When The Police Overreact.

Tony Cleveland, Jr. (17) of Greensboro, North Carolina was arrested yesterday on charges of urging a riot, possession of a handgun and weapons of mass destruction. Why?

Because of this image he created and posted to his personal Facebook account.

That's right -- it's now completely illegal to create an image that the police might not agree with.

Based upon information gleaned from the suspect's father, Tony had no intentions of actually causing a riot at the "Gboro Mall". Mind you, such a mall doesn't even exist. There are two major shopping destinations in Greensboro -- the Four Seasons Town Centre and the Friendly Center. The image doesn't state if either of these locations was the intended "target". The time on the flyer also says "5-until". Is that 5 AM or 5 PM? The when says "this saturday". So which exact Saturday is that?

Obviously, this image was created by an immature teenager with little intention (or the necessary planning) to actually carry out a riot. Most likely, the teenager crafted the image because of the recent news involving the Baltimore Riots. Like any impressionable youth, he decided to become involved in some silly, misguided way. It doesn't make what he did right, but it also clearly doesn't pose a threat to anyone. Common sense is a hell of thing. Would you think this potential riot was serious if you saw that image? I wouldn't.

If you think the above image was serious, then you need to get a grip on reality.

I'm not going to defend Tony -- he's a juvenile delinquent with a long string of charges including breaking and entering. Clearly, he has little respect for the law and his parents probably did a terrible job raising him. Yet, there's cause for alarm when any police department would charge someone over a silly image -- much less with urging a riot, possession of a handgun, and weapons of mass destruction.

Does this image indicate that the creator has WMD's? If so, they must be as invisible as those supposedly owned by Saddam Hussein. Does the fact that he placed a cartoon image of a gun next to a cartoon image of a police officer's head mean he has a handgun? What about people that possess tattoos which have weapons in them? Does that mean the individual owns those exact weapons? If a kid has a poster of an F-16 fighter jet in their room, does that mean they own said plane?

No. Only idiots think such nonsense.

If the police are going to begin arresting people for images on social media that they don't agree with, then they better build more prisons. Nearly everyone has shared or liked an image on Facebook that law enforcement might not agree with. We'd all be guilty.

This is yet another example of the police over-reacting and over-stepping their boundaries. The People of this Nation have every right to produce images like the one above. The First Amendment protects individuals in cases like this, whether you happen to agree with the content or not. I don't agree with it, but what I think doesn't matter. Had Tony and a band of his friends actually carried out a riot, then sure -- charge them to the fullest extent of the law. Up until that point, though... it's all just childish foolishness. Riots are absolutely wrong and should not be encouraged -- they only cause reckless bodily harm and damage to property. Yet, let the sentence be appropriate for the crime.

I find myself asking... what crime took place here?

Oklahoma: Atheists and Gays Not Welcome.

There's some outrageous bigotry going on in Oklahoma, but that's no surprise.

A stone monument depicting the Ten Commandments

sits outside the Oklahoma State Capitol Building.

House Bill 1125, which essentially bans atheists from being married, recently passed the Oklahoma State House of Representatives. It is now headed to the Senate, where it will most likely be approved.

How does it work? Well, it's like this. For any new marriage to be recognized, a member of the clergy must approve any and all marriage licenses. Judges and magistrates would have ZERO say in the matter. That means that the power of the legally binding contract of marriage would be solely under the discretion of priests and other respective church leaders. Of course, conservatives, Republicans and religious organizations are jumping for joy over this bill. If approved, it would mean that any clergy member whom did not see fit to wed a couple (meaning homosexuals and atheists) would not have to.

This is a crafty work of legalese meant to circumvent the potential for homosexuals to receive the same marriage benefits as heterosexual couples. They're essentially tacking it onto the backs of atheists as a way around any forthcoming federal legislation. In essence, they get to kill two birds with one stone.

One of the chief supporters of the bill, Republican Dennis Johnson, has been quoted as saying...

"Marriage was not instituted by government. It was instituted by God. There is no reason for Oklahoma or any state to be involved in marriage."

I find it ironic that Mr. Johnson wants to prohibit the bounds of marriage via legislation, but finds that government has no place in the matter. I wonder if he can see the total hypocrisy in that? Have the supporters of this bill even considered that, without a legally binding marriage license, many couples (gay or straight, religious or atheist) would lose health benefits, death benefits, access to community property and child custody? Obviously not.

Perhaps more troubling is the immense power that would be granted to non-elected religious officials whom would act as de facto magistrates of the state government. By officiating the state law in a method that's clearly filtered through religious doctrine, they'd be blatantly violating the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Should House Bill 1125 be passed by the Oklahoma legislature, it will surely make its way to the Supreme Court.

Oklahoma -- a great place to live... unless you're not a heterosexual Christian.

Preserving the Freedom of Speech.

The March on Washington -- August 28, 1963

Racists are real assholes.

I have no tolerance for bigots -- racists in particular. The color of a person's skin serves no importance. Skin color is merely a reflection of genetic heritage and where our ancestors originated from on this planet. We're all from one race - the HUMAN race.

All this being said, if you want to say some really horrible crap about a certain color of people, then that is your right. The First Amendment, which protects our right to freedom of speech, allows for all American citizens to say what they want.

What does all of this have to do with each other?

My brother (thanks James) recently highlighted a case where a group of fraternity brothers at the University of Oklahoma were caught on video singing a racially charged song of hate. They repeatedly used the word "nigger" in a manner that was not only insensitive, but spiteful.

And no, I do not use the term "n-word". To do so is ridiculous. We're all adults here. You can plainly see that I'm not employing the word "nigger" at someone. It's merely for context. Saying "n-word" is not only childish, but it's disrespectful to the proud men and women whom fought against its common everyday use. You can't deny the past with a linguistic loophole. We must never forget.

You can watch the racist chant here:

Back to my point...

The University of Oklahoma suspended the involved fraternity. The institution also expelled two of the students caught on camera singing their racist song. Here's my problem...

Those students caught on camera absolutely deserve all the negative attention they're receiving. What they did was horrendous and without merit. But, what they said is protected by the First Amendment, no matter how repulsive. The lesson here is simple.

To protect the freedom of speech for all citizens, you must also protect all types of speech.

You can't pick and choose which words can be spoken and which can not. If you do, then you upend the very foundation of the First Amendment. No matter what crap those University of Oklahoma students said, they should not have been expelled from campus. If anything, they should have had the opportunity to return to class and face the ire of their fellow students. I'd bet good money that they would have soon left anyway.

To preserve the freedom of speech for you and I, those same racists must be allowed to say what they want. Otherwise, how long will it be before we'll be censored for our own words -- whether hateful, compassionate or otherwise?

Also, look at it this way. Letting the racists spew their indignant philosophy makes them all the more easy to pinpoint! When a racist opens their mouth, it makes him or her pretty darn easy to spot.