Central Michigan Life

Issue date: 3/31/08 Section: Voices

Several months ago and a few weeks before CMU had its own brush with nooses, I wrote a column condemning the hateful symbol and other quiet outrages happening at CMU and elsewhere.

I tell you this so you don't freak out when I say that many of the proposed laws aimed at outlawing nooses concern me. Connecticut recently passed a bill. Maryland is looking at doing the same thing, but adding swastikas. Florida's got plans. Louisiana also wants to add drawing an intimidating noose to the restrictions.

The bills would give a much sought-after tool to prosecutors in instances where intent can be proven - something that is not apparent in CMU's case. But the prosecutor using these laws would have to prove motive, a cerebral part of the crime rather than the physical evidence.

Each of those bills requires exceptions: Swastikas have been part of Native American and Hindu faiths, nooses are used at Halloween and rodeos. Genuine art depicting intimidation is subjective and sometimes sympathetic. This need for exceptions makes it difficult to create a neutral legislative standard; judicial protections are easier.

The difference between nooses and the already-banned burning of crosses is the fire. I'm not trying to be coy, but burning crosses creates a fire hazard and that immediate physical danger allows burning crosses, regardless of intent, to be unconstitutional speech.

Not to discount what I believe can be very serious and real mental and emotional wounds, but legislating against psychological violence is far more difficult than physical harm.

I wish no one ever had to encounter hatefully placed nooses, but just as swastikas and nooses rightly offend many, others are offended by symbols such as the Confederate flag, the hammer and sickle, the black power fist or a torn American flag.

How do you pick and choose? If it becomes a question of legacy, the Confederate flag should be included along with nooses and swastikas. If it becomes a standard of past violence, then the black power fist could well be banned. If it is a benchmark of how many are offended, the hammer and sickle would have been illegal during parts of the Cold War and burning our flag would be unconstitutional.

None of those criteria are feasible because of a heritage demanding we defend that which offends us. Perhaps the rash of nooses popping up across America (Diversity Inc. has an online map of more than 75 confirmed post-Jena incidents) will force that line between freedom and safety to move.

I believe that nooses should always be met with strong opposition, existing laws on discrimination should be better applied and redefined to confront these racists and that further assistance be provided by the Justice Department to small prosecuting outfits such as Isabella County. There is a need for change, but a legislative fix needs to be narrowly tailored and evenly applied.

This is not something easy and I don't have the solutions. But I would suggest that curbing First Amendment rights would be premature while existing tools have not yet been exhausted.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools