Free or Felonious Speech?

[XLFD]

On May 8th, a black maintenance worker was preparing a vacant unit of an apartment complex down in Grand Haven for residency and left the building shortly for supplies.  When he came back he found the following the wall of that apartment.

 

The blurred word, unblurred when it was fresh, was the n-word.  Not much was known about who did it, but the area's Lakeshore Ethnic Diversity Alliance met this Wednesday to discuss what happened. 

 

Thursday night, a suspect was taken into custody for the felony of ethnic intimidation, and malicious destruction of property under $200, a misdemeanor.  Kenneth Ray Schmidt was arraigned earlier today.

 

Now, Kenneth has a criminal history (DWUI twice, last in 1985, misdemeanor domestic violence, 2000, misdemeanor drug possession charge, 2010) and has previously left a note on another black man's door who lived in the complex allegedly saying "N******, if you come up to my door again, somebody is going to get hurt." 

This time he will have to face a felony, ethnic intimidation charges, because he wrote on the wall in red marker, even though the words are less threatening.  The reason is because the law says:

 

(1) A person is guilty of ethnic intimidation if that person maliciously, and with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person because of that person's race, color, religion, gender, or national origin, does any of the following:

(a) Causes physical contact with another person.

(b) Damages, destroys, or defaces any real or personal property of another person.

(c) Threatens, by word or act, to do an act described in subdivision (a) or (b), if there is reasonable cause to believe that an act described in subdivision (a) or (b) will occur.

MCL 750.147b Ethnic Intimidation

 

Since the wall was defaced with the marker, he has violated section (b), and can now be charged up to $5000, and go to jail for two years just on the ethnic intimidation charge.  This aspect was missing on the previous note.  I think both charges are questionable since he did not 'destroy' any property, and think the defense could succeed in showing that the defaced wall did not belong to the person he was allegedly intimidating.  But I suspect he will plea bargain and get some jail time.

What do you think:  does the punishment fit the crime, and is the law a violation of free speech rights, when utilized like it is?

[Lisa O'Brien]

If he did this all I can way is wow - how ignorant is he. Do I think he deserves jail time- No. I do think he should be evicted from his apartment. And no I don't think in this case it is a violation of free speech rights. 

[XLFD]

I like your answers, Lisa.  I think a psychological evaluation and maybe some racial sensitivity training would be good too, and you know he won't like either.

[Fran Cisco]

Maybe jail would school this guy in diversity. And he'd learn to choose his words a little better.

[Willy]

I'm sick and tired of this political correctness. The man is a racist but that's his right. If saying a word that is in the dictionary and is regularly  used by blacks themselves is considered a felony when used by a white person, I say we have crossed the line from common sense to tyranny. Yes he was stupid and he is going to hear peoples wrath but jail time? That is a monumental over reaction. There are racists in the World who are of all racial makeups and they will always exist. If that racism becomes violent or infringes on peoples rights then that is another matter but for someone to verbalize their thoughts about it, is in my opinion, their right.

[easymoney]

I agree with Willy, if the N word is offensive and considerered a racial slur, then, ANY-ONE who uses the word, gets the same treatment. What you have in reality is, reverse racism.

As Mr. Holder himself has said, you cannot have black on white race crimes.   BS

 

[Lisa O'Brien]

I think it would be considered Free Speech if he made up a poster and was marching around with it.

Free Speech to me is not posting your thoughts on someone else property - to me that is vandalism and should not be protected. I think ethnic intimidation could be tried because he hid his identity. 

[Willy]

Now, substitute the black speakers with white people who are commenting on blacks. Would that get more attention?

[Lisa O'Brien]

There are ignorant people in all races- but at least these 2 idiots got up and send whats on there mind to me thats free speech. The idiot at the apartment complex wrote it on the wall anonymously in an act of vandalism - thats not free speech.

[Willy]

Lisa

I didn't know the Constitution required someone to reveal who they are in order for free speech to be considered valid. Do you consider posters who use phoney names to be exempt from free speech? Everyone has a right to express themselves whether we know who they are or not. What bothers me is that the 2 people in the videos are not a small minority. Many blacks have an "it's our turn now so we're going to show you who's boss" attitude. These people don't understand that without the white vote Obama would never have been elected and if these 2 people in the video were white and they were talking about blacks there would be riots in the street and bounties on their heads but the mousey white people just sit back , afraid to say anything and hoping they are not tagged as racist because if they do speak up the left will try and label them as racist.

It's amazing how many blacks think that they and their people cannot be or are not racist.

There is some strong language so if your sensitive then I suggest you don't watch this.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Everyone does have a right to express themselves - but the line stops when it involves someone else's property. Would you be arguing for free speech if someone had spray painted that on the front of your house. Or would you be pissed that someone vandalized your house. I'm sure there are many black, spanish, asian and arabic people out there that want to kill whitey. Just like there are plenty of the clan out there that would like to kill all of the above mentioned groups. Unfortunately that are a lot of ignorant people in this world. 

[Willy]

The issue regarding the spray painting is vandalism. He could have sprayed a smiley face and it would still be vandalism but he painted a word that white people are banned from using. The Government is saying that neither he, nor any other white person, is allowed to use that word, be it spoken or written. Where he wrote it is irrelevant. The free speech comes into play when the Government tries to imprison a person for using a word. That's the real issue here. The vandalism is just a side note.  If the person who wrote the word was black, he would be charged with vandalism only no matter what he wrote. A double standard, don't you think? The fact is that the Government is trying to imprison a person for using a word when they should be charging him with only vandalism and in reality there wasn't much vandalism involved anyway.

[XLFD]

Bravo, Willy.  I think you have THE point.  The Ethnic Intimidation law that the cracker is being charged with here has a different legislative intent than what the prosecutor is going for.  Consider the white devil who did this act of vandalism damaged not the property of the one he was referring to in unkind terms, but to the owner of the apartments.  By the news reports, I would be almost certain the owner was Caucasian. 

One honky damaging the property of another honky is not ethnic intimidation to a third party, IMO.  It's why "hate crimes" actually encourage racism into what should be an unprejudiced legal system.  Again, good follow-up, Willy.