Is Cross-Burning "Free Speach"?

[Arrian]

This is a gray area. NPR did a story on this a couple of days ago, and I listened on the way to work (this was before Thomas' speaking up, clearly).

As I understand it, the people who were charged under Virginia's statute (which then gave rise to this challenge of the statute) were at a clan rally: the cross was being burned out in a farmer's field with permission.

That makes it somewhat problematic. I have zero love for the KKK, and I see Thomas' point re: cross burning is a pretty unique symbol with a widely understood meaning: "we're comin' to get you, ******."

Mix all that together and my personal feeling on the matter is that it shouldn't be protected by the first amendment. It's a tough call, though. Logically, I follow DF's argument as well. And I suppose that technically he may be right. But there are other cases that have upheld laws that are not really Constitutional as far as I can see (CERCLA, for instance).

-Arrian

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Hate crime = thought crime

Don't punish thoughts, punish crimes.

Hate crime = thought crime?

Do you know what hate crime is?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Caligastia


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

Up to a point, certainly.
But as paiktis questioned, cross burning is only meant as a terroristic statement.
I include flag burning in that definition.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Hate crime = thought crime?

Do you know what hate crime is?

Yes. It punishes the thoughts as well as the crime.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Up to a point, certainly.

What point is that, exactly?

[SlowwHand]

To the same point where your outstretched fist meets my nose.

[Zkribbler]

Justice Thomas correctly set out the history of cross-burning. It was a precursors to violent activites by the Klan and was designed to intimidate blacks, Jews and other minorities. As such it was not protected speech but naked intimidation.

There is a consolidation of two cases now pending before the Supremes. One involved the burning of a cross on the property of a mixed couple. This actitive was obviously designed to intimidate. It is not protected.

The second case arose from a man burning a cross on his own property. This activity was not part of any Klan activity and was not a precursor to violence. It looks to me that the guy was trying merely to communicate pro-Klan sentiments, expounding white surpremacy and/or white power. His actions are not an extension of the old Klan intimidating tactics, but instead he's merely being a jerk. Saying stupid things is constitutionally protected...as long as you're not trying to intimidate people.

[Jac de Molay]

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...

I agree. A symbol is a symbol, and in most circumstances shouldn't be prohibited because of the history it entails. There's a lot of symbols that meet this definition and could be considered a crime for brandishing ( swastikas, klan or neo nazi regalia); that, IMO, is a 1st amendment infringement.

Obviously, one someone else's property is completely different.

[Japher]

I am tired of the whole debate on what "hate crime" means. For crying out loud you all know what it means!

I crime commited out of a extreem loathing. It doesn't mena that the person just said, "I hate blacks" (a thought), it means that person commited a crime vs. blacks .

A "thought crime"? Yeah, they got those, it's called premeditative.

It is totally a good method for persecuting the criminal based on weather they had intent or not.

Burning a cross or anything for that matter to express a hatred towards a specific race, creed, or nation should be illegal. Freedom of speach does not protect those who are expressing intent to do harm. As someone here on the board noted is should be taken as threat, weather it is done in private or in public.

[Thrawn05]

Cross buring is free speech. It is a right of an american to hate, and to express hatred so long as no one's elses rights are tramped on.

The sumpreme court will support Cross burning. Since this is basicly the same court that said you can burn flags.

I do not like people buring Crosses or our flag, but they have a right to do so.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
To the same point where your outstretched fist meets my nose.

Hey, I agree that those actions are offensive, but I don't think the right to carry them out on private property should be restricted.

[SlowwHand]

So Daveo, if I keep a child locked in a closet, MY closet, in MY house, that's cool ?

I know. You're thinking that's no the same, but it is.
Your rights end when they infringe on mine, or another's.

[Jac de Molay]

Well, come on, it's not the same, and you know it. Clearly the display of a symbol is a far cry from committing outright, harmful abuse against another person.

And if you think certain symbols infringe on others rights, what criteria do you come up with to separate the acceptable ones from the unacceptable ones?

[Caligastia]

Symbols have no inherent value or power.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
So Daveo, if I keep a child locked in a closet, MY closet, in MY house, that's cool ?

We are not talking about other people that have rights. We are talking about inanimate objects that have no rights.


Although, I would guess the Sierra Club would be upset at the KKK for cutting down the tree to make the cross to burn.