Riddle me this

[Elok]

Regardless of the free speech aspect, burning crosses are a definite fire hazard...
Well, somebody had to point it out.

[SlowwHand]

Re: Riddle me this

Originally posted by HolyWarrior
High Court upholds ban on cross burning



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

[Al B. Sure!]

Simple... burning a flag is not a specific threat to a group of people

[civman2000]

they plant a kerosene-soaked cross in the couple's front yard and set it alight.

That is tresspassing and arson, and can be punished harshly under hate crime laws, There's no need to specifically ban cross burning in this case.

[Ben Kenobi]

Quotable: "Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire."

Interesting link DinoDoc.

The juvenile was charged with violating St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which prohibited the placement of any symbol on public or private party that aroused anger in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender.

The difference between the two cases is here. Whereas the St. Paul legislation bans some forms of protected speech based on the reactions of the offended party, the new supreme court decision focusses on the intent of the cross-burner.

[Zero]

If someone is burning cross in someone else's property, first that could be a trespass, and I can see how that could be a threat.

What if a african american guy burned a cross in his own property because he hates J.C?

Is the burning of the corss itself outlawed?

As you can see I didnt bother reading before I posted.... Suck on that!

[St Leo]

Suck on that!

Mmm, delish.

What if a african american guy burned a cross in his own property because he hates J.C?

Would that be some sort of informal satanism? Formal Satanism tends to focus on the love of Lucifer rather than hate of J.C. No one else would even bother; the only reason I'd want to burn a cross is to offend Christians and there are easier (and less expensive) ways of doing that.

[Sten Sture]

But flag burning can carry its own brand of frontier justice... (photoshopped I assume)

[orange]

as long as the burning cross is yours to burn, and being burned on your own property, I don't see a problem with it. If you want to mark yourself as a bigot, be my guest!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I agree with orange. I would rule that the First Amendment protects this type of free speech. But, as long as this decision is narrowly constrained (ie, they say it is ONLY for cross burning) then I have no problem with it. The only thing I fear is that a future court may extend this to KKK protests, etc.

[DinoDoc]

Imran: Do think this case overturns RAV or is that case still intact?

[orange]

because, seriously, what's the difference between that and a KKK march? They both 'say' the same thing.

What if I have a bunch of cross shaped wood pieces that I want to use in a bon fire in my backyard? Honestly...the act is the same, it's the 'speech' that is being outlawed...not the act, and that is wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You really can't tell until the opinion comes out. I've seen some real interesting ways of distinguishing prior cases, and they may distinguish it here by saying that ordinance in St. Paul dealt with selective proscription based on views (on the basis of 'race, color, creed, religion or gender') and this is somehow different because it abolishes cross burning no matter what the reason.

My bet is they'll distinguish it (by streaching the precedent) and not overrule.

[Imran Siddiqui]

DD: Interestingly, I was reading the summary of the case on CNN, and Justice Scalia (who wrote the opinion in St. Paul) is joining the majority in this one (the case is called Virginia v. Black).

So, I think there is no doubt that St. Paul will be distinguishes. Maybe on the basis that the MN statute in that case was overinclusive while this is not.

And apparently, the court rejected the part of the Virginia statute that said that ANY cross burning is prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate, meaning the majority thinks there may be sometimes where cross burning is not automatic evidence of intent to intimidate. Justice Thomas, in concurrance, disagreed saying any cross burning is intent to intimidate.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/07/scotus.cross.burning/index.html

[Imran Siddiqui]

DD: You may find this interesting as well (written before the oral arguments):

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/15/findlaw.analysis.hilden.cross.burning/index.html