This picture was taken by a friend of mine outside the student union at The University of Toledo's "peace" rally today (3/19/07).
(Admin edit: Added image to post. Click on attachment to see full sized)
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| utpeacerally.jpg | 83.55 KB |
Iran? Nope--The University of Toledo.
By aStan - Posted on March 19th, 2007
Tagged:
Note: Click 'attachment' to see the photo.
That is sick. If that is a joke, it is of poor taste.
If he was half the man he thinks he is he wouldn't have covered his face.
Hard at work! Incredible!
Should have had Saddam hangman impersonator chase him around... or
Perhaps somebody standing next to him with a sign that read Club Gitmo - Open Year Round.
at the expense of many soldiers in many wars.
If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.
I wonder if this person could have been arrested for making a terrorist threat to the United States. Maybe they could hold him at Gitmo as an enemy combatant. Free speech has its limits. Do you know if there was any sort of police presence? Who took the picture? Was this the only person protesting in such a manner?
One wonders where he printed up the poster? Did he come from a student union student office or computer lab? It is clearly printed up on copy paper. Does that guy know exactly what he is saying? Apparently not. Tsk..Tsk.. To lighten it a bit where was Subcomandante_Bob during this whole escapade? ;)
http://www2.blogger.com/profile/15547084802541810008
Internet round-up regarding this story:
Glass City Jungle has a thread with some comments on it:
http://glasscityjungle.com/wordpress/?p=1084
ToledoTalk has a thread:
http://www.toledotalk.com/cgi-bin/comments.pl/12/3636
This picture is linked on a thread at TotalFark.com, but it is for premium members so I can't see what it says: http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2683205
I get the whole free speech thing but I think if you're going to talk the talk then stand behind your free speech and uncover your face.
Also, I think if he really and truely beleives in his "death to america" sign then maybe he should take himself over to Baghdad and stop living in a place he hates so much.
Its too bad the poster who saw him leaving the student union without the mask on didn't snap a picture of him then.
I feel the same way about those animals in the mideast who behead people & make threats with their faces covered. If they truely believed that what they were doing was a righteous act then they wouldn't be afraid to show their faces.
If we saw the face of the person who held the sign what would it gain us?
"Also, I think if he really and truly believes in his "death to America" sign then maybe he should take himself over to Baghdad and stop living in a place he hates so much."
This is the same sentiment that is used when people speak out without masks against some of the administrations steps or mis-steps in Iraq, they are not patriotic and so on.
Just the same as it was in the Vietnam war days.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
We all know that free speech also includes responsibility for such speech - which is why we can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater or go up to someone and say 'I'm going to kill you' without suffering the consquences.
While I'll defend your right to speak, no matter how much I disagree with what you're saying, at what point does this speech cross the line from 'free speech' to 'menacing'?
This is the Ohio Revised Code for menacing:
of logic reason and inspection of motive. Complicated problem this one.
Neighborhood, you're assuming maybe - that an isolated episode won't meet the menacing by stalking bar? I believe that is aggravated menacing - instead of menacing.
But in a totally UNRELATED way - I bring into it the illegality of "Hate Crimes".
I found a nice handout the Cinci Police posted with the definition of a hate crime as this:
"Definition:
A Hate Crime is a committed, threatened, or
attempted criminal act by any person(s) against a
person or property of another individual or group
that may in any way constitute an expression of
racial, religious, ethnic/national origin, sexual
orientation, or other forms of bias." (I would say menacing is a crime).
questions for proving hate crimes to be this: (http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/pages/-5960-/12417.pdf)
If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't protected speech limited to exclude supporting the violent overthrow of the US government?
Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack
neighborhood, "there is also a record of the change of definition for what constituted sedition at certain points in history. "
I guess we aren't the first to experience something like this then....
If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.
Well it's now on Michelle Malkin's site.
any WI update? time to book a dist. nite?
If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.
This is what I was talking about when I spoke of the "crazy protestors".
Unfortunately it's morons like this guy who do give people who have a legitimate point a bad name. This guy is obviously American so if he really wants death to America maybe he should do something about it and start with himself.
The fact that he can't show his face means he doesn't seriously believe what he's promoting and is just trying to create shock value to promote himself.
Now are there people out there with legitimate concerns on the course of the war? Yes. Unfortunately the antics of people like this guy marginalize their opinion as well as his own.
I agree with Junta. I too have studied hate speech and he's definitely walking a fine line of protected speech and threats. I believe it would be possible to find a jury to convict him of menacing because the fact he isn't showing his face could show the jury he's trying to protect his identity for other reasons. But I do understand why the police wouldn't arrest him as well.
MikeyA
MikeyA
I appreciate them. It would be interesting to have some answers to your questions. We have put up with an awful lot here in Toledo over the last few years in the interest of 'free' speech.
It hasn't been free, it hasn't been appropriate and we do have to admit that we take the cake on political 'correctness'. Right down to annhiliating the rights of the people who live here not to be insulted or terrorized.
I'm just being snarky - but what the hell. The heck with MY right to not feel threatened. The heck with the rights of the students who called a "PEACE" rally. All that matters is that a fringe element of intimidating folks be satisfied.
If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.
His mother would be proud of him. He was appropriately dressed for the weather and knew to how to zip up his jacket. Extra credit too for getting the words on his sign spelled correctly and holding the sign up right.
Sadly it is not a joke. It happened today around 1:00.
I took the picture of this masked coward today at UT. I called the police because I figured that when somebody is advocating the death of 300 million American citizens that it shouldnt be taken lightly given the times we are living in. They came and supervised it but told me there was nothing they could be done because it was free speech. That is ridiculous, free speech is a peaceful protest against the war. Calling for the deaths of me, you, your family and friends within our borders is called TREASON people. Remember that? Or are we so politically correct nowadays that everything is free speech? I talked to many UT students serving in the military today who will always say that they risk their lives for the right of the protester to protest their sacrifice, however they all were incredibly frustrated after seeing this and said that that wasn't the reason why they fight.
Besides the masked coward, they had your typical "Impeach Bush" "Get the Troops out now" signs, which is certainly fine. However, they did collaborate as a group of 20-25 to chant "Death to America." Simply incredible.
... to count. He's free to protest in such a fashion, in a nation where such dissent can transpire without being arrested. Freedom of speech does NOT have the limit you envision, Junta, since it's speech that's hated the most that most requires the protection of the First Amendment.
Was there a riot? No? Well, time to move along on the topic, yes?
I don't know about you all, but when I was a soldier, I was perfectly OK with people protesting me. After all, their right to protest was what I was really protecting, right? Of course RIGHT.
The only protesters that bothered me philosophically were the ones in Italy (Sicily, Comiso Air Base) when I was deployed there for a summer in 1994. Their signs and shouts made it clear that they didn't want us on Italian soil. I was disturbed that there was so much sentiment against Americans, and to this day I have formed the idea that their sovereignty is more important than what any superior officer would order me to do.
Once my Air National Guard term was up, despite the urging of my site commander I didn't re-up. Hence, I'm no longer a member of the US military and, in the larger fact, will never rejoin it, even if forced. My place is in the militia of the United States, and from there I can defend the nation against enemies both foreign and domestic. As far as I'm concerned, the standing military of the United States is the aberration and it should be disbanded. It has spent a lot of time and energy attacking other nations for the benefit of American (now multinational) corporations, as good ol' Gen. Smedley Butler told us well enough in 1933.
1. Do you actually feel menaced by a person displaying such a sign in a demonstration?
2. Can you convince 12 other people (on a jury) that such a display constitutes menacing?
What needs to stated is that the 2903.22. Menacing is part of the greater section concerning Stalking.
http://www.ohiodvresources.org/attinfo/orc/
I think it would be a stretch to equate a person holding a sign and the act of menacing in the context of which the act seems to suggest.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
From Katie: You won't find any bigger supporter of free speech than I.
having met both of you, I believe that I'm uniquely qualified to state that, in point of fact, GZ is a bigger supported of free speech than you are.
You're prettier, though.
Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack
"Neighborhood, you're assuming maybe - that an isolated episode won't meet the menacing by stalking bar? I believe that is aggravated menacing - instead of menacing."
This is the fun stuff about laws, how do they apply to the situation. Was the person with the sign stalking or following anyone? Or was he or she standing in an organized protest?
I am not assuming anything as much as I am looking at the facts as we know them and the reading the law in its whole context and then discussing it.
To stalk implies that he or she was following someone or making a habit of being in the same place as another.
And there is intent of the law, the one you cite from Cincinnati, which clearly has a demonstrated complaints with regards to hate crimes.
Was it therefore a Hate Crime to hold up a sign as this person did and make the case that it is a Hate Crime against America? Is America a person?
Ah the good ol' days of beating people because they espouse an idea contrary to the main stream.
The person here just could have been a provocateur and nothing more.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
Does holding the sign up rise to this:
"Sedition is a term of law to refer to covert conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often included subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel."
"Because sedition is typically considered a subversive act, the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where those legal codes have a traceable history, there is also a record of the change of definition for what constituted sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within study of persecution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
I'm sorry but I don't think "Death to America" is speaking out against the administration. This person is holding up a sign publically announcing that he hates this country and what America stands for and wishes we would all die.
Ok fine.
He can want that. He can wish that.
It's still hypocritical as hell for him to believe that and still live here and be part of all that which he hates and wishes were dead.
If he is so unhappy with us that he thinks we all should be dead then what is he doing here? It's a free country, if you don't want to be here then leave.
And to be sure its not misunderstood, I'm not talking about people protesting this war. I'm speaking of/about this one individual who is so unhappy here that he wants us dead.
When I lived in Western Mass there was a trial of some Yippies, Jerry Rubin and others and the government tried them on sedition charges, which went no where.
I wish there was more debate about a lot more things as communication and discussion are key to a better understanding of the world around us.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
Alright! Gee, the last time Toledo was so "in the news" was when ... er ... there was a ... uh ... riot going on.
Well, maybe major corporations will relocate here anyway. {whistles}
Looking at the statutes;
http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_Ohio556
And the cases listed on the site, it can be seen that there is a relationship between the person(s) alleged to be menacing. Was there a relationship between the protester(s) and anyone in the public venue?
Did the protestor(s) actually come near or in contact to another, thereby committing the act of menacing or did the protester(s) stay on public property and not approach anyone.
"This guy is obviously American..." How do we know?
Who would be the claimant in an alleged case Hate Speech case as he held a sign up that said Death to America and not you or me.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
First, thank you proud american for taking that picture. Secondly, I tend to agree with you that this went beyond the protections of the first amendment. It's one thing to say that the war is wrong, it's another to say "death to America." My personal opinion is that this is treason. This is advocating terrorism. For the record, I did not support the war in the beginning, but I recognize the importance of stabilizing the region. That said, I find much irony in this situation. I'm speculating, but I'm guessing whoever this kid was is a from another country and is benefiting from our education system. Perhaps this idiot should recognize the irony of his statement. If he doesn't, he should be arrested and investigated. This, in my opinion, qualifies as a terrorist threat to the rest of us.
I don't mean to sound racist, because there are many very fine muslims in this community, but we have a very populous islamic community. With that, there are surely going to be a few young one's that don't understand the beauty of this country. Additionally, Toledo is a relatively small city and is not seen as a threat here. It's no surprise to me that the extremists can be found at the University.
somewhat rhetorical...could this be menacing? Only if section (A) is applicable to a specific person. Not me - I don't feel menaced by this - but could others? I don't know - hence the question...
(A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person's unborn, or a member of the other person's immediate family.
Now the question becomes - did the protester knowingly cause someone to believe that he'd cause harm? What is the purpose of the sign if not to cause people to believe that they should die - or that it's the protester's opinion that people should die?
I don't know but I raise the question as to motive and impression by others.
I saw the guy walk out to the protest in the Student Union without his mask on yet and he appeared to be 100% caucasian. Furthemore, as I took his picture I heard him ranting on to a couple other people in nearly fluent English.
As for extremist at UT, yes they do exist. Just last February if you might remember, two young men of arab descent, who also happened to be students at UT, were arrested by the FBI for conspiring terrorist acts.
The same fate should be given to this (fill in the angry adjective to describe such a low life.)