I do not think that Estes should be held responsible for the attacks against the gay men in Madison, Wisconsin unless it is proven that there is a direct connection between the act of the attackers and Estes’ sign. By this I mean actual proof that the attackers acted out against the gay men because of this particular sign. After carefully reading this case a countless number of times, I drew up my own questions about the case because there are pieces of information missing from the case that are critical when trying to charge somebody with a crime.
First question: how are we to know that the attackers actually saw Estes’ sign or that the attackers did not just act out on their own deeply-held beliefs? Also, it does not say that the attack was …show more content…
Johnson, just because expression may seem offensive, it is not enough to charge a person with a crime. A direct connection of violence inciting from the expression must be proven. For example, only if it is proven that the attackers saw Estes’ sign and decided to “stamp out” homosexuals, then Estes’ right should not be protected because his point of expression incited the violence. Furthermore, I think that if Estes’ real intent was to rile up violence against homosexuals he would have already done so before, considering that he already speaks out against it at his church, yet there has not been any reported physical attacks against the gay community that may have been incited by him. I would also like to mention another case, which is U.S. v. Bagdasarian. In U.S v. Bagdasarian a man posted on a message board: "Obama fk the niggar, he will have a 50 cal in the head soon." He was charged for threatening to kill or do cause bodily harm to another person. However, the court determined that the speaker did not subjectively intend the speech as a threat (also precedent of Virginia v. Black); he was only expressing his feelings. So unless it is proven that Estes' intention with the sign was violent and malicious, I feel that he was only trying to express how passionate he felt about homosexuality with the message on the billboard, similar to the Bagdasarian
First question: how are we to know that the attackers actually saw Estes’ sign or that the attackers did not just act out on their own deeply-held beliefs? Also, it does not say that the attack was …show more content…
Johnson, just because expression may seem offensive, it is not enough to charge a person with a crime. A direct connection of violence inciting from the expression must be proven. For example, only if it is proven that the attackers saw Estes’ sign and decided to “stamp out” homosexuals, then Estes’ right should not be protected because his point of expression incited the violence. Furthermore, I think that if Estes’ real intent was to rile up violence against homosexuals he would have already done so before, considering that he already speaks out against it at his church, yet there has not been any reported physical attacks against the gay community that may have been incited by him. I would also like to mention another case, which is U.S. v. Bagdasarian. In U.S v. Bagdasarian a man posted on a message board: "Obama fk the niggar, he will have a 50 cal in the head soon." He was charged for threatening to kill or do cause bodily harm to another person. However, the court determined that the speaker did not subjectively intend the speech as a threat (also precedent of Virginia v. Black); he was only expressing his feelings. So unless it is proven that Estes' intention with the sign was violent and malicious, I feel that he was only trying to express how passionate he felt about homosexuality with the message on the billboard, similar to the Bagdasarian