Country Club is Site of Hate Crime Against President Obama
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 13, 2009 11:54 AM EDT
21 comments
From WBZ Newsradio 1030
The Boston Herald is reporting that a swastika and the name of President Obama was carved into the 18th green at Lakeville Country Club.
Country club grounds keepers found the letter "I," a swatiska and the name "Obama" dug into the green at the 18th hole early [Monday] morning, said golf course owner Gary Mosca.
The vandals either used their heels or a board to carve the message, which is about 20 by 30 feet, Mosca said. He said the vandals did not dig in deep enough to damage the root system and he plans to turn the swatiska into a box.
WBZ Newsradio 1030 is reporting that Mosca claims the damage will not be fully repaired until next Spring.
This is a despicable act.
Look, I know people have wildly varying opinions about President Obama. Many Americans aren't level-headed enough about politics to really be able to not take politics as a personal matter. It is those Americans that do things like this.
0 recs |
21 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Absolutely unbelievable.
Stuff like this simply angers me because of the stupidity and lack of knowledge being showcased by the offender. Not happy with the way things are going right now in the US? Remember this: how long as Obama been in office in comparison to the President before him?
Adam Fonseca
by ChicagoDuffer on Oct 13, 2009 11:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
“hate crime” – one of the worst legal terms ever. RB – by definition – this is not a “hate crime” against Obama since political speech is protected by the first amendment. This is vandalism.
And why weren’t the movies and songs written about murdering GW Bush complained about like this ?
And what kind of greenskeeper do they have at this course that he can’t “fully repair” this damage before next spring ? have they not heard of SOD in Boston ? Fire him and hire someone who knows how to repair greens.
Last but not least – what the heck does “I (swastika) Obama” mean anyway ?? Were they using the classical positive meaning of the symbol that was used around the world for thousands of years before Hitler took over Germany ? Not likely – this doesn’t seem like someone who would be smart enough to know those meanings. Was he supporting Obama as a Nazi party member since the Nazi party was the National Socialist party ? Makes some sense as a bizarre replacement for a “heart”.
MOST importantly – since political speech is protected – find the bastard(s) who did this and string them up…for crimes against a golf course ! :-)
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Oct 13, 2009 12:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Actually, this is clearly a hate crime because this is hate speech. Very clear under the law. This is not under the banner of political speech since the connotation of Nazism is considered hate speech.
I agree that this should be repaired sooner – the two reports that I saw seemed to conflict on what the owner said it would take to fix this.
I took “I swastika Obama” to be something like “I am Spartacus” – i.e., calling Obama a Nazi.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 13, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“I am Spartacus” means he was calling someone else Spartacus ?? Clearly, this was no English major with his message.
“Hate Crimes” are liberal inventions – what they do is elevate one set of victims over another. If a Jew or “African-American” is the victim of a crime, that crime is deemed to be worse than if the same crime happened to a WASP like you or me – which is complete nonsense.
How is this “hate speech” ? It’s not even English. It is not a crime against Obama – it is a political message. It’s not even a “terroristic threat”. Let’s take your accusation and assume that it is correct – how do you prove this is “hate speech” ? There is no defineable meaning to it.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Oct 13, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Per the Webster’s law dictionary, here’s the standing definition for hate speech:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/hate-speech
Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 13, 2009 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What’s your point ? Read that “definition” carefully. What it fosters is the policing of thought by the government. What it leaves out is “hatred” against white people, christians, employers, republicans – the definition is only used in cases that are helpful to liberal causes.
You cannot control or police thoughts – which is why “hate crimes” are bogus.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Oct 13, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Improper classification” pretty much covers everything that isn’t explicitly stated there. The ole “wiggle room” so to speak.
This isn’t controlling thoughts at all. Rather, it is establishing that certain types of speech are particularly inflammatory and present a unique potential problem to society compared to other types of speech.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 13, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“not controlling thoughts” ? SERIOUSLY ?? What do you think laws are intended to do ? What do you think “hate” is ?
Laws punish behavior we deem is bad – which encourages people to behave in ways that society deems good.
By calling something a “hate” crime – you are assuming the law can correctly determine the thoughts of one person – and “hate crimes” define crimes against one set of people as worse than against another set of people.
So tell me – how do YOU know what definition of “swastika” was intended by this vandal ? Forget the fact that “I (swastika” Obama" makes absolutely no sense.
AND – if you look closely at the picture – this might be against some Irish guy named O’bama. (ok – that’s a stretch) :-)
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Oct 13, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We’re going off of social norms here. Generally, if someone uses a swastika as vandalism, that has a hateful connotation to it. It’s not perfect, but that’s the best we can do.
It goes back to why all speech is not protected under the 1st Amendment – the Supreme Court’s example of yelling “fire!” in a crowded movie theater.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 13, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m still waiting for you to show how…let’s just assume this means “I hate Obama”…is a hate crime. This is vandalism – not a hate crime unless you can prove that Obama was injured.
Yes – I know all speech isn’t protected by the first amendment – I’m the one who has to continually remind you. (bwaaahahahaa) The ONLY speech protected by the first amendment is speech against the government.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Oct 13, 2009 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, a lot more speech is protected than you might be led to believe. Basically, it’s speech that can incite or cause social unrest that isn’t protected. Threatening violence, etc.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 13, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sigh – those are protected under legal statute – not the first amendment.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Oct 13, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Swastika has a much longer and varied past than its iconic use for the German Nazi Party.
It is sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Mithraism, religions with a total of more than a billion followers worldwide and it is ubiquitous in both historical and contemporary society. In Japan, is is called a “manji” and has been used in coats of arms for centuries. It was used in Pre-Christian Europe, by the Celts, was used as a symbol to connotate a pagan diety in the Baltic region, was used by the Finns, and so forth and so on.
As such, a defense would be simple, even if one could find the perpetrators of the damage and bring them to charges.
I do not necessarily buy the First Amendment defense that court presses forth, mainly because I think he is using it as a convenient defense and overlooks the history of First Amendment limitations that have been long held by the judicial system. Speech that incites violence has been ruled, many times, to NOT be protected by the First Amendment. I would suggest that he start with De Jonge v. Oregon, then move on to Gitlow v. People, with Dennis v. United States as background material.
by Old Man Par on Oct 13, 2009 2:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
OMP, I understand that the swastika isn’t exclusively a Nazi symbol, but about 0.00001% of the population thinks that when they see it. Again, like I said to Court, it all has to do with social norms of how words and symbols are interpreted. That defense would likely be dismissed unless they could create doubt that the swastika was used in the Nazi context as opposed to the others you mentioned.
We’re totally on the same page about speech inciting violence not being protected, though :)
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 13, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
RB – it doesn’t matter how many other people might know of the different meanings behind the symbol – what matters is if THIS guy knows them.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Oct 13, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reasonable doubt would come into play in a criminal trial, and RB is correct about the connotation of a swastika being almost exclusively interpreted as representing Nazism.
Thing is, Court, in Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire, SCOTUS stated that “fighting words,” were wholly outside of the protection of the First Amendment: words and phrases “which by their very utterance inflict injury” and which “are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.” In other words, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire formed the underpinning basis of so-called hate-speech legislation.
I don’t think, however, we have crossed that threshold, because the only reason that this issue is tied to “hate speech” is because the current President is not a Caucasian. Much the same was said about G. W. Bush and no one brought forward any serious discussion about it being hate-speech, because he is white. The political riposte, if you recall, was to label the person “un-American” or “unpatriotic” — something that Anne Coulter took to the extreme when he wrote his tome “Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.” He labeled those who disagreed with the policies of the then-current administration as traitors. That was far different than claims of hate speech, but all were aimed at the same end: to squelch and nullify political opposition.
by Old Man Par on Oct 13, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you for proving my point – “hate crimes” are a dangerous addition to our legal system.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Oct 13, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually hate crimes are meant to protect against the instigation of violence. I think that’s what the so-called authors of this sort of crap actually want.
by Old Man Par on Oct 13, 2009 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that may be what they say – but what they DO is elevate one group above another in the legal system.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Oct 13, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are already generic laws that cover incitement of violence. “Fighting Words” are not just those that disparage a person for race, religion, etc.
“Hate speech” is an abomination in our legal system. It gives certain groups higher status over others. And we embrace it, because, of course, we don’t want to be bigots. But as tough a pill as it is to swallow, it’s within someone’s rights to be a bigot. It’s also within someone’s rights make their beliefs known.
If you want to live in a free society, you have to be willing to accept a little of the bad for all of the good. Taking away someone’s ability to express thoughts freely is tyrannical, even if we don’t like those thoughts. It is the price that must be paid. Give up some of that freedom now, and next you’ll be giving up the ability to satirize or criticize government.
This was a simple vandalism.
by Double Eagle on Oct 13, 2009 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obama is the president – unless there is some sort of provable threat, or personal connection to him in this…really illiterate vandalism…this is political speech.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Oct 13, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Facebook, Twitter, & Podcasts - Oh My!
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
