• You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.

BostonBurns

Insufferable Bastard
Bold Member!
The title pretty much speaks for itself! WTF:confused:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lack-lives-matter-protest/?tid=pm_local_pop_b


An East Tennessee State University student was arrested Wednesday after going to a Black Lives Matter protest on campus wearing a gorilla mask and handing out bananas.

Tristan Rettke, an 18-year-old freshman, wore overalls and a gorilla mask and, wandering barefoot while holding a burlap sack with a Confederate flag and a marijuana leaf on it, offered bananas to students who were protesting, according to a report by ETSU police. He was arrested and charged with civil rights intimidation.

According to campus police, after being read his rights Rettke told officers that a couple of days earlier he had seen on social media that there would be a Black Lives Matter event in the “free speech” area of Borchuck Plaza on the Johnson City, Tenn., campus. He said he went to a store Tuesday to buy rope to tie to a bunch of bananas. While there he also bought the mask and brought it all to the event on Wednesday.

According to the police report, Rettke said the stunt was an attempt to provoke the protesters.
chT6lO6.jpg

pnzXMX2.jpg
 
Stupid dipshit.

Sure, the First Amendment allows him free speech and as a human being, he has a right to his opinion. What he doesn't have is the legal or ethical right to be blatantly, crudely bigoted and racist.

What strikes me the most is that this total pork chop pulled this stunt, got arrested and got all the attention he was clearly hoping for.

Which means, that thanks to the Information Age, his crime, his attitude, his opinions and his mugshot are now permanently available for anyone to see, for the rest of his life.

He's 18 and he's just ensured that everyone who Google's his name are going to see this. Its going to screw tertiary educational opportunities and job opportunities and a multitude of personal situations and milestones during his life.

All because he wanted attention and all because the stupid dipshit thought the best way to get that attention was by trying to be cruel and wound an entire subsection of the American population.

Well done, dumb arse. You're about to learn a little something called Consequences For Actions. Its not going to be a nice lesson for you.
 
He's an asshole and should be expelled for his nastiness. If I were his Mom, I'd heel and hide him, and make him publicly apologize for being a racist jerkwad. Then I'd send him to the projects to work fixing people's houses.

I'd also be ashamed.
 
Call me devils advocate here.....but it sounds like your saying you have the right to free speech until it offends someone. Which is it free speech or no? Because free speech as long as its not a call to action can entail whatever the speaker may want to say no matter how bigoted the content is.

It shouldn't come with any other conditions other than a call to action.


I don't see how you can say one hand he has the right to free speech but on the other he doesn't because his speech is racist. I also don't see the crime here...distasteful that he may be. He was merely handing out bananas in a gorilla mask behind the backdrop of a confederate flag. Now if he was threatening to kill people or bashing peoples heads in with said bananas or burning a cross then he might be crossing a line.

Still...you can't say oh its offensive so it shouldn't be allowed. Because what else would be next?

Misgendering pronouns?
Saying all lives matter?

Offense is taken not given and highly subjective at that. So by saying he shouldnt be able to voice his bigoted opinions because thats not free speech leave room for others to be misbranded.

My point is this is the guy being racist to an extent? Yes. However does that mean he doesn't have the right to express it? No. So as long as he isnt threatening anyone or assaulting anyone or damaging private property calling unto others to do the same then he has every right to be a bigot.

Besides i have no sympathy for blm regardless of this distasteful spectacle so what ever let their wittle feelings get hurt.

In essence fuck blms feewlings after they ravaged through baltimore charlotte ferguasion i have zero fucks to give if their offended by racism. I loathe double standards because if anything i think blm is more guilty of racial intimidation than this asshat. Infact i think all those tweeters should be charged with racial intimidation after all those "kill white people" tweets.

Oh come on. Freedom of speech means simply the freedom to speak your mind. It does not mean to speak your mind with the deliberate intent to hurt, wound or harm someone.

If someone wants to utilize freedom of speech to share an opinion or idea that may be considered culturally offensive - such as what this guy wanted to convey - then knock their socks off.

But face the consequences when you wind up offending people. And consider that you may well end up deeply hurting innocent people - is it really worth exercising your right to say something, knowing that it can cause such deep pain for others?

Only a total pig would think shrieking their personal opinion was worth deeply hurting innocent people who have never said nor done a thing to them.

What this asshole did, didn't serve a useful purpose. It was not an opinion based on a genuine issue apparent in the African American community. He behaved in an extraordinarily insensitive manner. And he knew. You can have lived under a rock for the past 30 years and you still know - dressing like an ape and handing out bananas is extraordinarily offensive given the connotations.

He didn't have any social commentary to offer or share. He didn't even have an opinion that controversial or kind, he wanted to share. He just wanted to be as offensive as possible and garner as much attention as possible. And that's what he admitted to. So case closed. He is a piece of shit and he got busted for being a piece of shit.

And no, freedom of speech, in my view, is not limited to anything that does not offend. People get offended all the time by things said.

But if I for instance, wanted to share an opinion on say, the drug and alcohol abuse stereotype that's attached to the Australian Aboriginal community; I can use freedom of speech to be an offensive dipshit and total waste of oxygen by saying something like
'Fucking Abo's. All they do is collect Centrelink payments, get pissed and sniff petrol all day, whilst bashing each other. No surprise really. After all, after 40,000 years, all they invented was a stick. They're just a bunch of ignorant, unevolved primates'.

Or I can use freedom of speech to say instead; 'Yes, drug and alcohol abuse is prevalent amongst the Indigenous communities in Australia. This is an issue that is generational and is causing great harm to many Australian Aborigines.'

See? Both are blunt opinions. Both are no nonsense. I'm not hand holding anyone. I'm not making excuses for anyone.

But I'm choosing my words. To either deliberately cause great offense - to be the nastiest piece of shit possible - or to state my opinion without being a shit about it.

If someone decides to be offended by the second statement, that's their choice. But I am not responsible for their offense, especially when I've been factual, kept unnecessary emotion out of it and I am discussing an issue that I can back up with facts, I.e, the prevalence of drug and alcohol abuse.

It all comes down to treating people the way you want to be treated, whether on an individual or group level. There is no need for deliberate spite and cruelty - and to try and write it off and hide behind the auspices of 'free speech' is pure cowardice.
 
But those consquences shouldnt equate to being charged with a crime.

No your wrong in this one freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Simple as that. It can have meaning it can not. It can be wonderful or rubbish. Theres no other conditions applied other than a call to action. You can be as polite as you want or rude. Bigoted or sensitive...either way if the person wants to express their opinion or lack there of they have every right to do it.

Whilst his stunt wasn't the best taste i take problem with fact that a. He's being charged with a crime which is problematic because whats next. B. Theres a huge double standard because blm has been known to incite racial intimidation and much worse yet i hardly ever read of protesters of being arrested for the same crime. C. Your idea that free speech is only free speech if its presented a certain way.

You say that its not limited to what doesn't offend but then you preface you reply that free speech shouldn't deliberately wound people. So which is it?

Its either accept the idea that free speech is essential with out limits even knowing it can be a free for all. Or admit that you like the idea of limitations. Because thats the feel that im getting from your response.

As for is it worth it to wound people with words? I work in a call center i heard some pretty awful stuff said to me but if i took every sexist racist horrible stuff said to me to heart than i wouldn't be able to work. The world isn't a safe space theres going to be offensive shit if your so easily wounded by words then your probably thin skinned.

Im actually kind of glad to see racist spectales like this because atleast i know whose a racist and as for BLM my point still stands fuck their precious snowflake feelings. I am sick to death of their pillaging in the name of racial equality and could hardly care if this racist asshat hurted their feels.

You are picking through what I wrote to support your argument.

As I stated, there is a difference between someone being offended from hearing something said - and deliberately and knowingly speaking in a way designed to incite offense. Its context and intent. If the speaker actively wishes to cause offense whilst exercising their right to free speech - then they're an asshole. Freedom of speech does not absolve you of the consequences of what you have said, nor is it an excuse for spite and cruelty.

I find it hilarious to be lectured by you, at your age, working in a call centre over the need for safe spaces etc. Sweetheart, when I was your age, safe spaces didn't exist, nor did the idiot concept. I too, did my time, at your age, working in call centre's, so I understand very well the abuse heaped on you at times by some idiots. You're showing your inexperience due to your age from your assumptions.

When I was your age, you were in your toilet training years. I've got a lot to learn, plenty of things to mature on and a tonne of wisdom to still collect, but I've got years and years and years of life experience on you at this juncture - and believe me when I say, based on that life experience - that you are talking straight out of your ass right now.

I think my general attitude I've displayed on this site since joining shows I'm not thin skinned, nor am I left wing, nor am I supportive of most progressive notions. Like 'safe spaces'. But you assume your ass off, sweetheart. Whatever floats your boat.

As for your bizarre hatred and resentment of the BLM movement. Look, I too, see faults within their ideology. Its not perfect, nor is their message, nor are the behaviours of many of their members.

But I damn well support the fact that, that Black lives matter. And I've supported that long before the BLM movement reared it's head and I'll support it long after it eats itself and disappears. Everyone's life matters. It just so happens right now, for a number of important reasons, that African Americans are getting shot at and harmed by Police at a rate that is very disproportionate to Whites, Hispanics etc. Especially given how small a minority the Black community actually represents in the US, from a population viewpoint.

You seem to be latching on to the issues you have with the BLM movement and bucketing blame and judgement over the entire movement, its supporters and the reasons why it exists. The world is just not black and white like that. For every idiot, or worrying notion to come out of the BLM movement, there are 5 more people who just want to end the racism occurring - and the consequences of it. And 5 more notions that the movement represent that are fair and reasonable.

As for you worrying about his charges leading to a slippery slope - well, I'd assume you were joking, but I've seen your ideas on other topics on here - and it fits with other things you've said that you actually are concerned about the fact he was charged with a HATE CRIME.

I cannot, for the life of me, see a single, solitary reason to support his actions. What he did was vile. It was cruel and spiteful. It was nasty and vindictive. It was done to garner attention whilst causing as much pain and humiliation as possible to an entire section of society.

And you think that this doesn't deserve a slap on the wrist?

That worries me more than anything else. You seem to want the right to spew vitriol at others and not suffer the consequences. You seem to want the right the say things deliberately designed to wound and hurt - just because you can. And you think its worrying for someone who committed a HATE CRIME and who admitted to committing it - to be punished as a result.

You have a lot to learn.
 
Last edited:
Unquestionably this guy is an asshole, but I couldn't figure out how he broke a law so I looked up this Civil Rights Intimidation business which is apparently just a Tennessee thing:

Civil Rights Intimidation - Injuring or threatening another person with the intent to intimidate them from the free exercise of any right or privilege in Tennessee, or for exercising any right or privilege; also damaging any real or personal property to intimidate another from enjoying any right or privilege secured by U.S. or Tennessee laws, or for exercising any right or privilege. It's illegal to wear a mask or disguise with the intent of violating this law.

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/tennessee-law/tennessee-disorderly-conduct-laws.html

I don't see how this law is constitutional. I doubt this charge will stick and will probably be thrown out before it even gets to court. What he did was beyond scumbaggery and I absolutely don't mind that he's been blasted around the Internet, but I'm not really feeling great that the cops can arrest someone for handing out bananas. It's called being an asshole, but it doesn't qualify as an actual threat (doesn't sound like he said there would be any harm to anyone, unless I'm missing something) and certainly not injury.

On the bright side at least he's now well known for being a POS and even though the charges will almost certainly be wiped, he'll go down in Internet history as a racist piece of garbage and I think that's the best we can ask for.
 
Call me devils advocate here.....but it sounds like your saying you have the right to free speech until it offends someone. Which is it free speech or no? Because free speech as long as its not a call to action can entail whatever the speaker may want to say no matter how bigoted the content is.

It shouldn't come with any other conditions other than a call to action.


I don't see how you can say one hand he has the right to free speech but on the other he doesn't because his speech is racist. I also don't see the crime here...distasteful that he may be. He was merely handing out bananas in a gorilla mask behind the backdrop of a confederate flag. Now if he was threatening to kill people or bashing peoples heads in with said bananas or burning a cross then he might be crossing a line.

Still...you can't say oh its offensive so it shouldn't be allowed. Because what else would be next?

Misgendering pronouns?
Saying all lives matter?

Offense is taken not given and highly subjective at that. So by saying he shouldnt be able to voice his bigoted opinions because thats not free speech leave room for others to be misbranded.

My point is this is the guy being racist to an extent? Yes. However does that mean he doesn't have the right to express it? No. So as long as he isnt threatening anyone or assaulting anyone or damaging private property calling unto others to do the same then he has every right to be a bigot.

Besides i have no sympathy for blm regardless of this distasteful spectacle so what ever let their wittle feelings get hurt.

In essence fuck blms feewlings after they ravaged through baltimore charlotte ferguasion i have zero fucks to give if their offended by racism. I loathe double standards because if anything i think blm is more guilty of racial intimidation than this asshat. Infact i think all those tweeters should be charged with racial intimidation after all those "kill white people" tweets.

i have not read the entire thread yet but I'm going to add onto what you said. I agree with you entirely, this man did nothing wrong.

Offence is not given it is taken. Everyone decides on their own what they find offensive thus I may find people looking at me offensive for example. One cannot regulate what offends people and, consequently cannot prohibit offending people because there is no objective mesure of what is or isn't offensive. The best thing one can actually do is make talking about certain topics illegal but, besides from being questionable on many moral and practical levels, this kind of ban has nothing to do with actual offense - it's just setting a state sanctionned idea of what is offensive, it does not mean anyone actually finds any of the prohibited topics to be offensive though.

You also forgot Milwaukee race wars.
 
Last edited:
Unquestionably this guy is an asshole, but I couldn't figure out how he broke a law so I looked up this Civil Rights Intimidation business which is apparently just a Tennessee thing:

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/tennessee-law/tennessee-disorderly-conduct-laws.html

I don't see how this law is constitutional. I doubt this charge will stick and will probably be thrown out before it even gets to court. What he did was beyond scumbaggery and I absolutely don't mind that he's been blasted around the Internet, but I'm not really feeling great that the cops can arrest someone for handing out bananas. It's called being an asshole, but it doesn't qualify as an actual threat (doesn't sound like he said there would be any harm to anyone, unless I'm missing something) and certainly not injury.

On the bright side at least he's now well known for being a POS and even though the charges will almost certainly be wiped, he'll go down in Internet history as a racist piece of garbage and I think that's the best we can ask for.

I agree with you. The statute doesn't make any charge of incitement, which is about the only thing he may have been doing illegally. Incitement usually requires some outraged people. I imagine there were some of those.

Mocking doesn't usually become intimidation. The guy looks like a dweeb too, so I can't imagine anyone being physically intimidated by him.

I think the cops my have been more concerned for the idiot's welfare than anything else.
 
Disgusting he was arrested for this.

Does Tennessee also arrest assholes for holding KKK rallies? Why not, if this law exists and could be used against this doucher?

Sounds like a load of shit.

Anyways, the over the top nature of his antics is kinda funny. Any single part of his getup/behavior would be bad enough, but ALLLLL of it combined? It enters into the absurd and i can't help but laugh. I wish i could see the look on the protestors faces when they first saw this asshole show up.
 
This is the probable basis for arrest.

It's still incorrect to arrest him for that. It's illegal to wear the mask while intending to violate the law. He wasn't violating the law because he wasn't threatening or causing injury, so if the verbiage in that article is accurate then the mask should be irrelevant to the arrest. Key word - should.

I think you are right that that's why he was arrested though, and that the police adopted a very "liberal" interpretation of the law to publicly shame someone they hate.
 
It's still incorrect to arrest him for that. It's illegal to wear the mask while intending to violate the law. He wasn't violating the law because he wasn't threatening or causing injury, so if the verbiage in that article is accurate then the mask should be irrelevant to the arrest. Key word - should.

I think you are right that that's why he was arrested though, and that the police adopted a very "liberal" interpretation of the law to publicly shame someone they hate.

Agreed, the intimidation was really in the broadest sense of the term - it was teasing - no actual threats or violence; but the mask was LE's "probable cause". While LE's job is to enforce the laws, it's up to the courts to interpret if the laws have actually been violated.
Whether the arrest will be upheld in court remains to be seen, but as of now it serves a reminder to fully research the laws and all obscurities within the legal connotations before endeavoring in public displays for mere publicity and lulz-ification factors.
 
Unquestionably this guy is an asshole, but I couldn't figure out how he broke a law so I looked up this Civil Rights Intimidation business which is apparently just a Tennessee thing:



http://statelaws.findlaw.com/tennessee-law/tennessee-disorderly-conduct-laws.html

I don't see how this law is constitutional. I doubt this charge will stick and will probably be thrown out before it even gets to court. What he did was beyond scumbaggery and I absolutely don't mind that he's been blasted around the Internet, but I'm not really feeling great that the cops can arrest someone for handing out bananas. It's called being an asshole, but it doesn't qualify as an actual threat (doesn't sound like he said there would be any harm to anyone, unless I'm missing something) and certainly not injury.

On the bright side at least he's now well known for being a POS and even though the charges will almost certainly be wiped, he'll go down in Internet history as a racist piece of garbage and I think that's the best we can ask for.

I'm confused. When you say unconstitutional, I'm thinking you mean the actual US constitution, right? I'm not missing something blatantly obvious here? :)

I am by no means an expert in the law, let alone US law - but if this charge is on the books in the state of Tennessee and he's tried and convicted in Tennessee, where does the national constitution come into play here? The law would have had to have met the constitution to begin with, when Tennessee first passed it, I would have thought?

Sorry :). I'm not arguing with you. I'm genuinely completely confused, primarily because I don't really understand the finer points. Are you talking about a situation in which he's charged and convicted in Tennessee - but he could then take it on appeal to the Supreme Court? The federal one, I mean. And that the SC may deem it to then be unconstitutional? Because if he took it to the Tennessee SC, surely they'd uphold given its their state's approved law to begin with?

I wish I better understood all the complexities. It was my (admittedly minimal) understanding that for a law such as this one to be passed, it would have had to have gone through the Tennessee SC for vetting and approval? And wouldn't the whole 'is this in line with the constitution' issue have been addressed then, during its creation and approval process?
 
@sarahdownunder State laws are, in theory, absolutely supposed to be constitutional when they are passed, but some unconstitutional laws are still in effect from long ago and no one has contested them to effect any sort of change. This is why the Supreme Court often does overturn state laws - the state laws get passed because the state usually has some bullshit excuse why it's legal, but a Supreme Court judge analyzes the state law and deems it unconstitutional.

In this case, if (somehow) the local courts ruled that he had in fact violated this law (which I don't believe he did and I don't believe any judge will think it's the case), then he could appeal to the upper courts who would end up fighting the law entirely based on the fact that what he did was protected by the Free Speech clause. Honestly, I don't know the process well and don't have time to research, but it involves climbing up the ladder of the court system until someone strikes down the conviction and in this case I think he'd easily win.

I doubt this law has affected many people since in modern times (until very recently) civil rights demonstrations weren't common, so I doubt many people have been arrested under this law before. Also, most of the civil rights protesters in modern history were blacks when just about no white man in political power gave a shit about them, so I doubt any lawyers were rushing to help them out and get the laws changed mid-20th century. I'm not totally sure but I've always been under the impression that Tennessee is racist as shit. Many outdated laws still exist on the books but no one gives a shit to change them until they actually impact (respected) people, so perhaps this will be it. It takes significant time and effort to get these things changed, so most of the time no one bothers to effect a change if the police aren't currently harassing people with these inane laws.

I just don't understand how the civil rights demonstrators have this right to free speech, expressing how they feel about the situation, and this man can't express his (albeit degenerate) thoughts by calmly handing out bananas. Unless I'm missing something in this story and he was exhibiting threatening behavior, he should also have the right to free douchey speak like the rest of the people there.

I just wish someone had the right to punch him in the face and smash that schnoz. Cameras ruin all the fun of retaliation. Back in the day no one would have had to arrest this buffoon and justice would have been served. What a waste.
 
Sarahdownunder, from the way it reads, he broke a State constitutional law, not a Federal law.
From the link there's this:
  • Class A Misdemeanor - not more than 11 months and 29 days in jail and a $2,500 fine (wearing a mask/disguise with the intent to commit civil rights intimidation)
So the farthest he could take it on appeals is the State of Tenn supreme court.
The intimidation would more aptly fall under harassment guidelines under a loose interpretation - depending on how close his proximity was to protesters - and what, if any, comments he may have made.
IMO, the mask is what the arrest was based on, and compounded his public assholism into the criminal courts' system.
HTH
[doublepost=1478005916,1478004241][/doublepost]Following from the original link to:

http://www.socratek.com/StateLaws.aspx?id=609054&title=39-17-309 Civil Rights Intimidation

Again, this seems to fall under harassment (barely) - without the mask, he probably would have received a written warning at most, and sent home packing his bananas.
 
@sarahdownunder State laws are, in theory, absolutely supposed to be constitutional when they are passed, but some unconstitutional laws are still in effect from long ago and no one has contested them to effect any sort of change. This is why the Supreme Court often does overturn state laws - the state laws get passed because the state usually has some bullshit excuse why it's legal, but a Supreme Court judge analyzes the state law and deems it unconstitutional.

In this case, if (somehow) the local courts ruled that he had in fact violated this law (which I don't believe he did and I don't believe any judge will think it's the case), then he could appeal to the upper courts who would end up fighting the law entirely based on the fact that what he did was protected by the Free Speech clause. Honestly, I don't know the process well and don't have time to research, but it involves climbing up the ladder of the court system until someone strikes down the conviction and in this case I think he'd easily win.

I doubt this law has affected many people since in modern times (until very recently) civil rights demonstrations weren't common, so I doubt many people have been arrested under this law before. Also, most of the civil rights protesters in modern history were blacks when just about no white man in political power gave a shit about them, so I doubt any lawyers were rushing to help them out and get the laws changed mid-20th century. I'm not totally sure but I've always been under the impression that Tennessee is racist as shit. Many outdated laws still exist on the books but no one gives a shit to change them until they actually impact (respected) people, so perhaps this will be it. It takes significant time and effort to get these things changed, so most of the time no one bothers to effect a change if the police aren't currently harassing people with these inane laws.

I just don't understand how the civil rights demonstrators have this right to free speech, expressing how they feel about the situation, and this man can't express his (albeit degenerate) thoughts by calmly handing out bananas. Unless I'm missing something in this story and he was exhibiting threatening behavior, he should also have the right to free douchey speak like the rest of the people there.

I just wish someone had the right to punch him in the face and smash that schnoz. Cameras ruin all the fun of retaliation. Back in the day no one would have had to arrest this buffoon and justice would have been served. What a waste.


Thankyou Spiff, I appreciate it. It clears a few things up for me.
[doublepost=1478031205,1478031070][/doublepost]
Sarahdownunder, from the way it reads, he broke a State constitutional law, not a Federal law.
From the link there's this:
  • Class A Misdemeanor - not more than 11 months and 29 days in jail and a $2,500 fine (wearing a mask/disguise with the intent to commit civil rights intimidation)
So the farthest he could take it on appeals is the State of Tenn supreme court.
The intimidation would more aptly fall under harassment guidelines under a loose interpretation - depending on how close his proximity was to protesters - and what, if any, comments he may have made.
IMO, the mask is what the arrest was based on, and compounded his public assholism into the criminal courts' system.
HTH
[doublepost=1478005916,1478004241][/doublepost]Following from the original link to:

http://www.socratek.com/StateLaws.aspx?id=609054&title=39-17-309 Civil Rights Intimidation

Again, this seems to fall under harassment (barely) - without the mask, he probably would have received a written warning at most, and sent home packing his bananas.

Thanks Siobhan! That's interesting - the difference in probable charges vs a ticket or warning all coming down to the mask.

I sincerely hope this idiot wasn't actually in University at the time for a law degree lol. That'd be quite the irony.
 
Thanks Siobhan! That's interesting - the difference in probable charges vs a ticket or warning all coming down to the mask.

Tenn. was a former confederate State, and many of those States have updated their laws since the civil rights movement of the 1960's, so it's not all that surprising when you break down the basics of language:
whereas a "hood" is a type of "mask".
In my area of North FL, the Klan is still very present, but fortunately their visible activities have toned down quite a bit in the last twenty years. They mostly come out publicly in full costumes to promote their "Adopt a Highway" roadside beautification programs.
IMO, this is simply a ploy for advertising, because when they're allowed to officially "adopt" a highway, they're also allowed to put up a sign declaring said adoption.
[doublepost=1478074674,1478073641][/doublepost]Other variables that we don't know are: how close in proximity are counter protesters allowed to be to protesters - some States/counties requite X many feet between the opposing groups for safety purposes, or whether or not the simple act of getting a permit would have kept this socially impaired fuckstain from getting arrested.
One could assume that a permit inquiry might have better informed him on keeping any distance requirements and about using a mask.

(eta: semi-colon)
 
Last edited:
Tenn. was a former confederate State, and many of those States have updated their laws since the civil rights movement of the 1960's, so it's not all that surprising when you break down the basics of language:
whereas a "hood" is a type of "mask".
In my area of North FL, the Klan is still very present, but fortunately their visible activities have toned down quite a bit in the last twenty years. They mostly come out publicly in full costumes to promote their "Adopt a Highway" roadside beautification programs.
IMO, this is simply a ploy for advertising, because when they're allowed to officially "adopt" a highway, they're also allowed to put up a sign declaring said adoption.
[doublepost=1478074674,1478073641][/doublepost]Other variables that we don't know are: how close in proximity are counter protesters allowed to be to protesters - some States/counties requite X many feet between the opposing groups for safety purposes, or whether or not the simple act of getting a permit would have kept this socially impaired fuckstain from getting arrested.
One could assume that a permit inquiry might have better informed him on keeping any distance requirements and about using a mask.

(eta: semi-colon)

I'm sorry. Did you say that the freaking Klu Klux Klan is operational in your area???

I thought that shit had died out decades ago? Are there seriously, still a bunch of pissed off white people wearing fucking bed sheets, parading around, wishing for the days where they could have a good lynching or gang rape of some poor black man or woman?

I seriously thought the KKK shit had died out. I knew racism still existed of course - every nation has its issues with racism, but that's blown me away. The actual KKK.

They're still organized and meeting and all that jazz? Do they make their presence known? Are they open about it? I saw something awhile back, a couple of twits in bedsheets protesting in California I think. I thought they were like this dipshit in this story, just random morons.
 
I'm sorry. Did you say that the freaking Klu Klux Klan is operational in your area???

I thought that shit had died out decades ago? Are there seriously, still a bunch of pissed off white people wearing fucking bed sheets, parading around, wishing for the days where they could have a good lynching or gang rape of some poor black man or woman?

I seriously thought the KKK shit had died out. I knew racism still existed of course - every nation has its issues with racism, but that's blown me away. The actual KKK.

They're still organized and meeting and all that jazz? Do they make their presence known? Are they open about it? I saw something awhile back, a couple of twits in bedsheets protesting in California I think. I thought they were like this dipshit in this story, just random morons.

Yepperz, they're still here, and some are so proud about it that they actually pose for photo opps:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/community/sfl-ku-klux-klan-pg-photogallery.html

The front photo is from just last year, IIRC, but nearly all of the others are from years past.
I live a little over 20 miles from this little township:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewood_massacre

They're active all over parts of the US still, but I think there membership numbers have drastically dropped over the past few decades - no one knows for certain how large they really are, because they don't exactly publish a members list. Any numbers they may claim are sure to be extremely exaggerated, as they are propaganda perpetuators who firmly believe in Goebbels' "big lie" tactic.
I think mostly, they're now left to breeding/raising future bigots, but I'm sure they still manage to find a few stragglers here and there from the random unwashed masses.
 
I'm sorry. Did you say that the freaking Klu Klux Klan is operational in your area???

I thought that shit had died out decades ago? Are there seriously, still a bunch of pissed off white people wearing fucking bed sheets, parading around, wishing for the days where they could have a good lynching or gang rape of some poor black man or woman?

I seriously thought the KKK shit had died out. I knew racism still existed of course - every nation has its issues with racism, but that's blown me away. The actual KKK.

They're still organized and meeting and all that jazz? Do they make their presence known? Are they open about it? I saw something awhile back, a couple of twits in bedsheets protesting in California I think. I thought they were like this dipshit in this story, just random morons.
I live in Memphis, TN. They apply for permits and hold rallies on a regular basis.
 
Yepperz, they're still here, and some are so proud about it that they actually pose for photo opps:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/community/sfl-ku-klux-klan-pg-photogallery.html

The front photo is from just last year, IIRC, but nearly all of the others are from years past.
I live a little over 20 miles from this little township:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewood_massacre

They're active all over parts of the US still, but I think there membership numbers have drastically dropped over the past few decades - no one knows for certain how large they really are, because they don't exactly publish a members list. Any numbers they may claim are sure to be extremely exaggerated, as they are propaganda perpetuators who firmly believe in Goebbels' "big lie" tactic.
I think mostly, they're now left to breeding/raising future bigots, but I'm sure they still manage to find a few stragglers here and there from the random unwashed masses.

Thanks for that!

Jesus, every day you continue to breathe, you learn something new and startling.

I remember sneering at the movie, A Time To Kill, thinking 'that's so like Hollywood, making out that the Klan is still alive and kicking in the 90s in the deep South'. Seems I owe some Hollywood executives and Matthew McConnaughy an apology lol.
[doublepost=1478152703,1478152616][/doublepost]
I live in Memphis, TN. They apply for permits and hold rallies on a regular basis.

Thanks for that :)

OK. I officially need a drink. Fuck this noise. What a revelation.
 
@sarahdownunder - "A Time to Kill" is my favorite of the Grisham novels. Always has been. Because the rural South was very much like that when I lived in Georgia, (30+ years ago now!). The suburbs of Atlanta were normal and pedestrian as hell, but you'd get a few miles out of town and you'd be smack down in a scene from "Deliverance". Banjo music and all.

Also, my ex's brother is actually good friends with Grisham. His brother teaches at the University in Oxford, that's where John and Roger met. Mr. Grisham sent me an autographed copy of "A Time to Kill". Had my storage unit not been robbed, I'd still have it... :(

I liked the book, I did like the movie lol - just scoffed away at the premise - being this ignorant dumb arse who thought I knew better, clearly! :D serves me right.

Get your brother to ask for another signing ha ha - I'm sure Grisham won't mind!
 
The last rally I'm aware of that they had locally (local being at least 15 miles, 'coz that's how far I am from any incorporated area) was about 10 years ago, but AFAIK they're not required to advertise, so I could be wrong.
They don't advertise, but the local newspaper always lets us know. I hate their baiting asses
 
As I stated, there is a difference between someone being offended from hearing something said - and deliberately and knowingly speaking in a way designed to incite offense. Its context and intent. If the speaker actively wishes to cause offense whilst exercising their right to free speech - then they're an asshole. Freedom of speech does not absolve you of the consequences of what you have said, nor is it an excuse for spite and cruelty.
I, for one, do not want the bigots, the asshats, the psychopaths, the damn fools, or anybody else to feel constrained from expressing whatever vile, crude, and yes, even offensive thought which may cross their little pea brains. And I will tell you why.

If I am speaking to a George Lincoln Rockwell, a David Duke, a Charles Lindberg, I want them to feel free to say whatever they choose. That way I will know what the inner person is like and I can decide whether I wish to continue with him or her. Stifling speech to the point that the only thing spoken is the sort of insipid pabulum that is unlikely to offend anybody who is or who has ever been on the face of the earth robs me of that invaluable tool.

--Al
 
Back
Top