Supreme Court upholds cross burning ban

[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. 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 .

 

[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.