Jena Six Attorney Awarded for Taking Down Hate Crime Inciter

[kfrost06]

The U.S. attorney involved in the "Jena Six" case, along with a national Justice Department prosecutor, this week received a "Jefferson Muzzle" -- a dubious achievement from a national First Amendment organization.

Donald Washington, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, and Grace Chung Becker, assistant attorney general for civil rights, received their Muzzle for their roles in pressing federal hate crime charges against Jeremiah Munsen in January.


US DOJMunsen was the Colfax teen who pleaded not guilty in February to federal hate crime and conspiracy charges after being accused of threatening and intimidating marchers participating in a civil rights rally in Alexandria by displaying two hangman's nooses from the back of a pickup truck.

The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression on Tuesday announced 19 recipients of the "awards." The Muzzles have been handed out since 1992 to call attention to what the Jefferson Center considers to be "particularly egregious or ridiculous affronts to free expression," according to a release from the Charlottesville, Va.-based center.


"This year, perhaps more than any other, the incidents on which the Muzzles are based range from the imperious to the ridiculous," center director Robert M. O'Neil said. "On one hand, the display of nooses during a civil rights march and the standing on a U.S. flag during the funeral service of a U.S. soldier serve as reminders of the fundamental principle that true freedom of speech extends even to protecting expression that most in our society would find repugnant.

"On the other, the idea that someone in the United States today could be criminally (prosecuted) for cursing in their own home at an overflowing toilet, or that a rape victim could be barred from using the term 'rape' at the trial of her accused assailant, strains credibility to such a degree it is difficult to believe it actually happened."

Trial set for April 14 Andrew Ames, with the Department of Justice's public affairs office, said they "are not in a position to comment regarding a pending case." Munsen's trial is scheduled for April 14. But he defended the case against the teen that brought a leader in his office the Muzzle.

"Where supported by the facts, we will continue to vigorously enforce all federal criminal civil rights laws," he said in a statement e-mailed to The Town Talk.

Several messages left for Washington had not been returned as of late Tuesday.

The indictment against Munsen alleges that on Sept. 20, 2007, Munsen, along with a 16-year-old Dry Prong boy, conspired to threaten and intimidate marchers "exercising a federally protected right to travel between states." The marchers were in Alexandria near a bus station after participating in a rally in Jena that drew more than 20,000 in support of the Jena Six.

Others receiving a Muzzle, according to a release from the center, included:

Sarpy County, Neb., attorney Kenneth Polikov for charging a woman with flag mutilation and negligent child abuse after the woman allowed her minor son to place an American flag on the ground and stand on it during a protest at a military funeral.

Lancaster County, Neb., District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront for barring the use of the words "rape," "victim," "assailant," "sexual assault kit" and "sexual assault nurse examiner" by witnesses and the victim during a sexual assault trial.

The Scranton, Pa., police department for charging a woman with disorderly conduct for screaming profanities at an overflowing toilet in her own home.

Valdosta (Ga.) State University President Ronald Zaccari for expelling a student for protesting the school's construction of two parking garages by posting fliers, writing a letter to the school newspaper, contacting members of the state board of regents and posting items on his Facebook.com profile.

[kfrost06]

This is a good article, read it if you get a chance. Then ask yourself, are you really for free speech, not just speech you agree with.

[SMCengineer]

^^Here's a resounding YES!

[lotaquestions]

i dont know if im the only one but im not a big advocate of freedom of speech. every one is entitled to their opinion but do think that there is a line that you can cross. your freedom of speech should be limited in certain cercumstances. but then again i dont know who i would trust to set up the boundries.

[gixxerboy1]

Yes. I think people say some really stupid shit but none of it hurts me personally

[SMCengineer]

i dont know if im the only one but im not a big advocate of freedom of speech. every one is entitled to their opinion but do think that there is a line that you can cross. your freedom of speech should be limited in certain cercumstances. but then again i dont know who i would trust to set up the boundries.

Are you being serious or facetious? It's hard to tell on an internet forum.

[lotaquestions]

im serious. at no time to think that it is acceptable to burn an american flag (in the us) and especially not at vets funeral.

[kfrost06]

I can think of examples of free speech that would infuriate me but that is the price of free speech and the thought of limiting free speech is much worse then hurting someones feelings. Of course there has to be some limits, the famous "yelling fire in a crowded theater" comes to mind.

[Act of God]

The entire purpose of the first amendment is to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech rarely requires protection.

I saw the part of the article involving the alleged rape/sexual assault trial. There, I have no problem barring the use of those words because they can unfairly taint the jury's opinion of the case/victim/suspect. There are many, many things you cannot say in open court. This serves a just purpose and should be applauded.

Free Speech was made the FIRST amendment for a reason. This is a big one, and it is not to be minimized or swept aside. Now, as we know, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded area and you cannot incite a crowd to immediate violence (unless you are a black pastor or Al Sharpton, but that's another topic). As far as mere words go, there should be no boundaries. If those words hurt someone's feelings, tough shit. Part of growing up is learning who's an idiot and who to ignore.

You cannot legislate morality. Just as we don't want the bible writing our laws (abortion, homosexuality, etc), we don't want oversensationalists doing it either. You can't please all the people, all the time. The last thing we need it to take a few more steps towards the slippery slope. Next thing you know, we'll be China II.

[BWhitaker]

im serious. at no time to think that it is acceptable to burn an american flag (in the us) and especially not at vets funeral.

I never really got what was all so bad about burning an American flag. Its like people just look for things to get really mad at. People need to stop getting offended about things that, in actuality, have no effect.

[Act of God]

Here's some protected speech...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2os09fxk8JM

Although, that one guy with the suits behind him seems dangerously close to inciting violence.