The American Dissident

To Noose or Not to Noose
In the Haze of Legal Vagueness

“…intimidation” is an ambiguous qualifier for determining which representations of a noose count as free speech and which count as a hate speech/crime. 

—Mike Riggs, “Noose Laws Hang Free Speech,” Reason, 2008

General lack of citizen awareness/knowledge as to what precisely constitutes legal or illegal speech and expression gives those in power positions more power over common citizens.  It is sad that our laws are not clear at all.  Many citizens seem to believe that hate speech is actually illegal in America, whereas it is NOT illegal.  Why isn’t it illegal?  Well, it shouldn’t be illegal for the simple reason that “hate” is a highly subjective designation.  So, if you were to post a BLM sign, and I were to think that to be an example of racist hate speech against white people, it would not be illegal… or might it be illegal (see below)?  Our universities need to include serious freshman orientation courses on the law.  Instead, they seem only willing to include obligatory monkey-see, monkey-do diversity courses.  Again, keeping the populace ignorant serves a purpose:  more power to those in power.  

What precisely is free speech?  Well, I’m not really sure.  Is shouting the word FUCK legal, where I live?  Well, according to Commonwealth vs. Johnson (1994): “Mere use of obscenities in public does not make out crime of disorderly conduct.”  And yet that’s what I did in the Commonwealth and was arrested and incarcerated for a day, as well as “fined” $95 to retrieve my car, which was not at all illegally parked, but had been towed on the order of the arresting cop.  Three months later the judge dismissed the case, even though the prosecutor was clearly against that decision!  What comes into play is de facto versus de jura.   In other words, a cop, despite the legality and, who knows, he or she probably doesn’t even know it’s legal, might still arrest you, cuff you, put you behind bars, and force you to appear in the courthouse, while he or she makes double-time salary sitting in the courthouse audience.  For all details and documents regarding the de facto punishment for my entirely de jura (legal) exercise of free speech, see http://theamericandissident.org/orgs/walden_pond.html.  

Most citizens are likely quite ignorant as to what speech is or is not permitted.   This morning a headline in the Cape Cod Times grabbed my attention and provoked this brief essay:  “Yarmouth police seeks suspects who placed rope noose in tree.”  I read through the short article.  Sadly, the Times did not even mention anything at all regarding the legality or illegality of such an act.  In essence, not only the nation’s universities help maintain ignorance of the law, but the media helps do that too.  Now, those who want hate speech to be illegal can go about it in a roundabout way by arguing the speech to be an act of vandalism or littering, both of which are crimes (see my blog post on the University of Southern Maine:  wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2016/12/glenn-cummings.html).  In essence, place a BLM sign on someone else’s property and you could be arrested for littering and/or trespassing.  

The Times article noted that “Officers met with members of the neighborhood watch program who pointed out the noose hanging from a tree near the neighborhood association pond, the report said.  Members of the association believed the noose to be a racist threat, according to the report.”  I then had to do a little google research on the legality or illegality of “racist threat,” another highly subjective designation.  Apparently, back in 2008 there was again much brouhaha about a noose.  David L. Hudson, Jr., writing for SPLC, noted:

Many noose displays could qualify as true threats under the rationale of the U.S. Supreme Court's cross-burning decision in Virginia v. Black (2003), in which the high court ruled that a state could criminalize cross burning carried out "with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons." The justices reasoned that cross burnings intended to intimidate constitute true threats unprotected by the First Amendment.  In other words, prosecutors must prove an intent to intimidate; the First Amendment will not allow intent to be presumed.

Well, Connecticut hate-crime law is a bit clearer:  “Any person who places a noose or a simulation thereof on any public property, or on any private property without the written consent of the owner, and with intent to intimidate or harass any other person on account of religion, national origin, alienage, color, race, sex, sexual orientation, blindness or physical disability, shall be in violation.”  Unfortunately, I could find nothing for Massachusetts.  

Needless to say, it can be quite a dizzying experience attempting to obtain some clarity regarding “intimidation” and the law.  Each state has its own laws.  A few like Michigan actually have “ethnic intimidation” laws.  As far as my state, Massachusetts, is concerned:  “Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268, Section 13B makes it a crime to willfully or recklessly engage in certain acts in an attempt to persuade certain persons who are connected to criminal proceedings, including witnesses, jurors, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and others.”  But evidently that has nothing to do with the noose as reported in the Times since it had nothing to do with a criminal proceeding.  But “intimidation” can be a form of harassment and the state has all kinds of laws with that regard (see https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-harassment-stalking-or-intentional-infliction-of-emotional).  

Lectric Law Library states, regarding “intimidation”

Means to intentionally say or do something which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities to be fearful of bodily harm. It is not necessary to prove that the victim was actually frightened, and neither is it necessary to prove that the behavior of the person was so violent that it was likely to cause terror, panic or hysteria.

And if you think it can’t get any more dizzying, Legal Information Institute asserts:  

It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by section 3603, 3604, 3605, or 3606 of this title.

So, what if I displayed a noose on my own property with the purpose of illustrating the intimidation vagueness problem?  What if a black person called the police or even stole the noose?  Would I/could I actually be arrested, fined, and even jailed?  Can a person be arrested for saying, I don’t like you because you are white?  Would/could such a statement be considered “ethnic intimidation”?  It is no wonder that the law has become a multi-billion dollar industry in America.  Do some lawyers actually specialize in “ethnic intimidation” law?  In any case, I am still left wondering whether or not it is a crime to hang a noose.  Unfortunately, I am still left in a vague cloud as to how precisely “intimidate” is legally defined.  After all, the term is highly subjective.  The lack of clarity of our laws serves not only the legal industry but also to keep the citizenry self-censoring and muzzled.