Submitted by Geek-Haven888 t3_11hxdul in newhampshire
TheGrateKhan t1_javntfp wrote
All the normal disclaimers: bad things are bad. Being hateful isnt good. Dont do bad things.
That being said, these people are being charged with some form of hate crime, but not because they simply had the signs, its because they "trespassed" when they hung the sign on the highway. Allegedly, the reason they're being charged is because they didn't have a permit to hang the sign.
All the times ive seen cups smashed into overpass fencing, making words, those all had permits? Every "welcome home So and So" sign tied to the bridges? Everyone else always has permits? Are these permits "shall issue" and no one is allowed to deny you, but you still have to apply? Up until i heard about this case, i thought that anyone could just use those areas as a personal canvas.
I know its "evil hateful monsters" being " finally taught a lesson " but just imagine these people were protesting in favor of equality. What if the sign said "Make New England Diverse " ( considering NH is 60-80% Caucasian) would the townspeople still complain and get this group arrested for trespassing as a hate crime? It still meets all the prerequisites.
On a technical basis, they weren't even trespassing. Trespassing requires you to be somewhere that you arent allowed and refusing to vacate that area after being informed of such. Theyre allowed to be on the overpass. They can protest on the overpass with the message they were spreading. Where the govt says they "broke the law" was the hanging of the signs on the overpass without a permit. That sounds like a vandalism charge, not trespassing. However, a vandalism charge wouldnt seem reasonable if it would take 10 minutes and some scissors to cut down a couple zip ties or strings, so the sign wouldve had to be more permanent like graffiti to warrant that type of charge.
Regardless of the message spread, they shouldve been given the opportunity to remove the signs without issue. From what I can find, they werent given a lawful order to leave or remove the signs before the arrest. In fact, an article from Seacoastonline says that the group "'dispersed without any real confrontation' after speaking to police the night of the incident ".
While today its evil racists being brought to justice, tomorrow that same law and line of thinking can be used against any one of our political, social, economic, etc. opinions.
Azr431 t1_javpy8y wrote
That’s a lot of effort to defend absolute scumbags like these guys 🤔
AKBigDaddy t1_javvd3v wrote
He's not unreasonable- separating the scumbag from the act is important. He brings up a lot of valid points that this is a dangerous precedent to set.
If the sign said make new england diverse, or some other message that we might agree with, would you still expect them to be charged? I wouldn't, and I firmly believe the law should apply to all acts equally, regardless of message. I find these guys detestable. But if we wouldn't charge someone with a message encouraging diversity, we shouldn't charge someone for a message discouraging it. It crosses into a first amendment issue that I'm not ok crossing into personally.
Azr431 t1_jax1rv2 wrote
Making New England diverse isn’t quite in the same realm at hate charges, but cool straw man. It’s not lost on me all the ones rallying for these racists “rights” are right wingers.
AKBigDaddy t1_jax7el6 wrote
> It’s not lost on me all the ones rallying for these racists “rights” are right wingers.
Feel free to review my post history- literally the only thing I align with the right on is the 2nd amendment- everything else I'm somewhere in the ballpark of Bernie.
Again- separate the message from the act. The act has to be illegal, and if it is, it should be illegal for everyone, not just the people who you agree with. A message in and of itself should not be illegal, nor should the message be the determining factor if an otherwise legal act suddenly becomes illegal.
jdkeith t1_jb0yiju wrote
> Making New England diverse isn’t quite in the same realm at hate charges
If it undermines the lives of people already living here I could claim it's hateful. Hate speech isn't a thing in the U.S. and that's a good thing. Punishing the content of a message is a 1st amendment violation straight up.
Azr431 t1_jb2byag wrote
Guess I should add nativist and xenophobic to the list. Yes hate speech by itself is protected as long as it’s not targeted harassment or threats, these dipshits are not just charged with hate speech.
And I’d prefer it if bigots, racists, and xenophobes didn’t vote, but alas, the constitution protects that right.
jdkeith t1_jb2dz5j wrote
> these dipshits are not just charged with hate speech
True. I view this as resisting arrest - it's often a bullshit charge added on when the cops don't like you.
> And I’d prefer it if bigots, racists, and xenophobes didn’t vote, but alas, the constitution protects that right.
Exactly, respecting rights sucks sometimes.
jdkeith t1_jb0yegk wrote
> It crosses into a first amendment issue that I'm not ok crossing into personally.
Exactly. Defending rights means defending scumbags sometimes. People who can't separate principle from circumstances should not be voting.
TheGrateKhan t1_javrfbg wrote
Because the principle is worth defending for the benefit of ALL of us. As i said in the lower portions of my statement, today its these people. Tomorrow it could be Sununu banning all Black Lives Matter protests because they're trespassing on city property without permission. Or Anti War protestors, Second Amendment supporters, Second Amendment detractors.
I dont care what the opinion expressed is or if i agree or disagree with what they say or do. Your speech is protected and needs to remain as such. One day, people that we disagree with will be in power; and if they can restrict where or when or what you can say, you wont be happy.
You dont do the right thing because its popular. You do the right thing, especially when everyone else doesnt want you to, because its the right thing to do. These guys may have done things with their speech that i disagree with and detest, but that doesn't mean we go and do the wrong things to them. It is specifically how we treat those we disagree with, that defines our character.
jdkeith t1_jb0ylu5 wrote
When the pendulum swings the other way, these dicks will be the first ones to complain. Why have standards when you can have double standards?
Jasonp359 t1_jawjoit wrote
People who do the "both sides" or "slippery slope" argument when it comes to combatting racism are functionally defending and preserving the racism. Here you are equivocating racism to peaceful protests. That's insane.
unit_energy t1_jawpzvt wrote
They aren't defending those scum, they are highlighting the fact that the context changed how the law was applied, giving examples.
You may have missed that before you commented but they are defending all of us.
otiswrath t1_javxws7 wrote
To be clear, trespassing is the unlawful entry on to the land of another or the unlawful propelling of objects or other persons on to the property of another.
Hanging signs on the property of another without permission is trespassing.
While I believe that every person deserves the right to a full throated legal defense I am not super surprised they are having trouble finding counsel. The legal community in NH is pretty small and no one wants to become known in Fascist circles as the go to lawyer but someone will pop up to take it.
Remember, no one is willing to take the case for the amount of money they are willing to pay...yet.
jdkeith t1_jb0ysqm wrote
> Hanging signs on the property of another without permission is trespassing.
In one sense the overpasses are owned by all of us. What should have happened is the cops show up and say "take that down." They take it down, and then everyone goes home.
Icy-Neck-2422 t1_javq5mt wrote
These guys are garbage to be sure.
I'd expect that any group affixing a banner to an overpass in this manner with the sentiment "Make New England <insert group>-er" would get the exact same treatment.
linuxnh t1_javt82m wrote
Agreed. The precedence which now has been created here could be used in the future.
thenagain11 t1_javx40x wrote
If you are doing something in protest you do so with the knowledge that you could always be arrested for your actions- dumb ass people that throw soup on painting for climate action get arrested- even if there is glass protecting it and it can just be mopped up - why shouldn't racists?
It's not a blank canvas - police don't want anyone putting stuff up on overpasses, especially those stupid cups, that is why there are laws. Any other person who did that without a permit should also be fined or arrested because it is a danger to safety if these things blow away into the windshields of oncoming traffic. That's why they have permits. It just isn't in the newspaper when those violators are fined or arrested because they aren't racists. This isn't infringing on anyone's rights. He did something stupid and bigoted. We should absolutely not let him get away with it.
jdkeith t1_jb0z0vr wrote
> It just isn't in the newspaper when those violators are fined or arrested because they aren't racists.
I doubt that, but it's possible. The case should be simple then - whatever the charge for trespassing is without any kind of a hate multiplier - same as anyone making overpass fence text out of red plastic cups would get.
thenagain11 t1_jb12p88 wrote
If you break the law, you break the law. If he broke hate crime laws, the state should prosecute.
jdkeith t1_jb1gvix wrote
That applies to shit like runaway slaves too. I’m saying that law shouldn’t exist / violates the first amendment.
thenagain11 t1_jb1iwh0 wrote
Free speech isnt the same as zero consequences.
jdkeith t1_jb2811j wrote
It's zero direct legal consequences. It doesn't mean they can't be fired from their jobs or something.
jdkeith t1_jb0yar7 wrote
As far as I'm concerned anyone who keeps downvoting well thought out comments like yours should get the fuck out of NH. They bitch and moan about The Free State Project, but if the alternative is plebbit authoritarian fucks, then I support replacing the entire NH population with Free Staters.
dj_narwhal t1_jaw1evq wrote
Damn I hope the government doesn't abuse their power on me the next time I do nazi shit.
Expert_Collar4636 t1_jaw920c wrote
I remember an ACLU that defended the rights of actual Nazis. Bigger decisions should be made with your head not your heart. BTW Nazis suck, but they have rights too.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments