Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,359 posts)
41. More about that. First, what was the charge?
Wed May 11, 2016, 10:02 AM
May 2016

Good morning, progree.

U.S. Attorneys » Northern District of Mississippi » News

Department of Justice

U.S. Attorney’s Office

Northern District of Mississippi

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Second Man Pleads Guilty to Tying Rope Around Neck of James Meredith Statue on Ole Miss Campus

WASHINGTON – A second man pleaded guilty to a federal civil rights crime for tying a rope and Confederate flag around the neck of the James Meredith Statue at the University of Mississippi. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, U.S. Attorney Felicia C. Adams of the Northern District of Mississippi and Special Agent in Charge Donald Alway of the FBI’s Jackson, Mississippi, Division made the announcement.

Austin Reed Edenfield, of Kennesaw, Georgia, pleaded guilty to one count of using a threat of force to intimidate African-American students and employees because of their race or color. Edenfield was charged by information shortly before the plea. His sentencing date has not yet been set.

IANAL, but I think this is the specific statute:

Federal Civil Rights Statutes

....
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245
Federally Protected Activities
1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as:

a) A voter, or person qualifying to vote...;

b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;

c) an applicant for federal employment or an employee by the federal government;

d) a juror or prospective juror in federal court; and

e) a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

2) Prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because of his/her activity as:

a) A student or applicant for admission to any public school or public college;


b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by a state or local government;

c) an applicant for private or state employment, private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in any labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through any employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall;

d) a juror or prospective juror in state court;

e) a traveler or user of any facility of interstate commerce or common carrier; or

f) a patron of any public accommodation, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters...or any other establishment which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises.

It's going to take more time than I have right now, but I suspect that others who have faced this charge and have been convicted have filed appeals. I'm further guessing that some of those appeals were based on the argument that the activities were protected speech. How those appeals turned out, I do not know, but Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245 seems still to be in place.

You know how much I like to link to Federal documents, so here is a link to that:

18 U.S.C. 245 - Federally protected activities

Scroll down to "CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS (sections 241 - 249)."

Best wishes.
Or he's seen the Producers one time too many. Initech May 2016 #1
Your film, which Jewish groups did not find offensive, makes a good point... Jeffersons Ghost May 2016 #3
Or Raiders of the Lost Ark edbermac May 2016 #7
I wonder how they would have reacted to this FLPanhandle May 2016 #2
Huh. That's a crime in Scotland? linuxman May 2016 #4
The Scottish police occasionally send out tweets reminding people not to post stuff that's "hurtful" Nye Bevan May 2016 #5
Holy fucking 1984! linuxman May 2016 #6
I wouldn't mind the promotion of kindness, Ilsa May 2016 #38
Hope the Scots don't find out about this site U4ikLefty May 2016 #8
GAS THE JEWS?, GAS THE JEWS?, DO I GAS THE JEWS?, Ha Ha Ha ROFL :-) :-) :-) progree May 2016 #9
You know I was going to agree with you and then.. Egnever May 2016 #10
Likewise with "lynch the n___rs?" progree May 2016 #11
With anything you can find offensive really Egnever May 2016 #12
This is exactly why we don't, can't, and shouldn't outlaw "hate speech". Warren DeMontague May 2016 #13
Don't say that too loudly, or our resident authoritarians will call you a racist or something. NutmegYankee May 2016 #14
1st Amendment threads can get pretty fucking depressing around here, I agree. Warren DeMontague May 2016 #15
"1st Amendment threads can get pretty fucking depressing" So is hate speech. progree May 2016 #18
well, the 1st Amendment protects it just the same. Warren DeMontague May 2016 #19
Read #20. progree May 2016 #22
Then answer it with unhateful speech... beevul May 2016 #45
I call them "Safe zone" liberals FLPanhandle May 2016 #32
Read #20. progree May 2016 #33
I read it and you are still a "safe zone" liberal FLPanhandle May 2016 #34
So you think its OK to put nooses around statues of black people,cry "fire" in a crowded theater, progree May 2016 #35
You obviously don't understand the USSC rulings on the 1st amendment FLPanhandle May 2016 #37
Some forget... beevul May 2016 #48
"shouting fire in a crowded theater" is perhaps the most torturously overused metaphor in existence Warren DeMontague May 2016 #52
And Holmes made that analogy to justify upholding the arrests of antiwar protesters. NYC Liberal May 2016 #59
As demonstrated in this thread, very fucking depressing. NutmegYankee May 2016 #54
It's inevitable. Warren DeMontague May 2016 #57
Oh yeah, especially the "yelling fire in a crowded theater". NutmegYankee May 2016 #58
How about a noose around the statue of James Meredith at the University of Mississippi? progree May 2016 #20
A threat, not speech. Warren DeMontague May 2016 #23
They weren't chanting Gas the Jews in Skokie. progree May 2016 #25
Well you go ahead and see if it is prosecutable, then. Warren DeMontague May 2016 #63
More about that. First, what was the charge? mahatmakanejeeves May 2016 #41
Gosh darn it, I'm sending you a case of America®. mahatmakanejeeves May 2016 #40
How about "fuck the bitches" or "fuck Hillary"?? If done to annoy one's girlfriend, its OK, right? progree May 2016 #17
You seem to be confusing "ok" with "constitutionally protected" Warren DeMontague May 2016 #24
Yes, context is everything. progree May 2016 #26
It's everything in subjectively determining how much of an asshole the person saying the stuff is. Warren DeMontague May 2016 #51
It was in Scotland, where there isn't constitutional protection to "Gas the Jews" speech progree May 2016 #27
Good thing the US has he First Amendment TeddyR May 2016 #28
See #20. progree May 2016 #30
None of that changes the facts. beevul May 2016 #46
You cannot be arrested for "yelling fire in a crowded theater." NYC Liberal May 2016 #60
If you watch the apology video Egnever May 2016 #43
You want to see this kind of tweet by the cops in the US? Nye Bevan May 2016 #16
Yes. If its "lynch the n__er" or a threat against Hillary of Obama. progree May 2016 #21
Nope TeddyR May 2016 #29
Gas the Jews isn't threatening speech. OK. BTW, did you read #20? progree May 2016 #31
I doubt anyone could be prosecuted for saying "gas the Jews" in the United States. Nye Bevan May 2016 #42
Cripes, are you serious? beevul May 2016 #44
Interesting map that ranks melm00se May 2016 #36
This is what happens down the PC Boudica the Lyoness May 2016 #39
Fine by me Matrosov May 2016 #47
Just be careful not to post anything "hurtful" and the police won't pay you a visit. Nye Bevan May 2016 #49
"Yeah, that's only if we elect more cancerous conservatives into office." Throd May 2016 #50
Yes, "hate speech" is constitutionally protected. Warren DeMontague May 2016 #53
Let's not forget the motivation behind the Bill of Rights Matrosov May 2016 #64
The motivation behind the bill of rights? Is that like the purpose of it? beevul May 2016 #65
Sounds like a justification for selfishness Matrosov May 2016 #66
To those with control issues, I imagine so. beevul May 2016 #67
WOW, the amazing shit you read. NutmegYankee May 2016 #69
Amazing shit? Matrosov May 2016 #70
If only conservatives care about freedom of speech Egnever May 2016 #71
Oh, but they do Matrosov May 2016 #72
My point is everyone should Egnever May 2016 #73
Hmm... NutmegYankee May 2016 #74
It protects the most unpopular or offensive opinions and speech, because they understood that Warren DeMontague May 2016 #68
Think about athiests who disparage Christianity or engage in "blaspemy". NutmegYankee May 2016 #55
Thank god America has the first amendment davidn3600 May 2016 #56
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #61
Should have Norm MacDonald troll their twitter feed madville May 2016 #62
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Man faces hate crime char...»Reply #41