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]

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/sc...ing/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/fi...ing/index.html

[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.