, more so, that the Obama doll (just as the Palin doll in CA) was hung because he is a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE as it is because he is a black man. If you do not see that than there really is no discussing it with you. Years ago, an "artist" named Robert Mapplethorpe would host public exhibits with his "art" depicting Jesus being defecated on, a man with a fist up his rear end, a businessman being subjected to torture. They were not art in my opinion, and he said they were a comment on the state of political affairs. The "art" was divisive, causing fights, at least one riot, condemnations from across the globe. He got the reaction he was looking for. I hated it, but I will defend to my dying breath his right to have made that "art" to say whatever he felt to him that it said. And so do I defend this hanging of Obama, and Palin, in effigy. The fact that Lee Todd and Steve Beshear don't understand that it the more troublesome aspect of this episode.
October 30, 200817 yr So in your opinion, no punishment is nesessary??? Its quite hypocritical to have an outrage about the Palin effigy, then arguing that the Obama effigy is acceptable... Both are absolutely horrible and deserve no defense. These are people, not just characters on TV... Its amazing the hate people can hold just because someone has different beliefs... Both are tasteless. Neither deserve to be punished...
October 30, 200817 yr Oh, well in that case, I'll agree with you. I also think it's hilarious when something like this happens, everyone who has bashed said person in the past are the first to say, "oh that's terrible, those people are so stupid," when in reality, they're probably laughing their hiney off. As I recall, in the summer of '87, a close family member got hung along with the "Old General", in close proximity to my residence... ...where was the outrage? Hate crimes were perpetrated on those people and not a word was said about it. In fact, pretty much everyone laughed at it. I reckon us hillbillies are too stupid to get mad when hate crimes are committed against us.
October 30, 200817 yr I firmly believe that both acts are protected by the Second Amendment (Of course, that and many other traditional rights may change after January 20, 2009.). Many of you see both as criminal in nature. That's fine since all have a right to their opinion. However, my concern is that many seem to feel that the hanging of Obama is more serious than the hanging of Palin. Such a position supports the creation of a privileged group. That is not constitutional. Our country is based upon the premise that all are created equal with equal protection under the law. To advocate otherwise for special treatment of a certain group, regardless of the rational used to do so, is not in the best interests of any of us- even the special group. I will assume that you meant "protected by the First Amendment."
October 31, 200817 yr As I recall, in the summer of '87, a close family member got hung along with the "Old General", in close proximity to my residence... ...where was the outrage? Hate crimes were perpetrated on those people and not a word was said about it. In fact, pretty much everyone laughed at it. I reckon us hillbillies are too stupid to get mad when hate crimes are committed against us. I had this same conversation with my Father earlier. In essence, when a man gets hung, that means you've made it, and you should be proud of it. Just as "The Old General" got hung, so too do I hope to one day get it.
October 31, 200817 yr I had this same conversation with my Father earlier. In essence, when a man gets hung, that means you've made it, and you should be proud of it. Just as "The Old General" got hung, so too do I hope to one day get it. If I ever get hung, I hope the hangers do a satisfactory job that is acceptable to all. I guess what I'm saying is that I want to be well hung.
October 31, 200817 yr If I ever get hung, I hope the hangers do a satisfactory job that is acceptable to all. I guess what I'm saying is that I want to be well hung. :laugh:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.