Is Cross-Burning "Free Speach"?

[SpencerH]

This is all very confusing since I agree with you Che. I dont know what to discuss!

The nazi flag and burning cross are equally offensive when they're on private property (as opposed to someone elses property).

[chequita guevara]

You can definately make the argument that since they went to the trouble of procuring a Nazi flag they were willing to get rid of, that planting one on my lawn would be a specific threat targetted at me. They aren't all that easy to come by, so I'd have to think they meant something more than just an insult. That, however, requires me to think about it for a moment, as opposed to the instant reaction of fear and terror a burning cross would provide.

[Arrian]

Ok, you've convinced me:

1) burning cross on someone's lawn: specifically threatening act, therefore should be illegal.
2) burning cross on your own property: you're an *******, but it should be legal.

-Arrian

[gsmoove23]

I cannot possibly understand a specific law against cross burning. On someone elses property it is a crime under a number of different laws, in public it falls under yelling fire in a crowded room not to mention being deliberate intimidation. If its on your own property then there is the further question of whether it could be considered as threatening to your neighbours. Black guy moves into the suburbs and decides to take a walk one night only to find a burning cross on every other lawn or just one other lawn this could be considered deliberate intimidation.

Flag burning cannot be considered intimidating to any specific individual.

[SpencerH]

OK, your name is Horowitz and your next door neighbors love to play Deutschland Uber Alles while standing under their Nazi flags. I would think that you might feel threatened.

That doesnt mean that I think it's illegal or should be banned.

[Edan]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I cannot possibly understand a specific law against cross burning

Because we never have one law about something when three will suffice?

[Drake Tungsten]

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.

Twice in one week. All this agreement between you and I is freaking the hell out of me, che.

Nice post.

[Shi Huangdi]

Che, I disagree that burning a cross can suddenly become ok if it's done on your property. Could I put up a sign on my lawn saying "Kill All ******s"? No, even though it's done on my property can still initmidate. Say there was an all white neighberhood and a black family suddenly moved in. Then say the person who lived across from the black family and the people who lived next to that family all burned a cross on their property? The effect of such an action would be to intimidate the black family and prevent them from fully enjoying their property. The fact that it is your property doesn't mean you can use it to intimidate people.

[chequita guevara]

Part of the intimidation factor of burning a cross is you don't know who is doing it. If you burn it on your own lawn, everyone knows its you (provided someone sees you). The Klan strikes from anonymity. When you don't know who is out to get you, it's a lot scarier than some dumbass across the street torching his own lawn. Granted, if you are isolated, it can be quite scary. In your example, the purpose is still to terrify, where as I'm thinking a Klan rally at some farm, where the cross burning is in back, away from easy sight.

[Japher]

Why is it then, that when I stand on the corner waving a gun at passer buys I get arrest? It doesn't make sense!

A gun is a merely a symbol of protection, while burning a cross is a symbol of racism.

So, I guess it is legal to demonstrate racism, but illegal to demonstrate protection?

Another hypothetical: What if you found out that your neighbor was plotting to kill you. You sneak into their house and find a room that is dedicated as a murder shrine to you. What can you do? Nothing?

Intent is just a prosecutable as is action, and burning a cross displays intent.

Or am I just over looking the whole issue?

[Ramo]

I disagree with everyone, what a surprise.

1. Cross-burning, flying the Swastika on your private propery, etc. should be protected speech. It's objectively no different from burning a flag or a marshmellow. They have horrible poltical opinions, yes, but they should face social stygmatization, not legal prosecution.
2. Hate crime legislation is prefectly reasonable, provided it's not too extreme. Lynching a black guy, for instance, is not simply a normal crime. It is intended to terrorize other members of the community. As such, it should carry heavier sentences. Just like how a first degree murder carries heavier sentences than a second degree murder or manslaughter. That said, I don't like how the term is named.

[Japher]

Ah, heck, Texas ain't in America!

How can social stygmatization be applicabble in a community that is full of racists?

I agree with point number 2.

[gsmoove23]

In regards to actions on your own property, I believe if someone can argue you are playing Deutschland Uber Alles while standing under your Nazi flags in order to intimidate that is a crime(certainly if you've taken special pains to make sure 'certain' people see). Though what kind of sentence you could get for intimidation I don't know.

[Inverse Icarus]

free speech covers symbolic acts (in the US legal system anyway).

burning crosses, burning flags, wearing black armbands in school to protest war in Vietnam, all good and legal.

edit: provided you burn your own cross on your own property etc.

[Dinner]

The short anwser is that offensive free speech is the primary type of speech that truly needs protection. Let's face it popular free speech never gets protested because everyone agrees with it. It doesn't need protection.

Offensive free speech, as loathsom as it is, deserves protection as long as it doesn't cause clear and emminent harm. Someone claiming offensive speech should be censored simply because it offends their sensabilities just isn't a good enough reason for censorship.

That being said one person's right to free speech doesn't mean they can damage another person's right to property so if I burn a cross on your lawn you have every right to sue me for damages.