Is Cross-Burning "Free Speach"?

[Edan]

Originally posted by 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

Possibly because, in *some* cases, if you're murdering someone because of their skin color, you're not just murdering him but you're also threatening the black community as a whole? Indeed, lynching an individual to try to get the rest of the black community to feel insecure and/or leave the area shares much of the same principles of terrorism - not just trying to kill someone, but making victims of the community and, possibly, make them do what you want them to do.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
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.

Two of them were. The third was charged with burning a cross on someone else's property.

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, ******."

Actually, drop the last word. A burning cross on your lawn means, "We are coming to get you." You meaning, you personally. That is where it cross the line from protected to illegal speach. It is a threat against your health, life, and property. That's illegal and should be illegal. Burning a cross on your own property, or even as a part of a demonstration, like burning a flag, is a more general statement, not a threat directed at a person or group of specific persons. We may or may not find one or the other particularly hateful, but since no one specifically is being threatened, it's Constitutionally protected speech, and should remain so.

[SpencerH]

So a burning cross is threatening (and therefore banable) but a nazi flag isn't?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Edan
Indeed, lynching an individual to try to get the rest of the black community to feel insecure and/or leave the area shares much of the same principles of terrorism -

Then they should be charged with terrorism, not hate thought. Intent itself should not be criminalized, but can fairly be considered as either mitigating or damning factors in jury deliberations and the penalty phase of a trial.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually, drop the last word. A burning cross on your lawn means, "We are coming to get you." You meaning, you personally. That is where it cross the line from protected to illegal speach. It is a threat against your health, life, and property. That's illegal and should be illegal. Burning a cross on your own property, or even as a part of a demonstration, like burning a flag, is a more general statement, not a threat directed at a person or group of specific persons. We may or may not find one or the other particularly hateful, but since no one specifically is being threatened, it's Constitutionally protected speech, and should remain so.

[SlowwHand]

I don't agree, naturally. It may not be in a threatening manner in the same manner as a cross burning, but it still is meant to provoke and insult.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Then they should be charged with terrorism, not hate thought. Intent itself should not be criminalized, but can fairly be considered as either mitigating or damning factors in jury deliberations and the penalty phase of a trial.

Holy ****, it must be a full moon in Florida. I agree with this and the previous quote.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Then they should be charged with terrorism, not hate thought.

This would be fine to me.

Intent itself should not be criminalized,

How is charging them with terrorism any different?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I don't agree, naturally.

Its natural for you to disagree?

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually, drop the last word. A burning cross on your lawn means, "We are coming to get you." You meaning, you personally. That is where it cross the line from protected to illegal speach. It is a threat against your health, life, and property. That's illegal and should be illegal. Burning a cross on your own property, or even as a part of a demonstration, like burning a flag, is a more general statement, not a threat directed at a person or group of specific persons. We may or may not find one or the other particularly hateful, but since no one specifically is being threatened, it's Constitutionally protected speech, and should remain so.

I couldn't put it better myself. Yes I do not agree with it, but it's a consitutional right. I have the right to hate anyone, including groups of people. So long as I infring on their rights (like burning a cross a likeness of a person I hate on their own lawn).

Yes it is moraly wrong, but we live in an age were the vast majority of people can't see evil even if it bit them in the ***.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
So a burning cross is threatening (and therefore banable) but a nazi flag isn't?

Let me pt it in personal terms. I'm in an interracial relationship. That (along with being a commie) makes me a target for white supremacy types (though I don't avertise my politics, it's hard to hide the fact that people of two different races are living together).

If someone spraypainted a swastika on my door, I'd be pretty upset. It could be just some smartass kid defacing property, it could be some lunkehead who doesn't like white/black relationships. It's most like not a direct threat against my life and health, but someone just saying something mean.

If, however, someone planted a burning cross outside our window, I'd know someone meant business, and was threatening to harm me. I'd be freaked out, angry as hell, and probably go avail myself of one of my Constitutional freedoms, I'd buy a shotgun.

The difference is because of history. Burning crosses have almost always been a prelude to violence, where swastikas, as evil a symbol as they represent, haven't.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I don't agree, naturally. It may not be in a threatening manner in the same manner as a cross burning, but it still is meant to provoke and insult.

I'm allowed to provoke you. I'm even allowed to insult you. I'm not allowed to threaten you. And you aren't allowed to threaten me, even with provocation. While I think burning the American flag is stupid, since it tends to shut people off to what you are trying to say, it also expresses anger with the government.

[chequita guevara]

The difference between burning a cross on one's own property and on someone's lawn is the same as the difference between saying, "Let's kill all crackers" and "Let's kill Slowwhand."

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm allowed to provoke you.

That depends. Is the fighting words doctrine still good law? If so, it all depends on how it is currently being interpreted.

[chequita guevara]

Okay, I'm allowed to provoke you up to a point. (Happy?)