Dear Editor:
I believe when Charles Jones defined what a hate crime was in the last paragraph of his response he was directing it at Josh Stanley’s remarks that were made in the previous edition of the East Tennessean when he said “No crime was committed (to my knowledge) . by hanging a rope from a tree.” I would like for everyone to re-read the definition of a hate crime that Mr. Jones provided, “a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or ethnicity/nation origin.” The key words here are “criminal offense.” If I hang a noose in my yard am I committing a crime? I occasionally see nooses hanging from rear-view mirrors, are these individuals guilty of a crime? Individuals very often hang people in effigy, yet they are not prosecuted as criminals, why is this? The answer to these questions are no, no, and because it is not a crime to do so.
I understand that hanging nooses can be found offensive, even as a white person I find this type of behavior offensive. But the First Ammendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees an individual’s right to offend. I will go further and say that in this country individuals have the right to hate (no matter how ignorant, misguided or even right they may be for doing so) but not the right to hurt.
Also, as I was reading the definition provided by Charles Jones and I can’t help but to think about the “Jena Six.” Assault is a crime, and it is overtly obvious that the assault on the individual by the “Jena Six” in Jena, La.., was racially motivated, but there are no hate crime charges being filed. Why is this? Why is there no outrage? Is this another double-standard that exists in our country? These are questions that we all should take the time to think about
In closing, I would like to direct anyone who is interested in the subject of the prohibition of speech or use of symbols “that arouse anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender” to review the Supreme Court case R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992)
-Joshua R. Jones

Author