<h3>Supreme Court upholds cross burning ban</h3>
April 7, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- A divided Supreme Court upheld a state ban on cross burning, ruling Monday the history of racial intimidation attached to it outweighs the free speech protection of Ku Klux Klansmen or others who might use it.
A burning cross is an instrument of terror, and government should have the power to stamp out or punish its use, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the 5-4 ruling.
The protections afforded by the First Amendment "are not absolute," she wrote.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's only black member, dissented, but made clear his reasons have nothing to do with protecting free speech rights of the Klan. Thomas said the court didn't even have to consider the First Amendment implications because cross burning clearly is intimidation.
"Just as one cannot burn down someone's house to make a political point and then seek refuge in the First Amendment, those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point," he wrote.
"In our culture, cross burning has almost invariably meant lawlessness and understandably instills in its victims well-grounded fear of physical violence."
At issue was a 50-year-old Virginia law that makes it a crime to burn a cross as an act of intimidation. A lower court ruled the law muzzled free speech.
"While a burning cross does not inevitably convey a message of intimidation, often the cross burning intends that the recipients of the message fear for their lives," she wrote. "And when a cross burning is used to intimidate, few if any messages are more powerful."
O'Connor was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer.
The Supreme Court historically has been protective of First Amendment rights of unsavory or unpopular groups and causes, including the Klan, flag-burners, pornographers and strippers.
More than a decade ago, the court struck down a local law in St. Paul, Minn., that prohibited placing symbols including a burning cross or a swastika on someone else's property out of racial, religious or other bias.
The cross-burning case in Virginia evoked a mostly bygone era in the South, when "nightriders" set crosses ablaze as a symbol of intimidation to blacks and civil rights sympathizers. Virginia and other states tried to outlaw the practice, but the laws have run into trouble on free-speech grounds.
During oral arguments in the case in December, Thomas recalled what he called a centurylong "reign of terror" by the Klan and other white supremacy groups, and called the flaming cross "unlike any symbol in our society."
"The cross was a symbol of that reign of terror," Thomas said in apparent exasperation that a government lawyer was providing only tepid, legalistic justification for the Virginia law.
"My fear is ... that you're actually underestimating the symbolism of, and the effect of, the cross, the burning cross," Thomas said.
The moment was electric, in part because Thomas almost never speaks during the court's oral arguments, and because of his race.
The case began five years ago, with two separate prosecutions.
In one case, two white men in Virginia Beach, Va., ended a night of partying by trying to burn a 4-foot cross in the yard of a black neighbor, James Jubilee. Jubilee later moved his family out of the neighborhood because of concern for their safety.
In the other case, a Pennsylvania man was convicted of burning a 30-foot cross on private land in rural southern Virginia during a 1998 Klan rally.
Lawyers for Virginia told the court the Klan rally was held after whites became angry about mixed-race couples.
In addition to Virginia, anti-cross burning laws are on the books in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Montana, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington state and the District of Columbia.
The case is Virginia v. Black, 01-1107.

<h6>Source: Salon</h6>

So let me see if I have this straight...

Burning a cross--verboten
Burning a U.S. flag--ok

WTF? :confused:

So let me see if I have this straight...

Burning a cross--verboten
Burning a U.S. flag--ok

WTF? :confused: </font>[/QUOTE]As I understand it, it's because cross-burning has become symbiotic with racial hatred and racially-incited violence, particularly anti-black sentiments, that it's use has been ruled as an act of terror and intimidation against a specific group. My guess would be that flag-burning does not constitute a specific act of intimidation against a certain group, so doesn't get the same prohibition.

That was just my interpretation of the article.

<font color="plum">The two examples are not equal, <font color=white>HolyWarrior</font>.

As an American, I might feel angry or insulted when I see someone burning the flag - but I certainly do not feel threatened.

Because of it's history, the symbolism of a burning cross is most assuredly a very direct and personal threat against a specific person...not just a certain racial group. The article mentions that the two "incidents" involved placing the cross either "in the yard" or "near the home" of specific individuals.

That is an entirely different scenario.

As Justice Thomas correctly pointed out, almost no other symbol in American history carries the stigma of implied hate and racial prejudice as the burning cross.

I just find it shocking that 4 of the Justices actually supported "burning the cross" under the First Amendment. :eek: I think this is one of the few issues where agreement should have been obvious and unanimous.</font>

Agreed Cerek, as a native of Idaho, I hadn't actually realised that it was illegal there, nor that it was even necessary to make it so, with the exception of northern Idaho extremists, however since moving to PA I have become aware of more predjudice than I had thought possible. granted Idaho has a very small percentage of non-caucasions and so my view may be incorrectly colored, but i was very surprised to find out the amount of support the Klan recieves in the area.

IMO, both these cases were pursued on the wrong basis. These are not freedom of speech issues. These are private property issues.

If I burn something I own on my own property, whether it be a candle, a flag, or a cross, I am merely using my own property as I see fit. Surely no one would have a problem with my burning a couple 2x4s I have lying about. However, if I put them into a particular configuration, some people get irritated. If I were to burn spools of red, white and blue thread, no one would object, yet weave them into a certain configuration, and Republicans across the land will want to lock me up.

The problem is that neither Socialist Party #1 nor Socialist Party #2 want to remind people that the whole purpose of government in the first place is to preserve the "inalienable" rights to life, liberty and property. If they were to acknowledge the sanctity of property, they might have a hard time justifing conscription, a clear statement of the belief that government owns the serfs, and taxes, a clear statement of the belief that everything you own is really the property of the government, yours to use only so long as you use it "properly"...

[ 04-08-2003, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

The problem is when you start burning your cross on someone elses lawn.

Up here it may be classifed as a minor form of a hate crime.

Oh, no problem at all. If you are burning your cross on his property, you are violating his property rights. You can only burn a cross on your neighbor's property with his permission, and if he does not give you permission, you must find somewhere else to have your bonfire.

<font color="#ffccff">Thorfinn I don't know where you live, but if you burn anything outside here in Maryland you will be cited and fined for breaking any number of clean air ordinances..hell here they even have a law that you cannot smoke in your own home if the smoke manages to escape and irritate your neighbor....

We aren't allowed to burn anything outside...crosses, flags, leaves, trash ...the anti-polution people reign supreme [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Weird, isn't it?

You start by teaching 6-year olds that they have to get permission to go to the bathroom.

You keep the process going by making arbitrary restrictions on junior-high and high school students, constantly threatening them about the effect "your non-conformance will have on your permanent record, mister".

This leads straight into the acceptance of the mindset that unless you have a permit from the government to do something, like drive, fish, ride a bike, etc., you may not do that action, and even if you do have such a license, you have to submit to "reasonable restrictions".

Pretty soon, you will have them asking for permission to paint their front door a different color, or put some window boxes up, or help your kid put a clubhouse up in the backyard. People will even become convinced that it is OK to ban anything that might conceivably offend some other person.

Before long, you will be able to place armed guards at key points in the transportation system, and make people produce a picture ID at any time and at any place, and once you then disarm the populace, can have a fully developed police state, with the tacit acceptance of the entire population.

Yeah, it happened in other countries, but Americans are too darned smart to fall for it. It could never happen here...

[ 04-08-2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]