Is Cross-Burning "Free Speach"?

[David Floyd]

The problem with hate crimes is it only applies to one groupe (white men). I have never seen a person of another gender or race accused of a hate crime. Thus the term is bull**** and should not be used.

That is another good point. Further, any court that convicted a black man of a hate crime would probably be tagged as racist, by race baiters such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (and, as such, by much of the black community, who listen to those two out of ignorance).

[Edan]

IMO, burning a cross could be the same as brandishing an unloaded weapon. Both can easily be considered threatening (especially given the history of cross burning), even if they are not life threatening in and of themselves. Burning a cross in your yard should be protected (although IMO, a 20 or 30 foot high cross burning probably should require a permit, since I imagine it could easily become dangerous). Burning it on someone else's lawn is undeniably not protected. Burning it in a public area, if there is a strong likelyhood that someone will consider it a threatening message against life or limb, not simply free speech, should not be protected, IMO.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by David Floyd


That is another good point. Further, any court that convicted a black man of a hate crime would probably be tagged as racist, by race baiters such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (and, as such, by much of the black community, who listen to those two out of ignorance).

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm

In 1995, the latest FBI statistics that are not on a PDF file, 1,226 Anti-White hate crimes were reported.

[David Floyd]

I agree that you shouldn't be able to toss burning crosses on other people's yards, or to plop them down in the public park. But that has nothing to do with making hate a criminal activity.

I doubt anyone here would support making it illegal to burn a cross on your own property, right?

[Shi Huangdi]

"True, but "state of mind" has more to do with insanity and intelligence than with particular emotions."

In most cases, but hatred is still a state of mind and I don't see why that can't be used as a basis for further punishment



"Of course, it's the difference between an accidental and an intentional act. But I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand."

You called adding on hate crime penalties a "thoughtcrime" Well that is also what this is here, you are thinking "I am going to try to kill this person", and you recieve additional punishment because the judge believes that was your thought. The judge clearly again has the right to add additional penalty based on thoughts.



So, by the same argument, should they assign additional punishment to you if you beat someone up because you think beating people up is funny, or should you just be punished for assault and battery?"

If all I am doing is thinking beating people up is funny, I should not punished. If as a result of that punishment I beat someone up and the government thought it was in good public policy to add additional punishment because of that to add additional punishment, it could.



"That's irrational - a serial killer or someone who kills at random would instill more fear, at least to me, than someone who kills based upon a certain racial criteria.

Sure, if you're in an all black community, and the killer hates blacks, or an all white community, and the killer hates whites, fear would probably be instilled in the community. But the fear is caused by the fact that a murder took place, not by the fact that someone hates certain people. Hatred doesn't hurt anyone. Actions hurt people, and fearing hatred more than fearing the action of murder is pretty ignorant."

Hatred can lead to additional fear that you might be killed because of who you are. What do you think would be more likely to instill a climate of fear: A black person killing a white person who were in a heated argument over a girl, or a black mob lynching a white person screaming "KILL ALL WHITEYS!"?

Or for another example, don't you think there would be a difference in the effect cause if you spraypainted grafiti that said "YO DAVID FLOYD BE DA ORIGINAL PIMP MASTA!" then if you spraypainted "KILL ALL ******S!"?

[TheStinger]

I fail to see why it worse to murder someone because they are black than if they looked at your girlfriend in a funny way

[Bereta_Eder]

Why would anyone want to burn a cross for heaven's sake? (assuming he isn't KKK)

[Rasbelin]

Shi's example caused me to laugh like...

Anyway, on-topic...

I would stick to the ruling of the Supreme Court as there's after all highly educated scholars of justice and law sitting there, so I assume they know what they say as e.g. Thomas' arguement sounds valid to me.

[Gangerolf]

yes it is free speach

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Of course it's free speech. In fact, Thomas' own outburst indicates that: a burning cross communicates, and communicates powerfully. Something tells me the contradiction would be lost on him, however...

[chequita guevara]

Burning a cross is not protected speech but illegal speah. Yes, even in the US there is such a thing. Threatening words, i.e., statements of intent to harm, which is what burning a cross on someone's yard represents, are illegal. Nor do they deserve protection.

Buning a cross at a private Klan Rally is different. There it is being used to communicate to a different audience.

To put it another way, if someone tried to burn a cross on your front lawn, you would be justified in using deadly force to confront them. If you were driving down the road and you saw a rally burning a cross in farm off in the distance, you would not be justified in trying to break up the rally with a gun.

Dissident, and David Floyd, the primary defendents against hate crime prosectutions have been Black.

[SlowwHand]

I was curious if anyone would ask the question.

To me, burning a cross, or the flag, is not free speech.
Period. End of discussion.
If I should see it happening, it would be dealt with severely.

I know I antagonize frequently, but this time, I'm not kidding.

[Caligastia]

Obviously burning a cross on someone else's property does not come under "free speech", but on your own property it shouldn't be a problem.

Hate crime = thought crime

Don't punish thoughts, punish crimes.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I was curious if anyone would ask the question.

To me, burning a cross, or the flag, is not free speech.
Period. End of discussion.
If I should see it happening, it would be dealt with severely.

I know I antagonize frequently, but this time, I'm not kidding.

You don't think people should be allowed to do these things on their own property?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by orange
When you stick it on someone elses property, well then, you've got yourself Arson, trespassing, attempted murder, hate crimes, etc. etc. etc.

Where on earth did you pull attempted murder from?