Philadelphia City Council Member Darrell Clarke hates the First Ammendment

Did you ever get so angry you can't think straight? That's the case for me...

Whatever happened to the saying, "I may not agree with what you say,but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."? Day after day, I'm left asking this question as I see more and more people deny the right of letting others express themselves. Today, I learned that Czar, pardon, City Council Member Darrel Clarke is trying to ban the image of burning crosses, swastikas, and hanging nooses.

http://willdo.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/2007/11/city_council_to_1.html

While many of us will agree that those symbols are linked to years and years of racism and oppression, so are the following:

The Southern Flag
The Cross
Black Face
Pentacles and Pentagrams
Satan
Mohamed
Jesus
Whips
Chains
Swords
Guns
The Bible
The Koran

Ask yourself if you can say for a second that anything in that list hasn't meant someone didn't felt excluded. Ask yourself if anything on there, when you saw it in real life, didn't make you recoil a bit because you had to look at it, hear about, was told about it, or knew about it.

Myself? I'm offended more by people who don't give me room to breath on the train or bus than anything else. That, and people who click their gum. I think there should be a law banning both. Why not? Their offensive to me! Doesn't that stuff annoy you, too?

I went to Councilman Clark's office earlier today and spoke to his legislative aid. We went into a discussion about this and it came down to this conversation:

Staffer: "This is about public places. What if you had to go to work everyday and someone kept putting a noose around you?"
Me: "Well, it would be funny the first time, but it would get old fast."
Staffer: "Exactly!"
Me: "You know, back in high school, I had this guy who constantly tried to set me on fire every single day. He would take out his lighter and go, 'I'm going to set you on fire!' It was funny the first time, but it got old fast!"
Staffer: "That really happened?"
Me: "Yep. It was annoying as sin! And there's a law against that, too, right?"
Staffer: "Yeah."
Me: "So why are we creating a new law to do the same thing an existing law does?"

Yes, a classmate of mine DID try to set me on fire daily in high school. He didn't really intend to hurt me, just light my sweater on fire (It wouldn't burn, so it was annoying when he tried), and I honestly didn't care. He was more like a fly than someone out to kill me.

My point is this: There are laws on the book that ban a lot of this stuff already. The text of what Clarke wants to amend is this:

"No person shall display, with the intent to intimidate another person or incite violence, a symbol of racial or ethnic animus, such as a noose, burning cross or swastika, in a place of employment, in a public accommodation, in a public facility, on public property or in the public right-of-way."

So, in a sense, anywhere but your house. It's a bit silly, really. Let me give you another example: I have a t-shirt with a swastika crossed out on the back. Here it is on the right. It's obvious my intent is to piss off Neo-Nazi's. So, under Clarke's bill, this shirt is now banned.

If you own a Bad Religion shirt with the cross crossed-out (The "No Cross" shirt), it would be banned, wouldn't it? Your intent is to say you don't like the cross as a symbol, but someone else could simply say your intent is to piss off people. Maybe it is. Doesn't matter, IT'S BANNED!

I can also only assume that Marilyn Manson's "Last Tour on Earth" album cover would be banned, too. A flaming cross of TV's. It's a burning cross all right! Would a performance including this act be banned, too? It's done in a public space with the intent of inciting violence, although for the purpose of entertainment.

What about simple classes and lectures on this topic? Are kids now banned from learning about Nazi Germany and the Civil Rights movement because they contain these symbols? What about college courses where the teacher can use these subjects with the intent of inciting a form of violence, of making students angry about the events of the past and use it to make their communities better by eliminating hatred and racism?

The entire point of this boils down to this: You don't have a right to not be offended. In fact, you have a right TO be offended.

That's why I love democracy! It gives you a chance to be challenged, to make you ask questions, and to re-kindle why you are who you are. If I was walking down the street and someone had on a "Stop Snichin'" t-shirt on, I would be a offended by that more than someone wearing a shirt with a burning cross or a noose.

Honestly, why did the noose become racist? It's been used to kill people for centuries! Not just blacks, but everyone! What, just because a bunch of idiots in the South decide to make it racist, BAM, it's racist? One year I wanted to have skeletons hanging from nooses for Halloween, and that was when I was 10. I thought it would be scary, but I took it down because I couldn't do it right. I know I saw it at a haunted house or something.

The noose has a been a symbol for centuries, one that reminds people of execution, death, and even the lost of rights. It has a long history of making people think.

Am I trying to say all of these things are right? Not really. In this country, groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazi's, the Nation of Islam, and countless other racists are allowed to march in freedom. You may not like what they have to say, but it's safe to say we all agree that they have a basic right to say it.

We also have a right to call them idiots for it, too.

If you don't like something, you can either ignore it or call it names back. That options always open, too. I know I do! Someone doesn't like the way I dress, I just flip them off and go on my way. Its life, isn't it? Someone is always bound to disagree with you or do something to annoy you, and you either ignore them or do something.