Supreme Court upholds cross burning ban

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: 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.

I thought you already needed a building permit to build any form of building on your property

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

[Thorfinn]

Q.E.D.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by MagiK: ...the anti-polution people reign supreme [img]smile.gif[/img]

Can you burn them!? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

That would seem to cut down on the law polution!

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Quote: Originally posted by MagiK: ...the anti-polution people reign supreme [img]smile.gif[/img]

Can you burn them!? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

That would seem to cut down on the law polution![/QUOTE]
No they are flame retardant, but I think there is a hunting season for them...I think they are good eatin

[Grojlach]

*shakes head*
So how did this topic get derailed into another environmentalist-bashing session, again?

[ 04-09-2003, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Night Stalker]

Sorry Groj!

I was being silly! To bring this somewhat back on topic. I don't have a problem with the ruling. For public safety reasons, fires do need suppervision and control. That doesn't even touch on the threat of violence that cross burning implies. Arson is a crime, burning a cross (without any other connotations) is arson. There shouldn't be any 1st Ammendment questions here.