White Nationalists v Democratic Socialists!

[LV426]

BYou cannot find a single case where a person was prosecuted or sued for intimidation for carrying a flag. Your political views do not make something wrong.

Maybe, maybe not. But I can find a case of a judge ordering someone to take their Confederate Flag down because of how it intimidates and harasses his neighbors.

And that judge's order was from November of last year: https://www.courant.com/news/connec...0191125-zqnmzsqas5bh5jt6bwhju3ui5y-story.html

I'm curious Flash, do you ever research any of the shit you post here? Or is it all flying-by-the-seat-of-your-shit-soaked-pants laziness and hoping that no one calls you on it.

You don't hold yourself to any standard whatsoever.

You're a lazy fucking narcissist.

 

[LV426]

Any message those things convey are not threats and thus not legally intimidation.

Ah, but they are, and a judge ordered a Centrist to remove his Confederate flag because of his Centrist campaign of intimidation and harassment of black families in his neighborhood:

‘I am scared because I am black.’ Connecticut man ordered to take down Confederate flag after waging harassment campaign against neighbors
https://www.courant.com/news/connec...0191125-zqnmzsqas5bh5jt6bwhju3ui5y-story.html

How inconvenient for your argument. Here you have black people literally saying that guy's racist campaign of harassment, that included specifically waving and hanging a Confederate Flag about, scares them. And the judge agreed. Which is why he ordered the flag down.

So much for another one of your arguments about there not being precedent for a thing like this, even though a very quick Google search revealed this in under 10 seconds, which begs the question; are you not researching your points before you make them here?

Are you thinking you can glide by on your entitlement and privilege because that's what you've been allowed to get away with your entire life?

How is it possible to live your life without anyone ever challenging you to be a better version of yourself? Easy; by being an abrasive, pompous, lying narcissist, so no one is around to challenge you to be better because of what a miserable prick you actually are.

 

[LV426]

And the New Black Panther Party members in Philadelphia. The difference is they made threats with a billy club.

Ah...so both made threats, only one involved a billy club and the other involved a flag that represents all the things that intimidate and oppress black people.

Those flags never made a threat to anybody.

The flags are a tool of advancing that threat. So without saying "Go back to Africa", the flag says it for them...just like you said it does.

And we know "Go back to Africa" is considered a form of unlawful intimidation.

So...?

 

[Flash]

Intimidation doesn't need to make you do anything...intimidation can be as simple as making someone afraid.

I don't know why you are getting so hung up on there needing to be a physical action tied to intimidation other than the physical action of waving the flag.

So which is it?[/QUOTE]

Because that is the law. It doesn't have to be physical action but can include the threat of such action.

Based on your definition that would mean your calling for people to be killed, wiped out, and marginalized would be intimidation. People would fear for their lives, they could articulate that fear, and show your past history of such threats.

You obviously have no empathy for those people or their families to want to kill them. And, you are a racist for not caring about them because they are white and conservative.+

That makes you a hypocrite for pretending to care about people who feel intimidated.

It also makes you inhumane to want people killed which is ironic for a Jew whose people had to suffer from such fascist actions.

Calling me names like narcissist compared to someone who wants others killed makes you look sad.

 

[LV426]

That's because you have been too lazy and self-righteous to look at the law defining intimidation because you know it proves you wrong. This is not my judgment, it is the law and you can't find any support for your views in any law or court decision.

My position is not contrary, it is the law. Yours is simply a political opinion with no legal or governmental support (outside the workplace).

Repeating the same misinformed view of the law again and again does not make it true. At least your EEOC regulations were an attempt to find some support even though you tried to apply it outside the workplace--a great example of that cheap sophistry you are always accusing posters of.

Except that you're the lazy, duplicitous, lying jerk because you didn't want to do any research to find out if what you are hiding behind is even true or valid.

A very cursory Google search revealed, in under 10 seconds, a case from November last year of a judge ordering a Connecticut Centrist like you to take his Confederate Flag down because it was a part of his campaign of harassment and intimidation of his neighbors, with one of the victims literally saying "I am scared because I am black."

 

[LV426]

You never said anything nice. When you took your meds you were sometimes rational and civil, but most times you were full of hate, hostile, angry, and insulted other posters.

I have proven you wrong about the law again and again and you still cannot grasp reality, this debate is a waste of time.

No, Flash, you didn't prove me wrong.

In fact, I proved you wrong when I cited an EEOC statute, and then when I found a case of a judge in Connecticut ordering a Centrist to take his Confederate Flag down because it intimidated and harassed his neighbors.

If you had done even the bare minimum amount of research of your shitty argument, you would have discovered what I discovered when I did that work for you.

So you're welcome for me, once again, having to do the work you were either too lazy or too scared to do yourself.

 

[Flash]

Ah...so both made threats, only one involved a billy club and the other involved a flag that represents all the things that intimidate and oppress black people.

Nope, the guys were trying to suppress the votes my making a threat. A flag is not a threat and it cannot be a tool for advancing a threat since no threat was made. You are attempting to make up law that is completely contrary to American jurisprudence.

The flags are a tool of advancing that threat. So without saying "Go back to Africa", the flag says it for them...just like you said it does.

And we know "Go back to Africa" is considered a form of unlawful intimidation.

So...?

Wrong. Telling someone to "go back to Africa" involves much more than waving a flag but neither the flag or the statement are unlawful intimidation because they do not involve any threats or attempts to force a person to take some action or not take that action.

Other than that lame attempt to apply EEOC regulations outside the workplace, you have obviously been too lazy to research intimidation and keep repeating the same wrong claims which you could have saved yourself from writing a wrong post after wrong post and then I have to keep correcting that same misinformation. I guess it is not misinformation since it is just based on your political preferences rather than any information you have received.

Even the EEOC guidelines for the workplace define intimidation as requiring some action: "Intimidation is intended to prevent an employee from pursuing, or continuing to pursue, some action in response to protected discrimination.

 

[LV426]

Because that is the law. It doesn't have to be physical action but can include the threat of such action.

So two things, Flash:

1) You don't know shitabout the law because...

2) A judge ordered a Centrist to remove his Confederate Flag because it was part of that Centrist's campaign of harassment and intimidation of his black neighbors.

‘I am scared because I am black.’ Connecticut man ordered to take down Confederate flag after waging harassment campaign against neighbors
https://www.courant.com/news/connec...0191125-zqnmzsqas5bh5jt6bwhju3ui5y-story.html

You can apologize whenever you want. I won't accept it, though.

 

[LV426]

Telling someone to "go back to Africa" involves much more than waving a flag

You literally said the message that flag conveys is "go back to Africa."

YOU SAID THAT

 

[LV426]

Other than that lame attempt to apply EEOC regulations outside the workplace

The statute DOES apply outside the workplace; it included public places. You didn't read the statute, did you? Don't lie to me. I can tell when you are lying.

 

[LV426]

And now, suddenly, Flash has gone silent as he got to my posts about the judge in Connecticut ordering a Centrist ally of Flash's to tear down his Confederate Flag that Flash says does and doesn't teach history that may or may not be important, because that flag was part of that Centrist's campaign to harass and intimidate his black neighbors.

‘I am scared because I am black.’ Connecticut man ordered to take down Confederate flag after waging harassment campaign against neighbors
https://www.courant.com/news/connec...0191125-zqnmzsqas5bh5jt6bwhju3ui5y-story.html

BTW - I found that case in a 10 second Google search.

So Flash, did you know about this case?

If you did, you've been making a lying argument this whole time that the flag isn't intimidating.

If you didn't, you've been sloppily rushing through your arguments, not doing proper research, and leaning on your narcissistic entitlement to buoy what is ultimately a complete joke and deliberate obfuscation of the law when it comes to harassment and intimidation.

Your bad, I guess.

 

[LV426]

Flash will never respond to this story. He simply will pretend he never saw it. He will continue to argue his clearly wrong perspective and point, sticking to his own narcissistic interpretation of the law, and utterly and completely ignore the fact that a judge in Connecticut determined that putting a Confederate Flag about your property in display of your neighbors is harassment and intimidation, which means a court can order that piece of shit Centrist like Flash to tear that rotten flag down.

‘I am scared because I am black.’ Connecticut man ordered to take down Confederate flag after waging harassment campaign against neighbors
https://www.courant.com/news/connec...0191125-zqnmzsqas5bh5jt6bwhju3ui5y-story.html

 

[Flash]

Except that you're the lazy, duplicitous, lying jerk because you didn't want to do any research to find out if what you are hiding behind is even true or valid.

A very cursory Google search revealed, in under 10 seconds, a case from November last year of a judge ordering a Connecticut Centrist like you to take his Confederate Flag down because it was a part of his campaign of harassment and intimidation of his neighbors, with one of the victims literally saying "I am scared because I am black."

You phony. You obviously did not read the entire story which is included in your post. Hanging a Confederate flag was not the issue (by itself). As it clearly said, there had been a "campaign of harassment and intimidation" which included “campaign of racially based animus” against his African American next-door neighbors including an incident where he draped himself in a Confederate flag and ran up and down his driveway as their 12-year-old daughter waited for the school bus"

He can still fly the Confederate flag:

"Keegan ordered that Esposito have no contact with the family, that he remain inside his house when the 12-year-old gets on and off the school bus each day and that he not fly a Confederate flag within 250 yards of the family’s property.

It was threatening behavior that was the main issue, the flag was not even necessary to prosecute the guy and he is allowed to continue flying the flag. So obviously, flying the flag cannot be prohibited. The flag was not an instrument to harass without the threatening behavior.

And, he was not charged with "intimidation."

"Esposito, 49, faces disorderly conduct and breach of peace charges for incidents involving the couple and their daughter.

 

[LV426]

You phony. You obviously did not read the entire story which is included in your post. Hanging a Confederate flag was not the issue (by itself). As it clearly said, there had been a "campaign of harassment and intimidation" which included “campaign of racially based animus” against his African American next-door neighbors including an incident where he draped himself in a Confederate flag and ran up and down his driveway as their 12-year-old daughter waited for the school bus"

He can still fly the Confederate flag:

"Keegan ordered that Esposito have no contact with the family, that he remain inside his house when the 12-year-old gets on and off the school bus each day and that he not fly a Confederate flag within 250 yards of the family’s property.

It was threatening behavior that was the main issue, the flag was not even necessary to prosecute the guy and he is allowed to continue flying the flag. So obviously, flying the flag cannot be prohibited. The flag was not an instrument to harass without the threatening behavior.

And, he was not charged with "intimidation."

"Esposito, 49, faces disorderly conduct and breach of peace charges for incidents involving the couple and their daughter.

So draping himself in the Confederate Flag and being told where he can fly it means what about that Confederate Flag?

 

[LV426]

As it clearly said, there had been a "campaign of harassment and intimidation" which included “campaign of racially based animus” against his African American next-door neighbors including an incident where he draped himself in a Confederate flag and ran up and down his driveway as their 12-year-old daughter waited for the school bus"

So the guy draped himself in a Confederate Flag, and that was a part of the campaign of harassment and WHAT?

You realized what you quoted showed specifically that the Confederate Flag is a tool of intimidation, just like I've been saying.

You literally quoted the part of the article that describes him draping himself in a Confederate Flag and that it was a part of a campaign of racially based animus within a larger campaign of harassment and intimidation.

The little girl who was victimized by it literally said she was scared because she was black.

Scared = intimidated.

And look at that, it didn't meet your weirdo standard for "intimidation" because that guy running around with the Confederate Flag didn't force that little girl to do anything other than be intimidated and scared.

You are not very good at this.

 

[Flash]

Flash will never respond to this story. He simply will pretend he never saw it. He will continue to argue his clearly wrong perspective and point, sticking to his own narcissistic interpretation of the law, and utterly and completely ignore the fact that a judge in Connecticut determined that putting a Confederate Flag about your property in display of your neighbors is harassment and intimidation, which means a court can order that piece of shit Centrist like Flash to tear that rotten flag down.

Well, here I am responding to another wrong conclusion because you can't read carefully. No, a judge did not order the man to tear the flag down. He just has to show it 250 yards from the family which means anybody can still view that flag. And the flag was not intimidating by itself, it was accompanied by racial slurs and threatening behavior.

That is what I have continued to say and you have denied. There must be threatening behavior--a flag is not a threatening instrument in itself. If he left that flag flying from the front porch with no threatening behavior the man would never be prosecuted.

You should have listened to me all along--that is what I have been trying to tell you because that is basic law (not my view).

 

[Flash]

So the guy draped himself in a Confederate Flag, and that was a part of the campaign of harassment and WHAT?

You realized what you quoted showed specifically that the Confederate Flag is a tool of intimidation, just like I've been saying.

You literally quoted the part of the article that describes him draping himself in a Confederate Flag and that it was a part of a campaign of racially based animus within a larger campaign of harassment and intimidation.

The little girl who was victimized by it literally said she was scared because she was black.

Scared = intimidated.

And look at that, it didn't meet your weirdo standard for "intimidation" because that guy running around with the Confederate Flag didn't force that little girl to do anything other than be intimidated and scared.

You are not very good at this.

Again, you miss the point. It was the threatening behavior that was prosecuted. Without that behavior the flag was not an issue. Even draping himself in the flag without other threatening behavior could not have been prosecuted.

He was not charged with intimidation because he did not threaten the family to force them to take some action or refrain from acting.

But congratulations, you are at least trying to learn something about the law rather than just making wild claims.