That, too. 
That doesn’t fill in the blank, but it may refine the minor premise.
- The email contains unnecessary and gratuitous allusions to centuries of violence against Black Americans.
- ???
- Therefore, the email is outrageously, intolerably indecent / the email is certain or substantially certain to cause emotional harm / the email is what the law calls willful intimidation by threat of violence due to race / the email warrants a restraining order / the author should be liable for damages
~Max
How does it not?
In logic:
Em=>RS
RS=>TB
∴ Em=>TB
Em = The email, RS=racist symbolism, TB = Black trauma, simple entailment is clearly evident.
Your unnecessary change just eliminates the need for the blank at all:
Em=>TB
Em, ∴ TB
Just to add, softballing this as “allusions” is where you show that you either don’t or won’t get it.
The symbolism itself is violence.
Max, what you may be missing is how the Klan operates. Yeah, they abduct and torture and murder Black people. But first, they very often send an unsolicited message, a symbol of the Klan, whether it’s a burning cross on the lawn or a march in their sheets or an anonymous letter. They say, “[Black person], know that we’re in your community and we’re willing to commit murderous violence, so conform to our racial hierarchy if you don’t want to face our violence.”
That’s the terror.
When a White person sends an unsolicited symbol of the Klan to a Black person as part of a political criticism, they’re working in a tradition that’s nearly 150 years old. If they don’t know or care about that tradition, it doesn’t particularly matter, as @Jimmy_Chitwood cited earlier: it’s reckless to the point of actionable to do so.
Going down the list,
I wouldn’t describe a Klansman performing a Nazi salute as violent imagery, because no violence or implication of immediate violence is depicted. I think it is racist symbolism though. If you grant me this, your point #2 becomes,
There are thus two possibilities. The person did so unknowingly, or the person was trying to send a racist message using deliberately racist symbolism.
I reject the dichotomy. It is possible to send a non-racist message containing racist symbolism. You may recall my post #19 where I opined on one such message. It may be a general rule that a message with racist symbolism is a racist message, but using racist symbolism in a negative way is an exception to the rule.
With reference to your point #3, it should be noted that the individual sued did apologize and resigned his position at the local chapter of whatever pro-life organization. I think the apology covers the graphic only, and the defendant denies sending the email. There is one element of the email I think is racist, and it’s not the graphic. It is the singling out of Ms. Walker, which carries the implication that that she represents her race. Ideally she would be seen as representing her constituents rather than the entire African American population in West Virginia.
(The point I believe you wanted to make with #3 is that including the image of the Klansman intentional. That it wasn’t a case of attaching the wrong image by accident.)
With respect to point #4. As above I don’t think the image of a Klansman’s salute is “violent racist imagery”. It’s just plain old racist symbolism. I can agree to a revised statement, though I should note that the “conclusion” is totally disconnected from the previous points both as originally written and as revised:
We can conclude that the gratuitous racist symbolism was intentional.
And now finally point #5, which is your main argument.
“Someone wouldn’t include violent racist imagery if the goal wasn’t to imply a threat. There’s plenty of nonviolent racist imagery out there.”
This is really where my objection to your description of the graphic as “violent” matters. Could I revise this to replace “violent racist imagery” with “racist symbolism”? I could, but your argument would fall apart. A person may send a message containing racist symbolism without trying to threaten someone with violence - specifically when the racist symbolism is used in a negative sense.
The meaning of the email, in my opinion, is to compare Ms. Walker’s position on abortion as tainted by association with KKK ideology. The imagery was unnecessary in the sense that there are other ways to criticize pro-choice politics other than comparing the politicians to the KKK.
~Max
While I think this does have some weight I think the circumstance of Ms. Walker being a legislator, (coincidentally the only Black legislator in West Virginia), outweighs it. If she were a private individual I think the above argument would be sufficient for a restraining order.
~Max
I assume by trauma you meant psychological trauma. In which case, I reject the premise that an email containing racist symbolism is, ipso facto, certain or substantially certain to cause trauma.
I acknowledge that racism and hate crimes can cause the victim to suffer from traumatic stress. I assumed that only a minority of people of color are susceptible to attacks, but I could be wrong.
~Max
Easily countered by the fact that it did cause exactly such trauma.
Unless you’re calling Delegate Walker a liar.
Another statement best addressed in another thread.
Curious, does this apply to all the people who call Israelis/supporters of Israel, Jewish or not, Nazis? Because IME I see that ALL THE TIME in the exact context of “look how bad the nazis were. Don’t be like them!”. I find that just as offensive as the story in the OP, but I’ve never seen much outrage about it.
I don’t see it that often (or at all, really?), but calling someone a Nazi would be different than sending them a picture of a Nazi guard killing a Jewish prisoner and saying “Don’t be like this.”
So if someone told this legislator “by being pro-abortion you are doing the work of the KKK” but didnt include a picture of a lynching, that’d be just fine?
It would have been a lot less bad. Saying, “you are acting like the KKK” is not an action that is traditionally a threat. Sending images of the KKK to Black people IS traditionally a threat.
I didn’t say it would be just fine, but it would be a lot less threatening and offensive.
To remove the racial element for a second, if someone told me I was killing babies by being pro-choice, that would be a lot less shocking to me than someone sending me a picture of an aborted fetus with that message.
Bringing the racial element back in, KKK imagery is threatening all by itself to Black people, as puzzlegal said.
So to continue the analogy - “your policies make you a Nazi” to the Jewish politician may be distasteful, offensive, etc but not threatening - “your policies make you a Nazi” accompanied by pictures of Nazi guards or concentration camps WOULD be threatening?
I would say that an email saying those words is certainly less threatening than an email saying those words accompanied by picture of a Nazi killing Jewish prisoners, or a picture of Jews being led into a gas chamber, yes.
Do you not agree?
There’s an implied threat with images of Jews being murdered that isn’t there when you (just) accuse a Jewish person of being a murderer. “See what you’re doing? This could be you.”
I mean, this seems really obvious to me. If it isn’t obvious to you then I don’t think I’ll convince you. Coming up with various edge cases (how about this? how about that?) won’t be that productive or interesting to me.
I agree that the picture makes it worse. I just think that this is a difference of degree, not kind.
I think the implied threat that comes with a KKK symbol or a Jewish person being murdered makes it a difference in kind. But, that’s cool – reasonable people can disagree.
But we all know who the Nazis or KK are and what they did. The sentiment is the same whether the picture is or not - a photo is simply more explicit.