Where all men, even idiots, are created equal

Ashleigh, you will pass your test with flying colors as you truly understand our freedom to express our thoughts and ideas in the United states, no matter how stupid or offensive they may be. Hate is hate, stupidity is stupidity, and hopefully most people can discern the difference between them and an intelligent opinion offered to inform or educate or even allow us to view from another perspective. Good luck and I welcome you to our wonderful nation! We need more people such as yourself among our ranks.

I do not think that the forefathers intended that we use the term "Freedom of Speech" as a means of expressing our ignorance, fears and sheer bigotry, willfully and intentionally to demean another human being. This stupid action could have started a riot, even resulted in people getting hurt or even killed. Yelling "Fire" in a movie theater is "freedom of speech", yet people have gotten killed doing just that. You cannot put everything neatly into the box of "freedom of speech". Along with freedom of speech, comes resposibility. Is this clearer for you, Ashleigh?

I think CNN viewers would like to see discussion about how many of the candidates of both parties have been in military or similar training/service. Or else atleast which of them has the strength of character (mind, body, and soul) to stand toe-to-toe with others who threaten what the U.S.A. and its citizens stand for? We know most of them can talk the talk, but can they walk the walk? Just curious and thanks for taking the time to read this.

Mr. Munsen was not "expressing himself." He was intimidating black people. He was showing them if they get "uppity," they'll find themselves hanging from those nooses.
If I call someone on the phone and say I'm going to kill them, I would be arrested for making terroristic threats and intimidation. Shouild I cite freedom of expression then? Maybe someone should try that tack and see how far it gets them.

Freedom of expression is wonderful, but it does not usurp every other law in the country!

Whoa, Lois! Please re-read Ashleigh's blog. I think she agrees with you; but is also trying to show that there is a fine line that is very hard to find ( let alone draw) which is why we have courts to help us determine who has stepped over that "line." In essence, there is no "neat little box." I happen to agree with you...never use your freedom for the express purpose of intentionally hurting or injuring others.
But there are those who would say that is a moral issue.

My 16 year old son just brought up a good point. He read the article and he said the guy displaying the noose is "psycho" no matter who it is "meant" for, and not just "stupid".

Ashleigh, I so agree with you when you say "Now, I’m no expert, but the last time I checked, Americans have always been allowed their freedom of expression, no matter how foolish or offensive. The U.S Supreme Court even told us so." I hope CNN and their moderation team agrees with you too.

We are allowed to express our opinion by the Constitution but when your expression is used to harrass or intimate others based upon race, religion,or sexual orientation it is against Federal law and Federal prosecutors should address each instance of the violation of Federal law with immediate action. Our country is diverse and we all should be protected from the people who choose to attack others due to racism or ignorance.

Much as I deplore this kind of "speech" and its message, I still firmly believe that this is exactly why the First Amendment exists. This is very different than the instance of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, which has the probability of causing panic, imminent harm to many, and immediate breach of the peace. We have, as a society, always imposed neutral time, place and manner restrictions on speech, but NEVER tolerated content restrictions. This is CLEARLY an attempt to limit the content of this person's speech, and it shouldn't be permitted under our Constitution. We the People have held this principle since our Constitution's ratification in 1789. This is, in my opinion, quite a stupid thing to do, but is not likely to cause anyone real damage, unless it might be the "speaker" at the hands of those who might happen to disagree with what they interpret to be his expressed thought. The last time I looked, it was still OK in this country for people to hate each other, and to disagree with each other, and even to call each other names and use disagreeable symbols, as long as their discourse remained civil (non-violent) within the limits of the law.

There's no such thing as total freedom of speech. This law is totally legitimate in that it refers to the potential to incite a riot. You don't run to the front of a theater while a movie is playing and yell "fire!" when there is no fire, and you don't run down a small town's neighborhood's streets blaring your music at 3 a.m. in the morning. The premises of these laws is that they prevent the inciting of a false riot and the impeding of others' "pursuit of happiness" by allowing them to get a decent night's sleep so that they can function properly the next day at work and/or school. The premise of this anti-noose law is that it would incite a riot, and there's nothing unconstitutional about that. Sure, freedom of speech is a dicey concept, and at times is totally subjective, but when pragmatic solutions result from laws that also maintain law and order, along with a comfortable quality of life, some laws that would otherwise seem to impede simply have to be enforced.

And, congratulations and good luck in becoming a citizen of the greatest nation on earth!:)

Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925). Writing for the majority, Justice Edward Sanford suggested that states could punish words that "by their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of the state."

In Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, it was argued what could and couldn't be said on radio and TV.

The federal government and the states have long been permitted to restrict obscenity or pornography.

In 1964 Justice Potter Stewart, in Jacobellis v. Ohio, famously stated that, although he could not precisely define pornography, "I know it when I see it."

Many more stipulations have been placed on freedom of speech. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment.

When in doubt, just speak in innuendos, parables and hypotheses. If you can claim the legitimate side of the double entendre, you should be able to get away with saying anything.

Thanks for the lesson, Lois. Unfortunately, you're wrong. The first amendment exists to protect those very forms of expression you cite – ignorance, fear, bigotry, willfully demeaning other human beings (think campaign speeches or church conventions). If all speech were acceptable, there would be no need to protect it. For those of you who refer to impeding others' happiness – nice try. There is no requirement that my speech must not cause someone else's unhappiness. Furthermore, just because something is written into law doesn't make it constitutional – which the Supreme Court has demonstrated over and over again by its rulings. By the way, Rob, it's not an anti-noose law. It's an anti-hate law, pure and simple. The U.S. Attorney has said this is a civil rights hate crime violation and a hate crime. Didn't have anything to do with getting to work on time. As for quality of life? I would hate to live in a society where quality of life trumps fundamental personal freedoms. That basic premise has been used in every despotic regime in the world.

For you, Elizabeth – you're absolutely right. It is still ok for us to hate each other in this country. Might not be pleasant or happy or wise, but legal.

"Just remember, if you are stupid the ACLU will defend you for being stupid. Seems they would learn, but they never do." You can switch the ACLU for any name you'd like, and you might be right. Thankfully, in this country we have the right to defend the ignorant. It's ok for our current administration, it is ok for us too.