this post was submitted on 06 May 2025
1413 points (99.2% liked)
Political Memes
8356 readers
1840 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The parents of the child are investigating that bigot, and may be pressing charges with the help of the NAACP. I hope they get that pig’s entire GiveSendGo purse.
https://www.kktv.com/2025/05/03/woman-accused-using-racial-slurs-against-young-boy-viral-video-sparking-controversy/
Ooo look at Mrs. Deep Pockets getting cleaned out by the lawyers! They’re going to have to sell the RVs they just bought.
https://gofund.me/163aff3a
NAACP are raising money for legal funds for the family and community outreach programs.
Not sure what they hope to achieve, I'm not American and may be unfamiliar with specific laws, but isn't it covered by freedom of speech? Would be very hard to argue and prove reparations for emotional damage to the child.
Shaming her seems like the most likely outcome.
I'd think the platform she used to raise funds may be more of a viable target. Can't be rewarding this behavior, I imagine it could be breaking some laws against anti-minority organizing. Could be argued as an anti black gang by sourcing from so many people.
The US has laws against threats of violence, inciting violence, and hate crimes. Simply using slurs would be covered by the 1st Amendment. Her demeanor in the recording was overtly aggressive, and coupled with the use of a slur could be considered a hate crime. That’s the reason for the investigation.
"Free Speech" doesn't mean words can't be the mechanism by which another crime is committed.
If you ask someone to kill your wife, you aren't arrested for speech, but for conspiracy to commit murder.
I agree, but what other crime was committed? I didn't see anything.
You're allowed to be racist or to openly support racist ideals in public. You aren't allowed to intimidate someone based on their race. Intimidation isn't protected speech any more than fraud is.
You can charged with assault for language that is used to threaten or harass someone, especially when directed at someone's race, religion, gender, etc, which can elevate it to a hate crime.
There's a bit of another layer to it. The n-word is used as a credible death threat in America. It is a word that has been used to dehumanize and declare a person can be killed and lynched without consequence --because that is the legacy of our country and that word. People calling people n-words historically have been able get away with actual murders--and they know it.
It's the same way a Nazi saluting is someone demonstrating they don't value human life and support genocide. But it is still outlawed in Germany and Austria because the action carries with it much deeper implications there.
Assault.
Possibly, it needs another source of evidence though. In the video the man asks: " Did you chase him? Did you try to hit him?" The woman replies "Yes", but it's a compound question and easily argued she was saying yes to chasing to get back whatever the child took.
Threat of violence is a crime and in this case clearly racially motivated so would be a hate crime. But I think it'd be tough to prove in court with only the video evidence and something for the criminal court to discover, not the parents or the NAAPC.
I'd like to again state this woman is pure garbage and the people that gave her money are probably worse.
Assault doesn't need physical contact. Just yelling at him threateningly and chasing is more than enough to qualify. If she hit him it would also be battery.
I agree, but imagine a situation without race involved. If my wife has something taken and chased a child to get it back, then got charged for assault, it'd be laughed out of court.
This could be classed as assault, depending on intention, I think the investigation is looking into her character to prove the intention. Obviously she has a shot character, but they may need subpoenas from judges etc to look at phone records for evidence. It all takes time. I'm sure she's getting her just desserts eventually.
If your wife makes a habit of chasing and yelling at children, you should be careful. She could be charged and it is unlikely it would be laughed out of court.
Man it's like you picked 2% of what I said and felt that's enough...
I counted, I think it's 89 words and you're response is as far as I can tell to one word: wife. So between 2-3%.
If you can't understand subtext, I can't help you.
I also heard the child may have had disabilities, which adds a whole new layer.
I don't mean to be contrarian for the sake of it and I agree with people's feelings. But the law works in both ways.
To be totally fair, that's only because you're a moron who's arguing about things you don't understand. Moron.
Do you feel like a comment like that is contributing anything? Or are you just trolling?
Not "free speech". Could classify as a hate crime.
No. This is not covered by freedom of speech.
Using a slur is unfortunately protected speech. You can walk into the middle of a supermarket and shout the N word and not be arrested. Calling someone a slur is hate crime, and is absolutely not protected. If your manager calls you a slur, you can sue him. And other similar examples.
Sure, but if you're having a long enough interaction with a child that you are able to use the slur enough times to be reported as "repeatedly"... There's an argument that you're harassing them. Which is something you can sue over.
A hate crime needs a crime. Your example involving workplace is different due to worker protections. I don't think just calling someone something is a crime though. You'd have to prove something like 'intent to cause a riot' or something, which is really hard to prove. Also the only damages you could sue for are emotional, which are really hard to prove; unlike your workplace example where damages would be a lot more tangible due to loss of work for example.
That's a good point, I should probably mete out my understanding a bit better.