Riddle me this

[HolyWarrior]

High Court upholds ban on cross burning

WASHINGTON – In a ruling with important symbolic implications, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of states to ban cross burning - marking a setback for many free-speech advocates but a victory for African-Americans.
The court, in a 5 to 4 decision, reaffirmed that the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech is not absolute when it comes to certain forms of expression.

By upholding a 51-year-old Virginia law that outlaws the burning of a cross on public or private property with the intent to intimidate, the court decreed that such an act amounted to a form of terror that could be regulated.

I just don't understand it,
my mind is at a loss.
you can burn the U.S. flag,
but cannot burn a cross?

[HolyWarrior]

and riddle me that

High Court upholds ban on cross burning

WASHINGTON – In a ruling with important symbolic implications, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of states to ban cross burning - marking a setback for many free-speech advocates but a victory for African-Americans.
The court, in a 5 to 4 decision, reaffirmed that the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech is not absolute when it comes to certain forms of expression.

By upholding a 51-year-old Virginia law that outlaws the burning of a cross on public or private property with the intent to intimidate, the court decreed that such an act amounted to a form of terror that could be regulated.

Anyone see a trend yet?

[red_jon]

Freedom from persecution is more important than Freedom of Speech.

The cross burning was used purely against African-Americans in a campaign of hate, whereas flag-burning isn't directed at a particular section of society.

My two-eurocoins.

[David Floyd]

Freedom from persecution is more important than Freedom of Speech.

Define "persecution". If by persecution you mean some physical act of violence, then you are correct - my rights do not extend to harming your person. If by persecution, though, you mean simply making someone feel bad, then I'm sorry, but that is not enough to deny me my rights.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Define "persecution". If by persecution you mean some physical act of violence, then you are correct - my rights do not extend to harming your person. If by persecution, though, you mean simply making someone feel bad, then I'm sorry, but that is not enough to deny me my rights.

So it would be acceptable to print Nazi hate slogans on major newspapers? Or billboards calling for the slaughter of Jews?

Of course we have to curtail freedom of speech to some extent, to ensure the safety of all members of society.

[GePap]

By upholding a 51-year-old Virginia law that outlaws the burning of a cross on public or private property with the intent to intimidate, the court decreed that such an act amounted to a form of terror that could be regulated.

This is the part that matters. Some guys burning a flag is saying: ehy, I protest what the US (in general) is doing. Burning a croos is saying: hey, you specific individuals (certainly specific in the case of doing it on someone's private property), we are out to get yah. That is intimidation, the making of threats, and not simply an act of political protest.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by red_jon


So it would be acceptable to print Nazi hate slogans on major newspapers? Or billboards calling for the slaughter of Jews?

If they can pay for it, yep.

It's pretty amazing how some people in the world seem to forget just how glorious free speech actually is

[red_jon]

Originally posted by GePap

By upholding a 51-year-old Virginia law that outlaws the burning of a cross on public or private property with the intent to intimidate, the court decreed that such an act amounted to a form of terror that could be regulated.

This is the part that matters. Some guys burning a flag is saying: ehy, I protest what the US (in general) is doing. Burning a croos is saying: hey, you specific individuals (certainly specific in the case of doing it on someone's private property), we are out to get yah. That is intimidation, the making of threats, and not simply an act of political protest.

exactly.

[GePap]

Hello, croos burning and flag burning are not the same. people burning crosses are not portesting Christianity or the mandates of some religious sect: they are burning crosses to directly intimidate a group of people.

Someone is free to have some pro-Nazi statement on a newspaper (if the paper will run it), but you can't put out an add threatening a group of people. That hinders freedom people.

[Al B. Sure!]

What is the punishment for such crimes? A fine?

[David Floyd]

So it would be acceptable to print Nazi hate slogans on major newspapers?

Certainly.

Or billboards calling for the slaughter of Jews?

It sorta depends - one can't specifically solicit murder, but on the other hand a billboard saying that all Jews should die would be "fine" (and you know what I mean, I don't want to hear anyone's ****).

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Certainly.



It sorta depends - one can't specifically solicit murder, but on the other hand a billboard saying that all Jews should die would be "fine" (and you know what I mean, I don't want to hear anyone's ****).

[red_jon]

When I said Nazi slogans I meant to imply that it was directed against sections of society, sorry if that wasn't clear.

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd
It sorta depends - one can't specifically solicit murder, but on the other hand a billboard saying that all Jews should die would be "fine" (and you know what I mean, I don't want to hear anyone's ****).

statements calling for violence against individuals are not legal, and ofr good reason. A poster advertising the Nazi party would be OK. One calling for violence illegal.

[Frogman]

If people wouldn't run around saying so much stupid crap, we'd all have a lot more freedom. Burning a cross isn't speech anyway. Its an potential threat. And you know what we do to people who are potential threats.