I was watching American Gangster the other night on TNT.  Great movie that I can watch over and over.  Denzel is awesome.  As would be expected on TNT, the movie was heavily edited.  Foul language and racial epithets were removed, well most of them.  In one scene near the end of the movie, the character played by Russell Crowe is in a confrontation with his superior.  His superior uses an African-American racial epithet to refer to Frank Lucas, played by Denzel Washington.  It was of course replaced with something suitable for network television.   However, when the same character uses an anti-Semitic slur, calling Crowe’s character(who is Jewish) a “Kike” it is left in unchanged.  I never noticed that before despite having seen the edited version of the movie numerous times.  I don’t know why I did this time.  I am not accusing TNT of anything.  I have no idea who edited the movie and why they decided to leave that particular slur in as compared to all the others they removed.  Just an observation…

I can not say that I like or respect Mel Gibson any less after his latest racist and violent rantings.  To say that would be to acknowledge any level of affinity or respect in the first place.  He is an anti-Semitic, racist, alleged wife beating pig.  For those who blame it on the alcohol, shame on you.  Alcohol does not make you an anti-Semitic, racist, alleged wife beating pig.  It simply lowers the expressive barriers to what is already there.  For those who point out his great talent, .  I must have missed the “I make great movies” defense to domestic violence  in law school.  Now that my rant is out of the way, I am more flabbergasted by the commentary I have seen on Twitter and Facebook.  When I put up the story on my Facebook page, here is an example of what followed:

“...I don’t want him convicted of felony assault Brian. Because if she was REALLY hit then there would have been a police report.  If she was REALLY hit then she would have had to have her lip sewn up.  It’s “he said she said” and I don’t think it’s good enough for a conviction.No evidence = no conviction as far as I’m concerned. People lie and have agendas so word can only go so far. … ‘

Here is another:

“those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’. everyone lives in one. Mel, has at least brought some great masterpieces onto the screens. Rubberneckers only see the reck, not knowing the full context of an incident…..

Are these the Neanderthal views the general public has with regards to domestic violence?   If it doesn’t draw blood or leave a mark it didn’t happen?  If he is talented we will excuse it?  According to one study, 27% of the victims of domestic violence in a year period did not report the incident to the police.  With attitudes like this it is no wonder more battered women do not come forward.

While Mel’s outbursts speak for themselves as to his ethnic and racial views, he is certainly entitled to his day in court any criminal allegations.  Is it possible that his ex is lying?  Sure it is.  Regardless of what “truth” comes out,  I read crap like above and despair the human condition just a little bit more..

Why does NBC  continue to tolerate  the rantings of confirmed bigot and anti-semite Pat Buchanan?  The answer is simple.  He is popular. He drives print, television and new media ratings.

Pat’s latest anti-semitic rant was in relation to the proposed confirmation of Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court Justice.  Kagan is Jewish. Pat, true to form,  complains there are too many Jews on the Supreme Court bench.   In his May 13, 2010 column, he states,

“If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. Is this the Democrats’ idea of diversity?’

This is not the 1st time Buchanan has come under fire for his anti–Semitic viewpoints and not the 1st time NBC has turned a blind eye.

In 2009, Buchanan’s personal website, Buchanan.org, hosted a  forum entitled “Disinformation, Deception and Other Tricks” and within that, a thread called “Discussion about ‘The Holocaust. The thread discussions allegedly propagated the  revisionist historical theory of  “Holocaust Denial”

The entire forum section of the website was allegedly taken down hours after an op-ed by Menachem Rosensaft in the New York Daily News pointed out it’s existence.   NBC offered no statement and took no action against Buchanan.

NBC has a  corporate social responsibility to not sanction either by action or inaction, hatred towards racial, religious and ethnic minorities.  Along with this social responsibility comes the obligation to not allow those who they pay to represent them to espouse these despicable views or allow them to be espoused in a  forum under their control.  CBS understood this well when they fired Don Imus for racial slurs.

While Pat has the right to express certain views or allow them to be expressed on his personal site, NBC does not have to tolerate it when they are paying his bills and it reflects negatively on them.  Employers set policies and make such statements to employees in the realm of blogging and free expression on a regular basis. Pat has the right to say he does does agree with that policy and walk.  It boils down to the priorities and social consciousness of NBC.   What we are seeing from NBC is where money is involved social conscience takes a back seat to profit. Hate is for sale at NBC.

White supremacist talk show ranter and blogger Hal Turner has had a tough month.

The James Von Brunn heir apparent, known for espousing “Turner Diaries” type viewpoints on his blog and currently off the air radio show   was arrested earlier this month after officials spotted an entry on his blog that called for residents “take up arms” against Connecticut lawmakers.  .

The statements referred to legislation that would affect which group members of the Roman Catholic churches have control over parish finances.   In addition to his call to arms he  threatened to publish the addresses of lawmakers who sided against church officials.  In addition, his blog(no longer online) reportedly contained the following statement:

“These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die. If any state attorney, police department or court thinks they’re going to get uppity with us about this; I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down too.”"

Turner was  charged  with “inciting injury to three state officials, a felony.  Turner claims he  was exercising his right to free speech.

Not long after the above arrest, he was arrested again by the FBI on charges he threatened to kill three federal appellate judges in Chicago.   As in the Connecticut matter he posted the addresses and this time included photos of the judges along with his rant.  The federal criminal complaint(pdf) reads:

“the defendant threatened to assault and murder three United States Judges with intent to retaliate against such judges on account of official duties in violation of Title 18, United States Code Section 115(a)(1)(b)”

As you can see from the actual language in the complaint there is some pretty strong languagee. Does it rise to the level of a threat to kill a federal judge or is it 1st Amendment protected speech?

My thoughts.

In the Connecticut case there is no 1st Amendment protection for his statements taken as a whole.  If he would have left it as a call to arms he would have been fine.  He would have  been ok  with the  addresses as well.

In my opinion however, the statements “obey the Constitution or die“ and ” I suspect we have enough bullets….“ taken together are present ability threats of violence and have no protection.

In the Chicago case, the language that is clearly inflammatory and inciting.  Does it rise to the level of personal threats as defined by the statute?

The statement “It appears another lesson is needed” go a long ways towards hanging him(figuratively) on that charge as it puts it in the present and makes him part of the threat, bringing him within the statute.

Protected free speech or criminal incitement and threats?  Where do ideas end and criminal instruction begin?  They don’t end with Hal Turner.  This is not an issue of the Constitutionally protected debate of ideas.  He is instructing people to commit crimes.  He is threatening federal judges with violence and with a present ability to carry it out.

It appears that Turner — who in the past has advocated spitting on Jews and carrying out “good old vigilante justice” against “Negroes” will have to adjust his rant to suit his prison audience who may be inclined to take up arms of their own. The difference is that theirs may have shivs in them.  As despicable as Mr. Turner is, I am not asking for a  call to arms.  I do think everyone who reads this should send him a copy of American History X COD.