So New York authorities seem to think; here's the Complaint in People v. Buttafuoco (typos in original, all-uppercase text shifted to mixed case):
In the State of New York County of Nassau: Det Anthony J Rempel, shield#\1121. Being a member of the Nassau County Police Dept deposes and says that on or about the 5th day of January, 2009, at about 1:00am , at 200 Southwoods Rd Woodbury, the defendant did violate New York State Penal Lawsection(s) §240.30 (1) and §485.05 (1)(a) as a hate crime sub a.§ 240.30 Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree. A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she:
1. Communicates, or causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise, with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm.And
§ 485.05 (1) (a) A person commits a hate crime when he or she commits a specified offense, and the defendant intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is committed in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct. The above listed offense is a specified offense under Penal Law 485.05 (3).TO WIT: On the aforementioned date, time and place of occurrence, the defendant Buttafuoco, Stephen DOB 07/23/85 did use a taped audio message from his cell phone to communicate by an intercom system from the sanctuary of the Woodbury Jewish center, during a Jewish faith wedding, which transmitted throughout the reception hall. The prayer and chant of “Takbir” with a response “Allahu Akbur”, then “Takbir”, “Allah Akbar” did alarm and instill fear in the victim and other guests at the wedding which was for the victims son. This prayer and chant was recorded from a rally that the defendant had attended and taped on his cell phone according to the defendants own statements to the witness. The defendant did intentionally select the person against this crime committed because of a belief regarding religion. The defendant admitted he did this with the intention of disrespecting the religion. This is a violation of NYS Penal Law section 485.05 (1) A, which would make this a hate crime.
The above is based upon information and belief; the sources being the written statements by the victim and witness, The oral statements by the defendant, the audio message on the defendants cell phone, which was overheard by an investigating Detective, with consent by the defendant and other information received by the investigating Detective’s.
Is this constitutionally permissible? To be sure, employees may (and should) be fired by their employers when they disrupt weddings or annoy wedding guests, whether through speech or otherwise. The questions are (1) whether such offensive speech may constitutionally be made into a crime, (2) whether this particular "aggravated harassment" statute outlawing such offensive speech is constitutionally vague and overbroad even if a narrower and clearer statute punishing such speech would be permissible, and (3) whether it may be made a more serious crime when the target is intentionally selected based on the target's presumed religion.
My view is that this statute, at least if it's interpreted to apply to cases such as this one, is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague (though I'm aware that lower courts have indeed upheld some such statutes in some other contexts).
A content-neutral statute that banned all speech on someone else's property in a context where the property owner would almost certainly deny permission, and the speaker knows that the property owner would deny such permission, might be a constitutional content-neutral restriction. But no such statute is in play here; Buttafuoco is being prosecuted because of the offensiveness of the message he communicated, in a statute that isn't limited to communication on private property without the owner's permission. (I say "might be a constitutional content-neutral restriction" because it's possible that determining whether the property owner would have denied permission could require content-based judgments that courts might be barred from making; I'm just not sure how that would play out.)
That's not quite right. He "did alarm and instil fear in the victim and other guests at the wedding". This is closer to a cross burning than a fart joke.
After the Rapture on Tuesday I'll be able to hear Takbir at a Jewish wedding and think it's a nice moment of bridging two cultures, but given the present existence of George Bush and, thus, war, it would sound like a threat.
Interesting, prior to Charlemagne's time, the Latin alphabet was used with all caps, no spacing, and no punctuation, like this:
WHENINROMEDOLIKEAROMAN
This was changed because it was hard for monks to read silently.
The idea that a living constitution prevents the government from doing anything at all is a quaint anachronism. There are no limits to what our black robed betters can do to us.
Also, I love how the "disability" means "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity." So if I kill myself because I'm depressed, I've committed a hate crime against myself.
If you set the threshold for what's a punishable threat low enough, a great deal of speech would lead to prison terms.
That describes 75% of the Volokh Conspiracy commentariat.
"Annoyance" is pretty patently unworkable. "Alarm," I think, has been rejected in various cases -- R.A.V. v. St. Paul?
Maybe one could draft a statute that prevented people from actually disrupting events, or at least nonpublic events, through some time-place-manner application. (The no-picketing-funerals laws in response to the Phelps seem like a ham-handed attempt at that.) It would be tricky to draft. But I seem to recall language somewhere that said that you could use viewpoint-neutral rules to exclude people from nonpublic events.
That said, the statute is silly; causing "annoyance" should not be a crime, and in any case distinguishing those using the PA system ("electronic means") from those that simply shout is hard to fathom. I agree that the statute is Constitutionally overbroad, since on its face it applies to speech in public places.
And as a prosecutor, I have told police officers, "You do your job and I will do mine."
But isn't this weak thinking on my part? Because criminal intent has to be based on the "beliefs and perceptions" of the accused. (Or really "perceptions of the perceptions," but that's taking me into Umberto Eco Land.)
I ask because "(3) whether it may be made a more serious crime when the target is intentionally selected based on the target's presumed religion" raises the issue of hate crimes legislation. And while I am viscerally against these laws, I'm not sure where the line is drawn between permissible and impermissible consideration of the accused's intent.
Apologies in advance for the Crim Law I--Day One-type question.
Since when did waiters lose their First Amendment rights? And what does private property have to do with the First Amendment?
Sure he could be fired or removed from the property, but that doesn't give the government the right to punish his speech.
Yelling "Allahu Akbar" in a Jewish wedding has a policial component that is missing from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.
Am I right in inferring that this statute outlaws *all* speech or opinions that are expressed to or in the presence of someone who would find them annoying/offensive (and the speaker knows this)?
These hate crime laws based on mere words are horrid. They serve only to punish unpopular speech.
Cross burnings on the property of the target are a different matter. That is a ugly form of trespass that the law has punished for 1000 years at least.
Plus it would not violate the waiter's 42 USC 1983 civil rights for him to be fired on the spot.
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but I don't think the apolitical nature of the statement 'Fire' is the reason it is not covered by free speech conventions.
I will preemptively chuckle in case that was your intent.
If you've followed any of the blogs that document the tsunami of jihadi or dhimmi activity, you will see that apparently it is perfectly OK to say things in a demonstration, in a sermon in a mosque, on a website, in a YouTube video, or at a US college campus as:
"Hitler didn't do a really good job"
"Kill the Jews"
"Holocaust: it is time to the ovens again."
"We want to kill all the Jews, all the Jews should be slain, they have no right to exist!"
Some of this must get very close to the "Fire in the Theatre", inciting to kill an entire ethnic group.
But Homeland Security, the FBI, the American judicial system, and the mainstream media have their hands full looking for the last three living skinheads and all fourteen of the known anti-abortion protesters. After all, they represent the real danger to our way of life.
If someone yells Allahu Akbar at a *Jewish* wedding, could that reasonably cause the guests to flee out of the exits and perhaps result in some people being trampled to death? Remember, when Allahu Akbar is yelled at a Jewish wedding, it is usually immediately proceeded by a suicide bombing or firing a machine gun. The fellow who broke into the Seattle Jewish center yelled it before he gunned down his victims, among the many other cases where those words might just cause the same reaction as "fire."
Your interpretation of my rationale suggests that speech is understood completely free of context. I think the Takbir would be more reasonably perceived as a threat if it occurs unexpectedly in a gathering of Jews than if it was heard coming from a mosque or a protest march. On the other hand, if the number of Jews murdered in the name of Allah drops back down to zero for the next several years, then a stunt like this will look as innocuous as the signs you describe.
The hate speech as a crime versus free speech issue is only going to get larger and more complex as time goes on.
While I might personally want to throttle the nitwit we walk a very thin line when we take on the European limits of free speech and the Canadian officialdom whiningly taking on the attack on Mark Steyn for writing about Muslims in ways they deem not very complimentary.
Does anyone have a view of what a more liberal/more sensitive bench might do with a case like this? My fear is that satire/public ranting would become proscribed by courts that have lost sight of the need for debate or even well-placed insults. Were I the king what would I do to the miscreant who condemned my royal court?
And because it happened in such a stupid way, that ensures that the next time someone wants to legitimately restrict a Muslim's speech or actions they will think twice when they shouldn't.
That seems fair to me. I would add that RAV v. St Paul, Brandenburg v. Ohio, and others require that the danger really be imminent. I can stand on a street corner and advocate the violent overthrow of the government as an abstract idea all day long (US v. Yates) but the CEO of Blackwater couldn't pledge his company's support.....
I think there should be some level of punishment, because it would actually create a fear of imminent bodily harm to the crowd. The racial "hate" component is what makes the crowds' fear reasonable, and converts the act from "being a major asshole" into a near assault.
Shouldn't THAT be the concept behind hate crime legislation, rather than trying to enhance ordinary crimes because the perpetrator was being a dick? In other words, the 'hate' part should simply make it easier to prove a traditional element of a crime. Don't make 'hate' a new element to some new crime, or a factor in punishment.
Here, the screaming of "allah ackbar" at Jewish events is, unfortunately, not infrequently followed by imminent bodily harm. Was the context enough to strike legitimate fear in the minds of the guests, or was it simply enough to really piss them off? If the former, then prosecute under old laws. If the latter, then just fire the guy and hurl retaliatory insults.
But a felony? FWIW, I think that one might be able to extend the idea of nuisance laws to cover disruptions of weddings, funerals, and the like. However, nuisance laws tend to be either civil matters or misdemeanors. Making it a felony seems problematic to me.
Should I be free to walk into a mosque and reply to cries of "Allahu akhbar" by yelling "Why are you saying that Allah is a mouse?"
Given that the wedding was in a place of worship and the defendant entered with the purpose of disrupting it in a way that he knew (or should have known) that the property owner would have denied admittance for, is there room for the doctrine of trespass ab initio?
Though in the absence of danger or an intent to create danger (either of which may indeed be present, as Wooga and Ariel point out), felony charges seem like a bit much.
"UR Confused: Could you please be a bit more precise and therefore more accurate in your characterization of the law? For instance, it's pretty clear that not all criticism of Congressmen is a crime, and that not all political yard signs are a crime (though a city might well be allowed to ban signs that are too large, or of which there are too many). It would be helpful if we avoid such inaccurate overgeneralizations and focus on what is indeed restricted."
You know what I mean about yard signs. And you don't need a link to know what I mean about criticizing congressmen.
Eugene you have an Aggie in the Circle approach to constitutional protections.
An Aggie (Tx A &M) and his wife were out hiking. A gang of robbers attacked. The robbers drew a circle in the dirt, stood the Aggie in the circle, and told him under no circumstance to step out of the circle. They left, dragging his wife.
An hour later the robbers came back. "While we were gone we raped your wife, then beat her to death with sticks." The Aggie laughed and laughed.
"Why are you laughing?" said the robbers.
"While you were gone, I stepped out of the circle three times!"
Eugene, the courts tell you that what matters is the rule of law. They tell you their decisions are based on a rational interpretation of the constitution. And like the Aggie you believe that what matters is what you are told matters. So you pick and tease at the logic in court decisions, and you act as though you believe that logic really explains how the decisions were reached.
Phooey. What matters is what the justices personally want. They do what they want to the extent they can get away with it this session, and after they decide what they want, they cook up reasons to justify what they did.
That any political yard sign anywhere in America is criminal is an obscenity. That any criticism of any congressman anywhere in America criminal is an obscenity. That you imagine those statements need adjectives is a measure of your confusion about what matters.
Free speech has been taken from us. The court will not give it back. They will chip it away year after year until the 1st amendment is as irrelevant as the commerce clause. 'Cause they want to. Not because the constitutions says they can.
The idea that a living constitution prevents the government from doing anything at all is a quaint anachronism. There are no limits to what our black robed betters can do to us. To approach the question otherwise is to miss what matters.
Islam provides wide latitude for people to pray at different times, and to make up prayers they missed at the next prayer time. A Muslim who interrupted others' activities to loudly pray at a specific time would be extremely rude and not following his religion's commandments. Furthermore, Islam also discourages praying in situations where one is likely to be distracted (i.e, in the presence of a crowd of people having an unrelated party).
That's not to say the kind of situation you describe wouldn't come up, just that the appropriate remedy is for the person in question to be slapped to his senses by the local imam or other knowledgeable person.
I'm pretty sure this is not correct -- at least it wouldn't be in New York City. The complaint is drafted by the DA's office, not the officer. So this is a prosecutor's view.
Best proximations of motive can be important to investigators and prosecutors before jurists, they might also prove helpful to "social scientists" after the fact in tentative and hypothetical terms. But assigning criminal or civil penalties to human motives per se - rather than or in addition to the criminal activity - is "thought crime" territory.
Should Ted Kaczynski, the unabomber, have been sentenced differently, on the basis of motive? The Washington D.C. snipers? The waiter in question, was his motive "hate," or was it a "strong dislike," or was he more simply acting on impulse and being a jerk, perhaps also due to some unrelated, momentary disruption in his life? Should "hate" receive one penalty, and "strong dislike" another, and weaker forms of "dislike" another still? Why or why not?
Proximating classifications of motive are important to investigators, prosecutors, jurists and, presumably, to social scientists as well as proximate and hypothetical tools. But "hate" or "strong dislike" based crimes per se are "thought crimes" and should be resisted.
Re, People v. Buttafuoco, a contractual obligation was presumably not fulfilled due to the waiter's action, perhaps punitive penalties are also warranted, nothing beyond that.
I did not say loudly. Suppose that this was played at a moderate volume which was not disruptive in itself (i.e. not something that people could not easily carry on with conversations, etc.) but loud enough where the person was praying to be a reasonable focus point.
Furthermore, suppose that the person evidently did take some steps to reduce the impact by moving as far away from the celebration as practical.
The question is whether the mere presence of the Arabic chant itself could ever be per se a hate crime at a Jewish wedding. Even if you have a law saying "no disruption," I don't think it could be, even if in other contexts it might cause alarm.
In that case I completely agree with you. No disruption, no crime.
I also don't think the 'azn is hate speech against Jews in itself. There are contexts in which it would be (if someone beat up a jew while chanting it, it would clearly have a hateful politico-religious subtext), but none that involve actually using it to pray.
It's also worth noting that it would be a crazed person indeed to, out of hate for a particular group, play a hateful sound in their presence in a nondisruptive fashion.
How about this? You play "allah akbar" at my wedding, and I get to punch you once, really hard, in the mouth. Everyone is happy, no one goes to prison, and even the offender realizes he had it coming.
Of course, we can't do that, because of lawyers. Sorry, disregard.
"Remember"? "usually"?
Is there a history of such interruptions? This is the first time I've heard of it.
Do I have a First Amendment right to address your family dinner tonight? In a different context, all citizens have a First Amendment right to protest in front of a bank. Does that include a right to break in and interrupt the meeting of the board of directors?
Suppose a Moslem (or a member of another religion began praying out loud during a movie, or during a university lecture. He played some religious chanting, which could be heard by the auditors of the movie or lecture
Suppose the recording were loud enough for the auditors of the movie or lecture to hear, but that they could easily attend to the event they came to see.
The primary question is whether this disruption should be punishable. If you look at hate crime statutes, what they do is enhance the penalties if the primary crime is motivated by "the victim's actual or perceived race, color religion, natural origin, [etc.]" No more, and no less. The prosecutor has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was motivated by the person's religion. Some statutes may define the element to state that the crime be motivated by hostility to the group in question, which is harder to prove.
In your example, your defendant would argue that his mild behavior showed that he was not so motivated. The prosecutor would argue that ostentatious prayers by one religion disrupting the services of another religion in its own place of worship constitute a hate crime. The jury would decide.
Whether hate crime statutes are a good idea is a whole nother question. I personally am uncomfortable with the concept. Be that as in may, if (for example) a Jew stood up in the aisle of a Catholic church and started to chant Jewish prayers during the Mass, he would reasonably be prosecuted for that under nuisance laws.
What this Buottofuoco guy did was more than bad manners.
Witness for the prosecution here, here and here, for starters.
I gave an example of a Muslim interrupting the Seattle Jewish center, which happened in the last couple of years. That wasn't a wedding, but the point was that Allahu Akbar yelled in a Jewish context usually is proceeded by something unhappy.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't know of any felony nuissance laws. My points are that I can clearly see a case for making disruptions of civic (or for that matter religious) ceremonies by protesters of any stripe illegal under nuissance laws, but I have never seen a nuissance law which was anything beyond a fairly minor misdemeanor.
However, I agree that what the guy did was more than bad manners. I would further support civil suits as the appropriate level of remedy.
This guy didn't yell. He used the intercom to play a pre-recorded prayer chant. This is a fairly severable case. Bad manners? Sure. Actionable in civil court? Perhaps. Criminal? Not sure I agree with that.
I'm not sure it should be criminal either. Civil for sure. Criminal - maybe. I think the above example of wearing a KKK outfit to a black wedding would be roughly comparable.
As a result, I doubt that anyone from the Nassau County District Attorney's office saw this document prior to its preparation.
Of course I could be wrong (particularly since I do not practice criminal law in New York). And it is noteworthy that this case will be prosecuted by the same District Attorney who apparently has a strong disregard for First and Second Amendment rights.
Is there a history or pattern that you speak of? Seattle is not an example of this. I'm not sure what we are supposed to "remember."
Also...does "proceeded by" mean "followed by"? I usually don't see "proceeded" paired with "by."
You have said this twice, Ariel, and I wonder what you mean by "proceeded." Does "something unhappy" (by which I think you are suggesting a suicide bomb or the like) usually happen after or before the yell? If before, who cares about the yell? Do you possibly mean "followed"? Just asking.
Uh, because yelling "fire" in a theater is likely to result in a stampede to the exits, with the potential for injuries and death to those caught therein, while yelling "Allahu akhbar" at a Jewish wedding is more likely to (and should) result in an ass-kicking to the yeller.
Furthermore, if I call you up on the telephone and make tasteless jokes about your religion, that would be a hate crime under the same law, if you could show I was intending to annoy you. Similarly, if your neighbor is Mormon and you call him up and say "I just got a six-pack of beer. Feel free to come on over and have one." That might also be a felony.
I think one could regulate intentionally disrupting private celebrations and ceremonies as nuissances. I don't think this law does so.
Spinster, there is a history or pattern that Allahu Akbar is usually followed by a terrorist attack. One wedding example is the suicide bombing in Jordan (which was not Jewish). Various Jewish examples include the Seattle Jewish attack, Daniel Pearl, the recent Mumbai Chabad attack, and the many other attacks against Jews in Israel where the attacker has yelled this. The 9/11 folks also did this before there atrocity. I can't think of a Jewish wedding off of the top of my head, but I can think of both weddings and Jewish attacks. So I may have slightly overstated my case. Not by much, though. If it happens in Jewish contexts and is followed by terrorism and happens in non-Jewish contexts and is followed by terrorism, a Jewish wedding might seem like a particularly likely place to cause panic.
A Muslim waiter who is part of a caterer's team at a wedding in a synagogue has permission to enter to serve food, but not to disrupt the wedding. For him to challenge the wedding party to a fight would certainly be disturbing the peace. And intentionally disrupting it by pouring drinks on the bridal procession, from the balcony, would be disturbing the peace.
So his shouting Allahu Ackbar during any part of the proceeding would be arguably intentionally disruptive and a breach of the peace.
Hate speech laws are not necessary. Generic disturbing the peace is the proper charge.
As for the caterer's civil liabilty, the waiter would be acting within the course and scope of his employment so emotional distress damages would lie, as those are foreeable from the event being a wedding. Punitive damages would require some sort of ratification, such as the waiter having been disruptive on prior occasions.
This law didnt' succeed in doing so in a way compatible with the Constitution.
I'd say it's closer to a burning fart joke. Do we really want to go down the "punishing speech content" road, however obnoxious it is?
Disturbing the peace, fine.
... and sullying the good name of "Buttafuoco."
I don't know whether the unconstitutionality in some cases makes the law completely invalid or not, but I really don't care. The problem is that the law declares bad manners to be a felony crime.
I think there is a tendency to confuse "constitutionally permissible" with "acceptable and decent". The Bill of Rights sets a lower bar for the restrictions the (Federal) government may place on liberty. But just because a statute passes this weak test shouldn't make it automatically acceptable.
Just because the "Protect America" act may be consistent with the 4th Amendment doesn't make it a good law. The main question about all the child pr0n laws Congress has been passing should not be whether they are acceptable under the 1st amendment, but whether there's any point to them in the first place. The same holds about this law. The waiter's 1st Amendment rights were not violated, and firing him would be the right punishment. But a felony prosecution? That's awful.
yes. getting your ass kicked.
then, the cops laughing at you when you make an assault complaint.
but seriously, yelling "die you..." in the above circumstances would almost certainly qualify as a criminal threat. and it doesn't have the free speech issues that the case we are discussing does. iow, it's a bad analogy.
i am sorry about yelling "allahu akbar" is not a criminal threat. it should not be a criminal matter.
the person should be told to leave. if he then refused, trespassing would be the appropriate offense.
this hate speech crap is weak euro-crap.
as for the disturbing the peace stuff,. that might work too. my jurisdiction has no such charge. we get along ok without it.
Correct. The question in this Buttafuoco case is (1) whether the perp intended to annoy or intimidate the wedding party (if the latter, there may be a felony, not a nuisance), and (2) what the motivation was. These issues of intent and motivation are not apparent to those of us who may have read only the post or the judicial opinions; you have to have been at the trial to determine this. Of course, the appellate courts take the fact determinations of the trial court as the starting point for rulings on the law.
This is nice in theory, but a waiter is likely to lack the resources to pay a judgment. So there is no remedy for the wedding party in any event. And the threat of lawsuit is not a deterrent. Perhaps a jail term is.
If the waiter did this not to intimidate Jews, but to damage his employer's business, there would seem to be no hate crime. The question then is whether he committed a felony against his employer-- extortion or whatever. Again, I don't know the facts. But performing criminal acts that, taken in isolation are not felonies, with the intent to destroy someone's business may be a felony. Think about someone who flattens the tires of delivery trucks of a company that doesn't pay protection. Flattening tires ordinarily is not a felony, but in this case it would be.
But if the waiter did this because of a financial disagreement with his employer, it isn't a hate crime. It may be, though, if he did it because he didn't like the religion of his employer.
Finally, if a waiter was just off the boat from Umm al-Qaiwan and thought that engaging in public prayer is just what people should do at that time of day, he may not be guilty of any crime because he lacks necessary intent.
Remember that a key element of any crime is the mental state of the person committing the offensive act or omission.
i am sorry about yelling "allahu akbar" is not a criminal threat.
In this context, it is a threat, in the same way that burning a cross on a black person's lawn is a threat even if nobody actually says "and we're going to burn you like this cross".
Context actually matters.
The waiter's employer is liable for emotional distress damages as the waiter was acting within the course and scope of his employment, and emotional distress is reasonably forseeable from disruption of a wedding. This is why caterers carry Errors &Omissions coverage.
Also note Whit's point. The waiter did it knowing he wouldn't be stomped into jelly. The relative pacifism of some ethnic groups invites such abuse. The known violence of others deters it. This is not a matter of race. Disruption of Okie, Mexican and Assyrian weddings in my area would be seen as a welcome opportunity for exercise at the about to be dearly-departed's expense.
i disagree that it is a threat.
"die you infidels" would be.
not "allah akbar"
sorry
The waiter will be liable only if his act was within the scope of employment, done to further the interests of the employer. This was not.
If a repo man breaks your kneecap to get you to tell him where your car is, the bank he works for probably is liable.
If a teacher rapes your kid, even within the school building, the school probably is not liable.
The errors and ommissions coverage indemnifies the caterer against its employee dropping the wedding cake, but not against the employee yelling "Allahu Akbar"
I would agree that the law on its face isn't limited to these situations, and reading the law to its maximum conceivable extent -- as applying to playing the same recording on ones own loudspeaker next to a pro-Israel rally for example -- would clearly be overbroad.
I've been a litigator for 30 years, and tried a wedding case.
"die you infidels" would be.
not "allah akbar"
In the context where it is said at a gathering of Jews and being said in a manner that's disruptive in an otherwise lesser way, yes, it's a threat. It's true that the words' literal meaning is innocuous, but that doesn't mean it's not a threat. The disruption of a gathering of Jews by using those words is commonly a prelude to an attempt to kill those Jews.
Guess I'd better lay aside my plans to burst into a Protestant wedding next Saturday and yell "Up the long ladder/and down the short rope/To hell with King Billy/And God bless the pope./If that doesn't do/We'll rip 'em in two/And send 'em to hell with your red, white, and blue."
I'd pay good money to hear that.
Then here's a quick quiz for you:
Which of the above two phrases was spoken on Flight 93 while the hijackers were, well... trying to kill infidels?
Certainly the phrase can and is used peacefully by many. But that same phrase, when shouted aloud in a public venue, has a very different context nowadays. You may not like it, and you may prefer the second use doesn't exist because of your slavery to PC, but there it is.
Then here's a quick quiz for you:
Which of the above two phrases was spoken on Flight 93 while the hijackers were, well... trying to kill infidels?
Certainly the phrase can and is used peacefully by many. But that same phrase, when shouted aloud in a public venue, has a very different context nowadays. You may not like it, and you may prefer the second use doesn't exist, but it does exist independent of whatever PC considerations you feel has priority over reality.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.