Wear a Gorilla mask and hold Banana at BLM protest You get---civil rights charges

a reply to: luthier

Yet you can burn the American Flag knowing people feel strong enough to defend what it stands for with sacrifice and their lives. If burning the flag is not a violation of vets civil rights......


Wait A minute? Then why not charge the guy with inciting violence. That is different than civil rights charges?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Nobody has ever been punched because they burned an American flag. Seems like it insights violence, therefore should be banned?

How is it inciting violence if "nobody has ever been punched because they burned a flag", as you say? Furthermore, one has been upheld as constitutionally protected while the other has not. So what exactly is our misunderstanding here?

Stalking Harassment and inciting a riot What if you're mom was strangled and raped can I imitate her screams for help and make fun of her in front of you face while you sit there looking like an idiot you only have two options violence or call the cops

originally posted by: seasonal
Ut oh this student is in deep trouble for using what some may say is free speech.


A judge has authorized charges against a student who wore a gorilla mask and dangled a banana at BLM protestors.

JOHNSON CITY, Tenn. – A Washington County judge on Monday authorized additional charges against a student who allegedly donned an ape mask and dangled bananas at students during a Black Lives Matter protest in September.

www.educationviews.org...

Tristan Rettke was charged with civil rights violations for his actions.

Former East Tennessee State University student Tristan Rettke, 18, was charged with a civil rights violation after he attended a Sept. 28 Black Lives Matter protest at ETSU’s “free speech zone” in Borchuck Plaza while wearing an ape mask and carrying bananas tied to a rope. Rettke also allegedly displayed a burlap sack emblazoned with the Confederate flag to provoke the protestors, WCYB reports.

At Rettke’s preliminary hearing in Washington County General Sessions Court on Monday, Assistant District Attorney Will Monk asked Judge Robert Lincoln to add two more charges against the student: disorderly conduct and inciting a riot, according to the Johnson City Press.

What a total A-hole. Unfortunately the number of a-holes is increasing. Just look at the posts here on ATS with people defending disgusting sh.t that I though we consigned to history post Nazi Germany. But oh no it's all rearing it's ugly head again.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Kandinsky

You couldn't be more wrong.

Protection of all speech is important. If you pick and choose then we all loose. (didn't mean the rhyme)

So what do you think about the forms of unprotected speech that I listed earlier? LOL

I'll repeat: There are already many forms of accepted restrictions on speech, such as threats, libel & slander, disclosure of classified information, inciting a riot, insider trading laws, copyright infringement laws, and many anti-fraud laws.

So why are you drawing the line in the sand about being free to race bait?

ETA: And how can I forget things like perjury, lying on our taxes, and lying to police or investigators? I guess people shouldn't complain if an immigrant lies on his/her visa application because "Free Speech!". A company lies about dumping toxins in your city's water supply? Free speech! A company won't service your 10 year warranty because they say they lied & it was really only a 1 year warranty? Free speech! There's dog meat in your favorite cereal but the company didn't list it? Free speech! And hey, why can't I say that I'm you on a credit card application? Identity theft? Nope, free speech!

You say that all forms of speech should be protected. Can't pick & choose, right? You sure you don't want to rethink that?

a reply to: yorkshirelad

Remember though, Nazis weren't outlawed in the US. Neither was the KKK and both of them exist here to this day. Their groups and their State/local chapters even have websites, youtube videos, newsletters, and official platforms.

white snowflakes don't want their freedom of speech taken away but turn a blind eye to civil rights.

they can't comprehend why infringement of civil rights is illegal, they just don't want one of their rights taken away, who cares about anyone else!!!

Free speech is seldom free.
Either we have free speech or we dont.
"Causing a riot"... very, very weak argument. Anything can cause a riot, as can nothing. What is worth rioting over is different from person to person. Rioting is illegal..... not free speech. Looting is illegal, not free speech.

When you cheer over someones Right to Free Speech being violated..... you are only setting yourself up for YOUR free speech and the things you want to say being restricted in the future.

People have been free to say what ever stupid things they wish in this country for over 200 years and we somehow have managed to go about life without riots.....be careful what you wish for..you just might get it

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: luthier

Yet you can burn the American Flag knowing people feel strong enough to defend what it stands for with sacrifice and their lives. If burning the flag is not a violation of vets civil rights......


Wait A minute? Then why not charge the guy with inciting violence. That is different than civil rights charges?

You can be charged for inciting violence depending on the circumstances.

As far as a noose? That is a threat. The banana and gorilla suit may have been fine.
The flag however is a political symbol. Burning the American flag in protest of American policy does not have the same intent as wearing a gorilla mask and dragging a noose.

a reply to: Zimnydran

Actually that isn't true. Do some research. There are supreme court cases you can follow.

The line is when your protest make people fear for their lives. It is somewhat subjective but is philosphically sound in premise.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

There is no misunderstanding. It is quite clear free speech is threatened and it is purposely picked who gets to exercise free speech to facilitate a divided country.

It was the right of the guy to put on the gorilla suit.

It was the right of the group to call him racist.

The group did not have a basis to feel threatened into self protection, or resort to violence.

I see how inciting violence charges would apply.

The civil right charges are political grandstanding and were used in hopes to further racially divide our society.

I am appalled, being part of a civil free speech society, that individuals would imply
charlie hebdo, or any similar example, got what they asked for.

a reply to: Zimnydran

No you can still say whatever you want

a reply to: neutronflux

A noose is the same as moving you pointing finger across your neck it is a threat not to mention the harassment

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I don't think a riot was started. This seems like freedom of speech. Would I do that in my mid 40's nope.

Seems like a lot of people want "Freedom from speech".

So what exactly was he saying? Speech being the key word.

a reply to: neutronflux

If you tell me your going to rape my daughter is that free speech?

Did you know Andrew Jackson shot and killed a man for making fun of his wife then became president.

How is that for free speech and historical relevance?

for those of you saying he deserved a punch in the face or 2 but not a civil rights charge...

The ones doing the punching would be going to jail for violence and then have that on their record and the stupid ape would just walk away with a broken nose.

how is that fair? they did what you thought they should have? clearly you didn't think this through.

The BLM protesters did the right thing and called the police. The doofus deserves a civil rights charge. He will walk and will probably get it expunged if he is good for the next 12 months, however, i hope it costs him thousands of dollars.

a reply to: luthier

Andrew Jackson was a bad bad awful man

(sort of like our new president of today')

a reply to: veracity

Oh I know. Just trying to explain America has never been some fairy tale land where everything was perfect.

originally posted by: omniEther
a reply to: neutronflux

A noose is the same as moving you pointing finger across your neck it is a threat not to mention the harassment

Actually you are wrong. And the rape examples are wrong.

One, its has to be a credible threat in the view of the law.

Two, it has to be proven the individual would carryout out violence.

As horrible as it is, the intent to harm has to be established. Then the wishing or stating someone should die is not a threat of saying you will kill someone.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: omniEther
a reply to: neutronflux

A noose is the same as moving you pointing finger across your neck it is a threat not to mention the harassment

Actually you are wrong. And the rape examples are wrong.

One, its has to be a credible threat in the view of the law.

Two, it has to be proven the individual would carryout out violence.

As horrible as it is, the intent to harm has to be established. Then the wishing or stating someone should die is not a threat of saying you will kill someone.

It also depends on the result being actual fear from the person offended.