CDZ Why Are Cross Burnings Protected Under the First Amendment?

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

A small thing called freedom of expression and freedom of speech - no matter how unpalatable the gesture might be.

The problem is, if it's amended to the point where if it may cause offence to people then it's not allowed (and there's every chance that will happen at some point) then you open the biggest can of worms ever that you'll never get the lid back on.

Because, everything offends someone, somewhere.

For example I stayed at my Aunt and Uncles last night - this morning my Aunt & Uncle were watching a documentary on George Michael. Was OK with it until it got to the bit about him committing gay sex acts in public toilets and then it said how instead of finishing his career it made him bigger and more popular. Then he was on talk shows laughing about it with audience clapping and them all embracing it.

The reason I'm saying this is because the celebration of it offended me on many levels. The fact it was popularised.

My Auntie found it funny. I was offended.

But I don't want the documentary cancelled and never shown again and the TV station and show makers lobbied and have them all never work again.

That's the difference.

I accept it's something I didn't like and me being offended is no big deal because I'm nothing special.

It's a shame that's not a general way of thinking and others feelings matter more than others on some issues.

Sex between consenting adults irrespective of the circumstances doesn't come close to being comparable to an act done to intimidate and terrorize other human beings, particularly when said acts are sanctioned by society and the government.

and the world champion for missing the point today is .... *drum roll

YOU

I didn't miss your point. You were attempting to compare your distaste for gay sex with black people being threatened with physical harm/and or death and it being deemed "protected activity" under the 1st amendment. While the 1st amendment may provide protection for both they are not even close to being the same.

Being offended by activities engaged in by other people that doesn't impact you in the least is not comparable to being targeted by individuals whose activities have been deemed protected, even when they operate outside of the lawful limits of that protection.

Sort of like what's going on in the nation's Capitol recently.

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

A small thing called freedom of expression and freedom of speech - no matter how unpalatable the gesture might be.

The problem is, if it's amended to the point where if it may cause offence to people then it's not allowed (and there's every chance that will happen at some point) then you open the biggest can of worms ever that you'll never get the lid back on.

Because, everything offends someone, somewhere.

For example I stayed at my Aunt and Uncles last night - this morning my Aunt & Uncle were watching a documentary on George Michael. Was OK with it until it got to the bit about him committing gay sex acts in public toilets and then it said how instead of finishing his career it made him bigger and more popular. Then he was on talk shows laughing about it with audience clapping and them all embracing it.

The reason I'm saying this is because the celebration of it offended me on many levels. The fact it was popularised.

My Auntie found it funny. I was offended.

But I don't want the documentary cancelled and never shown again and the TV station and show makers lobbied and have them all never work again.

That's the difference.

I accept it's something I didn't like and me being offended is no big deal because I'm nothing special.

It's a shame that's not a general way of thinking and others feelings matter more than others on some issues.

Sex between consenting adults irrespective of the circumstances doesn't come close to being comparable to an act done to intimidate and terrorize other human beings, particularly when said acts are sanctioned by society and the government.

and the world champion for missing the point today is .... *drum roll

YOU

I didn't miss your point. You were attempting to compare your distaste for gay sex with black people being threatened with physical harm/and or death and it being deemed "protected activity" under the 1st amendment. While the 1st amendment may provide protection for both they are not even close to being the same.

Being offended by activities engaged in by other people that doesn't impact you in the least is not comparable to being targeted by individuals whose activities have been deemed protected, even when they operate outside of the lawful limits of that protection.

Sort of like what's going on in the nation's Capitol recently.

Still missing the point.

Follow what I said from top-to-bottom - one thing leads into the other.

It comes down to offence.

I can meet you half way and say if something incites violence etc then all bets are off - but then that's totally subjective and not clear cut.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

You're original premise is flawed. Cross-burning has been prohibited as a "hate crime" for some time now and there is case law that has convicted under those premises in FL.

Are you referring to Virginia v Black (2003) or some other case?

States can outlaw cross burning, a historical symbol of hate, without violating free-speech protections in cases where the perpetrator is trying to intimidate or terrorize someone, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.​

​

The 6-3 ruling upheld a Virginia law and similar bans in other states, including California. Supporters of the decision said the court recognized that cross burning was a threat of violence, not free speech, while some civil liberties advocates said the court was weakening constitutional protections for unpopular ideas.​

​

Manuel Medeiros, solicitor general in the California attorney general's office, said cross burning is "not just an expression of views. It's actually putting people in fear for their own safety." He said the ruling was particularly welcome at a time of fears of violence against Muslims and Middle Easterners.

But Rebecca Glenberg, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, said the ruling regulates speech unequally. She said the same conduct "should be prosecuted under a neutral law that doesn't target specific symbols."

The ruling means "the government has the authority to single out particular symbols for criminalization," said Josh Wheeler, an attorney with the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, affiliated with the University of Virginia. "What about a Klan costume?"

The ruling returned the justices to the often emotional area of government regulation of conduct that can also be considered symbolic speech.

In 1969, the court upheld a man's conviction for burning his draft card during the Vietnam War. But 20 years later, a closely divided court ruled that burning the U.S. flag was constitutionally protected free expression.

In 1992, the court said outlawing the display of certain symbols, such as a burning cross, because they might provoke fear likewise was a violation of free speech. But that ruling did not address narrower laws that required prosecutors to prove that a cross was being burned as an express threat of violence.

50-YEAR-OLD LAW

The 50-year-old Virginia law makes it a crime to burn a cross on someone else's property, or in a public place, with the intent to intimidate any person or group.

Thirteen other states have similar laws, including California, which prohibits burning or desecrating a cross or other religious symbol on another person's property, without permission, for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant.

A state appellate court upheld the law in 1994, affirming the conviction of a 16-year-old who burned a cross in the yard of an interracial couple in Humboldt County.

Another appellate court upheld in 2000 the conviction of an Orange County man who burned a cross in the yard of a Jewish neighbor.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling Monday dealt with two Virginia prosecutions: one from a cross burning at a 1998 Ku Klux Klan rally, held with the property owner's permission, and the other from an attempted cross burning by two white men in the yard of an African American neighbor in 1998.


SINGLED OUT
The Virginia Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional in both cases, saying it singled out cross burning for punishment because of its message.

But the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that cross burning, because of its "long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence," can be punished as long as prosecutors show it is being used for intimidation.

"Regardless of whether the message is a political one or whether the message is also meant to intimidate, the burning of a cross is a symbol of hate," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote.

"The First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation," she wrote.

But, O'Connor said, one provision of the Virginia law is unconstitutional because it allows a jury to conclude that a cross burning was committed for the purpose of intimidation, without prosecutors having to present any evidence that was what the defendant had in mind.

The court cited that provision in overturning a Klan leader's conviction for leading the cross burning at the KKK rally and ordered a lower court to reconsider the second case.

CONDUCT, NOT SPEECH

Of the six justices who agreed that states could outlaw cross burning, one, Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote a separate opinion saying free-speech concerns were misplaced because the state was punishing conduct, not speech.​

"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," said Thomas, the court's only African American. He dissented from the portion of the ruling that overturned part of the Virginia law.​

Justices David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed an overall dissent, saying the Virginia law could be used to ban not only intimidating conduct but also a "particular message of white supremacy."​

​

Most cross burning ruled illegal / No 1st Amendment right to intimidate, Supreme Court says

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

It would not except in very specific incidents of reasonable threat.

You're jewing the right of self-defense away to total meaninglessness.

Self defense is ONLY applicable in response to a imminent threat. That's what the laws say in every single state in the U.S.

Except maybe Texas (and it's dark out), but there it's not referred to as "self-defense" if falls under a different statute.

Texas Penal Code § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 ;  and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;  or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;  and
(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;  or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Texas Penal Code § 9.42 | FindLaw

 

[Slade3200]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

This government was not started based on white supremacy you moron, but equality for everyone, except the slaves owned by Democrats, black and white. Oh yeah, there were plenty black slave owners.

Do you think free blacks were treated equally during our countries founding? What about women... were they treated equally?

 

[Muhammed]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

You are desperately grasping at straws like a pathetic mental midget.

So you have nothing pertinent to contribute, noted.

^
Projection.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

To be fair, you could legally shoot an intruder in The UK.

You are allowed to own a firearm in The UK with a valid reason such as competition shooter, or hunting. You can't own one for self defense.

However, if you legally own a firearm in The UK, you can use it, proportionately, to defend yourself against attack.

An intruder threatening you with a knife would be a reasonable proportionate response.

Well I suspect that Belfast is the only part of the UK where they practise cross burning so I think I am safe over here.
I was thinking more in terms of the "stand your ground" laws that you have over there. I would definitely feel threatened by this and would be looking to protect my home and family. Surely this law would protect me if I wanted to shoot a few cross burners ?

LEGALLY, you are not allowed to use deadly force except to defend yourself or another, from what you reasonably believe to be an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death.

Stand your ground laws merely state that you are not required to retreat if you have that option, however the requirement for utilization of deadly force still stands.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

You are desperately grasping at straws like a pathetic mental midget.

So you have nothing pertinent to contribute, noted.

^
Projection.

You're using the term "projection" incorrectly in this context.

And when I said "I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S.", you weren't included as one of those people.

 

[IM2]

Assault is sometimes defined as any intentional act that causes another person to fear that she is about to suffer physical harm

Because, historically, the burning of a cross has been a precursor to physical harm, or worse. A reasonable person could agree that the burning of a cross in view of or close proximity to the traditional victims of that harm, i. e. Black Persons, is assault and, therefore, not protected speech.

So if someone burned a cross on my lawn I would be within my rights to shoot them ? If I lived in America obviously.

Those who burned crosses in black peoples lawn were southern white democraps who had their governors and such keep the blacks from owning firearms, so the blacks couldnt defend themselves from the prog KKK. Just like in the inner cities where blacks are prevented from owning weapons to protect themselves so BLM/ANTIFA can come burn their buildings, loot their stuff and even murder those blacks of the inner city. Nothing has changed with Democrats and their terrorizing of black people. But down here in Florida, come burn a cross in my yard, and i will put a couple 12 gauge shot into your belly and then call the police.

Crosses burned in the north and republicans participated in Jim Crow.

You are an idiot, not one republican participated in Jim Crow but most Democrats did. I would say grow the fuck up, but you never will. You are a mental child.

Democrats & Jim Crow: A Century of Racist History the Democratic Party Prefers You'd Forget (ammo.com)

Yes they did. and since I am black and lived through some of Jim Crow and had relatives that lived during jim crow, I'm not debating this fact with a racist white republican. I am telling you that republicans participated in jim crow and that's the way it is. Period.

The Jim Crow North
You know about the long fight against segregation in the South. But civil rights struggles in the rest of the nation have often been overlooked.

The Jim Crow North (scholastic.com)
Read the caption. This picture was taken in Boston. Boston is not in Georgia. Malcolm X was not a southerner, he lived in New York. The Black Panthers did not originate in Mississippi, they started in California. Ronald Reagan was a republican practioner of jim crow. Nixon was about Jim Crow. Goldwater opposed Civil Rights. So like I said...

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

This government was not started based on white supremacy you moron, but equality for everyone, except the slaves owned by Democrats, black and white. Oh yeah, there were plenty black slave owners.

Question (without going Dems versus Repubs):
You don't think the Dred Scott decision was steeped in white supremacy?

 

[IM2]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

Yes there were definitely elements of white supremacy involved in those times. I just don’t think the first amendment and principles of freedom of speech had anything to do with WS. As time went by and we saw how slavery and then Jim crow developed, we could see how speech could be used to oppress minorities then yes it became justified to regulate speech through law. There is a line though that defines what is lawful expression and unlawful.

When the first amendment was written blacks were considered property and had no freedom of speech because whites believed they were superior. That is indeed white supremacy.

 

[IM2]

Assault is sometimes defined as any intentional act that causes another person to fear that she is about to suffer physical harm

Because, historically, the burning of a cross has been a precursor to physical harm, or worse. A reasonable person could agree that the burning of a cross in view of or close proximity to the traditional victims of that harm, i. e. Black Persons, is assault and, therefore, not protected speech.

So if someone burned a cross on my lawn I would be within my rights to shoot them ? If I lived in America obviously.

Those who burned crosses in black peoples lawn were southern white democraps who had their governors and such keep the blacks from owning firearms, so the blacks couldnt defend themselves from the prog KKK. Just like in the inner cities where blacks are prevented from owning weapons to protect themselves so BLM/ANTIFA can come burn their buildings, loot their stuff and even murder those blacks of the inner city. Nothing has changed with Democrats and their terrorizing of black people. But down here in Florida, come burn a cross in my yard, and i will put a couple 12 gauge shot into your belly and then call the police.

Crosses burned in the north and republicans participated in Jim Crow.

There were democrats in the North..........Jim Crow was enforced by democrat party governments........it was the law created by democrats....

Republicans and democrats participated in jim crow.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

You're original premise is flawed. Cross-burning has been prohibited as a "hate crime" for some time now and there is case law that has convicted under those premises in FL.

Are you referring to Virginia v Black (2003) or some other case?

States can outlaw cross burning, a historical symbol of hate, without violating free-speech protections in cases where the perpetrator is trying to intimidate or terrorize someone, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.​

​

The 6-3 ruling upheld a Virginia law and similar bans in other states, including California. Supporters of the decision said the court recognized that cross burning was a threat of violence, not free speech, while some civil liberties advocates said the court was weakening constitutional protections for unpopular ideas.​

​

Manuel Medeiros, solicitor general in the California attorney general's office, said cross burning is "not just an expression of views. It's actually putting people in fear for their own safety." He said the ruling was particularly welcome at a time of fears of violence against Muslims and Middle Easterners.​

​

But Rebecca Glenberg, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, said the ruling regulates speech unequally. She said the same conduct "should be prosecuted under a neutral law that doesn't target specific symbols."​

​

The ruling means "the government has the authority to single out particular symbols for criminalization," said Josh Wheeler, an attorney with the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, affiliated with the University of Virginia. "What about a Klan costume?"​

​

The ruling returned the justices to the often emotional area of government regulation of conduct that can also be considered symbolic speech.​

​

In 1969, the court upheld a man's conviction for burning his draft card during the Vietnam War. But 20 years later, a closely divided court ruled that burning the U.S. flag was constitutionally protected free expression.​

​

In 1992, the court said outlawing the display of certain symbols, such as a burning cross, because they might provoke fear likewise was a violation of free speech. But that ruling did not address narrower laws that required prosecutors to prove that a cross was being burned as an express threat of violence.​

​

50-YEAR-OLD LAW​

​

The 50-year-old Virginia law makes it a crime to burn a cross on someone else's property, or in a public place, with the intent to intimidate any person or group.​

​

Thirteen other states have similar laws, including California, which prohibits burning or desecrating a cross or other religious symbol on another person's property, without permission, for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant.​

​

A state appellate court upheld the law in 1994, affirming the conviction of a 16-year-old who burned a cross in the yard of an interracial couple in Humboldt County.​

​

Another appellate court upheld in 2000 the conviction of an Orange County man who burned a cross in the yard of a Jewish neighbor.​

​

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling Monday dealt with two Virginia prosecutions: one from a cross burning at a 1998 Ku Klux Klan rally, held with the property owner's permission, and the other from an attempted cross burning by two white men in the yard of an African American neighbor in 1998.​

​

​

SINGLED OUT​

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional in both cases, saying it singled out cross burning for punishment because of its message.​

​

But the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that cross burning, because of its "long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence," can be punished as long as prosecutors show it is being used for intimidation.​

​

"Regardless of whether the message is a political one or whether the message is also meant to intimidate, the burning of a cross is a symbol of hate," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote.​

​

"The First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation," she wrote.​

​

But, O'Connor said, one provision of the Virginia law is unconstitutional because it allows a jury to conclude that a cross burning was committed for the purpose of intimidation, without prosecutors having to present any evidence that was what the defendant had in mind.​

​

The court cited that provision in overturning a Klan leader's conviction for leading the cross burning at the KKK rally and ordered a lower court to reconsider the second case.​

​

CONDUCT, NOT SPEECH​

Of the six justices who agreed that states could outlaw cross burning, one, Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote a separate opinion saying free-speech concerns were misplaced because the state was punishing conduct, not speech.​

​

"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," said Thomas, the court's only African American. He dissented from the portion of the ruling that overturned part of the Virginia law.​

​

Justices David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed an overall dissent, saying the Virginia law could be used to ban not only intimidating conduct but also a "particular message of white supremacy."​

​

Most cross burning ruled illegal / No 1st Amendment right to intimidate, Supreme Court says

Blah, Blah, Blah, Did I say VA? I said FL moron. READ.

So it's a different U.S. Supreme Court case? Would you mind sending me a link so that I can research it?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

This government was not started based on white supremacy you moron, but equality for everyone, except the slaves owned by Democrats, black and white. Oh yeah, there were plenty black slave owners.

Question (without going Dems versus Repubs):
You don't think the Dred Scott decision was steeped in white supremacy?

Real quickly can you tell me what white supremacy is?

 

[2aguy]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

Yes there were definitely elements of white supremacy involved in those times. I just don’t think the first amendment and principles of freedom of speech had anything to do with WS. As time went by and we saw how slavery and then Jim crow developed, we could see how speech could be used to oppress minorities then yes it became justified to regulate speech through law. There is a line though that defines what is lawful expression and unlawful.

No....our government wasn't started on the basis of White Supremacy...which is why in our Declaration of Independence it stated "All Men are Created Equal."

The democrat party, the party of slavery and jim crow laws used race as an excuse to keep human beings as slaves..... race is still used by he democrat party to this day as a weapon and a shield....

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Assault is sometimes defined as any intentional act that causes another person to fear that she is about to suffer physical harm

Because, historically, the burning of a cross has been a precursor to physical harm, or worse. A reasonable person could agree that the burning of a cross in view of or close proximity to the traditional victims of that harm, i. e. Black Persons, is assault and, therefore, not protected speech.

So if someone burned a cross on my lawn I would be within my rights to shoot them ? If I lived in America obviously.

Those who burned crosses in black peoples lawn were southern white democraps who had their governors and such keep the blacks from owning firearms, so the blacks couldnt defend themselves from the prog KKK. Just like in the inner cities where blacks are prevented from owning weapons to protect themselves so BLM/ANTIFA can come burn their buildings, loot their stuff and even murder those blacks of the inner city. Nothing has changed with Democrats and their terrorizing of black people. But down here in Florida, come burn a cross in my yard, and i will put a couple 12 gauge shot into your belly and then call the police.

Crosses burned in the north and republicans participated in Jim Crow.

There were democrats in the North..........Jim Crow was enforced by democrat party governments........it was the law created by democrats....

Republicans and democrats participated in jim crow.

So why did you vote for the guy who called blacks super predators?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

1.that's just you -it's your HATE filled, bigoted, racist OPINION only
2. it's a hate crime if you do it on someone else's property
3. blacks commit hate crimes at TWICE the rate of whites
4. again AGAIN--you people concentrate on what's not a real problem instead of the real problems like black murder/crime rates and low grad rates

For at least the 10th time Harmonica, when did you graduate and what fields are your degrees in? I would just about bet that my 20 year old niece has more degrees than you do.

As far as my opinion, at least it's based on an educated interpretation of our constitution, laws and case law. And believe it or not (as I'm sure you won't), I am paid good money for my "professional opinion".

Don't be stupid.

very childish of you
..I KNOW my nieces graduated high school--a lot better than you

It may have been a childish response but it's 100% the truth.

And I'm not talking about your nieces, I'm talking about you. Nor am I referring to high school diplomas, my niece already has a college degree and she's not even 21 yet.

Have you seen this before?:

"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.​

You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair"​

Why is your focus continuously on the couple of million or so of black Americans who are in the criminal justice system versus the 35+ million who are not and who are doing fine with or without a diploma or degree? What is it exactly that prevents you from being able to focus on anything positive when it comes to black people?

 

[Concerned American]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

You're original premise is flawed. Cross-burning has been prohibited as a "hate crime" for some time now and there is case law that has convicted under those premises in FL.

Are you referring to Virginia v Black (2003) or some other case?

States can outlaw cross burning, a historical symbol of hate, without violating free-speech protections in cases where the perpetrator is trying to intimidate or terrorize someone, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.​

​

The 6-3 ruling upheld a Virginia law and similar bans in other states, including California. Supporters of the decision said the court recognized that cross burning was a threat of violence, not free speech, while some civil liberties advocates said the court was weakening constitutional protections for unpopular ideas.​

​

Manuel Medeiros, solicitor general in the California attorney general's office, said cross burning is "not just an expression of views. It's actually putting people in fear for their own safety." He said the ruling was particularly welcome at a time of fears of violence against Muslims and Middle Easterners.​

​

But Rebecca Glenberg, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, said the ruling regulates speech unequally. She said the same conduct "should be prosecuted under a neutral law that doesn't target specific symbols."​

​

The ruling means "the government has the authority to single out particular symbols for criminalization," said Josh Wheeler, an attorney with the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, affiliated with the University of Virginia. "What about a Klan costume?"​

​

The ruling returned the justices to the often emotional area of government regulation of conduct that can also be considered symbolic speech.​

​

In 1969, the court upheld a man's conviction for burning his draft card during the Vietnam War. But 20 years later, a closely divided court ruled that burning the U.S. flag was constitutionally protected free expression.​

​

In 1992, the court said outlawing the display of certain symbols, such as a burning cross, because they might provoke fear likewise was a violation of free speech. But that ruling did not address narrower laws that required prosecutors to prove that a cross was being burned as an express threat of violence.​

​

50-YEAR-OLD LAW​

​

The 50-year-old Virginia law makes it a crime to burn a cross on someone else's property, or in a public place, with the intent to intimidate any person or group.​

​

Thirteen other states have similar laws, including California, which prohibits burning or desecrating a cross or other religious symbol on another person's property, without permission, for the purpose of terrorizing the owner or occupant.​

​

A state appellate court upheld the law in 1994, affirming the conviction of a 16-year-old who burned a cross in the yard of an interracial couple in Humboldt County.​

​

Another appellate court upheld in 2000 the conviction of an Orange County man who burned a cross in the yard of a Jewish neighbor.​

​

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling Monday dealt with two Virginia prosecutions: one from a cross burning at a 1998 Ku Klux Klan rally, held with the property owner's permission, and the other from an attempted cross burning by two white men in the yard of an African American neighbor in 1998.​

​

​

SINGLED OUT​

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional in both cases, saying it singled out cross burning for punishment because of its message.​

​

But the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that cross burning, because of its "long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence," can be punished as long as prosecutors show it is being used for intimidation.​

​

"Regardless of whether the message is a political one or whether the message is also meant to intimidate, the burning of a cross is a symbol of hate," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote.​

​

"The First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation," she wrote.​

​

But, O'Connor said, one provision of the Virginia law is unconstitutional because it allows a jury to conclude that a cross burning was committed for the purpose of intimidation, without prosecutors having to present any evidence that was what the defendant had in mind.​

​

The court cited that provision in overturning a Klan leader's conviction for leading the cross burning at the KKK rally and ordered a lower court to reconsider the second case.​

​

CONDUCT, NOT SPEECH​

Of the six justices who agreed that states could outlaw cross burning, one, Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote a separate opinion saying free-speech concerns were misplaced because the state was punishing conduct, not speech.​

​

"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," said Thomas, the court's only African American. He dissented from the portion of the ruling that overturned part of the Virginia law.​

​

Justices David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed an overall dissent, saying the Virginia law could be used to ban not only intimidating conduct but also a "particular message of white supremacy."​

​

Most cross burning ruled illegal / No 1st Amendment right to intimidate, Supreme Court says

Blah, Blah, Blah, Did I say VA? I said FL moron. READ.

So it's a different U.S. Supreme Court case? Would you mind sending me a link so that I can research it?

Don't you read? I didn't say anything about the SCOTUS. Here's your link--not that you'll read it. You've learned to cut and paste well, maybe you should try reading. Pasco men who burned cross in black neighbor's yard sentenced to federal prison This was in 2012, please keep current.

 

[Agit8r]

I mean, you can't burn one on someone elses lawn as any sort of "protest"

That is always arson and a hate crime. The only way it would not be charges as such is if the prosecutor were an utterly worthless nazi.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

This government was not started based on white supremacy you moron, but equality for everyone, except the slaves owned by Democrats, black and white. Oh yeah, there were plenty black slave owners.

Question (without going Dems versus Repubs):
You don't think the Dred Scott decision was steeped in white supremacy?

Real quickly can you tell me what white supremacy is?

I'm sure that if I Googled the term it would say something like "a belief that the white race is superior to the all other races" although my thoughts of the definition don't include just beliefs but include policies, laws, procedures, etc. based upon the belief of white superiority.

Or more succinctly, it looks like this:

"...This is from the beginning (Texas Declaration of Secession 1845)​

​

She [the state of Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time​

...​

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. ​

​

This is what they determined​

"No Rights Which the White Man was Bound to Respect": The Dred Scott Decision​

​

On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney issued what is widely regarded as the worst Supreme Court opinion ever. He noted that the question before the Court was whether African Americans are citizens of the United States and thus able to file suit in federal court. His analysis of that issue is couched in abjectly racist language:​

​

[African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it.​

And today the Supreme Court has ruled that even when policies are unfair or adversely impact black lives, it's just too bad (I don't have this citation at my fingertips but I'm sure someone can locate it) ​

A theoretical question Lives that Matter​