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]

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

Quote:

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.

[AnnC]

"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." (emphasis mine)

You've got to understand how cross-burning is used by racist groups. A typical cross-burning incident goes something like this:

A inter-racial couple sets up housekeeping and the local racists don't like the fact that "miscegenation" is going on in their town. So the bigots decide that they're "gonna show 'em who runs this town" and they plant a kerosene-soaked cross in the couple's front yard and set it alight.

If you're that couple, are you going to see such an incident as free expression or an act of terror?

The Virginia law makes it illegal to do this kind of thing and I'm glad that the court upheld it.

[red_jon]

It's AnnC!!

[Al B. Sure!]

To add onto what Frogman said... I would truly be suspicious of the political legitimacy of any group whose main goal is violence against others. If they got no positive aspects that they are advertising or whatever than they're just nuts spewing out garbage.

To take something I remember that Robert Bork said (paraphrase) We have the right to free speech of a political, intellectual, or social nature... not the right to 'express' nonsense


thanks

[Al B. Sure!]

also, David Floyd, aren't you a strong defender of state's rights? Would you rather have that nasty Federal government say Virginia can't decide its own laws?

I also appreciate the timing of this decision to coincide with the Michigan University case... shows the Court is not out to get minorities like some people think

[Ben Kenobi]

Hello, cross 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.

Well said GePap.


We can prove this position by looking at cross-burning alternatives. If you are protesting Christianity, there are better ways to do so than to burn crosses. Those who burn crosses are not interested in these alternatives, because their intent is not to protest Christianity, but to threaten the lives of black people.

[JohnT]

"...marking a setback for many free-speech advocates but a victory for African-Americans."

Like how the article implies that African-Americans are against free speech?

Well said, AnnC.

[Felch]

The right to freedom of speech does not cross over into making threats against people. That's what intimidation is, and it's an example of initiating coercive action. The government is simply responding to the initiation of coercion.

[CyberGnu]

In California it has been forbidden many years. It's against the state's environmental laws.

[Frogman]

If burning the cross was a statement of disagreement with the role of christianity in the government I could agree with it being a free speech issue. But when it is used strictly to instill fear and intimidation it becomes a weapon, just like waving a knife in someones face. I am stunned we have 4 idiots on the supreme court.

[DinoDoc]

Does this mean the Court has overturned the precedent it set in '92 with R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by JohnT
Like how the article implies that African-Americans are against free speech?

In this case, I would argue that they are unless anyone would care to point out a substantive difference between this case and the one I linked to in my last post.

[St Leo]

Isn't the main problem the fact that the cross-burners are littering their burning crosses on other people's land?

In this case, I would argue that they are unless anyone would care to point out a substantive difference between this case and the one I linked to in my last post.

freedom of speech == nerve gas recipes on the internet
freedom of speech != death threats

If you don't think that outlawing murder infringes on freedom of action, then complaining about the outlawing of non-jocular death threats infringing on freedom of speech is a bit silly.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by St Leo
Isn't the main problem the fact that the cross-burners are littering their burning crosses on other people's land?

Then why do you need a new law to deal with the practice when the ones that deal with trespassing and vandalism are more than capable of dealing with it?

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
In this case, I would argue that they are unless anyone would care to point out a substantive difference between this case and the one I linked to in my last post.

I think the main difference is the state law which in your case was considered overbroad, an opinion I agree with. The apropriate law for the thread's case is quite clear and posted above.

[AnnC]

Right, the Virginia law is very specific. If you burn a cross for the purpose of intimidating somebody, it's illegal.