So short version is that the member of the WV House of Delegates, the only black member and that body, she and three other members (each white) introduced a bill to protect abortion rights in WV. It has zero chance of passing. She sues someone who sent her an email with a KKK figure in it. The three other white delegates did not get the same email.But what are the contents?
The email’s subject line read, “Your Plan.” The email included a graphic of a robed Ku Klux Klan member, hand raised in a Nazi salute, beneath the words, “What do you think the coward hiding under his dunce cap and face mask thinks every time he hears about a Black child has been aborted?”
“Be pro-life as if your race depended on it!” the graphic added. “It’s the American thing to do!”
The day after the email landed in Walker’s inbox, the head of a local chapter of West Virginians for Life, an anti-abortion group, admitted to posting an identical graphic to the group’s Facebook.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, Walker sued West Virginians for Life over both the email and the Facebook post, accusing the group of being behind both messages. The messages were “the modern-day digital equivalent of burning a cross in Delegate Walker’s front yard,” the lawsuit alleges.
I know we’ve had these debates and argue over these things, but I can’t begin to agree how this is similar to burning a cross on her lawn or should be the subject of a lawsuit. I don’t see how it can be described as “racist” at all. Far from threatening her, the writer is making the point that abortion kills a bunch of unborn black children/fetuses. One may disagree with that position, but he was not in the slightest calling for racial violence or intimidation. I think the Constitution permits his comments.
You can be sued it seems for anything. I’m not sure what she hopes to win or how when the email was ridiculing the KKK. Even if it were pro KKK which it obviously wasn’t I’m pretty sure people are free to print and mail even objectionable imagery.
Invoking the KKK to accuse someone of being a race traitor is obviously racist. And it is obviously racially motivated if they single out the black person to call them racist, and not the others.
Is it actually the equivalent of a burning cross? Not in my opinion. But there are similarities. There is the isolation of the black person and use of implied (but not direct) threats. I suspect that this is just the initial PR phase of the lawsuit—the same phase where you sue for way more than you actually plan to get. It’s all about making a point.
As for the legal issues—I would need to know more specifics of what they are claiming, and what legal strategy they are using to back it up. Even the most blatant racism doesn’t by itself rise to a cause of action in the US.
I object to this because it is used intentionally (not that you are personally using it in that manner, but it has just become a too common and lazy way of speaking. It involves equivocation and a sleight of hand. Even though technically correct, when someone hears “involving the KKK” they get the impression that the person is using them in a positive fashion, adopting their arguments as their own. But in this sense, the invocation of the KKK is a very negative one and that is unstated in the stories and people who don’t read closely get the wrong impression.
Nobody called her a racist. They said to simply rethink her plan because it aligns with the worst excesses of the KKK.
What implied threats?
Right, but where are the articles saying this? It is certainly part of the First Amendment to say all of this, but the implication is that this is so awful, possibly illegal, and not permitted. Where are the patriots on this one saying “I disagree with you, but defend your right to say it”?
It’s simply incredible that in 2022 white people can still think that attacking a black politician with an image of the KKK can be construed in any way other than racist.
There isn’t an other side to this. Merely stating the possibility is why black Americans shake their heads when white people try to tell them for the ten billionth time that racism isn’t really racism.
You are equivocating on that meaning like the prior poster. The KKK member was used in a negative light while you imply that it is Jim Crow with the KKK being the ally of the “attacker.” And, again, this is a public politician, a member of the Legislature attempting to silence a voting member of the public. I thought liberals held that to be sacrosanct.
The anti-abortion movement, which has a history of co-opting the language of racial equality, likes to often claim that the procedure is used to target Black people. But the anti-abortion movement also has a legacy of links to far-right extremist movements, including the Ku Klux Klan.
Last summer, the Proud Boys, a far-right street-fighting gang, provided “security” for an anti-abortion pastor who runs a Christian nationalist church. The youth-oriented white nationalist group Patriot Front also recently put in appearances at two high-profile anti-abortion marches, in Chicago and Washington, D.C.
Only by ignoring the current context is how we can get an ignorant argument as seen in the OP.
The KKK is inherently threatening to Black people (and to a lesser but still significant degree anyone who is not a sub-set of White and Protestant Christian).
Freedom of speech does not extend to the freedom to threaten people.
When a Black person tells you they perceive racial threats in a message, your first instinct as a white person should not be to argue with them and tell them the message is not in fact threatening. Jesus Christ.
If I was really, really willing to give the benefit of the doubt, I could see the KKK message as similar to the anti-smoking ad aimed at African Americans: “They used to force us to pick tobacco. Now they expect us to smoke it.” But I can’t. It’s clearly there to push buttons.
Now, the messaging of the pamphlet just says “Don’t be like the Nazis. Abandon your attempts at getting Lebensraum. Leave what’s left of Palestine alone.”
Would you think that was OK, because they were so clearly using the Nazis as a negative example, @UltraVires
I agree with the others that it’s racist but I find the lawsuit baffling and inappropriate for a sworn public official unless there’s some major fact that was left out of the reporting.
It seems to me the issue here is it’s illegal to harass or intimidate a lawmaker for doing their job. KKK is known for their violent tactics, and their imagery is not used a in a positive manner by anybody. When you send it to anybody other than another KKK-leaning person, you are clearly trying to threaten or intimidate the recipient.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t think this instance in particular is racist (though it was only sent to her and clearly is accusing her of being a race traitor so…) since being a racist asshole is not illegal. But it is illegal to harass or intimidate.
I hope she wins. People should be able to make their political opinions known without makes threats. They could have made the same point without using threatening imagery; their free speech is not being harmed. Lawmakers should expect disagreements, but not have to accept threats from anyone as part of the job.
IANAL, but knowing the history of KKK imagery being sent to black people in the US, ISTM that the image sent could reasonably be perceived as a threat.
Not UV but I don’t think that would be racism or a threat. If I was offended it would be by virtue of being compared to Hitler - sort of like being called a racist.