Jamie Kirchick does a masterful job exposing the Human Rights Campaign's inane support for the Jena 6 thugs, "a group of black teenagers who beat and stomped a 17-year-old white boy [Justin Barker] into unconsciousness last December," and who have now become a cause celebre among the pc chic crowd-including our biggest, and always trendy, LGBT lobby. We can now add "Free the Jena 6!" to "George Bush, You're Fired!" among the highlights of HRC sloganeering.
A key observation:
Last week HRC president Joe Solmonese traveled all the way to Jena, La., along with thousands of other supporters and declared that "this injustice cannot stand." By "injustice," he was presumably referring to the prosecution and sentencing of the young men responsible for the beating...
Defenders of the Jena 6 have little to say about the group's mauling of Barker, which no one denies happened, even though the assault could be considered a hate crime and is reminiscent of a gay bashing....
How does HRC square its backing for hate-crimes legislation with its support of the Jena 6, who are themselves guilty of a racially motivated attack?
Of course, they don't even see a need to try.
More. Chris Crain, himself the victim of a violent gay bashing, has pictures of swollen-faced Justin Barker and blogs: "Shame on you, Joe Solmonese. Whatever moral authority you had to lead a gay rights group, much less the movement, you squandered today....Shame, shame, shame."
Ah, but Chris, Solmonese and his ilk have no shame; after all, he's a leftist, and so who are we to question his obvious moral superiority?
45 Comments for “‘Coalition-Building’ Run Amok”
posted by Roy on
The debate is much more complex than that. Although I agree that the “Jena 6” should not be freed, I think that there was inequal administration of justice. There were incidents where white teens were beating up black teens, and the white teens were given a slap on the wrist. One time, a white teen pulled out a gun on black teens, and the black teens in self defense wrestled it away from the white teen. And the black teens were charged with theft, whereas the white teen got off scot free. I don’t think the Jena Six should go free, but I think the white thugs should be tossed into jail as well. A thug is a thug is a thug, regardless of color. I think the Al Sharpton crowd is a little bit misguided – they should be seeking imprisonment for the white teens rather than freeing the Jena 6. However, not to mention the horrible actions of the white teens is quite one-sided. I hope you take into account the actions of the white teens and call for their imprisonment.
Anyway, Stephen, I think you make some great points, but please take into account the whole story. An omission is sometimes as great a crime as an act.
posted by John on
Nice Stephen. Just completely ignore all context of the injustices going on there. Yes beating the white kid was wrong, but given the string of provocations, attacks and injustices against the black kids that led up to the attack that went unaddressed in a just manner it is understandable how this tragedy came to be. But conservatives have always supported one sided justice against those who don’t know their place and keep it.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“Just completely ignore all context of the injustices going on there.”
The problem is that the more we learn about the “context”, the more the story initially told appears bogus. The so-called white tree, the impunity of white students, the biased all-white jury… all turn out to be inventions or gross distortions of the truth. In any case, no amount of injustice can justify attempted murder. And, yes, when, with five of your best friends, you beat a teenager unconscious and then keep beating him, that’s attempted murder.
Of course, I don’t blame the civil rights industry to try to spin the story to their advantage. It’s their business after all. But the HRC would have been well inspired to stay out on this one.
posted by Bobby on
When 6 whites kids beat 1 black kid, it’s a hate crime.
But when 6 black kids beat 1 white kid, it’s just assault, and Nightline will say that the hospitalized victim was “barely injured.”
Gays should not stand with the Jenna 6 anymore than they would stand with 6 gay bashers who beat one gay.
The white boy who got beat up was not responsible fo the hanging ropes, which are free speech by the way.
“the biased all-white jury.”
—Here we go again with the “whites are evil,blacks are good” leftwing ideology. Sure, like blacks weren’t biased during the OJ trial. Dude, wake up. 6 black kids beat up a white kid. If the jury is biased against anything it will be against unjustifiable violence. In the south we don’t have compassion for criminals, we don’t see them as victims of society. They did the crime, now they must pay. Unlike California, we prosecute crimes against whites to.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
bobby: “…the hanging ropes, which are free speech by the way.”
I think you might lose that argument. It can be viewed as a threat, not necessarily a protected form of speech.
posted by ClydeOnline on
I agree that HRC should not have gotten involved in Jena 6. HRC takes on too many nongay issues and causes. However, many studies support the position that blacks are punished more harshly than whites for the same crime. This is the core issue here – unequal treatment. Blacks and whites should receive the same charges and sentencing for the same crime. A secondary issue is white denial of racism. Some local whites and some observers say race or racism were not issues here. Let’s be real. We are not going to solve problems until we acknowledge they exist. Racism exists.
posted by The Gay Species on
The Human Rights Campaign is not a GLBT lobby. It is not a non-profit human rights organization. It is a registered political action committee (PAC) just like unions, corporations, AIPAC, CPAC, etc.
For a Human Rights organization that supports GLBT causes, one must join the ACLU, NGLTF, or Lambda Legal. HRC is NOT a human rights organization; it is a political action committee that supports Solmonese’s favorite Democratic candidates.
Note: HRC spent not one dime on the seven anti-gay initiatives on the 2006 ballot, but financed seven Democratic candidates that Solmonese hand picked. Just like he’s hand-picked Hilary, tried to bar Gravel and Kucinich from the Logo-HRC forum, because THEY support marriage equality, and Hilary, Edwards, and Obama do not. HRC is an extension of the DNC, not a human rights organization.
It’s own hypocrisy and double-standards should make that obvious. Closed meetings. Support for racial stigma. But NOTHING for GLBT.
posted by ETJB on
(1) If something is a hate crime depends (currently) on state law. Does the state have a crime law and how is it defined?
(2) When it comes to civil rights, conservatives are rarely right. (2a) can we agree that people who commit violent crimes should be punished?
(3) The hanging ropes are NOT FREE SPEECH. It is clear from the situation that the intent was not to say, “I dont like black people” or “i think black people are inferior” but rather, “if black people sit under the white student’s tree we kill them.”
(4) The white boy may or may not have been responsible for threaten to kill black students for sitting under a tree. That was a racial fight, brought about my the racial tension.
(5) If you want the black students to be punished, then the white students should be punished. Period. The problem here is that when the white students did something bad, it was ‘oh boys will be boys’ but when the black students did something bad it was ‘throw the book at them.’
It is not “all-white-people-bad” to point out facts. This is a highly racially segregated community where making death threats against black students was not taken seriously.
Yes, jurors — of any race — can be biased. That is why we strive for that entire ‘jury of his peers’ concept.
“In the south we don’t have compassion for criminals”
Except when they are white. This entire thing started because black students wanted to (gasp) sit under a tree that white students liked to sit under. They were threaten for doing so and the administration sent the message that its ok to threaten black students.
Does this mean that we do not punish the black students who beat up a white student? No. It means that we punish all the students accordingly to the rule of law and equal protection.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So, according to ETJB, hanging nooses from a tree should be punished exactly the same way as six students ganging up on and beating to unconsciousness another student.
And as for the jurors, I want ETJB to tell us; how many black jurors must there be before you’ll stop screaming “bias”? One? Two? Fifteen? Do you disqualify their blackness if they find a black defendant guilty?
And, as this article lays out, why were there no blacks on the jury? They didn’t show up when summoned.
I want leftist liberals like ETJB to publicly state that there is a required number of black jurors that you must have when you have a black defendant and that no jury can be seated unless you have that required number.
And if they won’t say that, they need to shut up about the jury composition. It’s based on their racist belief that all whites are anti-black and that blacks are only guilty because whites find them that way.
posted by Amicus on
*yawn*
Jamie is … angry … again. (And it’s liberals who are supposedly ‘superior’ sounding).
I might not have picked ‘Jena 6’ as the lighthouse case, anymore than the ACLU might have picked Larry Craig for an amicus brief.
All the same, those focusing just on the victims and yelling “Shame!” and *only* shame seem to be missing a broader point.
True or false: if you are gay or lesbian in America and you step out of line, you get punished worse than your non-gay peers?
We know there are plenty of non-gay pedophiles, but somehow it is just pit-of-hell-more-horrible when it is a gay pedophile.
You break the rules, written or unwritten at the office, and somehow it is just so much worse breach of trust and greater signal of ingratitude to your non-gay masters.
etcetera, etcetera, … you can write them as well as I.
btw, are there any ‘gay issues’, other than bashing the Left, that JK is ready to read the riot act about? Just want to know. Nothing personal (I’ve never even met the guy).
posted by Avee on
Amicus has a great talent for missing the point — 6 thugs bash an innocent guy senseless because of his race, and a group lobbying for hate crime laws demands that the thugs be set free. And by the way, if you don’t want to read criticism of the gay left, try one of the 99.9% of the LGBT websites that are out there; this is one for alternative viewpoints to the mainstream.
posted by MMMM on
ND30, what ETJB said was, “..we punish all the students accordingly to the rule of law and equal protection.” Then you misquoted him, saying, “punished exactly the same way as.” In this nation, I would hope we do as well as ETJB says.
In Jena, there are two acts to be prosecuted or punished. One is the beating. Those six boys should face due process and possibly jail terms. The other acts were the hangman’s nooses, which were racial provocations and death threats. The actual history of the region makes this an equivocal statement. http://withoutsanctuary.org. To those of you who want to decontextualize the hangman’s nooses and call them “free speech” under the banner of our flag – as if they had no meaning and we had no national memory – and use hate crime laws to protect nefarious white supremecists from bearing their burden of shame, I think you’ve lost your way on this issue. Also, are you against hate crime laws in principle? If so, then why would you invoke them here? There is the irony that a hate crime law would protect a white bigot, but do you consider that something to be glad about?
As for HRC, I’m glad to see that organization exposed. I’ve never given, nor will I ever now.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The other reason I said that, MMMM, was this statement.
If you want the black students to be punished, then the white students should be punished.
The white students WERE punished according to the rule of law. But that’s not good enough for ETJB.
And furthermore, as far as the “throwing the book at them” goes, you do that when the defendant, like Mychal Bell, was already on probation for two prior counts of battery and one count of criminal damage to property.
posted by John on
Gee, it’s so nice to stop by here and get edjumacated. here’s what I learned today:
– Not only is there no racism in Teh South, there never has been. It was all invented by those awful civil rights folks who are just trying to stir up trouble for this lovely little town where all the white and black kids love each other and get along perfectly. Probably to raise more money for Hillary.
– A noose, far from being a terrorist symbol of a violently murderous and repellent past, is really a symbol of free speech and is most properly tarnslated as, what?, a perch for the dove of peace and loving kindness? Yep.
– No jury anywhere ever has had a bias. Jurors are by nature perfect human beings who are fully enlightened and incapable of error. Boy that sure is good to know!
– If a person has comitted a crime somewhere in their past they are obviously guilty of all crimes they may be suspected of for the rest of time.
– Anyone who has a different opinion from this is obviously just an extreme leftist who is just out to make sure Hillary takes the White House so we can turn the whole country over to Hugo Chavez. And HRC is leading the way.
I’ll be sure and keep these points close to hand for future reference. Thanks for showing me the error of my ways!
posted by MMMM on
My typo above: equivocal statement s/b unequivocal statement.
posted by Amicus on
I want leftist liberals like ETJB to publicly state that there is a required number of black jurors that you must have when you have a black defendant and that no jury can be seated unless you have that required number.
Well, rather than do this, why not say that there ought to have been at least one.
Amicus has a great talent for missing the point.
Just to be clear, I didn’t say that there was no merit in one, particularly narrow *view*point. I just noted that certain seasoned commentators might find more than that.
In Jena, there are two acts to be prosecuted or punished.
Do you think that those who contribute to an atmosphere of homophobia are ‘innocent’ or just that they do not require ‘punishment’?
After reviewing the transcripts, the charges, and the facts of the case, as JK must have for his Advocate article in order to avoid looking like “the protesters clogging Jena?s streets and the outraged commentariat claim to know the situation better” do you also conclude, as JK does, that “the justice system appears to be working”?
posted by Alice AN on
In the spirit of never taking up causes outside of the narrow GLBT agenda, I suggest no other group ever take up the fight for GLBT issues either. Let’s leave each group to fight their own battles for equality. After all it’s not about justice, it’s about justice for “me”.
That’s outright pathetic. When Justice and Fairness triumphs, it’s universality will embrace us all.
I don’t know the details of the Jena 6, except the biased versions I have heard spouted in the media. It doesn’t really matter to me the specifics of who should be let out, who should be punished, etc. The very fact that racial tensions in a small town in America escalated to extent is a sad testament to the failure of our society as a whole to fully embrace equality and acceptance.
my 2 cents.
posted by Alice AN on
“Joe Solmonese. Whatever moral authority you had to lead a gay rights group, much less the movement…”
I don’t think anyone has or even requires moral authority to lead a movement. Do you? I think it requires only commitment, dedication and hard work.
It amazes me one can admonish those who labor for a cause without then immersing themselves in advocacy . If you feel the HRC is going down the wrong path while advocating for your rights, then please start your own equivalent group and show them how it’s done. As it is, you undermine the few organisations that move the cause forward without offering any viable alternatives.
I’d like to see all “Independents” or those disillusioned by the HRC start their own gig. I for one would give money to both groups, HRC and yours (whatever it is). The free market actually works, even you don’t accomplish much on your own the competition would do the HRC good. And don’t say LogCabin Republicans because that’s just Republicans that are gay. I am sure they advocate behind the scene but they are mostly invisible (they’d probably get kicked out of the party if they weren’t).
So what do you say? Any one up for action as oppossed to just bitching about Joe Solmonese? I can’t do much, but if you need a physician for anything, I’m a phonecall away.
posted by ETJB on
“According to ETJB, hanging nooses from a tree should be punished exactly the same way as six students ganging up on and beating to unconsciousness another student.”
No. That is not what equal protection and due process of the law mean. Making a death threat is a serious crime and should be treated as such. Beating up some one is a serious crime and should be treated as such.
The legal problem here is that certain people are not applying the law as it should be applied. The cultural problem here appears to be racism.
“Do you disqualify their blackness if they find a black defendant guilty?”
No, and the no one can ‘disqualify’ another person’s race.
I also not to recall ‘screaming’ anything. I am simply stating my opinions in a civil and honest manner.
I also do not recall stating that I am a ‘lefitst liberal’. Their are constitutional equal protection and due process claims rules in our legal system. Some of which were violated on the account of race or just plain incompetence.
posted by ETJB on
The white students were not punished according to the rule of law. That is what contributed to much of the recent violence and racial polarization in the first place.
The initial punishment that they [the students] were going to recieve, was reduced because some people decided that making death threats against certain student is just some harmless, highschool prank.
Beyond the fact that this is a place where a large number of the residence voted for David Duke when he ran for governor (or was it senate). That was as ‘far back’ as the 1990s.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The initial punishment that they [the students] were going to recieve, was reduced because some people decided that making death threats against certain student is just some harmless, highschool prank.
Oh really?
The three youths accused of hanging the nooses were not suspended for just three days ? they were isolated at an alternative school for about a month, and then given an in-school suspension for two weeks.
And as for “death threats”, don’t make me laugh. If you’re going to do that, go demand that Pam Spaulding be prosecuted for allowing REAL death threats, directed against a specific person and giving specific addresses, to be posted on her website and stay there for several weeks.
And finally, I asked you a question; how many black jurors must there be before you’ll stop screaming “bias”? One? Two? Fifteen?
posted by Bobby on
“(3) The hanging ropes are NOT FREE SPEECH. I”
—They are, you could use those ropes to protest in favor of the death penalty. They’re no more hate speech than the horrible signs of Fred Phelps. And by the way, the law isn’t supposed to punish intent, only acts.
“(2) When it comes to civil rights, conservatives are rarely right.”
—Look, if you only want to talk to liberals, go to dailykoss. This is INDEgayforum. We’re not all liberals, and any of us can be right.
“(2a) can we agree that people who commit violent crimes should be punished?”
—That’s the whole debate. If 6 white kids had beaten a black kid, liberals would be screaming for long prison sentences. But because the victim was white, and was innocent (there’s no proof he instigated anything, he was just at the wrong place), then suddenly there’s compassion because the criminals happen to be black. This reminds me of Rodney King, everyone remembers he got beat up, what nobody remembers is the name of the white trucker who also got beat up.
“That was a racial fight, brought about my the racial tension.”
—-So the next time there’s a gay bashing, you’ll say that it’s just sexual tension. You’re right, it was a racial fight, it was based on hate. Some whites hate blacks and some blacks hate whites. And if hate crime laws don’t apply in both cases, then we should get rid of hate crime laws. Equality for all or for none. That’s how I see it.
500 years of slavery does not give you a pass to beat white people. Nor does it give Japanese Americans a right to put non-Asians in internment camps.
posted by Brian Miller on
Joe Solomonese had the money and political resources to fly to Alabama and speak, as a white gay man and representative of a gay rights organization, about an issue that was not relevant to white guys or gay issues.
It’s a shame he *didn’t* have the money and political resources to fly to California and speak, as a gay man and representative of a gay rights organization, about marriage equality — an issue directly relevant to gay people and gay issues.
Hopefully, people considering financial support for HRC will consider this trend and be mindful of where their money is going.
posted by ETJB on
North Dalls;
As I said; initial punishment that they [the students] were going to recieve, was reduced because some people decided that making death threats against certain student is just some harmless, highschool prank.
The punishment that they would have gotten, should have gotten, was overriden by certain higher-ups who decided that it was just a harmless prank.
And it was a death threat. You do not make symbols like the KKK in the South, because black students are sitting under so-called white student’s tree and expect it to be taken as anything other then a threat.
If some one makes death threats, that is not protected speech under the First Amendment. If someone breaks they law they should be punished in accodance with the constitution; due process, rule of law and equal protection. This seems to be a difficult concept for some people to understand.
If Pam Spaulding broke the law, then she should be held acccountable as per the constitution.
“”In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”
Their is a fairly look legal history as to what this means.
posted by ETJB on
“They are, you could use those ropes to protest in favor of the death penalty.”
(1) No, a death threat is not protected speech. When the response of some black students sitting under a tree is for some white students to put some hangman nose the threat is clear.
(2) If the speech is political or religious in nature, but does not rise to the level of death threats, (for example) then is protected. Free speech can be obnixious, mean, even rude but their are clearly defined limits.
(3) Fred Phelps has not stated that he is threatening to kill gay people. He is saying that gays are going to hell and so is America. Deplorable, but protected.
(4) Intention does matter in the law and has for a long, longtime. Their is a difference between intending to kill some one and kill them, versus accidentially killing them.
Both will probably be punished, but the former much more.
I am well aware that you are not all liberals. I welcome political diveristy. Many of my friends are Republicans, Independents and Libertarians.
However, it would seem that certain conservative people here either dont know that the constitution means or do not want to apply it to people on the basis of skin color.
“If 6 white kids had beaten a black kid.”
…and a major witnesses was not in court? and their were other significant procedural due process violations throughout the trial?
It is odd that people who oppose hate crime laws, turn around and then complain that they are not being used. It is not legal to make death threats at another person because of the color of their skin or to beat them up.
Punishment has to occur in accordance with the constitution. You know? don’t deprive citizens of life, liberty or property with due process of the law? Punishment has to occur in accodance with the rule of law.
The black students were innocent until proven guilty and some of their due process rights were being violated. Does this mean that are free of legal sanction. No, but it means that before the state can deprive them of……
The white students were innocent until proven guilty. They either admitted to making the threat or their was sufficent evidence. They were going to receive a certain school punishment, (other federal/state sanctions are possible) instead some one overruled them and basically said, it was no big deal.
The white victim was probably not entirely innocent, just like the black accused perps were. We are dealing with teenage boys in a community where racial animosity and tensions are very real.
The students that made the death threats and the students who beat up another student should be punished. But their is a process that the state must go through before it deprive… and the government can not discriminate on the basis of race, except in very, very, very narrow conditions.
In terms of Rodeny King, I certainly remember lots of people of various races/ethnic backgrounds that got beaten up. If people remember his case it was because he was beaten up by police and its was on videotape.
“So the next time there’s a gay bashing, you’ll say that it’s just sexual tension.”
No, but the government cannot … (deprive people of life, liberty or property without the due process of the law, cannot deny people equal protection of the law).
This racism among the students was largely fueld because the school sent a messge that it was not going to follow the constitutional rules. This is what is really at issue here; does the constitution apply to everyone or just people of a certain race?
Some conservatives claim to support the constitution, but the government in this case did not follow the constitution. Not the school, and not the state.
Racism in America is much more about slavery. It is about individual and institutional polices. Its is connected with class. It is about people’s beliefs. Some of this can be dealt with through law, some of it cannot.
However, the legal question problem is that the government got caught with its pants down, so to speak. It was not following the constitution and in its failure, lots of racism and violence unfolded.
“Nor does it give Japanese Americans a right to put non-Asians in internment camps.”
I am not even sure where this came from. That is one of the few areas (national security/war) where the government might be able to engage in racial discrimination.
I do not known lots of Asian Americans, but I doubt that their is a big move by them to put white people in prison for being white.
posted by Bobby on
“If 6 white kids had beaten a black kid.”
…and a major witnesses was not in court?
—I saw the video.
“The black students were innocent until proven guilty and some of their due process rights were being violated.”
—Which ones? Not everyone gets automatic bail, in fact, OJ spent a long time in jail while he was being tried for a crime he was found not guilty of doing in the first place. And unlike OJ, some of this kids have criminal records. These aren’t angels, you know.
“The white students were innocent until proven guilty.”
—What the students did might have been offensive, but it’s not the same thing as beating people up. And since they’re stupid kids, they should not face charges outside whatever the principal gives them.
“The white victim was probably not entirely innocent,”
—He was walking in a street, minding his own business, and 6 blacks just beat him up for a nooze incident he had nothing to do with. And you’re questioning his innocence?
“We are dealing with teenage boys in a community where racial animosity and tensions are very real.”
—I’ve seen interviews with people who live in Jenna and they say the races get along pretty well.
“I do not known lots of Asian Americans, but I doubt that their is a big move by them to put white people in prison for being white.”
—My point is that there are African-Americans who want revenge over the 500 years of slavery, and because of that, they’ll accuse almost anyone of racism, and even embrace 6 criminals just because they happen to be black. You can talk about due process all day long, but if the kids had been white, nobody but the Klan would be protesting, and maybe not even the Klan since they’re not as active as they used to be.
In fact, we live in a country where Bill O’reilly can’t say how nice Silvia’s restaurant was and how well dressed people were, and how this is the side most people don’t see of black America because the media is more interested in Ludacris, without being accused of racism. And after Juan Williams defended him, he gets accused of being a “house negro” twice on CNN, without the host of the segment even complaining.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As I said; initial punishment that they [the students] were going to recieve, was reduced because some people decided that making death threats against certain student is just some harmless, highschool prank.
And again: Oh really?
The three youths accused of hanging the nooses were not suspended for just three days ? they were isolated at an alternative school for about a month, and then given an in-school suspension for two weeks.
But again, this is a familiar pattern; you make an accusation, but you refuse to quantify it. Just like you accused the jury of being racist and biased based on the skin color of the jurors, but refuse to answer when asked how many black people it takes to make an unbiased jury.
The rule of law is that people who break their probation — as did Mychal Bell — receive harsher penalties. You oppose that because of Bell’s skin color. You make numerous wild accusations about how everyone is biased against these six, but you provide no sources or evidence for any of them.
posted by ETJB on
“I saw the video.”
Of the King beating or of this most recent case?
“Which ones?”
Gee, you have not been paying attention to the facts. Good to see a conservative commenting on something that he knows little about.
The fact that some one has a criminal record does not prove that they committed another crime that they are accused of.
Heck, whether or not a past criminal conviction can even come into a present criminal case is often a tricky thing.
“What the students did might have been offensive, but it’s not the same thing as beating people up.”
What the students did was illegal, and they should not have had their school sentence reduced because of their skin color or the color of their targets. The fact that they did not face non-school, government sentence is amazing.
You are right, threatening to kill/assualt some one is differnt from actually doing it. However, they are both serious crimes and we have a constitutional process for dealing with them.
“And since they’re stupid kids, they should not face charges outside whatever the principal gives them.”
Being a ‘stupid kid’ does not give you the legal right to make death threats. The principle reduced the school punishment becuse he felt that making death threats is just harmless fun.
The school — an extension of the government — should have done its job. Their are consequences for ignoring the constitution.
“He was walking in a street, minding his own business.”
Really? You read the victims mind? You know what he was doing?
No, you have not. This is why we have certain constitutional
rules in place that must kick in before and when some one is accused of a crime.
“I’ve seen interviews with people who live in Jenna and they say the races get along pretty well.”
Well, I am sure that thier are some people in Jenna who have an opinion that, “the races get along pretty well.” They do have a right to that opinion, but its not true based on the facts.
“There are African-Americans who want revenge over the 500 years of slavery..”
Well, I heard some people talk about slavery reparations which will never really go anywhere politically. Their are also white people who want to bring slavery back.
“they’ll accuse almost anyone of racism..”
Perhaps, but the racism in this case is very real.
“You can talk about due process all day long.”
So, you hate America and the Constitution? Or do you just not
believe that it should apply to people of color?
“if the kids had been white..”
If six white kids were accused of beating up a black kid, the same constitutional rules apply. The KKK would probably be celebrating it (if it had a high enough profile) or if the victim had been gay or disabled or Jewish or Arab.
How active is the KKK, depends on who you ask. They, thankfully, have far less political power then they once had in the nation. Most of that movement has split off into various other extreamist groups.
“In fact, we live in a country where Bill O’reilly can’t say how nice Silvia’s restaurant was and how well dressed people were,”
Well, he can certainly be a food or fashion critic without the government censoring him. Yet, food and fashion can be very subjective things and are connected to class. Little of this has much to do with legal questions before us about procedural
due process and the constitution.
How the media may chose to depict women, people of color, disabled, gays, working class, wealthy, etc. is certainly a valid sociological topic, but it is not really a criminal matter.
posted by ETJB on
I said: initial punishment that they [the students] were going to recieve, was reduced because some people decided that making death threats against certain student is just some harmless, highschool prank.
You keep making reference to the reduced sentence, but not what was the original sentence. Either you are unaware of the basic facts or do not care about them.
The school principle found the three students who had made the death threat, and sought to have them expelled. The school board and superintendent reduced the punishment, with the argument that it was, harmless highschool “prank”.
I have not been ‘screamimg’ or making ‘accusations’. I have simply been stated a few facts, that some to make certain conservatives uncomfortable.
“The rule of law is that people who break their probation — as did Mychal Bell — receive harsher penalties.”
-His trial should have been held in another parish.
-His jury should not have included a high school friend of the victim’s father
-His jury should not have been all-white.
-He should have been tried as a juvenile
-The defense laweyer was imcompetent.
I have not made ‘wild’ accusations, I have simple stated that the constitution requires a certain process to be followed in a criminal cases.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I have not made ‘wild’ accusations, I have simple stated that the constitution requires a certain process to be followed in a criminal cases.
Oh really?
Point out in the Constitution where it says the following:
— You cannot be tried in the same parish as where the crime was committed
— Your jury cannot include anyone who has ever in any way, shape, or form had any connection to the victim whatsoever
— Your jury cannot be white and must include a minimum number of people of color
— You automatically must be tried as a juvenile regardless of your crime and previous record
— You may automatically declare your defense attorney “incompetent” without any proof.
Then:
The school principle found the three students who had made the death threat, and sought to have them expelled. The school board and superintendent reduced the punishment, with the argument that it was, harmless highschool “prank”.
LOL…..and of course, you twist what was actually done.
The three students hung two nooses from a tree. You, of course, transformed that into specific death threats against students.
Again, you claim that death threats automatically constitute a crime. Call Pam Spaulding a criminal and demand her prosecution and punishment because, as I proved, she and her blog allowed and maintained the posting of specific death threats against individuals.
In addition, I will simply point out what Jesse Jackson whined and blabbed during the “Decatur Seven” incident a few years ago, in which he and his fellow black racists claimed it was WRONG to expel students, even for violent attacks that were captured on videotape in which their intent was clearly to harm others.
So, in short, when black people actually make violent threats and take violent actions against others, you insist that they shouldn’t be expelled…but you insist that white people who DON’T take violent actions and who make vague threats should be.
And finally, I loved this:
The fact that some one has a criminal record does not prove that they committed another crime that they are accused of.
Heck, whether or not a past criminal conviction can even come into a present criminal case is often a tricky thing.
Not when the person in question is on probation, in which a condition of their NOT being imprisoned or further punished is that they obey the law.
Furthermore, when confronted with Mychal Bell’s criminal record, you try to deny it. Again, your excuse for everything is that everyone is “biased” against this “poor boy” — which is how you can explain the fact that you whine about the “rule of law” on one hand and then totally contradict yourself by refusing to enforce it against black people.
posted by ETJB on
“Oh really?”
Yeah. I have not made ‘wild accusations’.
The Federal Constitution established certain basic due process rights (both procedural and substantive) that a state or the federal government must follow before it can deprive a citizen of life, liberty or property.
For example;
6th Amendment – “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
If you cannot get a fair trial in the same place where you are alledged to have committed the crime, then the trial is suppose to be moved.
Juries are generally not suppose to have such strong/personal/family ties to a defendent (impartial).
Juries generally can not be excluded for race (or sex) and their are well established standards (and debates) over the racial composition of a jury in terms of it being impartial and of their peers.
Generally a “minor” (legally defined) can not be tried as an adult. As these are currently state crimes, state law defines that.
If a lawyer fails to do certain things in a criminal case, then they can be declared incompetent. How competent your lawyer has to be depends largely on the law.
This can be an especially tricky business as many poor/working class/lower middle class people end up with public defenders who oftentimes get into that line of work because of their level of competence.
Now about the death threat;
Black students sat under a tree. The response of some white students was to hang noses on that tree.
In the South such an act implies a lynching. It was clearly a threat of some kind against black students who had sat under a tree.
The principle found the students and wanted them expelled. How this was done is unsaid, but student due process claims tend to be different when its about school crimes.
Explusion was a warranted action for what the students had done. The fact that they did not get charged with any state/federal crimes or taken to civil court is amazing.
Yet, the school board felt that what the students did not warrant explusion. They did not even feel the students should aplogize.
Instead, they were given a more lenient sentence. Making a death threat to students was treated as a harmless prank.
I cannot believe that a LGBT person would believe that a student making death threats at another student is a harmless prank.
“Fighting words”, death threats and obscenity are not protected under the 1st Amendment.
You offered little proof that Pam Spaulding is a criminal. Instead you said that she posted comments on a blog that showed someone else was make death threats.
If she is reporting on that fact that some one else is making the threats as part of a story then that may be protected.
Yet, if she is making the threats herself. What have the police said? Has the person being threaten contacted the police? Is their a civil lawsuit pending?
A better example would be the groups that have posted the names and #s of people (and family) in the Jena 6.
The fact that you seem content to spin lies and refer to anyone who does not bow down to your warped version of the law and constitution is shocking.
Jesse Jackson is not a lawyer or a judge. So what he says about the law does not mean too much.
“When black people actually make violent threats and take violent actions against others, you insist that they shouldn’t be expelled…but you insist that white people who DON’T take violent actions and who make vague threats should be.”
No. Citizens of the United States who are accused of committing a crime have the right to due process.
That before you deprive a citizen of life, liberty or property you need to follow a set of constituional rules.
The fact that some one is on probation does, does not change the they fact that their are still due process rights involved before they can be deprived of…
They may be weaker due process rights, but they still exist.
The fact that he has a criminal record does not mean that he committed the crime that he stands accused of. Their are rules to follow in deciding if a past conviction should be introduced (as evidence) for a current accusation.
That does not mean he does not have a criminal record. That does not mean that he should not be punished.
It does mean that their are very clear and strong due process rights when some one is accused of a crime.
The government cannot just say, “Well they are accused of beating up some one, thus they must be guilty.”
Their is a constitutional process that must be followed to determine if a defendent is guilty or not guilty.
If the process is followed correctly and the defendent is found to be guilty then they should be punished accordingly to the criminal law (setting aside the matter of appeals and civil court and school sanctions).
If the process is not followed correctly
then evidence can be tossed out, convictions can be overturned and the
criminal process may have to start all over again.
I have not offered an excuse for criminal acts (i.e. death threats are cool). But crime has to be dealt with in accordance with the constitution.
The fact that this is a community with strong racial tensions, hatred and fear does not provide an excuse for criminal acts.
It does suggest that these are serious social problems need to be dealt with.
Some through better education, and some through public policy.
It does suggest that people knew what the noses were all about. People knew what lot of the violence (some of it unsolved)
that occured during that year was about.
That does not provide a legal excuse. But it does illustrate that things in the community need to change.
A community is not going to have much of a future if racism encorages people not to respect each other and the rights and dignity therin.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Your attempts to rationalize your racist beliefs become more and more hilarious and contradictory, ETJB.
For example:
Juries generally can not be excluded for race (or sex) and their are well established standards (and debates) over the racial composition of a jury in terms of it being impartial and of their peers.
So you claim that jurors cannot be excluded on the basis of race…..but then insist that white jurors must be excluded based on their race so that enough black people are on a jury to make it “impartial”.
Another:
A better example would be the groups that have posted the names and #s of people (and family) in the Jena 6.
But you spun and insisted that it wasn’t a crime when black lesbian Pam Spaulding and her commentors posted the address and made specific threats towards another individual.
You have denied Mychal Bell’s criminal record. You have claimed public defenders are incompetent. You have smeared everyone in the process as a racist.
And you haven’t provided a shred of proof.
Meanwhile, I’ve done far more.
posted by Bobby on
“What the students did was illegal, and they should not have had their school sentence reduced because of their skin color or the color of their targets.”
—Why do you assume their race had anything to do with it? Maybe the principal didn’t want to destroy their lives by over punishing them. Some liberals want these kids expelled.
“The fact that they did not face non-school, government sentence is amazing.”
—No it’s not, while it’s true that after Columbine a lot of schols have lost common sense and now just writing a violent poem can get a teacher to call 9/11, it’s also true that kids will do hijinks, and as long as they’re not violent, the punishment should be realistic and not exagerated.
“The principle reduced the school punishment becuse he felt that making death threats is just harmless fun.
The school — an extension of the government — should have done its job. Their are consequences for ignoring the constitution.”
—The constitution doesn’t protect against death threats.
“Really? You read the victims mind? You know what he was doing?”
—You know as much about it as I do, yet you already hold him guilty and assume he’s just another stupid white redneck cracker goober while the poor blacks who beat him simply couldn’t control themselves.
“Their are also white people who want to bring slavery back.”
—Don’t be silly, most white supremacists want to kill blacks, not enslaved them. In fact, many white supremacists believe that the biggest mistake this country did was bringing Africans into the country.
“Perhaps, but the racism in this case is very real.”
—Wrong, these are two separate cases. Hanging ropes and the Jenna 6 are two different issues, unrelated inspite of the media lies. The racism here was of blacks against whites, yet liberals have problems admiting that blacks could ever be racist or could ever be wrong. I’m not surprised.
posted by ETJB on
North Dallas Thirty;
You seeem to have a deep resentment for the truth, justice and the American constitution. Perhaps we should start calling you Castro or Che?
I am the only who stated that the government can not (with few exceptions) make distinctions on the basis of race when dealing with its citizens. You are the only who seems to want such racist distinctions to be made. Regardless of what you may believe, the Constitution is clear on this point.
A jury can not (generally) be removed for race (or sex). Yet, a defendent has a due process right to a jury of his peers. Lucky, we have a long and rich legal precedent to sort this out.
Legal precedent that the legal system in Jenna has to follow before it can deprive anyone of life, liberty or property.
“You…insisted that it wasn’t a crime when black lesbian Pam Spaulding and her commentors posted the address and made specific threats towards another individual.”
I did not such thing, and I really do not care what her race or sexual orientation is. If she has broken a law then she should be punished according to the constitution; rule of law, due process, equal protection, etc.
You and I just seem to have a different of opinion. I believe that we should follow the Constitution, and you hate and loath the Constitution.
“You have denied Mychal Bell’s criminal record.”
No, I explained a bit about how a past defendent’s criminal record may or may not be used in the current criminal proceeding.
“You have claimed public defenders are incompetent.”
I claimed that a defendent has a right to competent legal counsel. I have said that some public defenders are incompetent. I have said that many public defenders are overworked, and underpaid.
“You have smeared everyone in the process as a racist.”
I have stated a constitutional fact. No person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of the law.
Why does this fact bother you so much? Are you uncomfortable with the United States Constitution? Do you want the federal and state government to engage in racism and let people make death threats?
“And you haven’t provided a shred of proof.”
Have you read the United States Constitution? I do realize that it may be difficult for you, but it is pretty accessible online, along with references to the applicable case law.
posted by ETJB on
Bobby;
You seeem to be mighy uncomfortable with the United States Constitution.
“Why do you assume their race had anything to do with it?”
Most of the student body felt that race had everything to do with it. The more important question is, why dont you think that making death threats against a student for their race, does not have anything to do with race?
“Maybe the principal didn’t want to destroy their lives by over punishing them.”
The school board and the superintendent overruled the principal. They treated the act of students making death threats against other students (on the account of their race) as being harmless prank.
Lack of common sense?! It is simply shocking that you really believe that a death threat is not a death threat. That white kids responding to black kids sitting under a tree with death threats is not about race.
Apparently in your world, the Constitution says that its “harmless” for white people to make death threats against black people. That its all just ‘good old fashion fun’ to tell black people that if they sit under the tree again they will be lynched.
Yet, if a black person is even accused of making death threats against a white person, the right-wing screams bloody murder.
I do not make assumptions about of people, I will leave that to certain conservative people here. I do not care what the superintendent’s race, color, creed, or sex may be. I do not care if he is a ‘redneck’ or not.
I do not care what the race, color, creed or sex of a defendent in a criminal case is. Before the government can deprive them of life, liberty or property it has to follow certain rules.
The death threats are what sparked a wave of local racial animosity, hatred and violence.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
bobby: “In fact, many white supremacists believe that the biggest mistake this country did was bringing Africans into the country.”
That might be true. ND30 has spouted similar nonsense. He believes that blacks should be grateful for slavery because it got them out of Africa.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again, ETJB, you contradict yourself.
If she has broken a law then she should be punished according to the constitution; rule of law, due process, equal protection, etc.
What do you mean, “if she has broken a law”? She and her commentors made, supported, and perpetuated death threats — CLEARLY death threats. YOU YOURSELF claimed that making death threats was against the law.
Your racism and hypocrisy is now glaringly obvious. When a black lesbian and LGBT people make obvious and blatant death threats, you spin and deny it’s a crime. When it comes to white kids hanging nooses on a tree, you claim it is a crime and demand they be criminally prosecuted.
I am the only who stated that the government can not (with few exceptions) make distinctions on the basis of race when dealing with its citizens.
Which makes it hilarious, then, when you insist that you know a jury was biased and should have been disqualified based on the skin color of the jurors.
No, I explained a bit about how a past defendent’s criminal record may or may not be used in the current criminal proceeding.
No you don’t; you whine and scream that he was wrongly convicted before, too, because everyone is “biased” against him — so to neutralize the fact that he is on probation and thus punished more harshly because his actions demonstrate wanton contempt for the law.
I have stated a constitutional fact. No person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of the law.
And you smear everyone involved as a racist because due process didn’t produce the result you wanted.
Of course, that could NEVER be because the defendant was guilty.
Meanwhile, for ColoradoPatriot, you simply realize that a) I can cite exactly what you are talking about and demonstrate that you are deliberately misreading it and b) you make a greater fool of ETJB, given his shrieking that anyone who makes death threats or tells people to kill themselves is a criminal and should be prosecuted.
What I have figured out, ColoradoPatriot and ETJB, is that people like you who scream “racist” at the drop of a hat and blab on about “due process” were also staunch supporters of Mike Nifong.
In other words, you wouldn’t recognize either if they bit you.
posted by ETB on
The sheer amount of racism on this message board is simply shocking. I saw it before with the comments about Arabs and Muslims, but this is just simply horrible.
If she [the blogger in question] has broken a law then she should be punished according to the constitution; rule of law, due process, equal protection, etc. When I asked you if charged had been filed against her or a civil lawsuit you began to squirm and engage in personal attacks.
It would seem that anyone who believes in apply the constitution to all Americans; irrespective of their race is somehow a ‘racist’ in your twisted mind.
“When a black lesbian and LGBT people make obvious and blatant death threats, you spin and deny it’s a crime.”
No. I said that “If she [the blogger in question] has broken a law then she should be punished according to the constitution; rule of law, due process, equal protection, etc. When I asked you if charged had been filed against her or a civil lawsuit you began to squirm and engage in personal attacks.”
“When it comes to white kids hanging nooses on a tree, you claim it is a crime and demand they be criminally prosecuted.”
Nope. I never stated that they should be criminally prosecuted and the fact that you can not even admit that it was a death threat is telling. Instead, I said that they should have been expelled. That was going to be their punishment, until the school board stepped in.
Whether or not they should face criminal charges is another matter.
I have not said that a I ‘know’ a jury is or is not bias. I simply pointed out what the United States Constitution actually says about juries.
“you whine and scream”
No, I pointed out a few due process issues and then you decided that the United States Constitution does not mean what it says it means.
Their are due process rules that are suppose to be followed when some one is a criminal defendent. These are constitutional rights.
“to to neutralize the fact that he is on probation”
No, to point out that a defendents past acts may or may not be entered into evidence during a present criminal proceding depending on the rules.
“thus punished more harshly because his actions demonstrate wanton contempt for the law.”
Well, the Constitution says that the state can not punish him, you or me at all…unless it follows certain due process rules and regulations.
No person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of the law.
“That could NEVER be because the defendant was guilty.”
Why not? I have not really focused here on the guilt or innocence of the six young men. Instead I have pointed out that they have to be treated innocent until proven guilty and that every single defendent in a criminal case has certain constitutional rights that must be respected or else the government cannot….
I believe in te United States Constitution. I believe in that certain rights apply to all Americans. Some people do not really want to believe that.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Nope. I never stated that they should be criminally prosecuted and the fact that you can not even admit that it was a death threat is telling.
Mhm (emphasis mine).
What the students did was illegal, and they should not have had their school sentence reduced because of their skin color or the color of their targets. The fact that they did not face non-school, government sentence is amazing.
You are right, threatening to kill/assualt some one is differnt from actually doing it. However, they are both serious crimes and we have a constitutional process for dealing with them.
And mhm.
The fact that they did not get charged with any state/federal crimes or taken to civil court is amazing.
Or, as a finale:
Making a death threat is a serious crime and should be treated as such.
Next:
When I asked you if charged had been filed against her or a civil lawsuit you began to squirm and engage in personal attacks.
LOL…you know, I was going to be nice, but I think it’s time to make it obvious that you didn’t read the link I provided before commenting.
LaBarbera indicated that he has been in touch with both the FBI and the North Carolina Attorney General?s Office. He?s anticipating a full criminal investigation.
Next:
I have not said that a I ‘know’ a jury is or is not bias.
Yes you did; you claimed the Jena jury was because it was all whites.
Finally:
The sheer amount of racism on this message board is simply shocking.
Says the Mike Nifong supporter.
The Mike Nifong case demonstrated that to blacks and liberals, “racist” means “not punishing innocent white people” and “holding black people accountable rather than automatically finding them innocent”.
You see, just for example, white people don’t get to scream “bias” when jurors aren’t of the same skin color as they are — but for black people, they scream it all the time.
posted by ETJB on
“What the students did was illegal.”
(1) Fighting words/death threats are not protected speech.
(2) It clearly violated the school code.
(3) The student’s punishment was reduced.
(4) The fact that they did not face state/federal sanctions is indeed amazing, but that is not a call for the government to do so.
“Making a death threat is a serious crime and should be treated as such.”
Yeah, and most public high school do have laws to deal with harassment/death threats. Most cities/towns/states have such criminal laws on the books, to say nothing of civil law.
“He?s anticipating a full criminal investigation.”
Good, and hopefully the government follows the constitution.
I do not recall every stating that I am a supporter of Michael Byron Nifong. In point of face, his downfall was largely because he did not follow the constitution with the criminal charges facing the lacrosse case.
It does not matter what the race of the defendent may or may not be. Their are certain rules, regulations, rights that have to be followed before the government can deprive people of life, liberty or property.
posted by Bobby on
“It does not matter what the race of the defendent may or may not be. ”
—Then why does the media support the Jenna 6 and not the victim of the white bashing?
posted by ETJB on
North Dallas seems to be of the opinion that the Constitution does not apply and that if people (especially if they are black or poor) or deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of the law, then that just ‘ok’.
The fact that three white students can make death threats against black students and face (thus far) NO civil/criminal penalties is amazing. Does that mean I am calling for them to be beaten or jailed? No, I find that incredible interesting, none the less.
Instead the students were given a reduced sentence for violating a school law (i.e. illegality). The fact that six black students were expelled for being ACCUSED of beating up a white students is interesting.
Three white students can get caught threating to kill all black students, but they are harmless ‘prank’, ‘boys will be boys’. Six black students can be accused of beating up one white student and they are expelled and face criminal charges.
The entire case illustrates, to me, how few Americans have a basic understanding of the legal system and the United States constitution.
“Says the Mike Nifong supporter.”
I do not recall stating that I supported Nifong. In fact, I posted here that his career downfall was because he did not follow the rules that the government MUST FOLLOW IN ORDER TO DEPRIVE PEOPLE OF LIFE, LIBERTY, or PROPERTY.
It should not be controverial for the government to follow the Constitution. It would not require making certain people celebrities to make sure that their due process rights are respected.
“The blacks and liberals.”
So you know all African Americans and liberals in the United States of America? Or are you just acting like some racist, bigoted fool? Should I be as stupid as you have been in this discussion, and label you a David Duke supporter?
The government (federal, state, local and public institutions) can not make distinctions between citizens on the basis of race. Period. The only way that they can do this is A/A or national security, even then it difficult.
It has (for better or for the worse) much more leeway to discriminate on the basis of class, disability, gender, sexuality and political party affiliation.
The government can not deprived people of their life, liberty or property without due process of the law. It can not assume that a person accused of a crime is guilty because of their race, it has to assume that EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Yes, a white defendent can make the argument that the jury is not ‘one of his peers’ as the constitution requires. Their is a entire body of case law, scholarly articles and the like about constituonal law and juries.
Just like a man can argue that he was the victim of sexual harassment (civil court) or rape (criminal). If their is an applicable law, a straight man can claim to be the victim of sexual orientation based discrimination.
The media is not bound by the same constitutional rules becase it is largely private. Why are they not talking about the victim?
Well, it could be because he may be as racist as those three white students that hung the nose. It may not make him especially sympathic if he turns out to be a young, snotty, racist prick. Maybe he dose not really want the national spotlight.
Race is not suppose to matter to the government, most of the time. Yet, the media is not the government. The media is interested in making money, and dealing with issues in sound bytes, controversy, entertainment and with the possible exception of NPR does not care too much about go beyond a gilded surface.
That does not mean that he should get beat up or the people who did beat up him (or make death threats) should not get punished.
Instead, it means that their are certain rules and regulations that must always be followed in a criminal or civil case. Period.
In at least one of the ‘Jena 6’, that was the problem.
posted by ETJB on
“It does not matter what the race of the defendent may or may not be. ”
Again, this involves the government; federal, state and local.
Media is a private enterprise, must of the time, and thus does not have to follow the same rules.
Perhaps people in the media feels that the government is ignoring the Constitution. Or perhaps they simply want to make lots and lots of money.
Perhap the victim is not especially good-looking, and maybe the fact that he might be a racist prig is not going to garnish much tv sympathy.
Or the fact that that the mayor’s talking to avowed white supremacists…
posted by Bobby on
“Perhap the victim is not especially good-looking, and maybe the fact that he might be a racist prig is not going to garnish much tv sympathy.”
—Oh I get it, if Mathew Sheppard had been ugly, fuck him, right? He deserved to get gay bashed.
As for this victim, hey, he’s white, so he’s probably a racist prig, fuck him too.
I get it, ETJB, whites are always wrong, blacks are always right.
And then you’re complain about the ammount of racism you see here. I guess we don’t have the right opinions, so we must all be a bunch of pink Klansmen.
White liberals always see racism everywhere. For the record, I support blacks who work hard to get ahead, like Condoleeza Rice who’s been called an “Aunt Jemima” by a white liberal DJ. I support Juan Williams who’s been called a “happy negro” by a liberal black commentator on CNN. They are worthy of my respect.
But a bunch of white bashing hoodlums with criminal records are only worthy of a trial and hopefully, a conviction. And I would say the same thing if they had been white and the victim had been black.
posted by ETJB on
Bobby;
I am a frequent critic of the mass media, and have little idea why they do many of the things that they do. However, a private entity is generally not bound by the same rules as a public one.
This means that they do not have to be fair or examine an issue like the Jena 6 in-depth. Public Radio is perhaps one of the few examples of a media entity that covers issues in-depth and deals with both sides.
I could only offer some speculation as to why the victim was not interviewed by the mass media. Speculation based on what I know of the media, from my studies and from friends of mine who work in the business.
The media tends to be friendlier to good-looking people, especially when they are middle class or higher up the socioeconomic ladder. This is why entertainment “news” with its focus on celebrities has (in some ways) taken over the more traditional news aspect of the media.
In the eyes of the media, the fact that Mathew Sheppard was white, middle class and attractive is why out of all the LGBT-bias motivated crimes to occur, his got the most attention. Yeah, it sucks and I could go on and on about what is wrong with the media.
The fact that the victim, in this case, is white does not hurt him. If he is not getting much attention or sympathy from the media it is probably because of reports that he supported the death threats and made racist comments to black students.
Legally, that it NOT grounds for ANYONE to be beaten up. However, the government can not punish anyone it accused of a crime unless it follows certain rules and regulations.
Yet, you have to understand that the media is not bound by these rules and regulations. People are ‘tried’ in the press.
The media does not always get all the facts straight and often deals with controversy as sound bytes and extreamists.
A person’s race (ethnicity, religion, class, gender, ability, sexuality, politics, etc.) has NOTHING to do with whether or not they are always right or wrong.
Yet, the government has to follow certain rules and regulations that most private entitities generally do not, unless the government decides to regulate said entities with legislation.
Racism is a problem in this community and in the general society. Some of it can be dealt with through legislation and some of it requires better education.
North Dallas was the one who accused me of having the ‘wrong opinions’ and thus supporting a man who I have made clear is a total moron and deserved to have his career shut down. Yet, if he is going to engage in childish name calling…
Their are really three major issues that the Jena 6 illustrates;
(1) The government can not deprive a person of life, liberty or property without the due process of the law and no person can be deprived of the equal protection of the law (with some exceptions).
(2) The mass media is NOT the government and hence does not have the folllow the same rules, absent of government legislation.
(3) Public schools need to have (and follow) transparent and consisent polices to deal with harassment/bullying/violence of all kind. They should be teaching civics (i.e. constititional rights), they should be teaching a modicum of civility and should not be letting intolerance, fear and hate to go unchallenged.
“White liberals always see racism everywhere.”
Funny, I do not recall stating that I was white. While I would consider myself to be a liberal, I often clash with my fellow liberals and conservatives and libertarians and socialists.
“I support blacks who work hard to get ahead.”
Well, I support people who work hard to get ahead. I support giving people the tools and resources to advance up the socioeconomic ladder.
When people are not successful, I do not (as some liberals do) only blame the system, nor do I (as some conservatives do) only blame the individual.
It is a great thing that America have advanced to the point where people like Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and other women and people of color (Democrats, Republicans, Independents) can become major players in the federal government.
A Muslim American was recently elected to Congress and the front runners in both major parties are trail blazers in terms of their demographics. Gay people are winning elected office when that was once thought to be impossible.
Do I agree or disagree with what a person says because of their race, color, ethnicty, sex, sexuality, gender or political party? No.
Yet, the Jena 6 (just like any other person) can not be deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of the law.
They cannot be deprived of the equal protection of the law. This is how the Constitution is written.
The Constitution also protects Free Speech and Press. This means that people can be called “Aunt Jemima” or “happy negro” by liberals, just as conservatives are certainly no stranger to name-calling. No right is absolute, but if we want to improve the tone of political discussion and debate might I suggest;
(1) Teaching civics and civility in public schools better.
(2) Treating Independent and Third parties equally.
Juan Williams seems like a very decent, intelligent person. I do not know him personally, only from public radio and FOX News Sunday show. Politically he is probably center-left.
I like a lot of what he has to say, especially when he is on Fox Sunday show.
“But a bunch of white bashing hoodlums with criminal records are only worthy of a trial and hopefully, a conviction.”
(1) All defendents are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Read the Constitution and see what other due process rights exist for all citizens (and in some cases non citizens).
People should not be celebrities for such rights to apply.
(2) It is interesting, to me, how young black men who are accused of beating some one up are called ‘thugs’ and ‘hoodlums’, but young white men who we know threated to kill every black student who sat under a tree are treated as simply ‘boys will be boys’.
We can call young men who commit or threat to commit violent acts as ‘thugs’, ‘hoodlums’, ‘bullies’, etc. We can strongly punish people who are dully convicted of violent acts or making death threats.
What we have no business doing is using race to pick our words or punishments. If being accused of beating up a student makes you a ‘thug’ then bullying or being caught making death threats to students or using hateful words also makes you a ‘thug’.
If ‘boys will be boys’ and we do not want to ‘ruin’ young people’s future, then being accused of committing a violent crime should not carry a stronger school sanction then being convicted (for a school crime) of making violent threats.
Last, but not least, we are dealing with teenagers. Teenagers who have a notion that fear, hate and intolerance is the way to get ahead.
Teenagers who, I suspect, know little about the Constitution, as few adults seem to know much about it.
And I would say the same thing if they had been white and the victim had been black.