Supreme Court Upholds Cross Burning Ban

So I read all of the links. And I'm a fairly smart guy. But if you asked me what the Supreme Court just decided about cross-burning, I couldn't really tell you.

 

stupid texan.

 

oh wait, that was redundant.

texan.


























Go Wesley Clark (translation--please don't card me)

 

I hate the Klan big time, but that ruling is unconstitutional. I believe strongly in free speech, regardless if it comes from the great Martin Luther King, or in this case, the lowly Klan. You can't start drawing shades of free speech. Free speech is free speech.

 

There is no such thing as a Supreme Court ruling that is unconstitutional.

Marbury v. Madison.

 

So you believe that flag burning is ok? Right?

 

This was far from a unanimous opinion. I think there are at least 5 votes for the proposition that a state can ban speech that is intended to intimidate.

The opinion fell apart when the Justices tried to decide whether at trial the jury had been properly instructed as to whether the individuals in question had acted with intent to intimidate.

 

I couln't agree more.

It's good to know that you, like myself, have absolutely no issue with people that burn flags.

 

(Rat bastard. I knew I should have just completed the post and hit send instead of checking it over and retyping it. )

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mannyfreshstunna
I hate the Klan big time, but that ruling is unconstitutional. I believe strongly in free speech, regardless if it comes from the great Martin Luther King, or in this case, the lowly Klan. You can't start drawing shades of free speech. Free speech is free speech.

I believe both should be protected under the 1st amendment, but I do have an personal issue with it.

 

In this day and age, I would love to know the guys who are burning crosses. I want everyone to see who they are what they stand for.

 

For me it's not a free speech issue. It's a "It's a god damned piece of cloth so what's the big deal if someone burns it" issue.

It's simply a symbol. Cross or flag, it's just a symbol.

However, since burning the flag or the cross do seem to piss off the vast majority of Americans, I believe that doing either in public should result in heavy fines - if not jail time - for arson and endangering the public. If someone wants to burn a flag in their backyard, go right ahead. But if someone decides they want to burn a flag on the front steps of a court house, they should be improsoned for endangering the lives of those around them - not for burning what is simply a symbol.

 

I agree. I do believe that burning either in a public place is against the law for obvious reasons.

 

Like pulling down newsclippings on a dorm room door?

 

Gringo, volokh's blog seems to say that burning a cross as a general threat is OK, but burning it in a way that is specific toward someone is not protected, AND can be punished in a way different from other threats. (It's already against the law to communicate threats, but it's OK to make communicating a threat by burning a cross on an interracial couple's lawn a more serious crime. Think hate crimes legislation.)

The flagburning analogy is weak. If flagburning had an historical association with, say, lynching retired members of the armed services, then you'd have an analogy. Burning a flag has a clear political message.

 

Yup, i hate it, but we can't start infringing on free speech.

 

Can't we just say that they have the right to burn crosses but if they do they're unamerican?

 

right, the great thing about free speach is we can say whatever we want about them if they want to burn crosses.

 

Do you want a list of all of the ways speech can be illegal? It would be a long friggin' list.

As I read Volokh, if you burn a cross for political purposes, that's OK, but if you burn it to communicate a threat, not only is it illegal (that's already covered in statutes), but it's permissible for a state to make it a different, greater crime.

I just don't understand this raising of free speech to these heights of worship. I mean, perjury is illegal. Telling our national enemies secrets is illegal speech. Slander is illegal. Using speech to swindle little old ladies is illegal. Lying to a police officer in the course of an investigation is illegal. And on and on and on and on and on.

OK, I guess I went ahead and gave you a part of the list.

 

You're confusing destruction of property with free speech. Those things didn't belong to them

If they had the balls to discuss the issues with me, i would be happy to listen as they excercised free speech.

 

I do believe cross burning should be banned. I want to argue this, but it is hard to do so. I think its possible, but its tough. So I can't really try without thinking very hard for a while.

The KKK represents the deepest sort of hatred, racism, and bigotry that can be found on the planet. It is an evil organization, with no moral or social justification for existance.

Burning a cross is a representation of said evil and racism, yet I have to legally condone such action? I can't make a destinction between that sort of action and the sort of action found at war protests, legal protests, etc.? Can't our society be trusted to know when to draw the line? I think it can.

But again, it is hard as sh!t to argue against the freedom of speech, or at least argue what is protected by the freedom of speech. So I won't try. Ignore the cross burnings and maybe they'll go away!

 

I disagree slightly with this characterization of the ruling. The statute requires proof of an "intent to intimidate." The key issue is not whether the cross-burning is general or specific, but whether it is intended to intimidate.

I'm nitpicking only because by your interpretation I could go down to the town square, burn a cross and then claim I wasn't directing it at anyone and avoid punishment.

Where the Supreme Court couldn't reach a majority, and where I see the views of posters here to be mixed, is the question of whether it is ever possible to burn a cross without an intent to intimidate.

 

I hope you can read these two sentences carefully and see how totally inconsistent they are.