Riddle me this

[orange]

Justice Thomas, in concurrance, disagreed saying any cross burning is intent to intimidate.

What about peacefully protesting Christianity?

(Not disagreeing with you, Imran, just with Thomas's opinion)

[orange]

likewise, if that's how he feels, he should support outlawing the word "ni*ger"

[Ben Kenobi]

You can do so without burning crosses.

Imran:

Thanks for the links.

[orange]

You can do so without burning crosses.

Can I do so by holding up a sign that says "I hate ni*gers"?

Where do we draw the line on free speech? I would think the sign is more offensive than a burning cross.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What about peacefully protesting Christianity?

How many times do people burn crosses to protest Christianity? Just about 100% of the time, it is a racial indimidation technique.

Oh, and see... CNN is useful . It is just too late for me to do some extracirricular case reading anyway .

[Ben Kenobi]

I would think the sign is more offensive than a burning cross.

orange:

It is not whether said action is found to be offensive by the people who view the act, but the intent behind the action. Otherwise, we could never come to agreement as to what counts as 'offensive'.

[orange]

How many times do people burn crosses to protest Christianity? Just about 100% of the time, it is a racial indimidation technique.

What I'm saying is, if I wanted to burn a cross to protest Christianity, the law is wrong either A) because it is denying my right to freedom of speech with something unrelated to racial intimidation, or B) because it is accepting my right to freedom of speech, but denying someone else theirs when the act is the same. It is the 'speech' which is being denied, not the act, and that is wrong.

It is not whether said action is found to be offensive by the people who view the act, but the intent behind the action. Otherwise, we could never come to agreement as to what counts as 'offensive'.

Until an act occurs, however, the 'intent' doesn't matter. I could say I want to kill someone, I may even want to, but if I don't then no crime has been committed.

I'm no fan of racist *******s, but I don't like the idea that freedom of speech can be so easily ignored. Because I don't see much difference between outlawing this kind of speech and other kinds of speech.

[Imran Siddiqui]

if I wanted to burn a cross to protest Christianity, the law is wrong either A) because it is denying my right to freedom of speech with something unrelated to racial intimidation, or B) because it is accepting my right to freedom of speech, but denying someone else theirs when the act is the same. It is the 'speech' which is being denied, not the act, and that is wrong.

That's the reason the court struck down the statute, orange. Their reasoning seems to be that cross burning may not always be for intimidation.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

That's the reason the court struck down the statute, orange. Their reasoning seems to be that cross burning may not always be for intimidation.

Eh? The supremes upheld the statute by 6-3 which prohibits cross burnings. The supremes ruled that since the statute prohibits cross burnings as it pertains to intimidation but not as other forms of expression it's fine.

"As the history of cross burning indicates, a burning cross is not always intended to intimidate. Rather, sometimes the cross burning is a statement of ideology, a symbol of group solidarity. It is a ritual used at Klan gatherings, and it is used to represent the Klan itself. Thus, "burning a cross at a political rally would almost certainly be protected expression." FROM THE DECISION By Justice O'Connor

So the KKK can burn crosses at their meeting places, and Orange can burn one as a demonstration for or against christianity, but you cant put one up to scare the neighbors.

[gsmoove23]

The statute wasn't struck down, just the portion that stated burning a cross is automatically evidence that you had intent to intimidate. Now if you burn a cross the prosecutor must prove you did so with intent to intimidate.

So protest Christianity to your hearts content, just leave the KKK membership card at home.

EDIT - Oops too late. Pretty much what Spencer said.

[orange]

That's the reason the court struck down the statute, orange. Their reasoning seems to be that cross burning may not always be for intimidation.

I was under the impression that the statute was not struck down? Am I wrong?

Going by what Spencer wrote, the speech is what is being outlawed, not the act, and I believe that is wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I was under the impression that the statute was not struck down? Am I wrong?

Yes, the SC said part of the statute was unconstitutional (meaning it was struck down) because it says that a burning cross is automatically intent to indimidate. The part of the statute banning cross burning is upheld.