[BTR]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030407/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_cross_burning_19

Supreme Court Upholds Cross-Burning Ban


By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can punish Ku Klux Klansmen and others who set crosses afire, finding that a burning cross is an instrument of racial terror so threatening that it overshadows free speech concerns.

The court voted 6-3 to uphold a 50-year-old Virginia law making it a crime to burn a cross as an act of intimidation. A lower court had ruled the law muzzled free speech.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites), writing for the majority, said the protections afforded by the First Amendment "are not absolute" and do not necessarily shield cross burners.

---------
See link for the rest

[faustulus]

another nail in our coffin

[Chris Rhines]

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites), writing for the majority, said the protections afforded by the First Amendment "are not absolute"... Have I mentioned lately that I have no faith at all in the Supreme Court?

- Chris

[Marko Kloos]

If you don't afford the right to free speech especially to the most vile and contemptuous segment of society, the First Amendment has no meaning at all.

[Ala Dan]

Well, I haven't witnessed a cross burning in year's; but
it use to be a common occurence here in DixieLand!:uhoh:

The last one I remember was about 1963, 13 miles SSW
of Birmingham out in an open field. Seemed like there
was 500+ KKK member's with full robe, headdress, and
masks. When I passed by in my car, the cross was already
a blaze; and I'm here to tell ya' it was a HUGE bon-fire!


*FootNote- the KKK Grand Dragon, Mr. Robert Shelton
passed away just recently in Tuscaloosa, AL.


Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[Betty]

I lived in Pulaski, TN for 10 years. Pulaski has the unfortunate history of being the birthplace of the KKK, and is known as that. The KKK obtain their marching permits just like everybody else, and they do their thing about twice a year. The town ignores them. They don't make the newspaper anymore. Over the past 10 years the marches have dwindled to small numbers.

I never see them burn a cross - I'm sure it would violate some kind of fire ordnance, and the PFD would roll out the big red truck and hose them all down. :p

[Jim March]

Good decision.

It's a DEATH THREAT, guys, it always was, it always will be. The first amendment does not cover criminal death threats, and never did. These wackos have hidden behind the 1st Am. for too long, this is just fixing a very old wrong.

[cordex]

Good decision.

It's a DEATH THREAT, guys, it always was, it always will be. The first amendment does not cover criminal death threats, and never did. These wackos have hidden behind the 1st Am. for too long, this is just fixing a very old wrong.
I agree and disagree. The decision was good but not necessarily for all the reasons they listed in the opinion.

The Virginia statute
It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or to cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
If it banned Joe UberWizard of the Klan from lighting up a cross in his own yard, I'd say that the law was wrong and unconstitutional and would be as angry as many of you. However, banning the burning of an object on the property of a non-consenting owner doesn't ruffle my feathers a'tall.

(I had originally typed up a reactionary "First Amendment this" and "Constitutionally protected that" until I actually read the law in question.)

[JoeSF]

How come it's against the law to burn a cross but not the flag?

[Coronach]

Thats a very good question.

Mike

[Jim March]

Quoting:

How come it's against the law to burn a cross but not the flag?

Because burning the flag isn't a death threat.

'Kay, LOOK, y'all: in the "old South", a burning cross on somebody's lawn had a specific meaning of "stop what you're doing, or leave, or DIE" and they meant it. When it was in a public place, the meaning was "the Klan is here, we're opposed to any measure to give blacks/Jews/whatever equal protection, and we'll use violence to halt the process".

It's not a "general protest" like flag burning, it was a specific threat of violence and criminal violence usually following that initial warning.

If somebody tried to burn a cross on my front lawn, I'd do my level best to kill every one of 'em, right there and then. And I'd be completely morally justified in doing so. Legally? I'll take my chance with a jury; the reality is, if not stopped there, the next step based on their well-documented history is either ambush, or arson of an occupied building.

Last, flag burning has never, so far as I'm aware, been done on somebody else's property as intimidation. It's a form of public political protest and as such, deserves protection.

It's the difference between the terms "I disagree with the US government" and "I'm going to kill you for your legal political stance".

[Sir Galahad]

Got to agree with Jim here. Cross-burnings on other peoples' lawns are terroristic threatenings. In the past, they were followed up by shotgun blasts through windows and firebombings. It's no different than sending a written death threat, which is also NOT protected speech.

[firestar]

What is the deal with cross burnings anyway? What is it supposed to mean? I am just a dumb Yankee so I am not to speed on the quaint Southern traditions.:D

Why is burning a cross a threat? What does it represent? I am not being a wise guy, I really don't know.

[Chris Rhines]

Was listening to NPR earlier this evening, and they had a piece on this decision. The upshot was, two Klan guys went back for a retrial for burning a cross on a black family's front lawn, but they upheld an overturned conviction of some Grand Kleagle who burned a cross on his own property, during a private rally. To that extent, I'm okay with the ruling. Doing anything to another person's property without their consent should quite rightly be a crime.

That said, I stand by my previous indictment of the USC. They came to the right decision by accident, and then justified it in a way that provides precident for yet more violations of our rights. Thanks, guys!

Firestar: Basically, it means, "Stop doing whatever you are doing, and get out of town while you're at it, or next time it'll be your house that burns, with you in it."

- Chris

[Bruce H]

I always wondered what they were thinking? Standing around in formation in bright white robes with a large fire at night. Talk about a target rich environment. Iron sights with the dark for cover.

[Telperion]

Chris, I think we've known for a long time 1A rights are not "absolute." Lest I cite some trite example involving a theater and saying a certain four-letter word.

As I see it this wasn't even a 1A case. Burning a cross (or a circle or whatever) on another person's property with intent to intimidate has nothing to do with rights to expression. For the reasons others have stated, I think USSC made a good call on this.

[Glock Glockler]

It's a DEATH THREAT, guys, it always was, it always will be

Incorrect. It is a symbol, and as such, it ultimately has whatever meaning you apply to it.

You might take the "thumbs up" gesture to be a positive one, but other people and cultures will react very hostilly if you do it towards them.

What about any type of contact with someone's left hand, do you find that offensive, many middle eastern cultures do?

Long story short, you are trying to take your subjective impression of something and mandate it into law. Bad call.

This has to do with basic property rights, and if it's on my property, I should be able to burn a cross if I damn well please. Burning cross dressers, however, is another matter...:)

[Telperion]

This has to do with basic property rights, and if it's on my property, I should be able to burn a cross if I damn well please. Burning cross dressers, however, is another matter...

You still can, because the Virginia law only prohibits you from burning it on another person's property or public property.

You're right it is a symbol, which means it stands for something else. That something else being a death threat. In our culture, that meaning is very attached.

[cuchulainn]

IMPORTANT FACT: The Court struck down the part of the law that treats any cross burning as evidence of intimidation. Presumably, now those who apply the law must prove that the burning was done with the intent intimidate.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/07/scotus.cross.burning/

What is the deal with cross burnings anyway? What is it supposed to mean? I am just a dumb Yankee so I am not to speed on the quaint Southern traditions. It's a perversion of an old Scottish tradition. The highland clans called the men to war by burning crosses on hilltops -- Appalachia in VA, WV, KY, TN and NC was heavily settled by Scotch-Irish, and many of its traditions have Scottish roots.

Note the St. Andrew's cross in the Battle Flag. It's not there by accident. It's also why bluegrass, a Celtic derivative music, evolved in Appalachia.

[ahadams]

My reaction is the same as Bruce H's - all those white robes make beeyooteeful targets and I would have no problem at all pulling the trigger on racists if they ever bothered my family or my neighbors.

[Glock Glockler]

In our culture, that meaning is very attached.

No "our culture", it's what it means to you. I might think they're showing their distaste for a Roman means of executing foreigners.

[cuchulainn]

In our culture, that meaning is very attached. Not according to the Supreme Court, which today STRUCK DOWN the part of the Virginia law that said the meaning of intimidation is automatically attached to the burning.

Got that? Struck down. The SCOTUS disagreed with the Virginia law that the intimidation is automatic.

See second para: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/07/scotus.cross.burning/

[Telperion]

Got that? Struck down. The SCOTUS disagreed with the Virginia law that the intimidation is automatic.

Got it. Don't hurt me now, please. :D

Good, the prima facie clause deserved to die.

[cuchulainn]

I would never hurt a pipsqueak like you. What do you think I am, a bully ;)

[Mike Irwin]

As I've said before....

Even the Founding Fathers recognized that no right was absolute, especially when one person's rights interfered with another person's rights.

At that point, it is, and MUST be, a balancing act between competing rights.

[QKRTHNU]

If somebody tried to burn a cross on my front lawn, I'd do my level best to kill every one of 'em, right there and then.
Ummm, if someone tried to light ANYTHING on fire, while on my property, without my permission, I would be pissed off.

That said someone can build a paper mache life-size replica of me, hang it on a religious icon of their choice and put a big banner up that says "Death to the Infidel" and light it on fire for all I care.

That is as long as it's on their OWN DAMN PROPERTY!

[Wildalaska]

What Jim March and Mike Irwin said....

WildnorightsareabsoluteAlaska

[Tamara]

Another one of those wonderful dichotomies:

A true civil libertarian would say that burning stuff (as long as it's your stuff on your property) is protected speech (whether it's crosses, flags, baby Jesus dolls or life-size illuminated plastic Santas).

A hard-core law-and-order type might insist that any symbolic burning is a bad thing and an incitement to riot.

Apparently, though, there's a bunch of people who think torching flags is bad, but burning crosses is okay, while another slice of the populace thinks lighting up a flag is political speech, but cindering a cross is a terroristic threat.

Interesting.

[Feanaro]

I'm glad the court struck down the part of the law where you couldn't burn a cross, ever. I don't support the KKK, in fact I believe that lower human beings are harder to find. :barf: That being said, they can do as they wish on their property as long as no one is harmed.

Burn one in MY yard however and they will recieve a warning and then lead.

[CZ-75]

I'm wondering why they needed a special law to prosecute?

Wouldn't this be considered "arson"?

Sounds like the motivation for this law is the same general motivation behind "hate crimes" legislation, which is to provide some excuse for special treatment of certain groups by mandating additional penalties for those who commit crimes of violence against them. Never mind that I've never heard of a "love" crime, or that were punishments adequate to begin with, these laws wouldn't be any more than symbolic feel-good window dressing (which isn't to say they aren't anyway).

I'm opposed to this law because it is the jury's place to decide intent and the prosecution's to prove it. One-size-fits-all legislation that decides intent is wrong and a clear indication that legislators don't trust our legal system and think it is broken. To usurp the power of the legal system to make it's own decisions, rather than bother to fix it is an indication of a deeper dilema and a greater wrong.

[Jim March]

Quoting Glock Glockler

This has to do with basic property rights, and if it's on my property, I should be able to burn a cross if I damn well please. Burning cross dressers, however, is another matter...:)

Let me explain something.

Tomorrow, I'm going to Sacramento (over 100 miles away) to testify in favor of AB462, a pro-gun bill that would make any victim of a hate crime or domestic violence crime the automatic possessor of the "good cause" necessary to score CCW.

While this is a modest step, it's a good platform to expose the current abuses and if it passes, it'll make things VERY interesting for the sheriffs and chiefs.

The Assembly Safety Committee where it's being heard is a very liberal bunch. The chairman, Leno, was known as a gay/bi/lesbian/transgender activist in San Francisco.

So one of the other people specifically asked to testify by Assemblyman Ray Haynes' office is "Nicky". "Nicky" is biologically male, but won't look it tomorrow! We live in approximately the same area and are carpooling together.

"Nicky" does more for gun rights, and delivers a bigger impact, than almost every other gunnie I know.

That wasn't a funny comment about burning 'em.

[Glock Glockler]

Jim, I don't know if my communication ability has hit a new low, but I am against burning cross dressers.

Burning crosses - Should be Protected

Burning Cross dressers - Should Not be protected

What about this is complicted?

[Jim March]

Ah.

Sigh.

It's what I get for cramming a last-minute document I didn't know I needed tomorrow in Sac by pulling an all-nighter :o.

[hondo68]

The whole article is misleading, leftist propaganda. Cross burning is OK unless they can prove intent to initmidate. Let ye amoungst you, who have not thrown two crossed sticks on the campfire, cast the first stone.

[tyme]

The statute, even the part upheld by the USSC, is flawed. Burning a cross, especially one brought from elsewhere, on someone's property may not even qualify as criminal mischief. It's certainly tresspassing, though. We don't need more statutes criminalizing really low-level crimes just because they might lead to more serious ones. Maybe if jaywalking had carried a 20 year sentence and was enforced, JFK would be alive today.

So what if nobody burns crosses on others' property without racist intent anymore? How many people were hurt or killed (in ways that could have been prevented by application of this law) in the last 10 years by people who lit up crosses in their yards? Less than a dozen? Maybe it won't affect any non-murderers or non-racists, but does that make the law okay? It seems like a clear-cut murder prevention and prosecution task to me.

Feanaro, you'd better be absolutely sure shooting someone for burning a cross in your front yard is legal. Don't suggest that you'd do it otherwise; it's unwise regardless unless you know it's legal and know the idiots who are doing it to be racist. From what I found of AL state law, it would not be a good shoot, and it's almost certainly not legal in any state during the daytime. Guns are not tools to solve anything but the most serious social problems.

[JoeSF]

If somebody tried to burn a cross on my front lawn, I'd do my level best to kill every one of 'em, right there and then.
That's how some people might feel about the flag.
Without defending the idiots in the KKK, the decision is the type of thinking that gives abortion which is not a "right" specifically guaranteed by the constitution more protection under the law than "the 2nd amendment". (It is only because of political correctness that states cannot make laws restricting abortion but the 2nd amend can be restricted by local govts.)
Burning anything on someone’s property is against the law already. What people do in demonstrations where they are exercising the lawful right of assembly is a different matter.
Which is why we tolerate the idiots burning the flag.

[scottgun]

The question of why the KKK burns crosses, well a few years ago I caught a Jerry Springer episode with who else, but a couple of white robed low lifes who would say "we don't burn the cross, we just light it on fire" OK, great answer. The reason for lighting the cross is to symbolize the eternal light of something 'er other. Some how displaying the eternal light on someone else's front lawn in the middle of the night dressed in white robes just isn't the good will gesture they make it out to be. It is to intimidate. And no, I usually don't watch Springer, it just caught my attention.

Like a few others noted, burning a cross on someone elses property is not free speech, but intimidation. Burning a cross on your own property, I guess is still intimidation. I don't like seeing laws that ban symbols or symbolic gestures, but the intent is pretty clear.

Also, did you know that most states have laws prohibiting wearing a mask in public. This originates from trying to stop the KKK from public marches and demonstrations dressed in their hoods and sheets.