Sup Ct. Upholds Ban on Cross Burning

[Tmy]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/07/scotus.cross.burning.ap/index.html


I'm ok with the decision.

There sure have been alot of 5-4 votes. I wonder why the Oral arguments arent televised. Instaed we get boring old congress.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

THOSE F**KERS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Next thing you know they are going to outlaw the burning of the flag!

[Richard G]

The ban is nothing to do with free speach, rather the the fire codes in municipalities that prohibit open burning. Even if they upheld it as free speech (which I don't think it is), you could still be arrested in municipalities for fire code violation. Same goes for flag burning.

[Tmy]

I think theres a big difference tween buring a flag and a cross. Buring a flag is insulting, burning a cross is threatening.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Oh, so I can still burn the flag? Can I get a permit to burn a cross in my front yard?

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Tmy
I think theres a big difference tween buring a flag and a cross. Buring a flag is insulting, burning a cross is threatening.

I suppose I never thought of it that way, because I don't see in the past where the black men were prejudiced against in america.

So they are nto restricting my free speech but are upholding the 'you can't threaten someone' law?

That sounds good, thanks you for the clarification.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Richard G
The ban is nothing to do with free speach, rather the the fire codes in municipalities that prohibit open burning. Even if they upheld it as free speech (which I don't think it is), you could still be arrested in municipalities for fire code violation. Same goes for flag burning. The article didn't mention anything about fire codes. They made it seem pretty clear that it was a symbol of terror and that's why it wasn't protected by the first.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Upchurch
The article didn't mention anything about fire codes. They made it seem pretty clear that it was a symbol of terror and that's why it wasn't protected by the first.


great so more of terrorism crap to tear away my first amendment?

Who gets to be deciding what is terrorist? Will I still get to burn the flag or not?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot



great so more of terrorism crap to tear away my first amendment?

Who gets to be deciding what is terrorist? Will I still get to burn the flag or not? What if I burn some pieces of wood that make a T? Or an X? Or a K, or maybe KKK? Or GWB?

Laws like this are not very practical, to say the least. :p

[WildCat]

Under the reasoning the SC used, could groups be banned? For instance, the KKK? Then what? Seems like a very slippery slope.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Tmy
I think theres a big difference tween buring a flag and a cross. Buring a flag is insulting, burning a cross is threatening.
That depends on the circumstances. Have you ever been present at a demonstration in a foreign country at which your own country's flag was burned? I have, and believe me, it is extremely intimidating. The message was crystal clear that the protesters would happily have used an American citizen as kindling rather than an American flag, had the opportunity presented itself.

However, I agree that U.S. citizens burning a U.S. flag on U.S. soil does not carry the same implications.

[mumchup]

The reason that cross burning in particular was deemed threatening, as opposed to racist speech or groups, is that they have been used primarily in the past to threaten people. You can say that you hate someone, but it would be illegal to call them and threaten to kill them. The case was made that burning crosses have been historically used specifically to threaten certain people.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by mumchup
The reason that cross burning in particular was deemed threatening, as opposed to racist speech or groups, is that they have been used primarily in the past to threaten people. You can say that you hate someone, but it would be illegal to call them and threaten to kill them. The case was made that burning crosses have been historically used specifically to threaten certain people.

But so has the KKK itself, street gangs, labor unions (in some instances), etc. Could all these groups now be outlawed because of this ruling? Seems that a good case could now be made for it.

[Tmy]

In the case a couple of guys burned a cross on a black familys lawn. I dont see the connection to gangs and labour unions.

I dont think spraypainting "The Bloods will get you" on someones garage would count as free speech.

[mumchup]

Originally posted by WildCat


But so has the KKK itself, street gangs, labor unions (in some instances), etc. Could all these groups now be outlawed because of this ruling? Seems that a good case could now be made for it.

The difference, according to the court, is that cross burning is traditionally used for intimidation, not to express an opinion. It was called by Thomas "unlike any symbol in our society."

I think they clearly made the point that there is a difference between the right to free speech and open threats. If someone from the KKK, a street gang or a labor union says something that can be reasonably considered a threat, it isn't considered free speech.
And the S.C. decided that a burning cross has enough of a history as a threat that a reasonable person would consider it to be so.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Tmy
In the case a couple of guys burned a cross on a black familys lawn. I dont see the connection to gangs and labour unions.

Does this mean cross burning is banned at all times, in all places, under all circumstances, or only when it's done on someone else's property without their permission?


I dont think spraypainting "The Bloods will get you" on someones garage would count as free speech.

What about doing so on your own garage?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Tmy
In the case a couple of guys burned a cross on a black familys lawn. I dont see the connection to gangs and labour unions.

I dont think spraypainting "The Bloods will get you" on someones garage would count as free speech.

Clearly they had no right to burn the cross on private property against the wishes of the property owner, the same as in gang graffiti. But the SC went a step further with this one, for instance it would be similar to outlawing the Bloods gang symbols, not just the act of drawing them on private or public property. Labor unions often try to intimidate strike-breakers w/ threatening phone calls, vandalism of their property, etc. On rare instances they have resorted to murder. (http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ihy971204.html)
It seems to me this action by the SC (warning - bad metaphor alert!) opens up a door that has long been firmly locked. After all, free speech protections are supposed to apply even to the most despicable forms of speech, not just speech everyone agrees w/.
I suspect this ruling will be revisited in the years to come as more laws get passed based on it.

[Tmy]

I havent seen the written law. Im sure its well crafted to withstand a 1st amendment attack.

Ever notice that racist speech seems to be so well protected. 104 Congessman can sign a letter looking to have an anti-US troop Professor fired, but I doubt if you can get that much attention for a cross burning incident.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Tmy
I havent seen the written law. Im sure its well crafted to withstand a 1st amendment attack.

Ever notice that racist speech seems to be so well protected. 104 Congessman can sign a letter looking to have an anti-US troop Professor fired, but I doubt if you can get that much attention for a cross burning incident.

But did they sign the letter as U.S. Congressmen or as U.S. Citizens?

[mumchup]

I tend to have a problem with anyone who wants to limit someone else's rights just because they don't agree. However, I do have a problem with someone trying to infringe on the constitutional rights (life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness) of another; and then claiming that it's nothing but "Free Speech"
It is Free Speech to open your mouth and remove all doubt that you are an idiot, but not to tell me that you will kill me if I don't move from your town.
The points about unions and such threatening and hurting people are examples of things that are not protected under Free Speech, and those things are currently illegal.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Tmy
Ever notice that racist speech seems to be so well protected.

In the USA, I've noticed that just about all forms of speech are well protected. Is there some reason racist speech should be any different?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot


But did they sign the letter as U.S. Congressmen or as U.S. Citizens?

I havent seen the letter but reading tween' the lines was a clear message that "we the high and mighty Federal lawmakers (who give your school lots of money and support) do not approve". Im not sure that they used Congressman prefixs to sign their names but I doubt its a coincidence that they were all congressman.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by WMT1


In the USA, I've noticed that just about all forms of speech are well protected. Is there some reason racist speech should be any different?

I dont see the protection to be a problem, its the reaction that bothers me. Sort of this underlying racism that condones the speech. Burn a flag........BIG RESPONCE, Rail against GW or the War....OUTRAGEIOUS .......Burn a cross.........O GEE here comes Jesse Jackson and his whining.

For example the 7 (or is it 9) words the FCC wont allow on TV. None of them are racial slurs.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Upchurch
. . . They made it seem pretty clear that it was a symbol of terror and that's why it wasn't protected by the first. The court says that cross-burning intended as racial intimidation is unlawful but that cross-burning not so intended is okay. So it might be that nothing is protected speech if it is intended as racial intimidation. Who says what the intention is? Do we assume that when the KKK burns a cross, or anything else, it's racial intimidation and if the black muslims do it, it might not be? Public-burning and air-pollution laws are easier to figure out.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont see the protection to be a problem, its the reaction that bothers me. Sort of this underlying racism that condones the speech. Burn a flag........BIG RESPONCE, Rail against GW or the War....OUTRAGEIOUS .......Burn a cross.........O GEE here comes Jesse Jackson and his whining.

I don't see much foundation for this. As far as I can tell, whenever any of these things occurs, it is met with outspoken criticism, none any more so than cross burning. And in particular, while you might find someone who would respond with the Jesse Jackson comment, you'd be hard pressed to make the case that it's a typical response.


For example the 7 (or is it 9) words the FCC wont allow on TV. None of them are racial slurs.

As far as I'm concerned, the more important issue is whether any words should be banned at all, not whether somebody got left off the list.

[swellman]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot


But did they sign the letter as U.S. Congressmen or as U.S. Citizens?

Here is the letter

http://www.house.gov/hayworth/jdcontent/news/040103.shtml

[schplurg]

Sandra Day O'Connor
"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," O'Connor wrote for the 5-4 majority in Monday's ruling. "And when a cross burning is used to intimidate," she wrote, "few if any messages are more powerful."
The problems I have with this law are in Sandy's own words (emphasized by me). Why can't this be determined on a case by case basis, instead of resorting to a "blanket" law that forbids the act regardless of intent? I understand the history of this symbol very well and the perceived threat it can convey, but I think intent should play a part in this. I don't think one can say that it is an obvious threat to burn a cross, at least in a legal sense, in fact she said this herself. Even if 98% of cross burnings are found to be threatening, there is that other 2% that bothers me (stat invented by me). Intent should be proven, as it probably would be in most cases anyways. But not necessarily, and that's the catch.

I do think cross burning is a disgusting practice and I don't condone it, just for the record. I also believe that a person should not be thrown in jail for safely burning a piece of cloth, even if that cloth happens to have an American flag imprinted on it. It's a law based on emotion, not logic.

BTW, of the 7 words you can't say on TV, "NYPD Blue" has used 2 of them, if not 3. Piss, tits, and I'm not sure but I believe I heard '********' used as well. Also prick and ******* are favorites of the show. The 7, according to Carlin were, sh*t, piss, c*nt, f*ck, c*ck sucker, mother f*cker and tits. Man I have a filthy mouth!

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by schplurg

The problems I have with this law are in Sandy's own words (emphasized by me). Why can't this be determined on a case by case basis, instead of resorting to a "blanket" law that forbids the act regardless of intent? I understand the history of this symbol very well and the perceived threat it can convey, but I think intent should play a part in this.


According to the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/08/politics/08SCOT.html it seems that it is supposed to be determined on a case by case basis:

From the New York Times

The Supreme Court ruled today that states may make it a crime to burn a cross with a purpose to intimidate, as long as the law clearly gives prosecutors the burden of proving that the act was intended as a threat and not as a form of symbolic expression.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Tmy


I havent seen the letter but reading tween' the lines was a clear message that "we the high and mighty Federal lawmakers (who give your school lots of money and support) do not approve". Im not sure that they used Congressman prefixs to sign their names but I doubt its a coincidence that they were all congressman.


I might have a problem with this. If the congressmen want to say that their 'powers as congressmen' are behind the letter then there is a problem. The congressmen are respresentatives of many many people, so unless all those people agree then the congressmen should have only used their voices as U.S. citizens.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by schplurg

The problems I have with this law are in Sandy's own words (emphasized by me). Why can't this be determined on a case by case basis, instead of resorting to a "blanket" law that forbids the act regardless of intent? I understand the history of this symbol very well and the perceived threat it can convey, but I think intent should play a part in this. I don't think one can say that it is an obvious threat to burn a cross, at least in a legal sense, in fact she said this herself. Even if 98% of cross burnings are found to be threatening, there is that other 2% that bothers me (stat invented by me). Intent should be proven, as it probably would be in most cases anyways. But not necessarily, and that's the catch.

Interesting point. To continue your hypothetical, should the 98% be forced to be subject to intimidation so that the 2% can enjoy their rights? At what point does the right to free expression intrude on the right to freedom from harassment, or is that an acceptable cost of the right to free expression.

Btw, general question:- wouldn't planting a flaming cross in someone's garden be enough to constitute harrassment or threatening behaviour without having to criminalise cross burning?