FBI eyes anti-Jena 6, pro-white supremacy website
FBI spokespersons said this weekend they are reviewing a white supremacist website that published addresses said to belong to five of the six black teens accused of beating a white student in Jena, Louisiana.
The site read, "Lynch the Jena 6." Snip from AP item:
Sheila Thorne, an agent in the FBI's New Orleans office, said authorities were reviewing whether the site breaks any federal laws. She said the FBI had "gathered intelligence on the matter," but declined to further explain how the agency got involved.Link to AP story.CNN first reported Friday about the Web site, which features a swastika, frequent use of racial slurs, a mailing address in Roanoke, Va., and phone numbers purportedly for some of the teens' families "in case anyone wants to deliver justice." That page is dated Thursday.
The site in question, overthrow dot com, has been off and online intermittently -- but its cache and mirrors are easily googleable if you're inclined to observe the contents for yourself. "Overthrow" plus "jena" plus "bill white" plus the n-word will get you there in a hurry. One of the mirrors is hosted on blogspot, and the content is about what you'd expect (hey, surprise: The Jews are to blame, too!).
More wandering through Google and the Wayback Machine shows that Mr. White has a history of dramatically inserting himself into current events involving race; sort of a serial troll.
Editorial note: I usually don't link to neo-nazi websites, or any site that invites people to kill specific other people -- so I'll refrain from doing so here. I'd welcome your thoughts on whether or not that's the right thing to do in the comments.
Here's a question for federal law buffs and attorneys out there: what are the legal boundaries with this sort of website? Hateful or racist speech isn't illegal, per se, nor is publishing someone's publicly listed address on the internet. Many a troll would be in jail if that were the case. Is the legal issue at hand whether this site specifically calls for the murder of the people whose purported home addresses were listed? At what point does a site like this become defined as "hate crime" or "incitement to violence"? Again, your observations are welcomed here.
the latest
latest episodes
Racism isn't born, folks, it's taught. I have a two-year-old son. You know what he hates? Naps! End of list. - Denis Leary
Hee Hee
Unfortunatly Cowicide, thats not entirely true. Not only do kids recognize ingroup-outgroups from an early age (
Another line of research shows that parts of the amygdala actually fire differently when observing outgroup members compared with ingroup members.
Thus, there's converging evidence suggesting that racism is an (unfortunate) human tendancy.
Which is why we have to fight against it. Because its all too natural to abide by it.
Disclaimer: I'm still a lowly law student, so I'm not sure I've got much academic authority on the subject at hand...
It would seem that the elements of an inchoate offense of solicitation might be satisfied here. The website "commands, encourages or requests another to commit" an offense.
The offense seems to be loosely described as "deliver justice", but it's not tough to figure out what they're getting at here.
Between the publishing of the addresses and contact info, the seriousness of the matter, the tone on the sites, and the high likelihood that this could happen certainly brings this pretty darn close to a solicitation and outside the realm of protected speech.
It's disgusting.
Though the characteristics of the case are very different, People v. Rubin comes to mind...
You ask at what point a website of this nature breaks the law.
I'm afraid that in parts of the US, that point only comes when white people are the target.
IMHO, the law was broken when some "clever" white students hung a noose on a tree in a part of the country where lynching is recent enough that grandparents of some of the black students remember it first hand.
Racism is still an infected boil on America's ass.
The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment does not protect fighting words, including "true threats." E.g., Watts v. United States (1969). Lower courts have occasionally disagreed in interpreting this doctrine, but in a strikingly similar case, the Ninth Circuit (en banc) held that anti-abortion activists who posted doctors' personal information on a site called the "Nuremburg Files" could be held liable. Planned Parenthood v. ACLA (2002). See the wikipedia page on the defendants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Coalition_of_Life_Activists
While that was a civil case (which I believe bankrupted the defendants), the principle that the First Amendment does not protect this type of implied threat is equally applicable to a criminal prosecution. I'm not sure how a federal prosecutor would charge this, but there are a number of options withing the federal criminal statutes.
I think boing boing should have refrained from posting the link considering the instant fame being featured on this website brings. It only adds to the ego of whoever the nerdy Nazi webmaster is. On the other hand, it was already on CNN so it's kind of a mute point. Might as well add more visitors and overload the server!
Unfortunatly Cowicide, thats not entirely true. Not only do kids recognize ingroup-outgroups from an early age (
Another line of research shows that parts of the amygdala actually fire differently when observing outgroup members compared with ingroup members.
Thus, there's converging evidence suggesting that racism is an (unfortunate) human tendancy.
Which is why we have to fight against it. Because its all too natural to abide by it.
PopeRatzo: Racism certainly is a problem in America but I don't like the implication that it is a purely American problem.
How about France where they came very close to electing a man who was going to throw all non-french born peoples out (ie arabs and africans)
Or what about Lithuania where my friend recently asked someone what they thought about Hitler and they responded "Well, he was probably a bad guy but at least he took care of that Jew problem"
Or Mexico where Guatemalans coming over the border are beaten, robbed and sent back.
Or Korea where being Japanese makes you almost instantly hated.
I could go on but the point it, I think America is actually ahead on the curve.
to be fair, I think it's also worth noting the racism inherent in power structures, and the more subtle race-class deal. Racism exists in forms other than the overt kind we're dealing with here.
to be fair, racism exists in forms other than the overt that we are all used to. In the trial, it shows up as the "jury of peers" is all white, and while Jena is predominantly white, it isn't white to that staggering an extent. Institutionalized racism and subtle racism are worth mentioning in the whole brouhaha
...Y knw, th qstn hr tht vryn sms t b s mch frd t sk s thy r t nswr, s tht rgrdlss f whthr rcsm ws bhnd t ll, fv kds jmpd nthr, bt th lvng sht t f hm, nd pt hm n th hsptl. Why dsn't Ft lbrt nd th rst f hs lk ddrss ths fct? nswr: t wldn't hlp dvnc thr bsd gnd n t. T ppl lk l, th vctm ws th n t flt bcs fr fv ppl t sslt hm lk tht h jst *hd* t hv dn -smthng- t jstfy thr crm.
Bttm Ln: l Shrptn dsn't cr n t bt rcl qlty, h jst wnts rvng. Hd ths bn fv *wht* gys nd th vctm hd bn blck, thn l wld b dmndng th bk b thrwn t th kds, spclly f h cld gt wy wth hvng thr hds ltrlly mntd n pks nd prsntd t hm s trphy.
If (like me) you're tempted to find the website, it's really just a bunch of complaints directed at contractors, christians, jews, the Associated Press, bolsheviks and of course the uppity Jena 6.
///-///-//// is Bill White's Phone # if he didn't lie on his whois.
In case anyone would like to give him a ring.
To be fair, it's also worth noting the racism inherent in power structures, and the more subtle race-class deal.
"is that regardless of whether racism was behind it all, five kids jumped another, beat the living shit out of him, and put him in the hospital. "
You really need to learn the facts of the case.
The white student was released from the hospital that day and attended a school function that very same evening), then six Black students were charged with attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Ah I hate to tell you but every law enforcement officer would consider those charges nonsense. At best it would be assault.
There is also the following that occured in Jena. A white student pulled a gun on a group of black students. Unprovked the black students weren't doing anything at all. The black students got the gun away and called the police. Wonder what the police did? They charged the black students with assault and theft of the gun. That isn't effed up to you?
The jury in the Jena six case is all white including two members who are friendly with the district attorney as well a relative of one of the witnesses and friends of prosecution witnesses. That pretty much sounds like what was occuring decades earlier when blacks often found themselves hung from a tree and the murderers got off scot free.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/10/1413220
Amayain, perhaps you should share your results with these two. They don't seem to be with the genetic hate program, either:
Hee Hee
White, William
---------------------------
---------------------------
---------------------------
---------------------------
Phone: ///-///-////
Let's go increase Chamillionaire's album sales. Battle hate with mediocre, albeit popular music.
I don't think the link to a hate site should be published. You could spell it out in text but other than that I'd object to a direct link.
I haven't a clue to how you should deal with this kind of hate speech online. Is it a terroristic threat? In my mind it is but if don't know it that's so legally. By publishing their names and addresses and encouraging others to lynch the Jena 6 has he deprived them of their civil rights? Not directly but maybe indirectly he has.
What would happen if the same thing were done in print? Or on TV? If he or others get together and physically go to the defendants homes and threatened them would that be a crime? If so then why not doing the same online? Burning a cross is I think considered a terroristic threat and illegal. What is the equivalent online version of a cross burning?
It is unfortunate that White Supremacy is still alive and well. The National Alliance, which has its headquarters in the suburbs of Cleveland, continues to spread its message of hate:
www dot natall dot com
Indymedia outed some of the NA's biggest contributors last year:
http://www.indymedia.org/en/2006/02/834124.shtml
OK, so I think posting other people's phone numbers online is tacky (to say the least). But still, I couldn't resist googling the number that Boinger and Zidane posted, and uh, yikes... It brings up a whole pile of scary weirdness.
The most bizarre thing is that there is an equally racist blog dedicated entirely to hating Bill White. They call him "America's only Jewish Nazi," apparently with the implication that it's the "Jewish" part that makes him a bad person.
And of course, the reason that blog comes up in the search is that they posted White's phone number and home address in one of their entries back in June. Several of the other search results are from groups who apparently don't think that White is the "right kind" of racist, urging their readers to stalk him and his wife. They've apparently had some success in this, as there are several different addresses listed in the various posts, sometimes with indications that White has recently moved.
Perhaps this has become such a regular practice within the racist blogging community that White didn't think twice about posting all the personal data along with his hate-filled screed against the Jena 6. Naturally, "everybody else is doing it" is not a legal or moral defense, but this does seem to give some insight into the messed up minds of the people that do this kind of thing.
Though distasteful in the extreme, neither the site as I saw it at 11:43PM EST nor the Google cache of that page (Wayback Machine is down for maintenance) appears to contain any speech which could be considered a true threat. No violence is suggested. Though the author does suggest that blacks and Jews are responsible for unpleasant and antisocial actions, he does not actually suggest a course of action clearly enough to constitute a cognizable threat or incitement.
On the other hand, the allegations about some of the Jena defendants and their families would certainly be defamatory, assuming they're false. Defamation is an entirely different category, as false statements of fact are generally afforded little First Amendment protection, particularly when about private individuals.
I don't see any substantive difference between posting a link to a hate site and describing who they are and how to find them. If someone is interested, it will only take a few more keystrokes. So really, the issue shouldn't be focused on the morality of promotion, but rather public edification. These issues need to be aired, and I'm glad I saw them at boing-boing. Any move towards sweeping it under the rug in the interest of not promoting a hate group only adds a brick to their fortress. It's true that a certain percentage of people might be drawn to such activity by its discussion. But discuss it we must, in order to know our enemy. It's the only responsible option.
Sorry I don't have any comments as to their activities legality. Words like harrasment come to mind. But as for the interest of public discourse and moral responsibility, these people need to be exposed. Thank you for helping.
@Ryan Davidson: The less ambiguous language takes a little digging to find now, but here it is.
The two sections of the website at issue (still visible on Google's cache) would seem to be:
---------------------------------------------
(1) the post titled "Addresses Of Jena 6 Ni----s: In Case Anyone Wants To Deliver Justice."
Google's cache shows that a version of that post dated September 20, 2:51PM local time, read in part:
"Jena, Louisiana -- Six ni----s are on trial in Jena, Louisiana. Five are currently out awaiting trial. Get in touch, and let them know justice is coming. Their addresses and phone numbers are (...)"
Followed by addresses and phone numbers purported to belong to those people.
(2) Another post titled "Lynch The Jena 6: We Are Anxiously Awaiting Their Release."
Here is a snip from that post:
Jena. Louisiana -- The American National Socialist Workers Party anxiously awaits the release of the Jena 6 n-----s, responsbile for an unprovoked assault on a white high student, so the six can face true justice.
"If these n-----s are released or acquitted, we will find out where they live and make sure that white activists and white citizens in Louisiana know it," ANSWP Commander Bill White stated today, "We'll mail directions to their homes to every white man in Louisiana if we have to in order to find someone willing to deliver justice."
---------------------------------------------
[Redaction of n-word is my own -- XJ]
oh bill, how do you manage to get yourself into all this nonsense. bill's got a colorful past - he was once a member of the communist party, and he formed some weird anarchist party (yeah, anarchos are notorious for political party membership.)
here's an account of his wacky past - http://onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=154&Itemid=27
oh yeah, he also caused a number of members of the National Socialist Movement to get beaten to a bloody pulp.
http://onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=977&Itemid=2
well, they weren't too happy with that and most neo-nazis regard him with considerable disdain. what will he get into next?
oh yeah, the phone number listed here for bill is presumably correct; it's the same number i have from a few years ago. you'd think he'd change his number, huh?
I'm glad you didn't link it, but you sort of did by mentioning the domain name. Next time leave that out and just tell us the search terms.
I tried to register, meh. Ahem.
I do not know you, you could be anyone. Anyone that slides down the street that I see every day. I know this though. I will sacrifice everything that is me so that you can speak. Everything, with out a moments hesitation. That these idiots spew bile matters not, I will protect them too. To my last breath I will defend your right to speak, just as I will defend them. I hope that rational and sane people win in the end, but there are many ends to this story. Free Speech must be free, whether you like the message or not. >>Seraphim_72
bill's got a colorful past - he was once a member of the communist party
Gosh doesn't that sound familiar? Hmmm, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the filth that calls itself the neocons were also dyed-in-the-wool Marxists.
I smell a personality disorder.
Posting that this web site is out there is important linking to them is not needed unless the poster has a history of not telling the truth I don’t think that’s the case here Xeni asks if she should post the link is not needed posting how to find it in Google is all that’s needed if you really need to get your blood boiling. I am sadend that this sort of hate is still so prevalent in our society but the only way to fix the problem is to have all the ugliness out ther in your face and confront it.
Not to blog spam the discussion but my Wife is a way better writer and has a great write up on her feelings
http://duckandafly.blogspot.com/
Cowicide,
It's not really a "genetic hate program" as much as a general tendancy to prefer, trust, and help others that are more similar to you. That's not saying that you are born hating any group, just that you trust your group a bit more.
I am sure you can find a ton of photos of children, or monkeys (apes? chimps? idk), that are different ethnicities playing together nicely. I'm not saying that when you stick a white kid and a latino kid together that they won't play with one another. All i am saying is that if you stick two white kids and a latino kid together, the two white kids will on average spend more time playing with one another than with the latino kid.
I think it kinda explains why racism might be "comfortable" for some people. The good thing though is that social norms can be created which can override any evolutionary tendancy (e.g., why i don't run around raping people even though biologically, i should). So, if we set up the right social conditions (e.g., condemn racism), then it should override any biological tendancy to be racist.
Long rant, im sorry ;)
The formulae Google uses to weigh its search engine results include how many sites it finds linking to a given website. So posting the URLs of hate-speech sites would potentially have the undesirable effect of boosting their Google visibility.
I think it's good to not link directly to hate sites. Especially if they make money off ads. Also because it's less likely to bring those sites' writers to the comment sections here (which kinda poisons the well for a while). And because everyone should make the choice for themselves what the meaning of linking or possibly supporting such a crew is (I know nobody is forcing us to click the link, but I really appreciate the lack of link anyway).
Although some parts of the previous comment on racism and comfort make some sense, the evolutionary argument is weak and weakens our ability to fight racism. "In" and "out" groups can be signaled socially (even at a very young age kids pick up the message of difference through parents' body language etc). And the "biological" argument for rape is totally spurious - because genetic survival in social animals like humans include what happens after sex - i.e. social cohesion. Even though it's a well-meaning point on some level (we are not slaves to biology), the evolutionary 'explanation' of what we are fighting against is useless- we need to fight against the social structures that perpetuate fear and hatred (and rape).
having a legal system that is skewed against black folk, and a public discourse that ignore the facts of the case and paints only the black teenagers as "thugs" (when they were facing threats of shooting, lynching, and the absence of any legal recourse to protect themselves) is the more likely cause.
Coming back to the legal question, I'm going to say that posting the addresses and numbers, even when accompanied by the general exhortation to "Lynch the Jena 6," is probably not a crime by itself. The Planned Parenthood case, if memory serves (and correct me if I'm wrong), involved civil liability, not criminal liability, and that's a lower standard. And as far as solicitation goes, I think it usually takes a bit more specificity as to a particular overt act to make out solicitation. So if these fools had a post that said, "Let's all meet on Tuesday at 8:00 p.m. in front of this address and bring rope so we can lynch this person," that would do it, but merely publishing the address and saying, generally, "kill," doesn't.
It's a close question, to be sure, but at the end of the day, this is political speech of the sort protected by the First Amendment. Better to let these racists run at the mouth and make clear to everyone how ignorant they are than to muzzle them and leave the impression that what they have to say is so powerful and dangerous that it can't be neutralized by a sensible response.
Jack Balkin of Balkinization offers his thoughts. His analysis breaks into two possible ways of approaching the issue. One, it represents a "true threat"
When are Websites Threats? The Jena 6 Website
The other is if the website is solicitation to commit a crime.
My opinion is that this particular website rises to the level of an internet cross burning. I could certainly be wrong though. Marty Lederman, a contributor to Balkinization disagrees.
Can grown-ups please be allowed to say ‘the word “nigger”’? The weird censorship, which doesn't seem to apply to any other indecency whatsoever, is tiresome.
Dick Gregory titled his autobiography Nigger, dedicating it to his mother: “Whenever you hear the word ‘Nigger’, you’ll know their advertising my book.”
Dailykos entry on a relevant case today:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/24/11135/5956
"A quick legal update for a Monday morning, as the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has upheld the decision of Judge Stewart Dalzell in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which confirmed that the owner of a website cannot be held liable for defamatory posts on his site made by its users."
Personally, con law is quickly exiting my mind as the months pass beyond the bar exam ... but the question seems to be not whether someone is liable for the statements (here, as someone above said, certain elements are met) but really, which people are liable ... the website owner? the author? the ISP? Also, it may call on the remains of the "clear and present danger" test as to whether or not the statements are likely to cause the action the appear to advocate (objectively) and whether the speaker knows this (subjectively). Then again, would you take legal advice from a boingboing comment thread?
Thanks for some common sense, neilchi. Our country was not the only one to engage in heinous practices such as slavery and ownership of other humans. Yet for some reason, our country overtly lets our collective angst over this contort our ability to discuss what is happening right now, today. Why block off the banner of the hate site? Why redact the word, clearly part of a quote from another source? If we are going to discuss this issue, let's be open-eyed about it. The hate-mongers use the word "nigger" to denigrate and separate. Our use of this same word in the context of discussing the events in Jena does not have the same intent or context. To suggest that it does is to tacitly agree that we are somehow parties to how hate-mongers use it. I refuse to accept that burden of guilt.
NeilChi (32), I'm a lot more comfortable when blacks use that word than when whites do. Dick Gregory and his mother qualify. If you don't, I'd really rather you didn't.
This is kind of interesting
http://youtube.com/watch?v=l6foB62dYmg
Guys, I have no love for William White, but let's not do the address and phone number thing. It makes it hard for us to properly despise the bad guys when they do it. Just tell us how to find it for ourselves.
Also, if you're going to link to obnoxious sites, please remember to tuck rel="nofollow" into the link so they don't get the googlejuice.
The choice not to publish that word on BoingBoing is not one of censorship, but a decision about what I'm comfortable saying, and what is needed to communicate what I'm trying to communicate.
I'm not comfortable using that word at all. Its use is not required in order to tell the story or invite the debate here in the comments section.
I don't feel entitled to its use.
Others are free to make their own decisions -- but that is mine, and I don't accept the notion that this is "censorship."
We don't post beheading videos. We don't post explicit photographs of people having sex. And I don't post this word. Just an editorial choice.
@NOEN: Saying that Bill White's site is the equivalent of cross-burning doesn't really answer the question of whether it's illegal or not. Just last year (I think), the Supreme Court ruled that a state could outlaw cross-burning, but only where it was designed particularly to intimidate some person (because cross-burning is also a form of political speech). At the end of the day, we have to decide based on whether it's a specific threat or just a general screed.
As a matter of good constitutional policy, I think we should err on the side of allowing speech rather than criminalizing it. Here, absent a plan that lets would-be murderers coordinate their activities and gather at an appointed time for the appointed task, White's website doesn't pose much risk. I hate to say it's a slippery slope (because that's so hackneyed), but a general exhortation to racist violence isn't so different from a general call to oust the current administration, in terms of its relationship to a completed crime. Better to criticize it thoroughly but not prosecute.
Well Josh it's just my opinion, that's all. And I certainly agree that we should be careful about criminalizing speech but when White says:
"We'll mail directions to their homes to every white man in Louisiana if we have to in order to find someone willing to deliver justice."
Call me old fashioned but I think that crosses the line. I happen to think that is solicitation to commit a criminal act but like I said I could be wrong.
Even though yes, we ought to err on the side of allowing speech there is still a line. If there is a line then someone will cross it and when they do they ought to be prosecuted or don't you believe in the rule of law?
I've been thinking a lot lately about these web sites that exist only to spew hate. Not just the white supremacist ones; also the sites where men post death threats against women like Kathy Sierra, and the websites where men post photos of their classmates and then post comments about their bodies.
I'm very reluctant to try to deal with these hatesites through legal measures, because I don't trust the US government to single out actual hate sites vs liberal sites that criticize Bush. For example, the current govt has determined that GreenPeace is more of a terrorist threat then Operation Rescue.
Still, we have to deal with them in some way. I don't want to lose more brilliant online voices like Kathy Sierra because of hateful malice.
Lately I've been thinking about the way that at one point, online porn skewed the signal-to-noise ration on the internet such that it was hard to find actual information. The internet dealt with that; Google now filters for porn such that you only find it if you want to.
Would it be possible for major search engines to filter for hate sites? Or to incorporate hatespeech into the techniques for ranking pages, so that they don't show up at the top of any search? I don't know that I really mind people saying hateful things to their friends; what I mind is them having an instant world audience. This seems like a problem to solve with technology.
I appreciate that you didn't link to the site, Xeni, in the interest of denying them audience. My preference would be to deal with hatesites by ranking them low so that they are difficult to find-- providing links gives the opposite result.
Nabil
One nitpick about the "Nuremburg Files" case – there is a significant difference in the burden of evidence in criminal vs. civil trials. SO, although the case cited establishes a precedent that an implied threat of this type can be a matter for the courts, a criminal prosecution would have a much higher bar in establishing that said threat rises to a criminal offense.
In other words, it'd be a lot easier for somebody to just sue 'em and bankrupt the supremacist group.
"A knowledge of syphilis is not an instruction to get it." -- Lenny Bruce
Go ahead and link their site. It's not going to:
A. Stop these cowardly nazis from publishing their tripe
B. Convince even one more person to join them who wasn't already into their shit.
C. Offend any but the tragically PC.
Oh...and Free the Xeni 1!
lv blck mrcns jst s d wht mrcns nd s mttr f fct hv vry cls blck frnd. Bt D NT hv ny sympthy whtsvr fr ths blcks tht bt tht wht by. Thy rn't blcks thy r jst NGGR THGS !
Squ tront. Spa fon. What?
The local Roanoke newspaper has picked up the story and has more info on the Bill White who posted the phone numbers.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/132845
OK, try again: Informing people about the existence of a site (including linking to it) does not constitute advocacy of the site's content. Conversely, failure to inform/link does not constitute disadvocacy.
It's certainly Xeni's right to choose not to link to them. I don't question that. But the idea that she's somehow helping or hurting Overthrow with either decision is just piffle. You're not a proxy bigot if you link to them, you're not MLK if you don't.
Sure, Google aggregates eyeballs. Eyeballs also moves on to other sites rather rapidly. You don't honestly think you're going to help/hurt Overthrow's *ad revenue*, do you? :-)
Clear this time?
@willibro/everyone re: the link/don't link question:
I didn't leave out a link to be "PC," or because I thought an href tag would encourage anyone who clicked it to become a neo-nazi, don't be silly.
The part that interests and concerns me is the "mechanical" effect of linking to them in the body of a BB post -- when you're doing this on a blog that has as large a network footprint as BB, that small act affects the linked-to site's Google rank in a big way. Linking also does serve to drive significantly more traffic to the site than explaining how to find the site without an embedded link.
I still don't know what the best policy is, or what I'll do next time, but it's interesting to be having this discussion with you guys.
XJ
Here's Bill:
http://roanoke.craigslist.org/apa/409498064.html
@OneWag, assuming that's correct -- wow. "EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY." Rrrright.
I hate Hate speech, I hate people who think that being different from oneself is reason enough to be beaten. I hate racism, fanatical religious movements (that segregate homosexuals or even other fanatical religious movements), I hate all of them.
Every on that thinks that anyone should be killed because by a matter of believe, lifestyle or simply genetics should be killed.
Does this means that I should commit suicide? Perhaps, or perhaps I am only being sarcastic and I don't really mean all that I written. You be the judge... By the way, keep the policy, don't link to hate speech.
As someone who has followed Bill White and written about him extensively, I can attest to the fact that Bill is 1) A headline grabber; and 2)a drama queen. That being said, he truly does believe that he is above the law.
What has happened with his website and the Jena6 raises an even more important question. In many parts of the world hate speech is illegal. At this point in time, are people like Bill White pushing the boundaries enough that we could see the same thing happen here?
With the spotlight shining on what he is saying, and the Reverend's Sharpton and Jackson calling for action - is the stage being set for censorship?
And...at want point should hate speech be made illegal?