As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Will Sam & Max be considered a hate crime in New York?

Lord JezoLord Jezo Registered User regular
edited October 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
As we all know here in the USA everyone has gone haywire and been on a noose hunt. It seems nooses are being found everywhere at all times and there now bills going through various governments to outlaw nooses completely.

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/news/2007/10/22/noose_law/

In New York:

ALBANY—The New York State Senate Majority passed legislation Monday, sponsored by Senator Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre), to make it a felony to etch, paint, draw or otherwise place or display a noose on public or private property.

In Sam & Max there is a noose hanging from the coat rack in their office. With these new laws will games like Sam & Max be considered hate speech and need re-editing to be released? I wonder if the current version of Sam & Max will be pulled from the market GTA:San Andreas style with a cleaner, more PC version to hit the market, sans the noose.

Clipboard03.jpg
I KISS YOU!
Lord Jezo on
«134567

Posts

  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    No drawing of knives or guns, either.


    Man this is dumb.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    ProjeckProjeck Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    How is a noose racist

    What

    Projeck on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    Noose hunt. That's a cute one.

    Someo of you people really hate it when its pointed out that racism is still rampant in your country...

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The anti-noose legislation (S6499) amends New York’s aggravated harassment statute to make it a class E felony to etch, paint, draw, place or display a noose with intent to threaten, intimidate or harass.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    PataPata Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    What?

    Just... what?

    This is retarded.

    Edit: Wait never mind.

    Pata on
    SRWWSig.pngEpisode 5: Mecha-World, Mecha-nisim, Mecha-beasts
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Countdown until somebody comes in and argues that intent should not define the severity of a crime:

    T minus 10... 9... 8...

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    oh, you know there's always one asshole

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited October 2007
    Goddammit, you know some of us do read past the headlines, right? So do us the favor of not building your argument on the hope that we won't.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Noose hunt. That's a cute one.

    Someo of you people really hate it when its pointed out that racism is still rampant in your country...

    I accept that. I don't accept this type of legislation as a reasonable step toward fixing that problem...way too broad. EDIT: Well on further review it's not as broad as I thought, but still regulating speech for content makes me uneasy.

    Secondly, there is a pretty good argument that outlawing "hate speech" and other such racially offensive things doesn't make them go away. It just drives them underground, which is more dangerous.

    /shrug

    Medopine on
  • Options
    DaricDaric Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Listen, it's not fair to say intent defines the severity of the crime.

    Daric on
    cc61181c22f23454a304a4f1f0867845044.gif
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Noose hunt. That's a cute one.

    Someo of you people really hate it when its pointed out that racism is still rampant in your country...

    I accept that. I don't accept this type of legislation as a reasonable step toward fixing that problem...way too broad.

    Secondly, there is a pretty good argument that outlawing "hate speech" and other such racially offensive things doesn't make them go away. It just drives them underground, which is more dangerous.

    /shrug

    I don't see how outlawing hate speech such as burning a cross on a lawn makes the problem more dangerous. The people committing the acts are already underground. It isn't like the people hanging the nooses or burning the crosses attach a note to them saying who put them up.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    Secondly, there is a pretty good argument that outlawing "hate speech" and other such racially offensive things doesn't make them go away.

    Good thing nobody thinks it will "make them go away," then. The point is to criminalize antisocial behavior. It's why we also have laws against verbal assault and threats.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    No noose is good noose?

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    :^:

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Secondly, there is a pretty good argument that outlawing "hate speech" and other such racially offensive things doesn't make them go away.

    Good thing nobody thinks it will "make them go away," then. The point is to criminalize antisocial behavior. It's why we also have laws against verbal assault and threats.

    I...don't think the point of anti-hate laws is to "criminalize antisocial behavior". You cannot criminalize antisocial behavior. I'm not even sure you can concretely define "antisocial behavior" at least to the point where you can use it as legislative criteria.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Secondly, there is a pretty good argument that outlawing "hate speech" and other such racially offensive things doesn't make them go away.

    Good thing nobody thinks it will "make them go away," then. The point is to criminalize antisocial behavior. It's why we also have laws against verbal assault and threats.

    Which doesn't really respond to the argument that doing this makes the problem worse rather than helping.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Which doesn't really respond to the argument that doing this makes the problem worse rather than helping.

    As titmouse said, how is it possibly "making the problem worse"? I'm pretty sure if you check your post-Reconstruction history you won't find many accounts of Klansmen leaving their P.O. boxes and daytime telephone numbers on the site of a lynching.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    I'm talking about attitudes and prejudices. We may outlaw sending someone a picture of a noose with racial slurs and threats, but how does that really work to change the systemic racial prejudice in our country?

    I would argue it doesn't, really, except for deterring that type of expression of the attitude, which doesn't really go to the heart of the problem. And it's more dangerous because society THINKS the problem is going away when really, it isn't.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    I'm talking about attitudes and prejudices. We may outlaw sending someone a picture of a noose with racial slurs and threats, but how does that really work to change the systemic racial prejudice in our country?

    Laws against assault don't go to the heart of why people threaten violence to each other, but you know what? That's okay, because I don't hold the legal system to an insane double standard.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    StasisStasis Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    This just goes to show that you don't have to be smart to run the government. In fact, it might be required to be a moron.

    1. Nooses are showing up because it's almost Halloween. It's a Halloween theme.
    2. Making threats against someone's life (racist or otherwise) is already illegal.

    Banning the image of a noose in public and private is not only unconstitutional, it's downright idiotic. I don't even have a word for how stupid it is.

    EDIT: Aha. Misread. I only read the snippet of the article in the OP and skimmed through the full thing. Now I see the key words "with intent to threaten, intimidate or harass."

    So it's not that bad then.

    Stasis on
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    I'm talking about attitudes and prejudices. We may outlaw sending someone a picture of a noose with racial slurs and threats, but how does that really work to change the systemic racial prejudice in our country?

    Laws against assault don't go to the heart of why people threaten violence to each other, but you know what? That's okay, because I don't hold the legal system to an insane double standard.

    What are laws about hate crimes trying to do though? They COME with an extra motive and standard, because of what they are, right?

    Medopine on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    I cast "Lime" on "everything Medopine said" and tap three green mana.

    Edit: Also in response to post-Constructionist history I present exhibit A), the south. People actually think the racism is gone there just because most people there speak politely.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Not American but just sounds like another step towards removing free speech. Its a stupid move. Might as well ban the visible display of fists.

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    Stasis wrote: »
    This just goes to show that you don't have to be smart to run the government. In fact, it might be required to be a moron.

    1. Nooses are showing up because it's almost Halloween. It's a Halloween theme.

    Only among people who think blackface is an acceptable costume choice.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    I'm not certain how preventing something being displayed with the intent to harrass or intimidate is a negative for free speech.

    Usually intimidation is a silencer of free speech. It is possible to express racist opinions without meeting the standard of "threaten, harrass or intimidate". Therefore I'd have to say that the marketplace of ideas is served and free speech enriched by preventing intimidation.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Stasis wrote: »
    This just goes to show that you don't have to be smart to run the government. In fact, it might be required to be a moron.

    1. Nooses are showing up because it's almost Halloween. It's a Halloween theme.

    Only among people who think blackface is an acceptable costume choice.

    Oh don't be ridiculous.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    I'm not certain how preventing something being displayed with the intent to harrass or intimidate is a negative for free speech.

    Usually intimidation is a silencer of free speech. It is possible to express racist opinions without meeting the standard of "threaten, harrass or intimidate". Therefore I'd have to say that the marketplace of ideas is served and free speech enriched by preventing intimidation.

    But why single it out when current laws for harassment/threatening people would cover these actions?

    Medopine on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    I'm not certain how preventing something being displayed with the intent to harrass or intimidate is a negative for free speech.

    Usually intimidation is a silencer of free speech. It is possible to express racist opinions without meeting the standard of "threaten, harrass or intimidate". Therefore I'd have to say that the marketplace of ideas is served and free speech enriched by preventing intimidation.

    But why single it out when current laws for harassment/threatening people would cover these actions?

    What makes you so sure that the display of a noose with this intent is covered by the current laws? Are you familiar with the laws of the state of New York?

    Shinto on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    I'm talking about attitudes and prejudices. We may outlaw sending someone a picture of a noose with racial slurs and threats, but how does that really work to change the systemic racial prejudice in our country?

    Laws against assault don't go to the heart of why people threaten violence to each other, but you know what? That's okay, because I don't hold the legal system to an insane double standard.

    Seriously.

    The legal/penal system is built around the concept of the normalization/standardization of behavior in this country. That's what happens when the state becomes synonymous with its people, as opposed to it's divinely-appointed ruler. We make things illegal that are seen as an affront to or an attack on the state, we enforce laws on each other, and the penal system is supposedly intended to rehabilitate (we're pretty bad at that though, especially in America).

    The legal/penal system in America is most definitely a normalizing system.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Stasis wrote: »
    This just goes to show that you don't have to be smart to run the government. In fact, it might be required to be a moron.

    1. Nooses are showing up because it's almost Halloween. It's a Halloween theme.

    Only among people who think blackface is an acceptable costume choice.

    Oh don't be ridiculous.

    Well how fucking retarded would you have to be to ignore the history of lynching in the US because you're just so desperate to have that one motif on your front porch?

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Stasis wrote: »
    This just goes to show that you don't have to be smart to run the government. In fact, it might be required to be a moron.

    1. Nooses are showing up because it's almost Halloween. It's a Halloween theme.

    Only among people who think blackface is an acceptable costume choice.

    Oh don't be ridiculous.

    It's not like being hanged is only scary to black people, nor like black people are the only people who've been hanged. Especially not in horror-movies. In fact I don't think I've ever seen anyone black get hung in a horror movie, and I used to watch AMC's Fear Fridays religiously. Horror movies are very prominent in Halloween themes here. You should have seen what two of my buddies did to their house for a party last year. Pretty fucking creepy, it was an awesome Halloween party.

    Edit: Er, relavence to the anecdote, there was all kinds of fabricated suggestion of human sacrifice and a fake snuff-studio made up in one of the bedrooms. They went so far as to leave a mini-tape from the camcorder in its box with the labels filled out of the past three Tuesdays (or whatever day Halloween was) with first-names listed next to them.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    You dudes should watch last week's Sarah Silverman Program. I think you'd learn a thing or two.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Halloween decorations obviously aren't covered by the law so this is a bit of an unnecessary tangent.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited October 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Halloween decorations obviously aren't covered by the law so this is a bit of an unnecessary tangent.

    This

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=7250845

    This is like two towns over from where I live. Lady hangs Holloween decorations outside of her house, lady gets protested by local Baptist church.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    But why single it out when current laws for harassment/threatening people would cover these actions?

    We discussed this at length in the last hate crimes thread, but essentially a flaming cross or a swastika carved in a church or what have you is an assault - a threat - perpetrated against an entire household, street, or community. It's an act of terror, and deserves a legal response in kind. Prior to hate crimes laws, if I set a flaming cross in your lawn it was legally the same as lighting dog poop on your doorstep, which is retarded.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Stasis wrote: »
    This just goes to show that you don't have to be smart to run the government. In fact, it might be required to be a moron.

    1. Nooses are showing up because it's almost Halloween. It's a Halloween theme.

    Only among people who think blackface is an acceptable costume choice.

    Oh don't be ridiculous.

    Well how fucking retarded would you have to be to ignore the history of lynching in the US because you're just so desperate to have that one motif on your front porch?

    He didn't hang them. God forbid he not be free to do what he wants because of other peoples actions -_-

    DarkWarrior on
  • Options
    StasisStasis Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Stasis wrote: »
    This just goes to show that you don't have to be smart to run the government. In fact, it might be required to be a moron.

    1. Nooses are showing up because it's almost Halloween. It's a Halloween theme.

    Only among people who think blackface is an acceptable costume choice.

    Oh don't be ridiculous.

    Well how fucking retarded would you have to be to ignore the history of lynching in the US because you're just so desperate to have that one motif on your front porch?

    He didn't hang them. God forbid he not be free to do what he wants because of other peoples actions -_-
    Thank you.

    Just because hanging is so popular with the racists doesn't mean the act of hanging is racist. It becomes racist when it is directed at a particular race, as, you know, the word racist, by definition, implies.

    To let that stop you from doing something harmless is being way overly sensitive.

    Stasis on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Also there was liquor. Lots of liquor.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Shinto from my quick look at some NY statutes it appears that to get to the Class A misdo level of harassment you need some sort of communication that hanging a noose might not qualify as.
    § 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. Either (a) communicates 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;
    or
    (b) 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; or
    2. Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with
    no purpose of legitimate communication; or
    3. Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects another person to
    physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same because of a
    belief or perception regarding such person's race, color, national
    origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability
    or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is
    correct; or
    4. Commits the crime of harassment in the first degree and has
    previously been convicted of the crime of harassment in the first degree
    as defined by section 240.25 of this article within the preceding ten
    years.
    Aggravated harassment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

    But you can still get harassment in the second degree as a violation.

    Violation level:
    § 240.26 Harassment in the second degree.
    A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with
    intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
    1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other
    person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
    2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
    3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts
    which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no
    legitimate purpose.


    In this case I'd prefer an amendment of the harassment laws to include non written forms of communication over creating a new law specifically for nooses.

    Medopine on
Sign In or Register to comment.