Is Dangling a Noose a Threat?
January 29, 2008
A man in Louisiana has been charged with a hate crime under 18 U.S.C. 245 based on the following conduct:
A white man accused of driving past a group of black civil rights activists with two nooses dangling from the back of his pickup truck has been indicted on federal hate-crime and conspiracy charges, federal prosecutors said Jan. 24.
The issue, of course, is this: Is dangling a noose a threat of force? KipEsquire doesn't think so:
I think, as a matter of reasonableness (not to mention the First Amendment), driving past a rally with two nooses on your truck simply does not rise to the level of using "force or threat of force." More is needed.
If there had been a more proximate display (e.g., brandishing weapons or shouting unambiguous threats), then perhaps the incident could rise to prosecutable "force or threat of force."
I tend to disagree. A noose is indeed a weapon - much like a knife or gun. In fact, nooses have been used for over a century to murder African Americans. If the defendant had pointed a gun at the protesters, there wouldn't even be room for debate. If the defendant had said, "I am going to kill you n-----s," again, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
A noose is a powerful symbol, and it not just a symbol of speech. Nooses have been indeed used to to murder, and likely will be used to murder. When the defendant hung two nooses from a truck, he was saying much more than "I don't approve of civil rights."
That said, I think reasonable minds can differ on the issue. Some would say a noose is just a symbol of hate - much like a swastika, burning cross, or Confederate flag. I would counter that no one has been hanged from a flag, so those analogies don't quite fit. A noose, unlike a flag or burning cross, is indeed a tool that can - and has been - used to kill. Hence, a noose is more than just a symbol of speech.
What do you all think?