Illegal to burn the cross?

outside looking in

outside looking in

<b>Registered Member</b>
Virginia (I believe it was) voted 5 to 4 to make illegal the burning of the cross due to racial history and symbolism.

I'm going to get flamed for this... but wtf? You can burn the flag, you can disrupt business protesting the war, but you can't burn a cross?
 
Wouldn't a cross be a religous symbol, therefore eliminated from the jurisdiction of the government?

Not that I have a cross burning scheduled or anything, but it does seem odd.
 
I suppose freedom of expression is selective?

Perhaps they're making some sort of argument that burning a cross inflicts damage on certain persons in one way or another. Considering psychological or emotional damages, that's certainly possible. Is that enough to be in conflict with the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech and expression? What if the burning is done in private?

So you can assemble peaceably, and protest or demonstrate whatever you wish. You can interrupt normal business and cause monetary damages to individuals, and possibly even put peoples lives at risk, but you can't hurt someone's feelings.

Seems like that law is walking a very fine tightrope... one which is stretched between unconstitutional and hypocritical.
 
Just found out this wasn't a "Virginia" decision, but a Supreme court decision in a "Virginia vs. someone" case. I caught the tail end of it on NPR and missed some of the important facts.

From what I can gather, the ruling is that burning the cross 'for the purpose of intimidation' isn't protected by freedom of speech. So, burning the cross isn't really illegal, just that if push comes to shove and someone is tried under the premise that their intentions were to intimidate, they have no constitutional protection.

Interesting. Really opens up a big ol' can o' worms.
 
outside looking in said:
So you can assemble peaceably, and protest or demonstrate whatever you wish. You can interrupt normal business and cause monetary damages to individuals, and possibly even put peoples lives at risk, but you can't hurt someone's feelings.
Click to expand...

One could reverse the argument and say that burning the flag is hurtful also. I don't see it. Burning a cross should be legal, unless you're doing it in someone else's yard. It's not the speech or the symbols that we need to go after with the KKK. It's the acts of violence and intimidation.
 
Are you sure the supreme court decided this? Wow!!! That's clearly a first ammendment violation, either that, or flag burning isn't! Our rights are gettng tossed out the window it seems. Well, I guess we need to stop terrorist these days, we'll worry about freedom when we have more time for it :rolleyes:

Thats scary! What's next?
 
Ardsgaine said:
It's not the speech or the symbols that we need to go after with the KKK. It's the acts of violence and intimidation.
Click to expand...
Referencing the new information I posted above, this seems what the Supreme court is attempting to do. In principle I agree (much like I agree with the proposal made in Oregon concerning disruptive protestors). In practice (just as with the Oregon proposal), I think it's going to get very complicated, especially since this is now an official ruling.

Burning a cross in your yard would certianly be intimidating. What about burning it in my yard... right across from yours? Can it be burned as part of a peacful demonstration? Do you have to ensure that people susceptible to being intimidated don't accidentally witness the burning?
 
RD_151 said:
Are you sure the supreme court decided this? Wow!!! That's clearly a first ammendment violation, either that, or flag burning isn't! Our rights are gettng tossed out the window it seems. Well, I guess we need to stop terrorist these days, we'll worry about freedom when we have more time for it :rolleyes:

Thats scary! What's next?
Click to expand...

Yeah, apparently it is a Supreme Court decision. My first thought was tie-ins to flag burnings as well. That certainly hurts my feelings. :(
 
Soon there will be a decision to overturn this ruling, or to overturn the right to burn the flag. There is too much inconsistency. Those rulings cannot coexist for long!
 
outside looking in said:
From what I can gather, the ruling is that burning the cross 'for the purpose of intimidation'
Click to expand...
I more or less agree with you OLI, but anything that fucks with the klan, gimme more of that!
 
chcr said:
I more or less agree with you OLI, but anything that fucks with the klan, gimme more of that!
Click to expand...

It's true that this law isn't going to affect very many people outside the Klan. It sets a bad precedent though.
 
They should make them get a pyrotecnics permit before burning a cross or a flag...that way it's not illegal, just a big pain in the ass.
 
Burning the cross should not be illegal. It is unethical, immoral, and, given some circumstances, suicidal, but not illegal. As much as I hate the klan and what they stand for, I cannot agree with this ruling as a 'cover all' measure. Used as it is written (intimidation factor), I feel that there are other laws which already exist that can deal with this. One of which is arson (if done on somebody's front yard or in a public area). Public endangerment is also a good one.
 
chcr said:
I more or less agree with you OLI, but anything that fucks with the klan, gimme more of that!
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that I agreed with the law, I don't. However, the klan is a terrorist orginization, just like any of the Islamic terrorist groups or the IRA. No place for them in the world today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top