NFL Players receiving racist hate mail, should sender be prosecuted?

[CPA]

My only issue with this is they plan on prosecuting someone over "veiled" threats, but nowhere in the quotes in this article do I see any semblence of a threat, just opinion. In fact, Weinstadt says it was threatening, but the portion he commented on was not threatening at all. I'm confused.

Text

 

[datalink7]

They should be prosecuted for being a tool.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: datalink7
They should be prosecuted for being a tool.

50% of the world population would be in the can if that was ever signed into law.

 

[gistech1978]

no, he should be persecuted for being a tool.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: datalink7
They should be prosecuted for being a tool.

50% of the world population would be in the can if that was ever signed into law.

Sounds good to me.

 

[phatj]

If the letters were threatening harm upon the NFL players.. then sure. But the fact that the letters are racist should have no bearing on the prosecution, being racist isn't illegal.

 

[Siddhartha]

" NFL Players receiving racist hate mail, should sender be prosecuted?"

It is hard to say without actually reading one of these letters.

 

[Amused]

I'd have to see the content. But if there are no direct threats, absolutely not. It is not illegal to hate, or tell someone you hate them for whatever reason you want.

edit

ViperGTS has provided more info on the story that shows a clear threat. Therefore this is clearly illegal intimidation.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Amused
I'd have to see the content. But if there are no direct threats, absolutely not. It is not illegal to hate, or tell someone you hate them for whatever reason you want.

Then being a member of Al Qaida would be legal in the US, as long as they cannot yet proof that you are planning actions.

A group of people clothed in white robes with white masks burning a cross in your garden isn't a direct threat to you. Should it be allowed then?

Where do you put the line? They speak out against equal rights, and with that against the law. Do you want to allow people to say they want to destroy basic rights?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: Amused
I'd have to see the content. But if there are no direct threats, absolutely not. It is not illegal to hate, or tell someone you hate them for whatever reason you want.

Then being a member of Al Qaida would be legal in the US, as long as they cannot yet proof that you are planning actions.

A group of people clothed in white robes with white masks burning a cross in your garden isn't a direct threat to you. Should it be allowed then?

Where do you put the line? They speak out against equal rights, and with that against the law. Do you want to allow people to say they want to destroy basic rights?

The key word here is legal not right or wrong.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: Amused
I'd have to see the content. But if there are no direct threats, absolutely not. It is not illegal to hate, or tell someone you hate them for whatever reason you want.

Then being a member of Al Qaida would be legal in the US, as long as they cannot yet proof that you are planning actions.

A group of people clothed in white robes with white masks burning a cross in your garden isn't a direct threat to you. Should it be allowed then?

Where do you put the line? They speak out against equal rights, and with that against the law. Do you want to allow people to say they want to destroy basic rights?

The key word here is legal not right or wrong.

So the FBI and CIA are not hunting down Al Qaida members?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: Amused
I'd have to see the content. But if there are no direct threats, absolutely not. It is not illegal to hate, or tell someone you hate them for whatever reason you want.

Then being a member of Al Qaida would be legal in the US, as long as they cannot yet proof that you are planning actions.

A group of people clothed in white robes with white masks burning a cross in your garden isn't a direct threat to you. Should it be allowed then?

Where do you put the line? They speak out against equal rights, and with that against the law. Do you want to allow people to say they want to destroy basic rights?

The key word here is legal not right or wrong.

Can't you get pretty severe jail time for burning a cross even if a threat is not implied?

 

[Zebo]

Dude, it's a concept called "Free Speech." Either you like the freedom, or go somewhere else to not practice such freedom.

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: Amused
I'd have to see the content. But if there are no direct threats, absolutely not. It is not illegal to hate, or tell someone you hate them for whatever reason you want.

Then being a member of Al Qaida would be legal in the US, as long as they cannot yet proof that you are planning actions.

A group of people clothed in white robes with white masks burning a cross in your garden isn't a direct threat to you. Should it be allowed then?

Where do you put the line? They speak out against equal rights, and with that against the law. Do you want to allow people to say they want to destroy basic rights?

Al Qaida is a group that has been shown to be a threat.

a group of people clothed in white robes with white mask isn't illegal but burning sh!t in someone elses garden certainly is. It doesn't matter if the person doing the burning is wearing a white robe or a pink thong.

If someone wants to say they don't agree with "basic rights" then so be it. It becomes a problem when they say they are going to do something to take away the basic rights of others.

 

[Zebo]

Can't you get pretty severe jail time for burning a cross even if a threat is not implied?

Yes a sad decision came from the SC this year reversing thier 1992 decision which had said cross burning was protected.Text

 

[Spencer278]

"It said: 'African-Americans shouldn't be allowed to play professional sports and shouldn't be allowed to make the money that football players make and entertainers make.'

Did the racist mailer really use the term African-Americans? If so that is just to damn funny.

 

[Viper GTS]

The letters did contain direct threats.

news.google.com will find them for you if you want, here's an example.

Hawk said the contents of the letters ''complain about the relationships between black men and white females.'' He said the letters direct black males to end relationships with white women ''or they're going to be castrated, shot or set on fire.''

This is not a matter of free speech.

Viper GTS

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The letters did contain direct threats.

news.google.com will find them for you if you want, here's an example.

Hawk said the contents of the letters ''complain about the relationships between black men and white females.'' He said the letters direct black males to end relationships with white women ''or they're going to be castrated, shot or set on fire.''

This is not a matter of free speech.

Viper GTS

Sad thing is that several people here will agree with what was said in the letters too.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The letters did contain direct threats.

news.google.com will find them for you if you want, here's an example.

Hawk said the contents of the letters ''complain about the relationships between black men and white females.'' He said the letters direct black males to end relationships with white women ''or they're going to be castrated, shot or set on fire.''

This is not a matter of free speech.

Viper GTS

I'm not even sure threats to life should be prohibited unless a emminet and credible threat exists. I mean how many times did you say "I'll kill you if you tell mom" to your sibling? Not credible and not serious.

Then you have that little matter of the first amendment in the constitution, which the courts slaughter on a regualar basis, which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


I don't know how much more clear one can get than that...alas.. but they meant this-but what if it hurts someone- but I don't like it...always comes in and disolves the orginal right.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The letters did contain direct threats.

news.google.com will find them for you if you want, here's an example.

Hawk said the contents of the letters ''complain about the relationships between black men and white females.'' He said the letters direct black males to end relationships with white women ''or they're going to be castrated, shot or set on fire.''

This is not a matter of free speech.

Viper GTS

I'm not even sure threats to life should be prohibited unless a emminet and credible threat exists. I mean how many times did you say "I'll kill you if you tell mom" to your sibling? Not credible and not serious.

Then you have that little matter of the first amendment in the constitution, which the courts slaughter on a regualar basis, which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


I don't know how much more clear one can get than that...alas.. but they meant this-but what if it hurts someone- but I don't like it...always comes in and disolves the orginal right.

How any intelligent person can compare death threats between pre-pubescent children and adults threatening to castrate, shoot, or burn another adult is beyond me.

Viper GTS

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The letters did contain direct threats.

news.google.com will find them for you if you want, here's an example.

Hawk said the contents of the letters ''complain about the relationships between black men and white females.'' He said the letters direct black males to end relationships with white women ''or they're going to be castrated, shot or set on fire.''

This is not a matter of free speech.

Viper GTS

Sad thing is that several people here will agree with what was said in the letters too.

Freedom means putting up with things you don't like in order to do and say things you like. It's a two way street some authoriarians find to much to bear.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The letters did contain direct threats.

news.google.com will find them for you if you want, here's an example.

Hawk said the contents of the letters ''complain about the relationships between black men and white females.'' He said the letters direct black males to end relationships with white women ''or they're going to be castrated, shot or set on fire.''

This is not a matter of free speech.

Viper GTS

I'm not even sure threats to life should be prohibited unless a emminet and credible threat exists. I mean how many times did you say "I'll kill you if you tell mom" to your sibling? Not credible and not serious.

Then you have that little matter of the first amendment in the constitution, which the courts slaughter on a regualar basis, which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


I don't know how much more clear one can get than that...alas.. but they meant this-but what if it hurts someone- but I don't like it...always comes in and disolves the orginal right.

How any intelligent person can compare death threats between pre-pubescent children and adults threatening to castrate, shoot, or burn another adult is beyond me.

Viper GTS

You missed the point: Age does'nt matter. Is the threat real should be the issue. Thousands of miles away, to a NFL player, by some woman..Hardly.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The letters did contain direct threats.

news.google.com will find them for you if you want, here's an example.

Hawk said the contents of the letters ''complain about the relationships between black men and white females.'' He said the letters direct black males to end relationships with white women ''or they're going to be castrated, shot or set on fire.''

This is not a matter of free speech.

Viper GTS

I'm not even sure threats to life should be prohibited unless a emminet and credible threat exists. I mean how many times did you say "I'll kill you if you tell mom" to your sibling? Not credible and not serious.

Then you have that little matter of the first amendment in the constitution, which the courts slaughter on a regualar basis, which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


I don't know how much more clear one can get than that...alas.. but they meant this-but what if it hurts someone- but I don't like it...always comes in and disolves the orginal right.

How any intelligent person can compare death threats between pre-pubescent children and adults threatening to castrate, shoot, or burn another adult is beyond me.

Viper GTS

You missed the point: Age does'nt matter. Is the threat real should be the issue. Thousands of miles away, to a NFL player, by some woman..Hardly.

Once someone is an adult they must bear responsibility for their actions. Whether or not they could fulfill their threat is meaningless.

If I tell someone I'm going to shoot down Air Force One with a rocket I should be arrested - Regardless of whether I have (or could get) a rocket capable of doing that.

Viper GTS

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The letters did contain direct threats.

news.google.com will find them for you if you want, here's an example.

Hawk said the contents of the letters ''complain about the relationships between black men and white females.'' He said the letters direct black males to end relationships with white women ''or they're going to be castrated, shot or set on fire.''

This is not a matter of free speech.

Viper GTS

I'm not even sure threats to life should be prohibited unless a emminet and credible threat exists. I mean how many times did you say "I'll kill you if you tell mom" to your sibling? Not credible and not serious.

Then you have that little matter of the first amendment in the constitution, which the courts slaughter on a regualar basis, which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


I don't know how much more clear one can get than that...alas.. but they meant this-but what if it hurts someone- but I don't like it...always comes in and disolves the orginal right.

How any intelligent person can compare death threats between pre-pubescent children and adults threatening to castrate, shoot, or burn another adult is beyond me.



Viper GTS

You missed the point: Age does'nt matter. Is the threat real should be the issue. Thousands of miles away, to a NFL player, by some woman..Hardly.

Once someone is an adult they must bear responsibility for their actions.

Really? Whether or not they could fulfill their threat is meaningless. sure it does; courts and PO's use discression all the time to ascertain wether a threat is credible or not before making an arrest or imposing punitive sanctions

If I tell someone I'm going to shoot down Air Force One with a rocket I should be arrested - Regardless of whether I have (or could get) a rocket capable of doing that.
probablly true, But this does'nt address whether you have a right or not to say it. So far courts have ruled threats to the POTUS are not protected by free speech. And I'd surmise being the authortarian liberal you are you'd agree. But then how far do we go? Is advocating or implying parcipitation or even working for the abolition of in any crime now a crime itself? Say for instance a black person feels threatend when you say "they should do away with all civil rights legislation". IMO it's a slippery slope where anyones sensitivities *could* be offended by speech and therefore outlawed. This is no longer the united states. Move to Germany if you like restrictions on what you can and cannot say.
Viper GTS

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The letters did contain direct threats.

news.google.com will find them for you if you want, here's an example.

Hawk said the contents of the letters ''complain about the relationships between black men and white females.'' He said the letters direct black males to end relationships with white women ''or they're going to be castrated, shot or set on fire.''

This is not a matter of free speech.

Viper GTS

I'm not even sure threats to life should be prohibited unless a emminet and credible threat exists. I mean how many times did you say "I'll kill you if you tell mom" to your sibling? Not credible and not serious.

Then you have that little matter of the first amendment in the constitution, which the courts slaughter on a regualar basis, which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


I don't know how much more clear one can get than that...alas.. but they meant this-but what if it hurts someone- but I don't like it...always comes in and disolves the orginal right.

How any intelligent person can compare death threats between pre-pubescent children and adults threatening to castrate, shoot, or burn another adult is beyond me.



Viper GTS

You missed the point: Age does'nt matter. Is the threat real should be the issue. Thousands of miles away, to a NFL player, by some woman..Hardly.

Once someone is an adult they must bear responsibility for their actions.

Really? Whether or not they could fulfill their threat is meaningless. sure it does; courts and PO's use discression all the time to ascertain wether a threat is credible or not before making an arrest or imposing punitive sanctions

If I tell someone I'm going to shoot down Air Force One with a rocket I should be arrested - Regardless of whether I have (or could get) a rocket capable of doing that.
probablly true, But this does'nt address whether you have a right or not to say it. So far courts have ruled threats to the POTUS are not protected by free speech. And I'd surmise being the authortarian liberal you are you'd agree. But then how far do we go? Is advocating or implying parcipitation or even working for the abolition of in any crime now a crime itself? Say for instance a black person feels threatend when you say "they should do away with all civil rights legislation". IMO it's a slippery slope where anyones sensitivities *could* be offended by speech and therefore outlawed. This is no longer the united states. Move to Germany if you like restrictions on what you can and cannot say.
Viper GTS

If you'd phone MacDonalds and tell them they'd better start banning all blacks unless they want to check all their food for Anthrax contamination, do you think that that should be protected too? After all, you never say you'll do it yourself, so you aren't threatening them right? And it's not like the chances of you being able to do it are that great.
They can always arrest the person writing them for spreading fear and panic, just like they'd be able to arrest you if you called a live radio station and claimed someone had planted a bomb in NYC.

You have the freedom to open your mouth, and the government has the freedom to kill you if what comes out of it is a threat to people. They may not have that right if you look at the constitution, but just start saying you are planning an attack on Bush and see how fast your rights vanish.