Posted: March 20, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Columbia Falls TEA Party Fails to Hide Racism
If you thought the offensive, racist antics from the U.S. presidential race were behind us, you haven’t been to Columbia Falls lately. A racist slogan beloved by TEA Partiers was posted on a pawn shop sign, KTVQ reported, advertising one of the TEA Party’s favorite bumper stickers, which could be obtained within. You can see a picture of the sign on the KTVQ website.
The sign and the sticker say “Don’t Re-Nigg in 2012″. The word Re-nigg, which the dim bulbs that created the message seemed to think was a clever play on the word renege mixed with the racial epithet n*word, takes anti-Obama sentiment to a disgusting new level.
To be fair, the TEA party claims there are no racists in its ranks, so these are surely garden variety Republicans.
Of course, others have already pointed out that the bumper sticker being sold isn’t just offensive, but also really stupid. That’s because if you ‘Don’t Renege in 2012′ it actually means you re-elect President Obama. Perhaps the TEA Party figured this out, as the site selling the bumper stickers has been taken down and the Pawn Plus shop has changed its sign.
If you had any intention of being fair you would have stated that the sign was taken down and no bumper stickers with the atrocious remark were being sold.
How do you know? Tried to buy one and found they were sold out? Bummer.
It was reported in the news dumb shit. http://www.kbzk.com/news/columbia-falls-sign-sparks-controversy/
Doesn’t matter, The fact is that it existed, because of Bigotry! And hate is holed up somewhere in that town still!
The fact is the Tea Party has many faces: http://www.teaparty.org/article.php?id=1216
THEY’RE YOUR PEOPLE, Father Mooron! EMBRACE them! Or condemn them, nitwit! InSTEAD of your slobbering defense of Flush Blimpaugh and his SLUT remarks!
You see, Craigorio, we Dems embrace ALL Dems! But YOU fail to embrace all your people! Yes, you suck!
Craig – If you had any intention of being honest in condemning these heinous actions you wouldn’t be mewling about how these clowns were shamed into taking down the sign and stopping sales of the vulgar and stupid bumper sticker. You would actually be unequivocally condemning these actions.
… –gw–, in case you have no grasp of what “atrocious” means: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atrocious
–gw– If you had any intention of being honest you would have recognized that I called the bumper sticker remark “atrocious.” The same “atrocious” remark was on the sign. GFY.
You’re still the one who apparently felt that these guys weren’t getting a fair shake about putting up a racist sign and selling a racist bumper sticker. I guess in your mind it’s OK if you do those things just so long as you’re shamed into stopping when your peers tell you they’re disgusted.
Adding one adjective (though a strong one) to your post didn’t really sell me on the idea of you finding their behavior all that inappropriate.
GFY? Glad to know that apologists for racists have feelings….
No. ACTUALLY what was REPORTED, Fr. Mooron, was that the bumper stickers were no longer being sold, and that the sign was taken down! But I’ll lay your MONEY that they’re now GIVING the bumpers stickers away!
Regardless, if you’re a racist ahole, NO press is bad press! The more you can slip your message into the media, the better! For then, the word goes out across the country that you can be as racist as you WANT to be in Montana!
And that’s real sad. Craigorio’s FRIENDS are real sad. Sad cases for sure! EMBRACE them Father!
Three points:
(1) The sign was an exercise of free speech. It was also many other things, none good, most deeply offensive.
(2) The incident proves that public opinion does have an effect on private behavior. KTQV deserves praise for its reporting.
(3) The people who complained to the cops need a refresher course in the First Amendment.
Agreed on all three points. I strongly support racists’ First Amendment right to state their heinous and (dare I say) atrocious ideas. Just as I cherish my First Amendment right to challenge the ideas of the racists and their apologists. Heck, I even support their right to tell me to “GFY” – what an excellent debating tactic!
Hate speech is not protected by the free speech clause. I thought you were smarter then this Craig? But that wasn’t even the case here.
The guy has a billboard on a city or rural thoroughfare, in which he tries to advertise those horrific bumper stickers. Regulation of commercial speech such as advertising is strictly enforced by federal law! This guy was clearly outside the bounds of freedom of speech. Advertising is not protected speech. Thats why the guy had to take it down.
You people clearly have no Idea what freedom of speech is! If the guy hung the sign up at his personal home… say his garage door…in a quiet neighborhood with no through traffic….. that’s when he might be within the confines of free speech, and only if the neighbors. do not call up the police and complain.
Then the police because of neighbors input would have to tell him to take it down, especially since it slanders a protected class in the surrounding area. Thats when it becomes hate speech!
You republicans need to start reading more about state and federal laws. I am sure you have heard it said to you before… Shame, you didn’t take that expert advice!
If it was in my neck of the woods I would have had no problem filing an injunction at the county courthouse. It would have been gone before we got to the hearing… ten minutes after the gentleman got served!
I”m adding you to the list of people who need a refresher course in the First Amendment.
James,
Monty is quite correct. This was not, technically, a case of free speech but an act that is quite likely regulated by ordinance. In fact, “free speech” does not mean what you think it means and there are volumes of case law to back it up. Try yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre and see just how long you spend in jail.
James, as I pointed out above, it is you who needs a refresher course in law.
1) Free speech is not a catch all that allows any action. As I said above, there are volumes of case law that prove the restrictions of free speech. One of those restrictions is the matter of business signage. Signage is monitored by ordinance in every town in Montana – including Columbia Falls – and is, therefore, NOT covered by free speech. I have no idea if Columbia falls has a hate speech ordinance (I would guess given some of the stories coming out of the area that it doesn’t) but those are becoming more and more popular at the local level. A state ordinance has already been tested at the Supreme Court level and found constitutional, so you can drop the first amendment argument.
2) I agree with you to a point. I agree that it is a good thing that public pressure caused the owner to take the sign down. I do not agree that we should leave hate speech to public pressure. The law should be involved in cases like this.
3) Before you spout what you know nothing about, please do at least a little checking online. The signage ordinances are easy to look up as are the MANY civil and criminal cases that prove the first amendment isn’t the shield you think it is.
Yep Moorcat is right! Federal case law, well their is tons on the books regarding free speech. This billboard is not free speech! This more akin to deceptive advertising practices. I am sure that federal Trade laws were violated, and One could point to HUD laws as a model for the community as well.
(1) The sign advertised a bumpersticker that was available for purchase inside the pawn shop. Therefore, there was no fraud.
(2) This was not a case of shouting fire in a crowded theater (Holmes, Schenck v. United States, 1919). The sign merely advertised the opportunity to buy a legal product. The clear and present danger test in Schenck does not apply to this situation.
(3) “Signage is monitored by ordinance in every town in Montana – including Columbia Falls – and is, therefore, NOT covered by free speech.” Nonsense. Read City of Ladue v Gilleo, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=u10373.
(4) Was the sign’s message hate speech? And if so, was that speech illegal? Some commenters in this thread obviously think so, but the burden of proving that it’s hate speech falls upon those who claim that it is. So far those making that claim have only asserted that it’s hate speech, but have not backed up their claims with citations. My personal opinion is that the sign is in poor taste, but that it doesn’t begin to qualify as hate speech in any sense. Generating outrage is not against the law, although some certainly think it should be.
(5) I recommend to you the following passage in Justice Holmes’ dissent in Abrams v United States (1920):
“… I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.” http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0250_0616_ZD.html
(6) I also recommend studying the following:
“Beyond the Burning Cross,” by Edward J. Cleary.
“Freedom for the thought that we hate,” by Anthony Lewis.
“Perilous Times: free speech in wartime,” by Geoffrey Stone.
“When the Nazis came to Skokie: freedom for the speech we hate,” by Philippa Strum.
“Free speech for me, but not for thee,” by Nat Hentoff.
Conner,
You obviously did not read the case law you quoted. The reason the ordinance in question was denied in the specific case on record was because the signage in question was posted at a personal residence. The signage in the article was placed a place of business, and therefore would have fallen under the local ordinance for businesses.
Further, you did not dispute the statement that every city in Montana has ordinances effecting signage. They do. There are also state requirements involved as well.
The litigation for free speech spans volumes. You have done a good job cherry picking but it doesn’t negate the fact that hate speech (and the many laws being passes against it) are a current legal hot topic. So far, the Courts have come down on the side of limiting hate speech.
I have nothing against heated political discourse (nor, as far as I can tell, does the law). Bullying – in the form of hate speech – I do have a problem with and I have to question what your interest is in protecting it?
fighting words are not protected by the first amendment. the people who printed these are well aware displaying a message like this could lead to violence. don’t confuse hate speech with fighting words.
Moorcat:
In reading Gilleo, you encounter a wealth of cases on point to commercial signage. The pawn shop’s message was on a sign used to promote sales, etc. It meets the physical requirements for commercial signage. It advertised a legal product that was available.
“Bullying – in the form of hate speech – I do have a problem with and I have to question what your interest is in protecting it?” And do I still beat my wife?
“So far, the Courts have come down on the side of limiting hate speech.” Which courts? Cite some U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Present facts to prove your assertion.
Trust no one:
Look up “Heckler’s Veto.”
Now, this is my last post here on the issue. The readers of this thread can make their own judgments on the merits of the arguments that the commenters have advanced.
James, I am not going to get into a citing war with you. It is stupid and if you know anything about the law, you are also aware that I (or you) can find ample precident in the law to “prove” any case.
The ideal behind the argument is another matter and apperently I have to dumb it down for you.. so be it.
The argument you are making is no different than Craig’s argument on Freedom of Religion. You are essencially arguing that the shop owner has the right to say anything on his signage that he wants because of the first amendment. That is simply not the case. As with Freedom of Religion, your right to say anything you want ends when your speech causes harm to others. In the case of Freedom or Religion, that is an argument that has been “put to bed” as it were through over a century of legal interpretation. In the case of Hate Speech, this is a new legal battleground that is still being fought. You are apparently arguing that your right to free speech trumps the damage your free speech causes. Recent case law would suggest otherwise. You do not have the right to insite violence by free speech nor do you have the right to hurt others through the use of hate speech.
I will give you that Montana is behind most of the rest of the country when it comes to hate speech. Many states are enacting laws governing hate speech. At this point (at least to my knowledge), hate speech has been acted upon by only a few municipalities in Montana. Because of this Hate Speech is alive and well in Montana. That certainly doesn’t make it right.
By all means, continue defending hate speech if that is what floats your boat. I have no doubt that Craig will continue to defend his belief that his religious views trump my rights. I, on the other hand, will work diligently for getting hate speech recognised in Montana for what it is – violent battery against individuals.
James,
In your “learned” (read goggle law) opinion, which of these signs could you legally put up in your yard?
“Kill the Illegal Kenyan in office”
“Enslave all the darkies before they take over”
“Fire the Black Man in the White House”
If your answer isn’t “all of the above” (I will give you a hint, it isn’t), why aren’t all three covered by the first amendment?
Now thats the problem with you just sucking shit off the web Brother and not reading it correctly! First of all it was a private home and not a business. This is the case of a woman putting a sign on her front yard grass, a 24- by 36-inch sign, Not an 8 by ten foot sign, That sits on a highway. but a Private residence opinion that spoke to ending the gulf war. Not a racial slur.
Then the Supreme court goes on to explain that what the nutcase did in Columbia (falls into an example of the things not considered free speech), wouldn’t be considered free speech.
While signs are a form of expression protected by the Free Speech Clause, they pose distinctive problems that are subject to municipalities’ police powers. Unlike oral speech, signs take up space and may obstruct views, distract motorists, displace alternative uses for land, and pose other problems that legitimately call for regulation. It is common ground that governments may regulate the physical characteristics of signs – just as they can, within reasonable bounds and absent censorial purpose, regulate audible expression in its capacity as noise. See, e.g., Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989); Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949).
From there you will have to read about twenty other cases. to get the just meaning but, it would have been well within Law, to prove this is a Property interest of a Business and not free speech! Dummy!
The case you cite by the way… is talking about Private citizen signage, not business signage. Read you law a little closer. Your Tea Party Idiot put it on his advertising signage, at a business. Not his personal home. Business advertising sits under Federal trade laws, and city ordinances.
James wins. I doubt there if a local ordinance in C Falls that would have required the sign posting to be taken down, if there was the local police presumably would not have said they couldn’t do anything about it. Even if there were a local ordinance the ordinance is still subject to the First Amendment and Commercial Speech is as well its just held to different standards. To survive an ordinance would likely have to be content neutral..meaning a prohibition on some physical aspect of the sign..not the speech itself. If it is some kind of ordinance intended to specifically ban offensive racist language it would need to be “narrowly tailored” to “advance a substantial govt interest”. This is not easy to do but I suppose you could argue it would be neccesary to advance the govt interest of preserving the peace or something like that. Maybe. But the fact is there is no ordinance so its kind of a moot point.
The federal govt would have no basis for restricting the sign unless this bagger took it even farther and started discriminating in who he actually serves in his rat hole pawnshop.
I give this round to James. Go back to your corners and get ready for round 34.
On the contrary, Jack. Sign ordinances can be specifically tailored to be unoffensive (not harmful) to general business environment. I don’t know what the specific ordinance in CFalls is, but kindly remember that James originally posited the sign as an “exercise in free speech”, wrapping it the warm blanket of the first amendment without ever showing that to be the case.
Well technically commercial speech (advertising) is wrapped in the warm blanket of the first amendment. Whether that is what my main man James meant is not for me to say. Not sure what you are trying to say regarding the ordinance.
In more important subjects when are you going to do a post on Tebow man is your heart broken?
My bad I just checked and I have spoken incorrectly you have addressed the Tebow situation.
NO! I disagree Monty Wins, Ignorance is no excuse for the Law!
A hate crime is a criminal offense committed against persons, property or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by an offender’s bias against an individual’s or a group’s race, religion, ethnic/national origin, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation. (Definition developed at the 1998 IACP Summit on Hate Crime in America.)
Legal definitions of hate crimes vary. The federal definition of hate crimes addresses civil rights violations under 18 U.S.C. Section 245.
As of 1999, 41 states and the District of Columbia have hate crime statutes that provide enhanced penalties for crimes in which victims are selected because of a perpetrator’s bias against a victim’s perceived race, religion or ethnicity. Many states also classify as hate crimes those in which a victim is selected based on a perception of his/her sexual orientation. Deals with Graffiti, and signage just like that nutcase in Columbia Falls!
Its not a hate crime by your own definition. A criminal offense ‘motivated’ by underlying racial prejudice. There is no criminal offense in the first place to even get to the point of examining whether it was motivated by racial prejudice. Just being a racist bagger with a sign is not a hate crime. Now dont get all bent out of shape and bring in Backwoods Monty and get fired up in all caps. Im not defending this bagger Im just clarifying things for you.
A comment in defense of the people who called the police.
1-For many people, calling the police is akin to “alerting the authorities” or taking action to do something about a problem they don’t know how to address safely themselves. While I wouldn’t have done it, I can see how someone might not know what else to do.
2-Perhaps they called the police because they wanted to prevent hate crimes against people of color or vigilantes going down to the pawn shop to teach the bigots a lesson in a less than legal manner.
3-Who do you call in this situation? The news media is the only real answer right? Most small town Montanans don’t want to appear on the news.
These racist, backwoods bigots are not representative of the Tea Party or its values. I align myself with the Tea Party and I absolutely condemn their bigotry. Racists can be found in all political affliations. Rather than doing anything productive to eliminate racism the Cowgirl tries to use it for political gain, and that’s sick. I’ve never heard a peep from the Cowgirl to condemn racist or mysoginist comments from any Democrat. Further, where is there a shred of evidence that the pawn shop owners have anything to do with the Tea Party? Perhaps they’re just old, southern Democrats.
Old southern Democrats? Like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms?
Oh wait…the GOP’s Southern Strategy sucked pretty much all of the racists out of the Democratic Party into the open arms of the Republican Party a good while back. Looks like at least some cross over into the TEA Party now.
Want to proffer some proof TP? That is a very worn excuse from you and -gw-, and the teapary at large…you haven’t offered any evidence. Your say so isn’t good enough show me some PROOF!
What excuse from me? I was pointing out that the GOP used the Southern Strategy to take the racist wing of the old southern Democrats to the Republican Party a little over 40 years ago, and that trying to say that this ugliness might be the work of “old Southern Democrats” is stupid. And that there’s now some crossover of the racist element from the Republican Party to the TEA Party. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear to you.
Sorry GW I take back any harm I might of gave you unintelligently, My Bad Bro, Read your comment wrong. I stand corrected!
You mean those Dixiecrats the Democrats kicked out of their party, almost a hundred years ago and the republicans gladly embraced into the fold. Your gonna go back that far? Really?
Please give examples of Racist or Anti-women comments made by elected Dem’s in Montana
I don’t waste all of my time trying to dig up dirt on people. Don’t be so naive. Racists exists in all races and all political ideologies. Also…I didn’t realize these Columbia Falls alleged “Tea Partiers” were elected officials in Montana.
Just to clarify, no one “dug this up.” The owners of the business proudly posted it themselves.
Please be respectful of the other definition of the word “Renigg.”
The Renigg system was a star system located in the Kuat sector, near the Kuat system. The Renigg system served as a staging area for star-traffic outbound from the Kuat Freight Port.
You, step away from the crack pipe. Just put it down and walk away. Crack doesn’t make you a better person, it just makes you a crackhead.
Your right Highliner the man does smoke crack!!!!!
Re nig, or re-nigg, or whatever version, is not okay. Should harm that guy’s business, deservedly so — so James is right on all three points. Besides, there are SO MANY other reasons to dislike Obama, first and foremost being he’s a crummy president. That’s all the reason I need to vote against him.
Your opinion isn’t mine Dave, Obama is the best president we have had since 2000, not perfect… But I would vote for him over the clown circus the GOP Parade right now anyday, anytime, anywere. Hell even when he gets to sleep he is better then your candidates for 2012. That’s a fact I’ll stand by come November!!
President Obama is much better than the GOP’s “best”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/03/21/448804/eric-fehrnstrom-etch-a-sketch/
The original bumper sticker was “re-nig” this pawn shop must have added the extra “n” to make sure we got the meaning. I do think they will lose business. Who would want to have their neighbors drive by and find their car in the parking lot. I am curious who these people are, and why their names are not included anywhere in the reports.
Er…the extra “g”. Whoops.
AHHHH Etta, honey, the proper spelling of that word is “Renege” that is why, what was written by that shop owner is bigotry! Dont be a lighter hair color, someone might stereotype you!
I see by the lack of clarity in my comment I have really stepped in it. Apologies to all who read it. I intended to explain that while the bumper stickers used re-nig (instead of renege) for some reason the idiots who put up this pawn shop sign used re-nigg (instead of renege). I intended to speculate that these morons were trying to be extra sure that everyone driving by got the double “n-word” meaning.
Hope that helps.
“Besides, there are SO MANY other reasons to dislike Obama, first and foremost being he’s a crummy president.” Yeah, unlike bush and his dick, cheney!………….BHWHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!
Skinner cracked a funny!
Oh no, there is absolutely no racism in the TEA Party (sarcasm). Absolutely none. How many times will this claim be proven false.
Larry. did you read this? Another Cement Jaysus lover…. gets caught with child porn in Kalispell.
http://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/montana-priest-charged-with-possessing-child-porn/article_8528e338-0744-59db-87e2-efe3d70db55e.html
TIME FOR A TRANSFER! TO A NEW PARISH! The church FAILED in its mission to transfer this dude beFORE he get caught! CEEment JAYsus weeps!
aha! now we know why the catholic priests are so against birth control! they figured out it means less kids for them to rape!
Well atleast its not Idaho, cause in Boundry County Idaho there is a man running for sheriff of that county that is a member of the Aryan Nations, and the Church of Jesus Christ Christian, both white supremacists groups. Now if this guy is elected and key word if, how would you feel being a minority in that county?
here in america where likely as not, stupidity is celebrated, it’s nice to know that we can bring them all together and shine a spotloght on the truly gifted. the tea party
great blog, thank you and keep the posts coming!