Sorry but I think this is bullshit and disagree with this ruling!

[Bill Blake]

Supreme Court Upholds Cross Burning Ban
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


Filed at 10:38 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A divided Supreme Court upheld a state ban on cross burning, ruling Monday that the history of racial intimidation attached to this symbol outweighs the free speech protection of Ku Klux Klansmen or others who might 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.

``The protections afforded by the First Amendment ... are not absolute,'' O'Connor wrote for herself and four other justices.

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 is clearly 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,'' Thomas said.

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 that 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,'' 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.''

O'Connor was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer.

[andrea]

i agree with this ruling. cross burning is historically racially condemming, enough of that shit. It has nothing to do with free speech, it is an act of violence or intent of.

[Ken1015]

The only thing bad about this ruling is that the law was upheld by a 5-4 vote instead of 9-0.

[Doug]

Explain why Lennox.

[konbit]

Originally posted by andrea:
i agree with this ruling. cross burning is historically racially condemming, enough of that shit. It has nothing to do with free speech, it is an act of violence or intent of. The same could be said of KKK rallies, which often use violent, threatening speech, but they are protected by the first amendment.

But, it is illegal to threaten individuals. And, sticking a cross in somebody else's lawn and setting it on fire definitely ammounts to a threat.

I would think that burning a cross on your own property should be legal, though.

This is a really tricky topic.

[jimmymack-2000]

How about this one? I feel a lot more protective of a person's right to protest a war in Iraq than some Florida panhandle hillbilly's right to chase black folks outta town...

Story (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030403/ts_nm/life_protests_dc_1)

[lola desire]

Originally posted by Soulful1015:
The only thing bad about this ruling is that the law was upheld by a 5-4 vote instead of 9-0. mmmhmmm

[Jamie 3:26]

Funny ol Uncle Tom speaks out against cross burning but is silent on affirmative action.Ol Unlcle Tom thinks he was not given any of his opportuities via affirmative action.F.uck him and the horse he rode in on. mad1.gif

[Koffy Brown]

Originally posted by Soulful1015:
The only thing bad about this ruling is that the law was upheld by a 5-4 vote instead of 9-0. yup un huh

[SHEIK YERBOUTI]

Originally posted by JAMIE 3:26:
Funny ol Uncle Tom speaks out against cross burning but is silent on affirmative action.Ol Unlcle Tom thinks he was not given any of his opportuities via affirmative action.F.uck him and the horse he rode in on. mad1.gif I was watching c-span and Julianne Malveaux(?) said she can't stand Thomas and his 'individual acheivement' stance. She also said, "Well, there certainly wasn't any INDIVIDUAL SLAVERY, was there?"

That made my day.

[lola desire]

Originally posted by Doug:
Explain why Lennox. yes do explain.

[Bill Blake]

``The protections afforded by the First Amendment ... are not absolute,'' O'Connor wrote for herself and four other justices.

Are they sure about that? ‘Congress shall make NO law’ seems pretty ****ing absolute to me. Or does NO not really mean NO? Oh so you mean when a woman says no she really means yes?

Although the first amendment only applies to the Federal government I believe it was the 14th that allows the Federal limitations on state law as well.

Of course burning a cross on someone else’s property (like a say a black families lawn) should be against the law because it is a violation of that families right to own and dispose of their property how they see fit (so long as it does not effect the property rights of others). It would, however be a contradiction to claim that I could not burn a cross on my own property.

Burning a cross is not burning down a ‘house’ either. The two are very different. Thomas is a ****ing moron.

People should have the right to burn crosses for the same reason they should have a right to burn flags. And don’t see anything in the first amendment that would support otherwise.

And most importantly, what is that fuels the emotions due to such an action as burning a cross or a flag? The importance one places on the act and the object. That is very subjective. One could look at the act of burning a cross as a symbol of the ignorance of which the individuals must have to do such a thing and how pathetic they must be, more so than how much of an act of ‘terror’. And notice that terminology playing a role in this…’terror’. And if you remove whatever emotional attachment you have to a 'cross', who the **** really cares. Might as well burn a bra.

“Sticks and stones may break by bones but words will never hurt me’ is not an absolute truth, it is a state of mind that one must possess if they are fully willing to accept the damaging remarks and symbolic action that can fall under the domain of free speech.

To be a slave is to not have freedom and that entails being able to say what you want without redress from the laws or the use of force by others.

And remember arguing that NO does not mean NO in the first amendment is the same as arguing that 2 + 2 = 5. Which is what you have to do to get past the clause.

[ April 07, 2003, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Jamie Lennox ]

[konbit]

Originally posted by lola desire:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
Explain why Lennox. yes do explain. </font>[/QUOTE]It's the proverbial "slippery slope." Once you limit one type of speech, others will follow, and before you know it, the First Ammendment will be betrayed. Should white power websites with burning cross graphics/pictures be banned too? They embody the same principles as the real thing. If they are banned, maybe websites that feature anti-jewish/Israel rhetoric should be controlled as well (for example).

Should people be able to hold cross burning rallies on their own property? I would say yes...

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lola desire:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
Explain why Lennox. yes do explain. </font>[/QUOTE]It's the proverbial "slippery slope." Once you limit one type of speech, others will follow, and before you know it, the First Ammendment will be betrayed. Should white power websites with burning cross graphics/pictures be banned too? They embody the same principles as the real thing. If they are banned, maybe websites that feature anti-jewish/Israel rhetoric should be controlled as well (for example).

Should people be able to hold cross burning rallies on their own property? I would say yes... </font>[/QUOTE]No Im not arguing a slippery slope.

[konbit]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lola desire:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
Explain why Lennox. yes do explain. </font>[/QUOTE]It's the proverbial "slippery slope." Once you limit one type of speech, others will follow, and before you know it, the First Ammendment will be betrayed. Should white power websites with burning cross graphics/pictures be banned too? They embody the same principles as the real thing. If they are banned, maybe websites that feature anti-jewish/Israel rhetoric should be controlled as well (for example).

Should people be able to hold cross burning rallies on their own property? I would say yes... </font>[/QUOTE]No Im not arguing a slippery slope. </font>[/QUOTE]Okay...but I think we are making the same point. I was just using the slippery slope to illustrate what can happen when you start ****ing around with civil liberties.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by konbit:
. I was just using the slippery slope to illustrate what can happen when you start ****ing around with civil liberties.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Unfortunately we seem to be waaaaaaaay past that problem.

[mhd]

a burning cross is not a peaceful assembly, the real problem is how liberals allow intellectual seduction to trump their morals. this is why we can't move forward. O'connor made the right ruling for the right reasons

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by mhd:
a burning cross is not a peaceful assembly, the real problem is how liberals allow intellectual seduction to trump their morals. this is why we can't move forward. O'connor made the right ruling for the right reasons If they are not physically harming anyone, how is it not peacefull.

By the same token of 'peace activist' rally against the war spitting vile hatred remarks against the Bush administration, its not similar?

Define peacefull please.

And uh No doenst mean No?

[mhd]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
a burning cross is not a peaceful assembly, the real problem is how liberals allow intellectual seduction to trump their morals. this is why we can't move forward. O'connor made the right ruling for the right reasons If they are not physically harming anyone, how is it not peacefull.

By the same token of 'peace activist' rally against the war spitting vile hatred remarks against the Bush administration, its not similar?

Define peacefull please.

And uh No doenst mean No? </font>[/QUOTE]c'mon man, why bother? its a balance, the klan's history of terror outweighs their free speech protection. its that simple and every argument to the contrary supports the klan and moves us further from our goal

[The Donger]

Originally posted by mhd:
a burning cross is not a peaceful assembly, the real problem is how liberals allow intellectual seduction to trump their morals. this is why we can't move forward. O'connor made the right ruling for the right reasons What if it's done without harming any individual or their property? Like organized flag burnings?

[mhd]

Originally posted by Ghost Of Donger:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
a burning cross is not a peaceful assembly, the real problem is how liberals allow intellectual seduction to trump their morals. this is why we can't move forward. O'connor made the right ruling for the right reasons What if it's done without harming any individual or their property? Like organized flag burnings? </font>[/QUOTE]impossible to do so unless its possible to ignore history. there is a purpose, reason, intent and a goal for burning a cross

[The Donger]

what is it?

[andrea]

not harming anyone with cross burnings or the burning of the flag is far beyond this, it's the intent that is demonstrative of hatred and can be considered a hate crime if based on regligious/racial or social implications.

[drilla]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
a burning cross is not a peaceful assembly, the real problem is how liberals allow intellectual seduction to trump their morals. this is why we can't move forward. O'connor made the right ruling for the right reasons If they are not physically harming anyone, how is it not peacefull.

By the same token of 'peace activist' rally against the war spitting vile hatred remarks against the Bush administration, its not similar?

Define peacefull please.

And uh No doenst mean No? </font>[/QUOTE]c'mon man, why bother? its a balance, the klan's history of terror outweighs their free speech protection. its that simple and every argument to the contrary supports the klan and moves us further from our goal </font>[/QUOTE]yes, i believe this society still needs to move forward in that aspect, i.e., equality among all livings. however, this ruling never stated that they are not going to allow cross burning because we must balance all of the wrongs that have have happened in the past. no ruling will ever achieve that anyway...

this is about the 1st amendment. the ruling goes against that.

this is a very touchy subject but i agree with lennox on this one...

[mhd]

Originally posted by Ghost Of Donger:
what is it? Sandy discussed it in her opinion

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
a burning cross is not a peaceful assembly, the real problem is how liberals allow intellectual seduction to trump their morals. this is why we can't move forward. O'connor made the right ruling for the right reasons If they are not physically harming anyone, how is it not peacefull.

By the same token of 'peace activist' rally against the war spitting vile hatred remarks against the Bush administration, its not similar?

Define peacefull please.

And uh No doenst mean No? </font>[/QUOTE]c'mon man, why bother? its a balance, the klan's history of terror outweighs their free speech protection. its that simple and every argument to the contrary supports the klan and moves us further from our goal </font>[/QUOTE]Really?

Because you’re argument is the same one used by folks that claim protesting or objecting to the war is anti American and supporting the terrorist.

[The Donger]

Oh, you know her like that?

[The Donger]

I would imagine the reason being is that cross burnings are meant to intimidate and make people fear for their lives rather than make a political statement like "I am against the war".

sounds like a pretty good argument to me.

[ April 07, 2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Ghost Of Donger ]

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ghost Of Donger:
what is it? Sandy discussed it in her opinion </font>[/QUOTE]And a potential does not equal an actual

[The Donger]

Lennox, the actual = the intimidation and the end result of people fearing for their lives.

Not sure but aren't threats illegal?

[ April 07, 2003, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Ghost Of Donger ]

[mhd]

threats are illegal

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Ghost Of Donger:
I would imagine the reason being is that cross burnings are meant to intimidate and make people fear for their lives rather than make a political statement like "I am against the war".

sounds like a pretty good argument to me. You could argue a book like Mein Kamf could result in the same fear.

So we should ban that?

[konbit]

Originally posted by Ghost Of Donger:
I would imagine the reason being is that cross burnings are meant to intimidate and make people fear for their lives rather than make a political statement like "I am against the war".

sounds like a pretty good argument to me. It's impossible to determine intent, though. And, it's not the law's place to do so. If I burn a cross...and do it for reasons that are not related to racial hatred, then why should I be punished? There is plenty of historical evidence to construct the act as a threat, but it is not the court's place to put value on forms of speech based on their historic place.

If so...then why not ban flag burning? (Throughout history, it has been burned by plenty of people who wished harm upon America).

[The Donger]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ghost Of Donger:
I would imagine the reason being is that cross burnings are meant to intimidate and make people fear for their lives rather than make a political statement like "I am against the war".

sounds like a pretty good argument to me. You could argue a book like Mein Kamf could result in the same fear.

So we should ban that? </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sure it can be argued several ways = why vote wasn't 9-0.

I just don't know anymore. I'm quitting politics and going back to playing records.

[The Donger]

Konbit, MHD & Lennox: Keep up the good work.

[Sharp Eye Washington]

Let those backward ass idiots burn crosses. That type of intimidation doesn’t work anymore. Have rallies in the name of adolph hitler & george rockwell. White Power! Shit is freaking hilarious. If someone burns a cross on your property then you should have the right to make sure that is the last cross that idiot will burn.

[mhd]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ghost Of Donger:
I would imagine the reason being is that cross burnings are meant to intimidate and make people fear for their lives rather than make a political statement like "I am against the war".

sounds like a pretty good argument to me. It's impossible to determine intent, though. And, it's not the law's place to do so. If I burn a cross...and do it for reasons that are not related to racial hatred, then why should I be punished? There is plenty of historical evidence to construct the act as a threat, but it is not the court's place to put value on forms of speech based on their historic place.

</font>[/QUOTE]this is called bending over backwards. this entire paragraph is false

[Bill Blake]

The real question is whether or not the first amendment gives them the authority to do so.

The courts main argument is not based on what the amendment says, it seems to be based on the belief they hold that the first amendment and freedom of speech is not absolute. And that words in legal documents like 'no' are maliable.

AGAIN, is ‘no’ an absolute? What exactly is this belief and where is its explicit justification that ‘no’ is not, that the first amendment was not intended to be and also that their own beliefs can supercede a very explicit legal expression such as the first amendment?

[ April 07, 2003, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Jamie Lennox ]

[konbit]

Originally posted by Phil Bernard:
If someone burns a cross on your property... That would be and should be illegal as a threat.

[mhd]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
The real question is whether or not the first amendment gives them the authority to do so.

The courts main argument is not based on what the amendment says, it seems to be based on the belief they hold that the first amendment and freedom of speech is not absolute. And that words in legal documents like 'no' are maliable.

AGAIN, is ‘no’ an absolute? What exactly is this belief and where is its explicit justification that ‘no’ is not, that the first amendment was not intended to be and also that their own beliefs can supercede a very explicit legal expression such as the first amendment? the constitution,as a living document, was meant to be interpreted

[Doug]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Because you’re argument is the same one used by folks that claim protesting or objecting to the war is anti American and supporting the terrorist. Huh? First of all, there are two separate arguments used by folks who are against those who protest the war. The first is that you are somehow anti-American if you object to the war. That argument is obviously bullshit.

The second is that by conducting "radical" protests against the war (such as staging an unlawful assembly), protesters are diverting law enforcement resources away from the prevention of terrorism in the US. That argument is also specious at best because (1) it suggests that local law enforcement agencies are only equipped to deal with one community safety issue at a time, which is highly debatable; and (2) It ignores the fact that it is in most cases not the job of street level officers deployed to respond to community issues (like a protest) to deal with the prevention of terrorism. While it is part of their duty, the bulk of terrorism prevention work is not handled by street level officers and, in some cases, not even a local police department.

Regardless, this has little to do with the cross burning issue. Free speech is not absolute. The argument against cross burning as protected free speech is just like argument against yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

[DJ76]

Originally posted by konbit:
It's impossible to determine intent, though. And, it's not the law's place to do so. Intent plays a major role in criminal law. Sometimes, it makes a difference between a 2 years sentence or a 20 years sentence.

[Doug]

Originally posted by konbit:
If so...then why not ban flag burning? (Throughout history, it has been burned by plenty of people who wished harm upon America). But is there historical evidence that the burning of the flag within this country (not in foreign countries) by people opposed to the US led to the fear, intimidation and murder of people which the flag purports to represent? You guys are using "potential" in situations where "potential" has almost never equalled "actual" as history clearly has shown with cross burning.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Because you’re argument is the same one used by folks that claim protesting or objecting to the war is anti American and supporting the terrorist. Huh? First of all, there are two separate arguments used by folks who are against those who protest the war. The first is that you are somehow anti-American if you object to the war. That argument is obviously bullshit.

The second is that by conducting "radical" protests against the war (such as staging an unlawful assembly), protesters are diverting law enforcement resources away from the prevention of terrorism in the US. That argument is also specious at best because (1) it suggests that local law enforcement agencies are only equipped to deal with one community safety issue at a time, which is highly debatable; and (2) It ignores the fact that it is in most cases not the job of street level officers deployed to respond to community issues (like a protest) to deal with the prevention of terrorism. While it is part of their duty, the bulk of terrorism prevention work is not handled by street level officers and, in some cases, not even a local police department.

Regardless, this has little to do with the cross burning issue. Free speech is not absolute. The argument against cross burning as protected free speech is just like argument against yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh the lovely crowded fireplace argument. What the constitution allows is that the Private Owners of theaters can set rules and regulations for how their patrons are to act once on their property and in their theaters but the constitution does give the authority for this to be within the jurisdiction of our government.

I want to see the philosophical construct that justifies the argument that free speech is not an absolute?

Yes, and the argument by mhd that those who support the Klan’s freedom to burn crosses on their own property is backwards or not supporting what black folks ‘need’ legally. Which is bullshit too.

[Austin/Dallas]

Truley these human race rejects proclaim these things from the mouth of maddness into the ears of the weak and easly intimidated..

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
The real question is whether or not the first amendment gives them the authority to do so.

The courts main argument is not based on what the amendment says, it seems to be based on the belief they hold that the first amendment and freedom of speech is not absolute. And that words in legal documents like 'no' are maliable.

AGAIN, is ‘no’ an absolute? What exactly is this belief and where is its explicit justification that ‘no’ is not, that the first amendment was not intended to be and also that their own beliefs can supercede a very explicit legal expression such as the first amendment? the constitution,as a living document, was meant to be interpreted </font>[/QUOTE]And just how do you interpret 'Congress shall make NO law'?

Just what is there to interpret about that?

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
If so...then why not ban flag burning? (Throughout history, it has been burned by plenty of people who wished harm upon America). But is there historical evidence that the burning of the flag within this country (not in foreign countries) by people opposed to the US led to the fear, intimidation and murder of people which the flag purports to represent? You guys are using "potential" in situations where "potential" has almost never equalled "actual" as history clearly has shown with cross burning. </font>[/QUOTE]Their belief systems and their willingness to disregard the freedom of others is what led them to murder people, not a burning of a cross.

It is a symbolic act, unto itself, quite harmless.

This also reminds me of Qual and his opposition to 'Cop Killer'.

[konbit]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ghost Of Donger:
I would imagine the reason being is that cross burnings are meant to intimidate and make people fear for their lives rather than make a political statement like "I am against the war".

sounds like a pretty good argument to me. It's impossible to determine intent, though. And, it's not the law's place to do so. If I burn a cross...and do it for reasons that are not related to racial hatred, then why should I be punished? There is plenty of historical evidence to construct the act as a threat, but it is not the court's place to put value on forms of speech based on their historic place.

</font>[/QUOTE]this is called bending over backwards. this entire paragraph is false </font>[/QUOTE]How is it false? It's my opinion, and cannot be any more false than your opinion too the contrary.

What gives the court the authority to determine what the intent behind my expressions is? They should not have that right, which is why the amendment is constructed in absolute terms, as Jaimie says. Do you also support a ban on flag burning? If not, what's the difference? How about the Klan's right to rally? Surely those rallies embody the exact same symbolic values as a cross burning.

When used as a specific threat against a specific person, cross burning should obviously be illegal. If it cannot be determined that a specific threat was being made, then it should be protected under free speech.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Oh the lovely crowded fireplace argument.
Actually, it is the "crowded movie theater" argument, but I digress. Nice how you glossed over the rest of what I wrote.



What the constitution allows is that the Private Owners of theaters can set rules and regulations for how their patrons are to act once on their property and in their theaters but the constitution does give the authority for this to be within the jurisdiction of our government.
And this supports your argument how? C'mon Lennox. You know that free speech is not absolute. If it was then verbal assault would not be a criminal offense.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Oh the lovely crowded fireplace argument.
Actually, it is the "crowded movie theater" argument, but I digress. Nice how you glossed over the rest of what I wrote.



What the constitution allows is that the Private Owners of theaters can set rules and regulations for how their patrons are to act once on their property and in their theaters but the constitution does give the authority for this to be within the jurisdiction of our government.
And this supports your argument how? C'mon Lennox. You know that free speech is not absolute. If it was then verbal assault would not be a criminal offense. </font>[/QUOTE]A 'slave' running away from his/her 'master' and the plantation use to be a criminal offense.

Im still waiting.....

Does no equal no?

[Doug]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Their belief systems and their willingness to disregard the freedom of others is what led them to murder people, not a burning of a cross.

It is a symbolic act, unto itself, quite harmless.
It is a symbolic act which historically has been used to do nothing more than intimidate and provoke fear in African-American citizens. There is little historical evidence to support that it is done harmlessly of without the goal of inciting legitimate fear as well as hatred.

[ April 07, 2003, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Doug ]

[Bill Blake]

Crowded fireplace

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

[Doug]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

Does no equal no? Does "speech" equal "cross burning"? If you're going for the strictest interpretation possible, then you would find fault with the interpretation of the word "speech" to include symbolic acts that do not require actual human verbalization. The constitution is all about interpretation.

[konbit]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

This also reminds me of Qual and his opposition to 'Cop Killer'. Perfect anaolgy. I think that the arguments being put forth by mhd and Doug could easily be put forth by the police union regarding this song.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

Does no equal no? Does "speech" equal "cross burning"? If you're going for the strictest interpretation possible, then you would find fault with the interpretation of the word "speech" to include symbolic acts that do not require actual human verbalization. The constitution is all about interpretation. </font>[/QUOTE]No it doesnt. But cross burning does not EQUAL fear and intimidation either.

Yo Dougie Fresh Im servin you yo!

[Doug]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

This also reminds me of Qual and his opposition to 'Cop Killer'. Perfect anaolgy. I think that the arguments being put forth by mhd and Doug could easily be put forth by the police union regarding this song. </font>[/QUOTE]Hardly. You keep leaving out the historical context of cross burning and continue trying to compare it to situations in which there is little to no historical record to add legitimacy to your argument.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

Does no equal no? Does "speech" equal "cross burning"? If you're going for the strictest interpretation possible, then you would find fault with the interpretation of the word "speech" to include symbolic acts that do not require actual human verbalization. The constitution is all about interpretation. </font>[/QUOTE]No it doesnt. But cross burning does not EQUAL fear and intimidation either.

Yo Dougie Fresh Im servin you yo! </font>[/QUOTE]N*gga please! If "speech" does not equal "cross burning" then your whole shit is moot son! But you're right. Cross burning does not equal fear and intimidation. There's just that pesky problem of "historical evidence" that, thankful, the court did not brush aside like you keep trying to do.

[konbit]

Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

This also reminds me of Qual and his opposition to 'Cop Killer'. Perfect anaolgy. I think that the arguments being put forth by mhd and Doug could easily be put forth by the police union regarding this song. </font>[/QUOTE]Hardly. You keep leaving out the historical context of cross burning and continue trying to compare it to situations in which there is little to no historical record to add legitimacy to your argument. </font>[/QUOTE]There is no history of police being shot while performing their jobs by the type of crowd that might listen to this album?!?!?

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

This also reminds me of Qual and his opposition to 'Cop Killer'. Perfect anaolgy. I think that the arguments being put forth by mhd and Doug could easily be put forth by the police union regarding this song. </font>[/QUOTE]Hardly. You keep leaving out the historical context of cross burning and continue trying to compare it to situations in which there is little to no historical record to add legitimacy to your argument. </font>[/QUOTE]Bullshit

Served to the nth degree:

Historically Bars have been the place where people can smoke

Historically Slavery and the notion that women as wives were property have been the statusquo.

Historically Monarchy has been the way people are governed or subject to the tribe.

Historically I like your mixes but who knows if the next one wont suck ass.

And on and on and on.

Historically things can change. The argument is not whether the cross burning is used to intimidate people. The argument is whether or not that is legal, particularly on a Klan member’s own property at their own rally.

[Doug]

Originally posted by konbit:
There is no history of police being shot while performing their jobs by the type of crowd that might listen to this album?!?!? You mean middle class white kids trying to piss off their parents by listening to shit that might offend them?

[Doug]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Served to the nth degree:

Historically Bars have been the place where people can smoke

Historically Slavery and the notion that women as wives were property have been the statusquo.

Historically Monarchy has been the way people are governed or subject to the tribe.

Historically I like your mixes but who knows if the next one wont suck ass.

And on and on and on.

Historically things can change. Typically the way things change is by paying attention to history, not ignoring it. Cross burning itself is an innocuous act. Cross burning in America has a long, sordid history completely characterized by its successful use in intimidating citizens and inciting hatred in those who intimidate citizens, whether on public or private property.

[konbit]

Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Served to the nth degree:

Historically Bars have been the place where people can smoke

Historically Slavery and the notion that women as wives were property have been the statusquo.

Historically Monarchy has been the way people are governed or subject to the tribe.

Historically I like your mixes but who knows if the next one wont suck ass.

And on and on and on.

Historically things can change. Typically the way things change is by paying attention to history, not ignoring it. Cross burning itself is an innocuous act. Cross burning in America has a long, sordid history completely characterized by its successful use in intimidating citizens and inciting hatred in those who intimidate citizens, whether on public or private property. </font>[/QUOTE]All this is true....but that's not the argument. The question is: do these historic facts justify laws that contradict the first amendment? If so, I'm sure similar histories could be found to ban other forms of free speech that you might not like to see prohibited. If there is NO SPECIFIC threat, and the burning is being used as a symbol of political descent, then we are betraying the intentions of the amendment by prohibiting it.

[Doug]

If there is NO SPECIFIC threat, and the burning is being used as a symbol of political descent, then we are betraying the intentions of the amendment by prohibiting it.
It's impossible to determine intent, though. And, it's not the law's place to do so. These are your statements. Not only are they inconsistent, but the statement about the law not determining intent flies completely in the face of our legal system as 76 already pointed out. You either have to believe or disbelieve that intent can be determined from an act. There is no in between. And beyond the issue of a specific threat, there cannot be a condition (...and the burning is being used as a symbol of political descent) on an act characterized as free speech the way you and Lennox have discussed it in this thread.

[ April 07, 2003, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Doug ]

[Wild i]

Gentlemen, please.

Freedom of speech (like every other "freedom") has never been absolute.

Jamie, your interpretation of the "crowded theatre" (or fireplace, if you prefer) is incorrect. It is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre, on a crowded street corner, in a public building or any other place where mass panic might ensue. The specific violation is "Inciting to riot." It is a matter of civil law and not within the perview of the judgement of the owner.

Speaking of judgement, it is the duty of the courts to judge actions and interpret law. If the constitution was a cut and dried as "well, that's what it says," it would not be an entire area of law unto itself.

Part of that interpretation has to do with the value, weight or consequences of actions within the context of history. I believe it was Aristotle who said "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it." If, Jamie, I call you "skinny white boy," quite off handedly, you might be personally offended, but it certainly would not rise to the level of legal action. If, however, that particular phrase had been used historically only on breeding slaves and was furhter used to bring low, slender caucasian males who may have risen above their historical caste, then my calling you that may have an entirely different significance and carry a far different legal penalty.

It's like the old spiritual says, "Freedom isn't free."

[ April 07, 2003, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Wild i ]

[Bill Blake]

Mel,

Its 'fine ass skinny white boy'

[mhd]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Mel,

Its 'fine ass skinny white boy' now that's taking free speech a little too far

[Bill Blake]

Ha ha ha ha

[LEONARD REMIX RROY]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Ha ha ha ha Go on a Plane, Yell "Bomb" and see what freedom of speach get you graemlins/rofl.gif

[Koffy Brown]

Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Ha ha ha ha Go on a Plane, Yell "Bomb" and see what freedom of speach get you graemlins/rofl.gif </font>[/QUOTE]graemlins/rofl.gif

[TAD]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

It is a symbolic act, unto itself, quite harmless.
Jamie, i'm surprised you actually believe this.

[mhd]

Originally posted by Cosmic_Twin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

It is a symbolic act, unto itself, quite harmless.
Jamie, i'm surprised you actually believe this. </font>[/QUOTE]exactly, after reading this, there is nothing else to discuss

[TAD]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cosmic_Twin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

It is a symbolic act, unto itself, quite harmless.
Jamie, i'm surprised you actually believe this. </font>[/QUOTE]exactly, after reading this, there is nothing else to discuss </font>[/QUOTE]you can lead a horse to water...........well you know the rest

[konbit]

Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
If there is NO SPECIFIC threat, and the burning is being used as a symbol of political descent, then we are betraying the intentions of the amendment by prohibiting it.
It's impossible to determine intent, though. And, it's not the law's place to do so. These are your statements. Not only are they inconsistent, but the statement about the law not determining intent flies completely in the face of our legal system as 76 already pointed out. You either have to believe or disbelieve that intent can be determined from an act. There is no in between. And beyond the issue of a specific threat, there cannot be a condition (...and the burning is being used as a symbol of political descent) on an act characterized as free speech the way you and Lennox have discussed it in this thread. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't know what inconsistency in my argument you think you've found, but I don't see it. In regards to intent, I think you are misunderstanding what I mean. It is impossible to prove that there is the same intent (in this case, an assulting threat) in every instance that a cross is burned, just as it is unreasonable to assume that the intent present in those who burn flags at terrorist camp fire parties in the Middle East is present for everybody else who might burn a flag.

If somebody were to burn a cross specifically to protest this court decision, then their free speech would be suppressed by this ruling, which assumes that the intent is based in this perceived threat (which isn't present).

What if a black artist wants to burn a cross as a form of rememberence art? Or a musician wants to film a music video in that state, which recreates some of the horrors from the past? Those forms of expression are now illegal...despite the fact that the artists' intents had nothing to do with threatening people.

And the slippery slope begins.... Which is why it is importnat to support freedom of speech, even when you don't like those who are speaking

Please tell me how cross burning differs from the legitimacy of KKK rallies.

It is LEGAL to be racist. It is LEGAL to let your racist views be known. Why would it be illegal to let them be known through a symbolic act if the said act does not break any other laws?

P.S. Are my promos en route yet?
:D ;)

[ April 07, 2003, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: konbit ]

[konbit]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cosmic_Twin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

It is a symbolic act, unto itself, quite harmless.
Jamie, i'm surprised you actually believe this. </font>[/QUOTE]exactly, after reading this, there is nothing else to discuss </font>[/QUOTE]How can you disagree with Jaimie's statement?!?!?!?!? The act UNTO ITSELF (i.e. what if it happened in context devoid of its historical implications here...like in Mongolia) is definitely harmless. Unless fire safety procedures are ignored.

Its symbolic nature is what is causing the fuss. I contend that a) the symbolic nature is not static (it does not necessarily mean what you think it does), and b) even within a racist context, free speech is protected, unless it directly harms people.

Maybe you guys should petition for the removal of all confederate flags, since they could invoke the same violent history. Then ban Mein Kampf, which has certainly been used to fuel the hatred of racists, and is directly linked to the Holocaust. Problem is...once you start burning books, you're as bad as them.

[Wild i]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Mel,

Its 'fine ass skinny white boy' Yeah, that's what all the skinny white boys think... graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

Intent is an integral part of the legal system. Proof is not required in the American legal system. The two water marks are "a preponderance of the evidence," and "beyond a resonable doubt. Proof does not enter into it. People are convicted every day on circumstantial evidence. People are let go everyday with everything up to and including video-taped evidence against them (remember Rodney King and OJ). If you are a performance artist and burn a cross as part of your art, that is a specific circumstance. If allowances were not made for this, we would have no films with cross burnings (i.e. Mississippi Burning).

However, if you are marching through the streets dress in the garb of the Imperial Wizard, spouting racial epithets and so on, that is an entirely different circumstance which may (or may not) be protected as free speech. If you are trying to inflame and incite, you are clearly in violation of both the letter and the spirit of the law and you must and will be censured.

At no time are you at liberty to incite a riot, violent behavior or the overthrow of the government. You may call me a bitch, a nigger, a fat pig, a whore, a cow or anything else and that is your right under American law. However, if you do so while there is an angry mob backing me up and another angry mob backing you up, you will most probably be charged with inciting a riot.

Attorneys, am I right?

[MR. PLUSHEDOUT]

OK, PEEP GAME; IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS IT STATES THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF CERTAIN SANCTIONS, CONVICTED FELONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OWN A WEAPON! NO ONE IS ARGUING AGAINST THAT! NOW, BECAUSE OF THE IMPLICATIONS THAT CROSS BURNINGS HAVE HAD, IT SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED! WITH RIGHTS, COME RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THE KLAN HAVE DEMONSTRATED OVER TIME THAT THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE EXCERCISE OF FREE SPEECH.

[konbit]

Originally posted by MR. PLUSHEDOUT:
OK, PEEP GAME; IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS IT STATES THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF CERTAIN SANCTIONS, CONVICTED FELONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OWN A WEAPON! NO ONE IS ARGUING AGAINST THAT! NOW, BECAUSE OF THE IMPLICATIONS THAT CROSS BURNINGS HAVE HAD, IT SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED! WITH RIGHTS, COME RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THE KLAN HAVE DEMONSTRATED OVER TIME THAT THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE EXCERCISE OF FREE SPEECH. So....you think Klan rallies should be illegal?

[MR. PLUSHEDOUT]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MR. PLUSHEDOUT:
OK, PEEP GAME; IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS IT STATES THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF CERTAIN SANCTIONS, CONVICTED FELONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OWN A WEAPON! NO ONE IS ARGUING AGAINST THAT! NOW, BECAUSE OF THE IMPLICATIONS THAT CROSS BURNINGS HAVE HAD, IT SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED! WITH RIGHTS, COME RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THE KLAN HAVE DEMONSTRATED OVER TIME THAT THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE EXCERCISE OF FREE SPEECH. So....you think Klan rallies should be illegal? </font>[/QUOTE]NO. A PEACEFUL RALLY NO MATTER WHAT THE CONTEXT SHOULD BE AND IS LEGAL. NOW, HERE'S THE CATCH-22; IF THEY DECIDE TO HOLD A CLAN RALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF A PREDOMINANTLY BLACK NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT IS ILLEGAL (NOT TO MENTION SUICIDAL) BECAUSE IT WILL DO NOTHING BUT ENDANGER THE PUBLIC TRUST AND INCITE RIOTS!

[mhd]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cosmic_Twin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

It is a symbolic act, unto itself, quite harmless.
Jamie, i'm surprised you actually believe this. </font>[/QUOTE]exactly, after reading this, there is nothing else to discuss </font>[/QUOTE]How can you disagree with Jaimie's statement?!?!?!?!? The act UNTO ITSELF (i.e. what if it happened in context devoid of its historical implications here...like in Mongolia) is definitely harmless. Unless fire safety procedures are ignored.

Its symbolic nature is what is causing the fuss. I contend that a) the symbolic nature is not static (it does not necessarily mean what you think it does), and b) even within a racist context, free speech is protected, unless it directly harms people.

Maybe you guys should petition for the removal of all confederate flags, since they could invoke the same violent history. Then ban Mein Kampf, which has certainly been used to fuel the hatred of racists, and is directly linked to the Holocaust. Problem is...once you start burning books, you're as bad as them. </font>[/QUOTE]now i could give you a lecture on what a cross-burning means, but i should not have to,

back to basics, the court performed a balancing act, after considering arguments consistent with those put forth here, 5 of 9 justices chose to conclude that the "history of racial intimidation attached to this symbol outweighs the free speech protection of Ku Klux Klansmen..."

emphasis on "chose" they are not saying that the klan has no free speech protection or that your and jamie's arguments do not have merit, they are simply choosing to err on the side of caution, by the slimmest of margins i might add. like others have mentioned, i'm more disturbed that it was not 9-0.

trust me, you will not find another more fierce proponent of the first amendment, but my choices, even "intellectual" ones are consistent with justice o'connor

[MR. PLUSHEDOUT]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cosmic_Twin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

It is a symbolic act, unto itself, quite harmless.
Jamie, i'm surprised you actually believe this. </font>[/QUOTE]exactly, after reading this, there is nothing else to discuss </font>[/QUOTE]How can you disagree with Jaimie's statement?!?!?!?!? The act UNTO ITSELF (i.e. what if it happened in context devoid of its historical implications here...like in Mongolia) is definitely harmless. Unless fire safety procedures are ignored.

Its symbolic nature is what is causing the fuss. I contend that a) the symbolic nature is not static (it does not necessarily mean what you think it does), and b) even within a racist context, free speech is protected, unless it directly harms people.

Maybe you guys should petition for the removal of all confederate flags, since they could invoke the same violent history. Then ban Mein Kampf, which has certainly been used to fuel the hatred of racists, and is directly linked to the Holocaust. Problem is...once you start burning books, you're as bad as them. </font>[/QUOTE]now i could give you a lecture on what a cross-burning means, but i should not have to,

back to basics, the court performed a balancing act, after considering arguments consistent with those put forth here, 5 of 9 justices chose to conclude that the "history of racial intimidation attached to this symbol outweighs the free speech protection of Ku Klux Klansmen..."

emphasis on "chose" they are not saying that the klan has no free speech protection or that your and jamie's arguments do not have merit, they are simply choosing to err on the side of caution, by the slimmest of margins i might add. like others have mentioned, i'm more disturbed that it was not 9-0.

trust me, you will not find another more fierce proponent of the first amendment, but my choices, even "intellectual" ones are consistent with justice o'connor </font>[/QUOTE]WHICH IS ANOTHER ****ED UP THING! IF ANYBODY SHOULD HAVE BANNED THAT SHIT, IT SHOULD'VE BEEN CLARENCE "UNCLE" THOMAS! THE VOTE SHOULD'VE BEEN 9-0! THEY SHOULD MAKE A NEW AMENDMENT STATING THAT WE CAN IMPEACH DUMB ASS SUPREME COURT JUSTICES! mad1.gif

[ April 07, 2003, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: MR. PLUSHEDOUT ]

[mhd]

yo, Mr. P, please edit that, please

[gabriel]

let's be straight here.

vote was 6-3 on upholding the ban

vote was 5-4 on if it presented freedom of speech issues. the majority said it did not.

thomas was in the majority in the 6-3 and in the minority in the 5-4 vote.

the 3 that dissented probably did so on freespeech grounds.

and this ban was upheald not on speech grounds but on intimidation grounds. not considered a speech issue.

what matters is that the ban was upheld. the end.

[konbit]

Originally posted by mhd:

back to basics, the court performed a balancing act, after considering arguments consistent with those put forth here, 5 of 9 justices chose to conclude that the "history of racial intimidation attached to this symbol outweighs the free speech protection of Ku Klux Klansmen..."

emphasis on "chose" they are not saying that the klan has no free speech protection or that your and jamie's arguments do not have merit, they are simply choosing to err on the side of caution, by the slimmest of margins i might add. like others have mentioned, i'm more disturbed that it was not 9-0.

trust me, you will not find another more fierce proponent of the first amendment, but my choices, even "intellectual" ones are consistent with justice o'connor Thank you, mhd, for the response. I still believe that this went the wrong way (I think I might be an even more fierce proponent of the first amendment!)...but I do appreciate the "balancing act" idea. I understand that this isn't a totally black and white issue...and I'm sure it was tricky for the justices.

I would really like more information on the law being contested, and the opinions.

Any law that prevents a filmmaker from recreating history, for example, should be overruled.

[konbit]

Originally posted by MR. PLUSHEDOUT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MR. PLUSHEDOUT:
BECAUSE OF THE IMPLICATIONS THAT CROSS BURNINGS HAVE HAD, IT SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED! WITH RIGHTS, COME RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THE KLAN HAVE DEMONSTRATED OVER TIME THAT THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE EXCERCISE OF FREE SPEECH. So....you think Klan rallies should be illegal? </font>[/QUOTE]NO. A PEACEFUL RALLY NO MATTER WHAT THE CONTEXT SHOULD BE AND IS LEGAL. </font>[/QUOTE]I see a contradiction above: A Klan rally serves the EXACT same symbolic function as a cross burning, including the intimidation, history, etc. If it is a peaceful cross burning, how do the two differ?

[konbit]

Originally posted by gabrielloveshouse:

and this ban was upheald not on speech grounds but on intimidation grounds. not considered a speech issue.
What if the cross is burned in a context where it is not being used for intimidation?

[MR. PLUSHEDOUT]

Originally posted by gabrielloveshouse:
let's be straight here.

vote was 6-3 on upholding the ban

vote was 5-4 on if it presented freedom of speech issues. the majority said it did not.

thomas was in the majority in the 6-3 and in the minority in the 5-4 vote.

the 3 that dissented probably did so on freespeech grounds.

and this ban was upheald not on speech grounds but on intimidation grounds. not considered a speech issue.

what matters is that the ban was upheld. the end. BUT I'M ALSO REFERRING TO THOMAS' TRACK RECORD. DURING THE 2000 ELECTION PROCESS, HE WAS THE ONLY JUSTICE NOT TO ASK A QUESTION! WHAT KINDA CRAP IS THAT? AND THEN VOTED THAT THE FLORIDIAN SEC. OF STATE HAD THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE BALLOT COUNTING AT HER DESCRETION! TALK ABOUT THE SINS OF THE FATHER COMING BACK TO HAUNT US! mad1.gif

[MR. PLUSHEDOUT]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MR. PLUSHEDOUT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MR. PLUSHEDOUT:
BECAUSE OF THE IMPLICATIONS THAT CROSS BURNINGS HAVE HAD, IT SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED! WITH RIGHTS, COME RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THE KLAN HAVE DEMONSTRATED OVER TIME THAT THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE EXCERCISE OF FREE SPEECH. So....you think Klan rallies should be illegal? </font>[/QUOTE]NO. A PEACEFUL RALLY NO MATTER WHAT THE CONTEXT SHOULD BE AND IS LEGAL. </font>[/QUOTE]I see a contradiction above: A Klan rally serves the EXACT same symbolic function as a cross burning, including the intimidation, history, etc. If it is a peaceful cross burning, how do the two differ? </font>[/QUOTE]ACTUALLY NO, IT DOESN'T. WHEREAS I RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT YOU HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT, I DO NOT REMEMBER THE CONSTITUTION SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT DOING WHATEVER YOU WANTED! SO, IF I WANT TO PROTEST A CLOTHING STORE, DO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO INTO SAID STORE AND STEAL THEIR MERCH.? STEALING THROUGHTOUT HISTORY IS BAD!

[mhd]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:

back to basics, the court performed a balancing act, after considering arguments consistent with those put forth here, 5 of 9 justices chose to conclude that the "history of racial intimidation attached to this symbol outweighs the free speech protection of Ku Klux Klansmen..."

emphasis on "chose" they are not saying that the klan has no free speech protection or that your and jamie's arguments do not have merit, they are simply choosing to err on the side of caution, by the slimmest of margins i might add. like others have mentioned, i'm more disturbed that it was not 9-0.

trust me, you will not find another more fierce proponent of the first amendment, but my choices, even "intellectual" ones are consistent with justice o'connor Thank you, mhd, for the response. I still believe that this went the wrong way (I think I might be an even more fierce proponent of the first amendment!)...but I do appreciate the "balancing act" idea. I understand that this isn't a totally black and white issue...and I'm sure it was tricky for the justices.

I would really like more information on the law being contested, and the opinions.

Any law that prevents a filmmaker from recreating history, for example, should be overruled. </font>[/QUOTE]§ 18.2-423. Burning cross on property of another or public place with intent to intimidate; penalty; prima facie evidence of intent.

It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons.

(Code 1950, §§ 18.1-365 through 18.1-367; 1960, c. 358; 1968, c. 350; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1983, c. 337.)

Consider this, Virginia is the capital of the confederacy and they came up with this law,

consider this, the law does not prevent the klan from burning crosses, just imposes a punishment if convicted of doing so. i would invite them to engage in a time-honored civil rights technique: civil disobedience. they can exercise their first amendment right, burn a cross and go to jail.

[mhd]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gabrielloveshouse:

and this ban was upheald not on speech grounds but on intimidation grounds. not considered a speech issue.
What if the cross is burned in a context where it is not being used for intimidation? </font>[/QUOTE]can't be done

[MR. PLUSHEDOUT]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:

back to basics, the court performed a balancing act, after considering arguments consistent with those put forth here, 5 of 9 justices chose to conclude that the "history of racial intimidation attached to this symbol outweighs the free speech protection of Ku Klux Klansmen..."

emphasis on "chose" they are not saying that the klan has no free speech protection or that your and jamie's arguments do not have merit, they are simply choosing to err on the side of caution, by the slimmest of margins i might add. like others have mentioned, i'm more disturbed that it was not 9-0.

trust me, you will not find another more fierce proponent of the first amendment, but my choices, even "intellectual" ones are consistent with justice o'connor Thank you, mhd, for the response. I still believe that this went the wrong way (I think I might be an even more fierce proponent of the first amendment!)...but I do appreciate the "balancing act" idea. I understand that this isn't a totally black and white issue...and I'm sure it was tricky for the justices.

I would really like more information on the law being contested, and the opinions.

Any law that prevents a filmmaker from recreating history, for example, should be overruled. </font>[/QUOTE]§ 18.2-423. Burning cross on property of another or public place with intent to intimidate; penalty; prima facie evidence of intent.

It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons.

(Code 1950, §§ 18.1-365 through 18.1-367; 1960, c. 358; 1968, c. 350; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1983, c. 337.)

Consider this, Virginia is the capital of the confederacy and they came up with this law,

consider this, the law does not prevent the klan from burning crosses, just imposes a punishment if convicted of doing so. i would invite them to engage in a time-honored civil rights technique: civil disobedience. they can exercise their first amendment right, burn a cross and go to jail. </font>[/QUOTE]HOWEVER, UPON FURTHER EXAMINATION, IT DOESN'T SAY THAT THEY CAN'T BURN CROSSES ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY, OR THAT FILMMAKERS RECREATING AN EVENT CAN'T BURN CROSSES. IT ONLY SAYS THAT IF THE PURPOSE IS TO INTIMIDATE. INTERESTING.

[mhd]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MR. PLUSHEDOUT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MR. PLUSHEDOUT:
BECAUSE OF THE IMPLICATIONS THAT CROSS BURNINGS HAVE HAD, IT SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED! WITH RIGHTS, COME RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THE KLAN HAVE DEMONSTRATED OVER TIME THAT THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE EXCERCISE OF FREE SPEECH. So....you think Klan rallies should be illegal? </font>[/QUOTE]NO. A PEACEFUL RALLY NO MATTER WHAT THE CONTEXT SHOULD BE AND IS LEGAL. </font>[/QUOTE]I see a contradiction above: A Klan rally serves the EXACT same symbolic function as a cross burning, including the intimidation, history, etc. If it is a peaceful cross burning, how do the two differ? </font>[/QUOTE]false, please do some research on cross burnings. or at least listen to some billie holiday, start with "Strange Fruit". please realize you are talking to people who have seen cross burnings and felt their prelude and aftermath. this is not an "intellectual" exercise, this is real life...and death

[mhd]

Originally posted by MR. PLUSHEDOUT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:

back to basics, the court performed a balancing act, after considering arguments consistent with those put forth here, 5 of 9 justices chose to conclude that the "history of racial intimidation attached to this symbol outweighs the free speech protection of Ku Klux Klansmen..."

emphasis on "chose" they are not saying that the klan has no free speech protection or that your and jamie's arguments do not have merit, they are simply choosing to err on the side of caution, by the slimmest of margins i might add. like others have mentioned, i'm more disturbed that it was not 9-0.

trust me, you will not find another more fierce proponent of the first amendment, but my choices, even "intellectual" ones are consistent with justice o'connor Thank you, mhd, for the response. I still believe that this went the wrong way (I think I might be an even more fierce proponent of the first amendment!)...but I do appreciate the "balancing act" idea. I understand that this isn't a totally black and white issue...and I'm sure it was tricky for the justices.

I would really like more information on the law being contested, and the opinions.

Any law that prevents a filmmaker from recreating history, for example, should be overruled. </font>[/QUOTE]§ 18.2-423. Burning cross on property of another or public place with intent to intimidate; penalty; prima facie evidence of intent.

It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons.

(Code 1950, §§ 18.1-365 through 18.1-367; 1960, c. 358; 1968, c. 350; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1983, c. 337.)

Consider this, Virginia is the capital of the confederacy and they came up with this law,

consider this, the law does not prevent the klan from burning crosses, just imposes a punishment if convicted of doing so. i would invite them to engage in a time-honored civil rights technique: civil disobedience. they can exercise their first amendment right, burn a cross and go to jail. </font>[/QUOTE]HOWEVER, UPON FURTHER EXAMINATION, IT DOESN'T SAY THAT THEY CAN'T BURN CROSSES ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY, OR THAT FILMMAKERS RECREATING AN EVENT CAN'T BURN CROSSES. IT ONLY SAYS THAT IF THE PURPOSE IS TO INTIMIDATE. INTERESTING. </font>[/QUOTE]look closer, "property of another" would apply to filmmaker, also, don't be misled by the "if" burning the cross is evidence of intent, therefore, the prosecution would not have to prove intent, the fact that the cross burns proves it.

[TAC]

"Intent" is about mental state, mens rea (sp?) what was the state of mind when the person performed the act.

Carry on. Brilliant discussion from all sides. I sucked at Con Law so I'm just following the dicussion. The concept of mens rea is from Crim. Law.

Peace
TAC

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by TAC:
"Intent" is about mental state, mens rea (sp?) what was the state of mind when the person performed the act.

Carry on. Brilliant discussion from all sides. I sucked at Con Law so I'm just following the dicussion. The concept of mens rea is from Crim. Law.

Peace
TAC ****ing wuss

Take a side dammit!

[TAC]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TAC:
"Intent" is about mental state, mens rea (sp?) what was the state of mind when the person performed the act.

Carry on. Brilliant discussion from all sides. I sucked at Con Law so I'm just following the dicussion. The concept of mens rea is from Crim. Law.

Peace
TAC ****ing wuss

Take a side dammit! </font>[/QUOTE]Watch the game bitch...

[AK]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
The real question is whether or not the first amendment gives them the authority to do so.


AGAIN, is ‘no’ an absolute? What exactly is this belief and where is its explicit justification that ‘no’ is not, that the first amendment was not intended to be and also that their own beliefs can supercede a very explicit legal expression such as the first amendment? Mark is deftly handling the legal biz, as usual. And while I understand your point, Jamie, from an intellectual standpoint, I would submit to you that accepting the words of the framers as unbending truth that cannot be interpreted and applied to fit modern day realities is a very scary proposition. For one, the Constitution itself is one of the most overtly racist documents ever written. Check Art. I, Sec. 2, for example. Yep, right up there in the beginning.

[AD]

Originally posted by andrea:
i agree with this ruling. cross burning is historically racially condemming, enough of that shit. It has nothing to do with free speech, it is an act of violence or intent of. This is the correct answer. Preach!

[nev m]

Originally posted by Albert D.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by andrea:
i agree with this ruling. cross burning is historically racially condemming, enough of that shit. It has nothing to do with free speech, it is an act of violence or intent of. This is the correct answer. Preach! </font>[/QUOTE]It's hard to believe, that there is any sway the other way. The burning of a cross is evil, and insane.

People that behave in such a pagan fashion should be treated as such. Your government is a disgrace given what went on in Missisipi, (and everywhere else).
The planet's too small to fit these sick f**ks on. We should all stand together, and flush them the ***k out.

[Monny JcIntosh]

It's not my country, but I agree with Jamie and Konbit. I'd have thought you should legislate against the intent rather than a contingent expression of it. There's no need for the two to be conflated as intent would suffice as grounds for conviction. So it seems to me. Maybe there should be laws against Madonna videos, but not this one.

[DJ76]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I had a feeling that freedom of speech in the USA was pretty much absolute... has this been reversed recently or was it never absolute? My memory might be playing tricks on me but I thought that's what I heard in my comparative constitutional law class... years ago.

Peace
Alex

[imported_Gman]

Cross burnings = http://deephousepage.com/jpegs/hanging.jpg. It should be banned.

[Koffy Brown]

Originally posted by Gman:
Cross burnings = http://deephousepage.com/jpegs/hanging.jpg. It should be banned. I have that picture...worth a thousand words..
how quickly do we tend to forget...
peace

[mhd]

Originally posted by Gman:
Cross burnings = http://deephousepage.com/jpegs/hanging.jpg. It should be banned. thanks for making the point i've been trying to make for 5 pages

[nev m]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gman:
Cross burnings = http://deephousepage.com/jpegs/hanging.jpg. It should be banned. thanks for making the point i've been trying to make for 5 pages </font>[/QUOTE]Precisely cross burning has got f*** all to do with freedom of speech, and more do oppression. Anyone who can't see that is completely mad. There is no defence whatsoever for that kind of shit.

To play the Devils advocate with this subject is tantamount to burning your own cross. Using freedom of speech as away of exposing, and then destroying them is a better idea. The last thing on their minds is freedom. And congress goes on about the war on terror! Charity begins at home.

Peace.

[Doug]

Originally posted by konbit:
I don't know what inconsistency in my argument you think you've found, but I don't see it. In regards to intent, I think you are misunderstanding what I mean. It is impossible to prove that there is the same intent (in this case, an assulting threat) in every instance that a cross is burned. If somebody were to burn a cross specifically to protest this court decision, then their free speech would be suppressed by this ruling, which assumes that the intent is based in this perceived threat (which isn't present).

What if a black artist wants to burn a cross as a form of rememberence art? Or a musician wants to film a music video in that state, which recreates some of the horrors from the past? Those forms of expression are now illegal...despite the fact that the artists' intents had nothing to do with threatening people.

And the slippery slope begins.... Which is why it is importnat to support freedom of speech, even when you don't like those who are speaking

Please tell me how cross burning differs from the legitimacy of KKK rallies.

It is LEGAL to be racist. It is LEGAL to let your racist views be known. Why would it be illegal to let them be known through a symbolic act if the said act does not break any other laws?

P.S. Are my promos en route yet?
:D ;) In a perfect world, where the history of cross burning would be wide and varied and not inextricably tied to fear and intimidation, your argument would make sense. But, once again, the historical record of cross burning overrules all of the "what ifs" you are proposing. You can "what if" an issue to death, and it still won't change the fact that, in this country, cross burning has ALWAYS equalled intimidation. The court, as mhd indicated, erred on the side of assuming that the act means intimidation based on the historical record of the act.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Gman:
Cross burnings = http://deephousepage.com/jpegs/hanging.jpg. It should be banned. This is not a cross burning.

[Koffy Brown]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gman:
Cross burnings = http://deephousepage.com/jpegs/hanging.jpg. It should be banned. This is not a cross burning. </font>[/QUOTE]The cross burning happened...2 minutes prior to this act...it was sorta the beforeplay....

[GROOVE VICTIM]

Well tell that to the relatives of slane black men who were dragged out of their houses late at night after seeing a cross burning in front of their house that this black man worked his ass off to build for his family.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Ashaki:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gman:
Cross burnings = http://deephousepage.com/jpegs/hanging.jpg. It should be banned. This is not a cross burning. </font>[/QUOTE]The cross burning happened...2 minutes prior to this act...it was sorta the beforeplay.... </font>[/QUOTE]Cross burnings dont kill people this does.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by GROOVE VICTIM:
Well tell that to the relatives of slane black men who were dragged out of their houses late at night after seeing a cross burning in front of their house that this black man worked his ass off to build for his family. An appeal to one’s emotions is not an argument.

[Koffy Brown]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ashaki:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gman:
Cross burnings = http://deephousepage.com/jpegs/hanging.jpg. It should be banned. This is not a cross burning. </font>[/QUOTE]The cross burning happened...2 minutes prior to this act...it was sorta the beforeplay.... </font>[/QUOTE]Cross burnings dont kill people this does. </font>[/QUOTE]What you are failing to realize and what everyone is trying to get you to understand, is that the cross burning itself didn't kill a man, but it intimidated and it revved up emotions that led to the lynchings...and killings.

[mhd]

pathetic

[Bill Blake]

Look people, freedom of speech and what has been ordained as expression are not important rights when they everyone is in agreement, they are important when they are not.

Its people like the Klan that have no regard for rights and the freedom to express oneself and when you allow them to appeal to your sense of emotion, frustration, anger and the whole gamut of feelings that can come from their despicable actions in attempt to intimidate and in doing so are willing to give up the very sanction of freedom that allows them to burn crosses (not lynch people, i.e. the above picture) then they win because now you have laws in place that are more of the restrictive vein like their world view, not mine.

It’s the Jedi mind trick that brings you over to the dark side.

Just remember it one more time.

People that are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety.

[Doug]

Lennox,

Define "free speech".

[Koffy Brown]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Look people, freedom of speech and what has been ordained as expression are not important rights when they everyone is in agreement, they are important when they are not.

Its people like the Klan that have no regard for rights and the freedom to express oneself and when you allow them to appeal to your sense of emotion, frustration, anger and the whole gamut of feelings that can come from their despicable actions in attempt to intimidate and in doing so are willing to give up the very sanction of freedom that allows them to burn crosses (not lynch people, i.e. the above picture) then they win because now you have laws in place that are more of the restrictive vein like their world view, not mine.

It’s the Jedi mind trick that brings you over to the dark side.

Just remember it one more time.

People that are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. So what you are basically saying is ...they should be able to bring back slavery by teaching and preaching the benefits of slavery, that's how it begins...the gathering of a few and burning of a couple of crosses...and then the next thing you know the number of those few increases...the cross burnings increases but they are protected by freedom of speech and the ability to freely express themselves....YOU JUST DON'T GET IT...but then again I don't expect you to...,

peace

[mhd]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Look people, freedom of speech and what has been ordained as expression are not important rights when they everyone is in agreement, they are important when they are not.

Its people like the Klan that have no regard for rights and the freedom to express oneself and when you allow them to appeal to your sense of emotion, frustration, anger and the whole gamut of feelings that can come from their despicable actions in attempt to intimidate and in doing so are willing to give up the very sanction of freedom that allows them to burn crosses (not lynch people, i.e. the above picture) then they win because now you have laws in place that are more of the restrictive vein like their world view, not mine.

It’s the Jedi mind trick that brings you over to the dark side.

Just remember it one more time.

People that are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. you need to take the hood off and see the light

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Ashaki:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ashaki:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gman:
Cross burnings = http://deephousepage.com/jpegs/hanging.jpg. It should be banned. This is not a cross burning. </font>[/QUOTE]The cross burning happened...2 minutes prior to this act...it was sorta the beforeplay.... </font>[/QUOTE]Cross burnings dont kill people this does. </font>[/QUOTE]What you are failing to realize and what everyone is trying to get you to understand, is that the cross burning itself didn't kill a man, but it intimidated and it revved up emotions that led to the lynchings...and killings. </font>[/QUOTE]What you fail to realize is how full of shit that is.

Using the same logic, one could argue that by having black people on this continent, it leads to cross burnings that lead to lynchings. That by having people they could kill one another...and then your conclusion lets get rid of people.

It does not work and the reason it doesnt is because the Klan, can, at their own ralleys, on their own property burn a cross, have meeting, talk about how much they hate you and then go out and eat salsbury steaks.

Think of N word and how detrimental that has been to black folks. You don’t think when they burn their crossing they using that word? Should we ban that too?

Sorry but you cant just show pictures of atrocities and say ‘see, their you go’. It doesn’t work that way.

The Klan wears white sheet too while they burn crosses and lynch. White sheets have had just as long as a tradition as a uniform to intimidate black people as much as burning crosses……..should we ban white sheets too?

****ed up logic folks, ****ed up logic.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Look people, freedom of speech and what has been ordained as expression are not important rights when they everyone is in agreement, they are important when they are not.

Its people like the Klan that have no regard for rights and the freedom to express oneself and when you allow them to appeal to your sense of emotion, frustration, anger and the whole gamut of feelings that can come from their despicable actions in attempt to intimidate and in doing so are willing to give up the very sanction of freedom that allows them to burn crosses (not lynch people, i.e. the above picture) then they win because now you have laws in place that are more of the restrictive vein like their world view, not mine.

It’s the Jedi mind trick that brings you over to the dark side.

Just remember it one more time.

People that are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. you need to take the hood off and see the light </font>[/QUOTE]Oh yes I do Mark, cause when I want peace it means Im a Sadam sympathizer.

[mhd]

****ed up lynchings, ****ed up lynchings... but in your stubborn ignorance that does not matter, typical liberal bullshit, when push comes to shove, adherence to ideas over reality

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Ashaki:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Look people, freedom of speech and what has been ordained as expression are not important rights when they everyone is in agreement, they are important when they are not.

Its people like the Klan that have no regard for rights and the freedom to express oneself and when you allow them to appeal to your sense of emotion, frustration, anger and the whole gamut of feelings that can come from their despicable actions in attempt to intimidate and in doing so are willing to give up the very sanction of freedom that allows them to burn crosses (not lynch people, i.e. the above picture) then they win because now you have laws in place that are more of the restrictive vein like their world view, not mine.

It’s the Jedi mind trick that brings you over to the dark side.

Just remember it one more time.

People that are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. So what you are basically saying is ...they should be able to bring back slavery by teaching and preaching the benefits of slavery, that's how it begins...the gathering of a few and burning of a couple of crosses...and then the next thing you know the number of those few increases...the cross burnings increases but they are protected by freedom of speech and the ability to freely express themselves....YOU JUST DON'T GET IT...but then again I don't expect you to...,

peace </font>[/QUOTE]Your causality is so flawed here remind yourself to never attempt to try to work in any fields of science, or for me to never hire you for research jobs.

[mhd]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Look people, freedom of speech and what has been ordained as expression are not important rights when they everyone is in agreement, they are important when they are not.

Its people like the Klan that have no regard for rights and the freedom to express oneself and when you allow them to appeal to your sense of emotion, frustration, anger and the whole gamut of feelings that can come from their despicable actions in attempt to intimidate and in doing so are willing to give up the very sanction of freedom that allows them to burn crosses (not lynch people, i.e. the above picture) then they win because now you have laws in place that are more of the restrictive vein like their world view, not mine.

It’s the Jedi mind trick that brings you over to the dark side.

Just remember it one more time.

People that are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. you need to take the hood off and see the light </font>[/QUOTE]Oh yes I do Mark, cause when I want peace it means Im a Sadam sympathizer. </font>[/QUOTE]today you are a klan sympathizer, totally insulting all of us who have had to battle these fools at risk of life and the memory of those murdered, castrated and mutilated

[Doug]

****ed up logic folks, ****ed up logic. [/QB]With which part of this law do you have an issue?

§ 18.2-423. Burning cross on property of another or public place with intent to intimidate; penalty; prima facie evidence of intent.

It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons.

(Code 1950, §§ 18.1-365 through 18.1-367; 1960, c. 358; 1968, c. 350; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1983, c. 337.)

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by mhd:
****ed up lynchings, ****ed up lynchings... but in your stubborn ignorance that does not matter, typical liberal bullshit, when push comes to shove, adherence to ideas over reality Wait I thought we were discussing whether or not burning a cross was legal, not lynchings???????

The notion that ideas in general are in conflict with reality is a false dichotomy.

There is a criteria for which ideas are not or are given the knowledge.

You are starting to spout a lot of the same rhetoric hitlter did about ideas......watch it...he considered himself a very practical man.

[mhd]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ashaki:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
Look people, freedom of speech and what has been ordained as expression are not important rights when they everyone is in agreement, they are important when they are not.

Its people like the Klan that have no regard for rights and the freedom to express oneself and when you allow them to appeal to your sense of emotion, frustration, anger and the whole gamut of feelings that can come from their despicable actions in attempt to intimidate and in doing so are willing to give up the very sanction of freedom that allows them to burn crosses (not lynch people, i.e. the above picture) then they win because now you have laws in place that are more of the restrictive vein like their world view, not mine.

It’s the Jedi mind trick that brings you over to the dark side.

Just remember it one more time.

People that are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. So what you are basically saying is ...they should be able to bring back slavery by teaching and preaching the benefits of slavery, that's how it begins...the gathering of a few and burning of a couple of crosses...and then the next thing you know the number of those few increases...the cross burnings increases but they are protected by freedom of speech and the ability to freely express themselves....YOU JUST DON'T GET IT...but then again I don't expect you to...,

peace </font>[/QUOTE]Your causality is so flawed here remind yourself to never attempt to try to work in any fields of science, or for me to never hire you for research jobs. </font>[/QUOTE]remind me to never count on you for justice

[TAC]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
People that are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. This statment is wack dude. Its so broad that it makes you sound ignorant, not intelligent. Just try standing back and reconsidering what your saying for a second.

[mhd]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
****ed up lynchings, ****ed up lynchings... but in your stubborn ignorance that does not matter, typical liberal bullshit, when push comes to shove, adherence to ideas over reality Wait I thought we were discussing whether or not burning a cross was legal, not lynchings???????

The notion that ideas in general are in conflict with reality is a false dichotomy.

There is a criteria for which ideas are not or are given the knowledge.

You are starting to spout a lot of the same rhetoric hitlter did about ideas......watch it...he considered himself a very practical man. </font>[/QUOTE]you are starting to spout the same ideals as the klan, and they considered themselves patriots

[mhd]

Originally posted by TAC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
People that are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. This statment is wack dude. Its so broad that it makes you sound ignorant, not intelligent. Just try standing back and reconsidering what your saying for a second. </font>[/QUOTE]FOR A ****ING SECOND!

[Koffy Brown]

If the viewing of that lynching picture IN ITSELF isn't enough to applaud the fact that cross burning has been banned, if for no other reason than the fact that those who burned the crosses were the ones who did the lynchings....then shame on you...and what's even more frightening is that there were some supreme court justice's who think like you on this matter....

we better keep our eyes wide open....

[ April 08, 2003, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Ashaki ]

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by TAC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
People that are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. This statment is wack dude. Its so broad that it makes you sound ignorant, not intelligent. Just try standing back and reconsidering what your saying for a second. </font>[/QUOTE]Tell that to Ben Franklin.

I agree with him.

The trick is simply to define what freedom is then you know what the statement means.

[ April 08, 2003, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Jamie Lennox ]

[Doug]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
People that are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. I see. So if the workers at my daughter's daycare center decide they want to start bringing in concealed handguns because they have a right to bear arms, I should accept that?

[Koffy Brown]

There cannot exsist absolute freedom in a civilized society...are you serious?

[Friday]

I'll tell you all something, this thing called "Freedom of Speech" has given no one freedom. Shame

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
****ed up lynchings, ****ed up lynchings... but in your stubborn ignorance that does not matter, typical liberal bullshit, when push comes to shove, adherence to ideas over reality Wait I thought we were discussing whether or not burning a cross was legal, not lynchings???????

The notion that ideas in general are in conflict with reality is a false dichotomy.

There is a criteria for which ideas are not or are given the knowledge.

You are starting to spout a lot of the same rhetoric hitlter did about ideas......watch it...he considered himself a very practical man. </font>[/QUOTE]you are starting to spout the same ideals as the klan, and they considered themselves patriots </font>[/QUOTE]If their arguement is that they have the right to burn crosses on their own property then yes I do.

So tomorrow they evade the laws by burning circles, or arrows or octagons for the next hundred years, we ban that too?

[TAD]

it’s like saying the sacrament of communion & the belief system tied to that sacrament has nothing to do with the religion itself.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

The trick is simply to define what freedom is then you know what the statement means. Well then, define it for us so that it also encompasses your contention that people who are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Cosmic_Twin:
it’s like saying the sacrament of communion & the belief system tied to that sacrament has nothing to do with the religion itself. No its not

[nev m]

The KKK should have lost their rights (political or otherwise) collectively from the moment they took that first innocent life. The only reason they haven't lost there rights is because there are people in high places too affiliated with them.

Anyone who argues for freedom of speech on their behalf is mocking all the victims,their families, all black people living in America, and people who have stood up, and spoken out like C.P.Ellis.

Time to put them to bed, and move on.

[Koffy Brown]

What difference should it matter who's lawn or yard the cross is being burnt in when the meaning behind it is the same and the outcome could be the same....

I wonder if they burnt a cross before dragging...the brother to death in Texas...

[mhd]

Originally posted by nev m:
The KKK should have lost their rights (political or otherwise) collectively from the moment they took that first innocent life. The only reason they haven't lost there rights is because there are people in high places too affiliated with them.

Anyone who argues for freedom of speech on their behalf is mocking all the victims,their families, all black people living in America, and people who have stood up, and spoken out like C.P.Ellis.

Time to put them to bed, and move on. thank you

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

The trick is simply to define what freedom is then you know what the statement means. Well then, define it for us so that it also encompasses your contention that people who are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. </font>[/QUOTE]What is the difference between Robert burning a cross on his own property and lynching someone?

[mhd]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

The trick is simply to define what freedom is then you know what the statement means. Well then, define it for us so that it also encompasses your contention that people who are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. </font>[/QUOTE]What is the difference between Robert burning a cross on his own property and lynching someone? </font>[/QUOTE]none

[Doug]

Originally posted by Cosmic_Twin:
it’s like saying the sacrament of communion & the belief system tied to that sacrament has nothing to do with the religion itself. Thank you. This is what distinguishes the act of cross burning from a Klan rally.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

The trick is simply to define what freedom is then you know what the statement means. Well then, define it for us so that it also encompasses your contention that people who are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. </font>[/QUOTE]What is the difference between Robert burning a cross on his own property and lynching someone? </font>[/QUOTE]The court says none. And rather than fooling around trying create nuances for certain types of cross burning which the historical record doesn't support, they opted to call all of them bullshit.

[ April 08, 2003, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Doug ]

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by nev m:
The KKK should have lost their rights (political or otherwise) collectively from the moment they took that first innocent life. The only reason they haven't lost there rights is because there are people in high places too affiliated with them.

Anyone who argues for freedom of speech on their behalf is mocking all the victims,their families, all black people living in America, and people who have stood up, and spoken out like C.P.Ellis.

Time to put them to bed, and move on. thank you </font>[/QUOTE]Well you see, I can agree with this. Its a good point.

That the KKK was a terrorist organization that congregated to kill other citizens, burn and destroy their property then they should have been pursued a long time ago in the same way Terrorist are now.

Not because they were burning crosses, because they were killing people.

If they are pursued in that manner, I have no problem with it.

The present law in Virginia means I cant burn a cross on my property when I want to...that is a different issue.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

The trick is simply to define what freedom is then you know what the statement means. Well then, define it for us so that it also encompasses your contention that people who are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. </font>[/QUOTE]What is the difference between Robert burning a cross on his own property and lynching someone? </font>[/QUOTE]The court says none. And rather than fooling around trying create nuances for certain types of cross burning which the historical record doesn't support, they opted to call all of them bullshit. </font>[/QUOTE]Then the court is wrong

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

The trick is simply to define what freedom is then you know what the statement means. Well then, define it for us so that it also encompasses your contention that people who are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. </font>[/QUOTE]What is the difference between Robert burning a cross on his own property and lynching someone? </font>[/QUOTE]none </font>[/QUOTE]Are you doped up?

[Koffy Brown]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

The trick is simply to define what freedom is then you know what the statement means. Well then, define it for us so that it also encompasses your contention that people who are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. </font>[/QUOTE]What is the difference between Robert burning a cross on his own property and lynching someone? </font>[/QUOTE]The court says none. And rather than fooling around trying create nuances for certain types of cross burning which the historical record doesn't support, they opted to call all of them bullshit. </font>[/QUOTE]Then the court is wrong </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sure the KKK agrees with you as well

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Ashaki:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

The trick is simply to define what freedom is then you know what the statement means. Well then, define it for us so that it also encompasses your contention that people who are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. </font>[/QUOTE]What is the difference between Robert burning a cross on his own property and lynching someone? </font>[/QUOTE]The court says none. And rather than fooling around trying create nuances for certain types of cross burning which the historical record doesn't support, they opted to call all of them bullshit. </font>[/QUOTE]Then the court is wrong </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sure the KKK agrees with you as well </font>[/QUOTE]Im sure their are people in the KKK that agree that cream corn is tasty....so what?

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by nev m:
The KKK should have lost their rights (political or otherwise) collectively from the moment they took that first innocent life. The only reason they haven't lost there rights is because there are people in high places too affiliated with them.

Anyone who argues for freedom of speech on their behalf is mocking all the victims,their families, all black people living in America, and people who have stood up, and spoken out like C.P.Ellis.

Time to put them to bed, and move on. thank you </font>[/QUOTE]Well you see, I can agree with this. Its a good point.

That the KKK was a terrorist organization that congregated to kill other citizens, burn and destroy their property then they should have been pursued a long time ago in the same way Terrorist are now.

Not because they were burning crosses, because they were killing people.

If they are pursued in that manner, I have no problem with it.

The present law in Virginia means I cant burn a cross on my property when I want to...that is a different issue. </font>[/QUOTE]Im re posting this

[mhd]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

The trick is simply to define what freedom is then you know what the statement means. Well then, define it for us so that it also encompasses your contention that people who are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. </font>[/QUOTE]What is the difference between Robert burning a cross on his own property and lynching someone? </font>[/QUOTE]none </font>[/QUOTE]Are you doped up? </font>[/QUOTE]let it go, you are going from the extreme to the ridiculous, looking worse with each post, choosing to ignore the thousands of lives lost in the most brutal and savage murders

[Doug]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

The trick is simply to define what freedom is then you know what the statement means. Well then, define it for us so that it also encompasses your contention that people who are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. </font>[/QUOTE]What is the difference between Robert burning a cross on his own property and lynching someone? </font>[/QUOTE]The court says none. And rather than fooling around trying create nuances for certain types of cross burning which the historical record doesn't support, they opted to call all of them bullshit. </font>[/QUOTE]Then the court is wrong </font>[/QUOTE]The court interpreted the constitution based on the historical record. That is what the Supreme Court does. Remove the historical record, take the constitution at face value (like you want to do) and we'd still have slavery duke. Nuance and opinion is the essence of constitutional law. The best you can say is that you disagree with the opinion. I agree with it. If the mother****ing Klan is so hell bent on burning shit, let them burn a Swastika. They could probably get away with it under this ruling.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

The trick is simply to define what freedom is then you know what the statement means. Well then, define it for us so that it also encompasses your contention that people who are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. </font>[/QUOTE]What is the difference between Robert burning a cross on his own property and lynching someone? </font>[/QUOTE]The court says none. And rather than fooling around trying create nuances for certain types of cross burning which the historical record doesn't support, they opted to call all of them bullshit. </font>[/QUOTE]Then the court is wrong </font>[/QUOTE]The court interpreted the constitution based on the historical record. That is what the Supreme Court does. Remove the historical record, take the constitution at face value (like you want to do) and we'd still have slavery duke. Nuance and opinion is the essence of constitutional law. The best you can say is that you disagree with the opinion. I agree with it. If the mother****ing Klan is so hell bent on burning shit, let them burn a Swastika. They could probably get away with it under this ruling. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you believe that the proper argument as to why Slavery should be legal or illegal should depend on “Nuance and opinion” of the constitution from the court?

[TAC]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TAC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
People that are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. This statment is wack dude. Its so broad that it makes you sound ignorant, not intelligent. Just try standing back and reconsidering what your saying for a second. </font>[/QUOTE]The trick is simply to define what freedom is then you know what the statement means. </font>[/QUOTE]This is absolute thinking which is not practical in this day and age.

Jamie, your trying to make constitutional arguments, but your failing to grasp the simple notion that the Constitution is a living breathing document that was designed to "change" as society changes.

Things that were practical when the document was initially drafted are no longer practical given the demands of present day society.


Man we love you, but sooner or later we're going to cut yer loose if you continue to make failing, ignorant, insulting arguments. Sometimes you've got to simply grab a concept, absorb it, let it go, and move on because its simply in your best interests.

Peace
TAC

[ April 08, 2003, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: TAC ]

[mhd]

cut loose pages ago, with friends like these who needs strom thurmond

[Bill Blake]

TAC

Does the day and age decide that 2+2=4

What is man/woman? He/she does not by his nature deserve the same freedom he/she should have a had a hundered, a thousand years ago?

[ April 08, 2003, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Jamie Lennox ]

[Doug]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

The trick is simply to define what freedom is then you know what the statement means. Well then, define it for us so that it also encompasses your contention that people who are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. </font>[/QUOTE]What is the difference between Robert burning a cross on his own property and lynching someone? </font>[/QUOTE]The court says none. And rather than fooling around trying create nuances for certain types of cross burning which the historical record doesn't support, they opted to call all of them bullshit. </font>[/QUOTE]Then the court is wrong </font>[/QUOTE]The court interpreted the constitution based on the historical record. That is what the Supreme Court does. Remove the historical record, take the constitution at face value (like you want to do) and we'd still have slavery duke. Nuance and opinion is the essence of constitutional law. The best you can say is that you disagree with the opinion. I agree with it. If the mother****ing Klan is so hell bent on burning shit, let them burn a Swastika. They could probably get away with it under this ruling. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you believe that the proper argument as to why Slavery should be legal or illegal should depend on “Nuance and opinion” of the constitution from the court? </font>[/QUOTE]I wasn't suggesting that, but I see your point. The point I was arguing is that the Constitution is a living document that is open to interpretation. That interpretation is based on logic as well as history. It is not the Ten Commandments handed down from God to Moses, unalterable by man through amendment or interpretation. It garners its force through opinion, hence the reason why the death penalty could be, at once, outlawed in this nation and then reinstated. Your main point has been that "no" equals "no". And at the risk of sounding "Clintonesque", what "no" means depends on the interpretation of what "no" means, not on the textbook definition of "no".

[DeesKo]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

The present law in Virginia means I cant burn a cross on my property when I want to...that is a different issue. Are you talking about the same law quoted by Doug :



[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug:
[qb] § 18.2-423. Burning cross on property of another or public place with intent to intimidate; penalty; prima facie evidence of intent.

It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons.

(Code 1950, §§ 18.1-365 through 18.1-367; 1960, c. 358; 1968, c. 350; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1983, c. 337.) If we wanted to get technical, according to that law and how I read it, you can't burn a cross on any one ELSE'S property, nor on public property, but it doesn't say anything at all about what you can or can't do on your own property....

Part of the decision of the court is probably based on the notion that anyone taking a cross and purposely placing it on someone else's property, or in a public place so as to be in clear view of other people or someone going out and finding a cross in a specific place and burning it would be doing so out of malice and with the intent to intimidate others.... as this has been historically proven to be the case.


You might POSSIBLY have a theoretically arguable case and maybe even win if you were arrested for burning a cross in your own backyard unless someone could prove in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt that even though the cross was physically located in your backyard, it was still readily apparent to others on public property and that you were burning it with the intent to intimidate them.


I agree with the courts ruling.

Peace

[ April 08, 2003, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: DeesKo ]

[TAC]

Originally posted by Doug:
[W]hat "no" means depends on the interpretation of what "no" means, not on the textbook definition of "no". And that IS the truth!

[ April 08, 2003, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: TAC ]

[JL]

By reading the law in question, it seems obvious to me that the court made the right decision. There's a conditional clause to cross burnings in general - to intimidate. The KKK's purpose for burning crosses, historically, is to intimidate and incite hatred, fear, and violence towards oppressed peoples. I don't read this law as stating that you can't burn crosses period, but only when it is determined that you are doing so out of hate and to threaten people, which they have done historically. Freedom is not absolute, read Locke, Rousseaux, Mills, and Bentham again Lennox.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
TAC

Does the day and age decide that 2+2=4

What is man/woman? He/she does not by his nature deserve the same freedom he/she should have a had a hundered, a thousand years ago? One hundred years ago, white people had the "freedom" to discriminate against their fellow citizens for no reason other than the color of their skin. Are you suggesting that a "freedom" such as this is absolute and free of any legal checks and balances that might restrict this freedom?

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

The trick is simply to define what freedom is then you know what the statement means. Well then, define it for us so that it also encompasses your contention that people who are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. </font>[/QUOTE]What is the difference between Robert burning a cross on his own property and lynching someone? </font>[/QUOTE]The court says none. And rather than fooling around trying create nuances for certain types of cross burning which the historical record doesn't support, they opted to call all of them bullshit. </font>[/QUOTE]Then the court is wrong </font>[/QUOTE]The court interpreted the constitution based on the historical record. That is what the Supreme Court does. Remove the historical record, take the constitution at face value (like you want to do) and we'd still have slavery duke. Nuance and opinion is the essence of constitutional law. The best you can say is that you disagree with the opinion. I agree with it. If the mother****ing Klan is so hell bent on burning shit, let them burn a Swastika. They could probably get away with it under this ruling. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you believe that the proper argument as to why Slavery should be legal or illegal should depend on “Nuance and opinion” of the constitution from the court? </font>[/QUOTE]I wasn't suggesting that, but I see your point. The point I was arguing is that the Constitution is a living document that is open to interpretation. That interpretation is based on logic as well as history. It is not the Ten Commandments handed down from God to Moses, unalterable by man through amendment or interpretation. It garners its force through opinion, hence the reason why the death penalty could be, at once, outlawed in this nation and then reinstated. Your main point has been that "no" equals "no". And at the risk of sounding "Clintonesque", what "no" means depends on the interpretation of what "no" means, not on the textbook definition of "no". </font>[/QUOTE]If the constitution is such a living and breathing document as some of you claim it to be, always acceptable to change………..if then tomorrow it was amended that slavery will be reinstated, burning frozen white castle burgers in the back yard is illegal and we can all be killed if we don’t have pictures of George Bush’s penis on our living room laws, then what is the point of having it in the first place?

Is there not a difference for finally amending the constitution that slavery should be illegal and amending it that we can no longer access documents of what our Executive Branch is doing?

[mhd]

there is no condition in the virgina law, burning a cross is prima facie evidence of intimidation

[TAC]

we are moving back into the concept of mens rea.

[manfred]

my understanding of the ruling is like this...

if you burn a cross on the front yard of a black familiy, you are violating the law upheld by the supreme court, not to mention a slew of other laws...trespassing, reckless endangerment, etc.

if you and your klan buddies burn a cross in the back of farmer ted's barn...that's a-o.k.

let's look at the history of the first amendment and free speech. the bill of rights was not originally part of the constitution. they were added in 1791. the issue of free speech never even made it to the supreme court until 1919. even then, in Abrams v. U.S., in the dissenting opinion, Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis D. Brandeis argued speech could only be punished if it presented "a clear and present danger" of imminent harm.

for more, check out this link:
http://archive.aclu.org/library/pbp10.html

btw, if mhd is a fierce proponent of the first amendment and jamie is an even fiercer proponent, i then declare myself the "fiercest" proponent of free speech only b/c i happen to work for the peeps above. ;)

[manfred]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

The trick is simply to define what freedom is then you know what the statement means. Well then, define it for us so that it also encompasses your contention that people who are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. </font>[/QUOTE]What is the difference between Robert burning a cross on his own property and lynching someone? </font>[/QUOTE]The court says none. And rather than fooling around trying create nuances for certain types of cross burning which the historical record doesn't support, they opted to call all of them bullshit. </font>[/QUOTE]Then the court is wrong </font>[/QUOTE]The court interpreted the constitution based on the historical record. That is what the Supreme Court does. Remove the historical record, take the constitution at face value (like you want to do) and we'd still have slavery duke. Nuance and opinion is the essence of constitutional law. The best you can say is that you disagree with the opinion. I agree with it. If the mother****ing Klan is so hell bent on burning shit, let them burn a Swastika. They could probably get away with it under this ruling. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you believe that the proper argument as to why Slavery should be legal or illegal should depend on “Nuance and opinion” of the constitution from the court? </font>[/QUOTE]I wasn't suggesting that, but I see your point. The point I was arguing is that the Constitution is a living document that is open to interpretation. That interpretation is based on logic as well as history. It is not the Ten Commandments handed down from God to Moses, unalterable by man through amendment or interpretation. It garners its force through opinion, hence the reason why the death penalty could be, at once, outlawed in this nation and then reinstated. Your main point has been that "no" equals "no". And at the risk of sounding "Clintonesque", what "no" means depends on the interpretation of what "no" means, not on the textbook definition of "no". </font>[/QUOTE]If the constitution is such a living and breathing document as some of you claim it to be, always acceptable to change………..if then tomorrow it was amended that slavery will be reinstated, burning frozen white castle burgers in the back yard is illegal and we can all be killed if we don’t have pictures of George Bush’s penis on our living room laws, then what is the point of having it in the first place?

Is there not a difference for finally amending the constitution that slavery should be illegal and amending it that we can no longer access documents of what our Executive Branch is doing? </font>[/QUOTE]it's not that easy to amend the constitution. if i had time, i would find a civics link.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
If the constitution is such a living and breathing document as some of you claim it to be, always acceptable to change………..if then tomorrow it was amended that slavery will be reinstated, burning frozen white castle burgers in the back yard is illegal and we can all be killed if we don’t have pictures of George Bush’s penis on our living room laws, then what is the point of having it in the first place?
It is a living, breathing document that garners its force through interpretation based on history AND logic. You cannot separate the two.

[DeesKo]

Originally posted by mhd:
there is no condition in the virgina law, burning a cross is prima facie evidence of intimidation Is Doug's quote of the law from Virginia or somewhere else ?

Peace

[mhd]

Originally posted by DeesKo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
there is no condition in the virgina law, burning a cross is prima facie evidence of intimidation Is Doug's quote of the law from Virginia or somewhere else ?

Peace </font>[/QUOTE]i quoted the virginia code yesterday, you have to read both sentences together

[TAC]

Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
TAC

Does the day and age decide that 2+2=4

What is man/woman? He/she does not by his nature deserve the same freedom he/she should have a had a hundered, a thousand years ago? One hundred years ago, white people had the "freedom" to discriminate against their fellow citizens for no reason other than the color of their skin. Are you suggesting that a "freedom" such as this is absolute and free of any legal checks and balances that might restrict this freedom? </font>[/QUOTE]Doug, his statement didn't merit a response. What he's writing is beginning to come across as gibberish. I think he has "net lock" i.e., his brain has locked up on him, and he is arguing for the sake of arguing.

I'm out...

Peace
TAC

[ April 08, 2003, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: TAC ]

[Doug]

I'm done. Time to eat lunch. smile.gif

[mhd]

word, i'm going to the gym

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
If the constitution is such a living and breathing document as some of you claim it to be, always acceptable to change………..if then tomorrow it was amended that slavery will be reinstated, burning frozen white castle burgers in the back yard is illegal and we can all be killed if we don’t have pictures of George Bush’s penis on our living room laws, then what is the point of having it in the first place?
It is a living, breathing document that garners its force through interpretation based on history AND logic. You cannot separate the two. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree.

Thank everyone for their input.

Again to reiterate, the idea that going onto someone else’s property and burning a cross would not be illegal is absurd.

Insofar as Doug’s observation above, JL, Locke who was considered the man responsible for idea of religious tolerance within a state was also against allowing tolerance of atheism.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
TAC

Does the day and age decide that 2+2=4

What is man/woman? He/she does not by his nature deserve the same freedom he/she should have a had a hundered, a thousand years ago? One hundred years ago, white people had the "freedom" to discriminate against their fellow citizens for no reason other than the color of their skin. Are you suggesting that a "freedom" such as this is absolute and free of any legal checks and balances that might restrict this freedom? </font>[/QUOTE]No the other way around.

Those people were not 'free' to opress others based on the color of their skin. That is not freedom.

[mhd]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DeesKo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
there is no condition in the virgina law, burning a cross is prima facie evidence of intimidation Is Doug's quote of the law from Virginia or somewhere else ?

Peace </font>[/QUOTE]i quoted the virginia code yesterday, you have to read both sentences together </font>[/QUOTE]in other words, without the line about prima facie evidence of intimidation, the prosecution would have the burden of proving the cross burners intended to intimidate. with the line about prima facie evidience the fact that the cross is burned fulfills the requirement of proving intimidation. the prosecution does not have to prove it, the burden shifts to the defendant cross burner to prove his intent. that is a big deal

[DeesKo]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DeesKo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
there is no condition in the virgina law, burning a cross is prima facie evidence of intimidation Is Doug's quote of the law from Virginia or somewhere else ?

Peace </font>[/QUOTE]i quoted the virginia code yesterday, you have to read both sentences together </font>[/QUOTE]Right....

The arguement I presented to Jamie was this :

Jamie stated his opposition to the law was simply that the law says he can't burn a cross on his own property. The law doesn't say that. The law says specifically :

"on the property of another, a highway or other public place."

Therefore, this law isn't infringing on Jamie's desire to exercise his freedom to burn a cross in his backyard out of view of anyone else. He's perfectly free to burn a cross in his bathroom or closet or basement or backyard all he wants.... provided its not in clear view of anyone else because if it were in view of anyone else, it would be tantamount to intimidation.

The law isn't telling you what you can and can't do or taking away your freedom of doing it at all, its telling you that the american public as a whole views this as an intimidating act and therefore, should you insist on partaking of said act in a public forum, it would be intimidating to people and intimidating people by burning a cross is punishable in a court of law.

Peace

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DeesKo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
there is no condition in the virgina law, burning a cross is prima facie evidence of intimidation Is Doug's quote of the law from Virginia or somewhere else ?

Peace </font>[/QUOTE]i quoted the virginia code yesterday, you have to read both sentences together </font>[/QUOTE]in other words, without the line about prima facie evidence of intimidation, the prosecution would have the burden of proving the cross burners intended to intimidate. with the line about prima facie evidience the fact that the cross is burned fulfills the requirement of proving intimidation. the prosecution does not have to prove it, the burden shifts to the defendant cross burner to prove his intent. that is a big deal </font>[/QUOTE]Seven justices found that the Virginia law was unconstitutional. Those were Justice O'Connor and her three allies, along with the three who regard all cross burning laws as unconstitutional: Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Anthony M. Kennedy.

Justice O'Connor said the flaw in the Virginia statute was that by permitting an inference of intent, it invited the jury to ignore "all of the contextual factors that are necessary to decide whether a particular cross burning is intended to intimidate."

"The First Amendment does not permit such a shortcut," she said.

[Bill Blake]

Here is the whole shabang (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1107.ZS.html)

[konbit]

Originally posted by JL:
By reading the law in question, it seems obvious to me that the court made the right decision. There's a conditional clause to cross burnings in general - to intimidate. Yeah...the law itself does read like that (thanks for posting it mhd). I still have qualms about the ban on public places and the way that "intimidation" is not better defined (some of you are using VERY broad definitions)...but the Supreme Court ruling makes better sense now. In fact, I think I best agree with what I understand Clarence Thomas' position to be. When used as a tool of intimidation, this doesn't even need a ruling in relation to the first amendment. Just like you cannot pull out a gun and point it at people, and use Freedom of Speech to defend your action, (or put a horse's head on somebody's doorstep with a "watch your back" note)...you cannot use it to defend a cross burning to initimidate.

Mr. Plushed, a few pages ago, I put forth a question, asking what the symbolic difference between a Klan rally and cross burning were, and I still don't think that was adequately answered (which is why I have qualms about the public place restrictions). As SYMBOLIC ARTIFACTS, I see absolutely no difference between the two. From a semiotic position, I see their symbolic functions as being exactly the same, invoking the same history. If, as Jamie and mhd contend, the group should be illegal anywayu (which i think one could make a good argument for), then the question is moot. But, since the Klan and their rallies (inherently evoke intimidation) have been protected (they have ironically even been defended by a Jewish ACLU attorney), it would seems slightly contradictory to ban the cross thing. But after reading the law, this is just splitting hairs. It seems as though the law contains enough open language for judges to bend in several directions.

On the larger topic of free speech: It terrifies me how many people here are willing to sacrifice it. It seems as though too many people are staunch advocates of the Amendment...until somebody uses it to say things that you don't like. For better or for worse, it is in existence to give even the most extreme groups a voice. From the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam to the Neo Nazis and KKK to the Rush Limbaughs to the Michaels Moores to groups and people that are far more radical, repulsive, extreme than any of the above. And when you start letting people take bites out of it...allowing people to tinker with the language...allow people ti "interpret" it, then we are going to lose some of the most important voices in this country, along with those we despise. When confronting First Amendment issues, it is therefore essential to divoce yourself from your personal biases and views in order to uphold a concept that protects everybody.

So, while I believe this particular instance may very well not even be First Amendment-related, I believe that it is vital that we continue to support the forms of speech we most hate in order to protect those we best love.

"This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological." John Stuart Mill

[Koffy Brown]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JL:
By reading the law in question, it seems obvious to me that the court made the right decision. There's a conditional clause to cross burnings in general - to intimidate. Yeah...the law itself does read like that (thanks for posting it mhd). I still have qualms about the ban on public places and the way that "intimidation" is not better defined (some of you are using VERY broad definitions)...but the Supreme Court ruling makes better sense now. In fact, I think I best agree with what I understand Clarence Thomas' position to be. When used as a tool of intimidation, this doesn't even need a ruling in relation to the first amendment. Just like you cannot pull out a gun and point it at people, and use Freedom of Speech to defend your action, (or put a horse's head on somebody's doorstep with a "watch your back" note)...you cannot use it to defend a cross burning to initimidate.

Mr. Plushed, a few pages ago, I put forth a question, asking what the symbolic difference between a Klan rally and cross burning were, and I still don't think that was adequately answered (which is why I have qualms about the public place restrictions). As SYMBOLIC ARTIFACTS, I see absolutely no difference between the two. From a semiotic position, I see their symbolic functions as being exactly the same, invoking the same history. If, as Jamie and mhd contend, the group should be illegal anywayu (which i think one could make a good argument for), then the question is moot. But, since the Klan and their rallies (inherently evoke intimidation) have been protected (they have ironically even been defended by a Jewish ACLU attorney), it would seems slightly contradictory to ban the cross thing. But after reading the law, this is just splitting hairs. It seems as though the law contains enough open language for judges to bend in several directions.

On the larger topic of free speech: It terrifies me how many people here are willing to sacrifice it. It seems as though too many people are staunch advocates of the Amendment...until somebody uses it to say things that you don't like. For better or for worse, it is in existence to give even the most extreme groups a voice. From the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam to the Neo Nazis and KKK to the Rush Limbaughs to the Michaels Moores to groups and people that are far more radical, repulsive, extreme than any of the above. And when you start letting people take bites out of it...allowing people to tinker with the language...allow people ti "interpret" it, then we are going to lose some of the most important voices in this country, along with those we despise. When confronting First Amendment issues, it is therefore essential to divoce yourself from your personal biases and views in order to uphold a concept that protects everybody.

So, while I believe this particular instance may very well not even be First Amendment-related, I believe that it is vital that we continue to support the forms of speech we most hate in order to protect those we best love.

"This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological." John Stuart Mill </font>[/QUOTE]wait a minute are you saying that you support free speech regardless of it's origin? I missed something in your post...

[ April 08, 2003, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Ashaki ]

[Doug]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JL:
By reading the law in question, it seems obvious to me that the court made the right decision. There's a conditional clause to cross burnings in general - to intimidate. Yeah...the law itself does read like that (thanks for posting it mhd). I still have qualms about the ban on public places and the way that "intimidation" is not better defined (some of you are using VERY broad definitions)...but the Supreme Court ruling makes better sense now. In fact, I think I best agree with what I understand Clarence Thomas' position to be. When used as a tool of intimidation, this doesn't even need a ruling in relation to the first amendment. Just like you cannot pull out a gun and point it at people, and use Freedom of Speech to defend your action, (or put a horse's head on somebody's doorstep with a "watch your back" note)...you cannot use it to defend a cross burning to initimidate.

Mr. Plushed, a few pages ago, I put forth a question, asking what the symbolic difference between a Klan rally and cross burning were, and I still don't think that was adequately answered (which is why I have qualms about the public place restrictions). As SYMBOLIC ARTIFACTS, I see absolutely no difference between the two. From a semiotic position, I see their symbolic functions as being exactly the same, invoking the same history. If, as Jamie and mhd contend, the group should be illegal anywayu (which i think one could make a good argument for), then the question is moot. But, since the Klan and their rallies (inherently evoke intimidation) have been protected (they have ironically even been defended by a Jewish ACLU attorney), it would seems slightly contradictory to ban the cross thing. But after reading the law, this is just splitting hairs. It seems as though the law contains enough open language for judges to bend in several directions.

On the larger topic of free speech: It terrifies me how many people here are willing to sacrifice it. It seems as though too many people are staunch advocates of the Amendment...until somebody uses it to say things that you don't like. For better or for worse, it is in existence to give even the most extreme groups a voice. From the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam to the Neo Nazis and KKK to the Rush Limbaughs to the Michaels Moores to groups and people that are far more radical, repulsive, extreme than any of the above. And when you start letting people take bites out of it...allowing people to tinker with the language...allow people ti "interpret" it, then we are going to lose some of the most important voices in this country, along with those we despise. When confronting First Amendment issues, it is therefore essential to divoce yourself from your personal biases and views in order to uphold a concept that protects everybody.

So, while I believe this particular instance may very well not even be First Amendment-related, I believe that it is vital that we continue to support the forms of speech we most hate in order to protect those we best love.

"This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological." John Stuart Mill </font>[/QUOTE]Points well taken. However, I still think you can be a staunch supporter of free speech and recognize the difference between it and proven acts of intimidation. Clearly the court sees it.

[Ron la Rock]

:eek:

I can't evn begin 2 post what i'm thinkin after reading this
I will say its still a mindkcuf how an entire history can be swepted aside by some
for sake of (a very weak 1)arguement while some claim to be free speech freaks (yeah whateva man)its clear thier romanticism on something subjected 2 interpetation
Freedom:
ask any oppressed peoples what this means?
garuanteed not the answer some were looking for nor trying 2 use in defense
nor was it ever defined in this thread when asked (why not?)

anyhow I see where liberals really do suck
and since where not in the final stages of america (not just yet)its greatness lies in its ability 2 evolve wich we have (yes it swings back n fourth like a M^5a...)but
as screwed up as it is right now it is where we are, thats all
meaning nothing can be in the absolute.
(checks n balances are a must)

keep it movin

laterz

[manfred]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JL:
By reading the law in question, it seems obvious to me that the court made the right decision. There's a conditional clause to cross burnings in general - to intimidate. Yeah...the law itself does read like that (thanks for posting it mhd). I still have qualms about the ban on public places and the way that "intimidation" is not better defined (some of you are using VERY broad definitions)...but the Supreme Court ruling makes better sense now. In fact, I think I best agree with what I understand Clarence Thomas' position to be. When used as a tool of intimidation, this doesn't even need a ruling in relation to the first amendment. Just like you cannot pull out a gun and point it at people, and use Freedom of Speech to defend your action, (or put a horse's head on somebody's doorstep with a "watch your back" note)...you cannot use it to defend a cross burning to initimidate.

Mr. Plushed, a few pages ago, I put forth a question, asking what the symbolic difference between a Klan rally and cross burning were, and I still don't think that was adequately answered (which is why I have qualms about the public place restrictions). As SYMBOLIC ARTIFACTS, I see absolutely no difference between the two. From a semiotic position, I see their symbolic functions as being exactly the same, invoking the same history. If, as Jamie and mhd contend, the group should be illegal anywayu (which i think one could make a good argument for), then the question is moot. But, since the Klan and their rallies (inherently evoke intimidation) have been protected (they have ironically even been defended by a Jewish ACLU attorney), it would seems slightly contradictory to ban the cross thing. But after reading the law, this is just splitting hairs. It seems as though the law contains enough open language for judges to bend in several directions.

On the larger topic of free speech: It terrifies me how many people here are willing to sacrifice it. It seems as though too many people are staunch advocates of the Amendment...until somebody uses it to say things that you don't like. For better or for worse, it is in existence to give even the most extreme groups a voice. From the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam to the Neo Nazis and KKK to the Rush Limbaughs to the Michaels Moores to groups and people that are far more radical, repulsive, extreme than any of the above. And when you start letting people take bites out of it...allowing people to tinker with the language...allow people ti "interpret" it, then we are going to lose some of the most important voices in this country, along with those we despise. When confronting First Amendment issues, it is therefore essential to divoce yourself from your personal biases and views in order to uphold a concept that protects everybody.

So, while I believe this particular instance may very well not even be First Amendment-related, I believe that it is vital that we continue to support the forms of speech we most hate in order to protect those we best love.

"This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological." John Stuart Mill </font>[/QUOTE]i can dig it.

[Bold Soul]

I would like to offer a view.

A burning cross is a signal for those of like minds to prepare for and execute action. This is why it has historically proceeded property damage, rapes, lynching, murder. It serves three strategic functions:

</font> A beacon (alarm, signal) that all is clear and action is to proceed.</font> A signal to authorities in the area to stand down and allow those actions to commence.</font> A warning that those who do not comply, or who oppose such acts, will experience the same.</font>
Speech comes before the cross burning. Cross burning is not speech unto itself. It is a call to violent action.

[AD]

Originally posted by DJ76:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I had a feeling that freedom of speech in the USA was pretty much absolute... has this been reversed recently or was it never absolute? It has NEVER been absolute.

[konbit]

I'm taking the liberty of posting some of the statements from the ACLU link that manfred posted. I think both sides of this argument will find parts of it of interest.


Freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition -- this set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is "the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom." Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die.

But in spite of its "preferred position" in our constitutional hierarchy, the nation's commitment to freedom of expression has been tested over and over again. Especially during times of national stress, like war abroad or social upheaval at home, people exercising their First Amendment rights have been censored, fined, even jailed. Those with unpopular political ideas have always borne the brunt of government repression. It was during WWI -- hardly ancient history -- that a person could be jailed just for giving out anti-war leaflets. Out of those early cases, modern First Amendment law evolved. Many struggles and many cases later, ours is the most speech-protective country in the world.

The path to freedom was long and arduous. It took nearly 200 years to establish firm constitutional limits on the government's power to punish "seditious" and "subversive" speech. Many people suffered along the way, such as labor leader Eugene V. Debs, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison under the Espionage Act just for telling a rally of peaceful workers to realize they were "fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder." Or Sidney Street, jailed in 1969 for burning an American flag on a Harlem street corner to protest the shooting of civil rights figure James Meredith.


...in 1969, in Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member, and established a new standard: Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action." Otherwise, even speech that advocates violence is protected. The Brandenberg standard prevails today.


WHAT DOES "PROTECTED SPEECH" INCLUDE?

First Amendment protection is not limited to "pure speech" -- books, newspapers, leaflets, and rallies. It also protects "symbolic speech" -- nonverbal expression whose purpose is to communicate ideas. In its 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, the Court recognized the right of public school students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. In 1989 (Texas v. Johnson) and again in 1990 (U.S. v. Eichman), the Court struck down government bans on "flag desecration." Other examples of protected symbolic speech include works of art, T-shirt slogans, political buttons, music lyrics and theatrical performances.

Government can limit some protected speech by imposing "time, place and manner" restrictions. This is most commonly done by requiring permits for meetings, rallies and demonstrations. But a permit cannot be unreasonably withheld, nor can it be denied based on content of the speech. That would be what is called viewpoint discrimination -- and that is unconstitutional.

When a protest crosses the line from speech to action, the government can intervene more aggressively. Political protesters have the right to picket, to distribute literature, to chant and to engage passersby in debate. But they do not have the right to block building entrances or to physically harass people.

FREE SPEECH FOR HATEMONGERS?

The ACLU has often been at the center of controversy for defending the free speech rights of groups that spew hate, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. But if only popular ideas were protected, we wouldn't need a First Amendment. History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are "indivisible."

Censoring so-called hate speech also runs counter to the long-term interests of the most frequent victims of hate: racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is "the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country."

At the same time, freedom of speech does not prevent punishing conduct that intimidates, harasses, or threatens another person, even if words are used. Threatening phone calls, for example, are not constitutionally protected.


UNPROTECTED EXPRESSION

The Supreme Court has recognized several limited exceptions to First Amendment protection.

* In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Court held that so-called "fighting words ... which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace," are not protected. This decision was based on the fact that fighting words are of "slight social value as a step to truth."
* In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Court held that defamatory falsehoods about public officials can be punished -- only if the offended official can prove the falsehoods were published with "actual malice," i.e.: "knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Other kinds of "libelous statements" are also punishable.
* Legally "obscene" material has historically been excluded from First Amendment protection. Unfortunately, the relatively narrow obscenity exception, described below, has been abused by government authorities and private pressure groups. Sexual expression in art and entertainment is, and has historically been, the most frequent target of censorship crusades, from James Joyce's classic Ulysses to the photographs of Robert Mapplethorpe.

In the 1973 Miller v. California decision, the Court established three conditions that must be present if a work is to be deemed "legally obscene." It must 1) appeal to the average person's prurient (shameful, morbid) interest in sex; 2) depict sexual conduct in a "patently offensive way" as defined by community standards; and 3) taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Attempts to apply the "Miller test" have demonstrated the impossibility of formulating a precise definition of obscenity. Justice Potter Stewart once delivered a famous one-liner on the subject: "I know it when I see it." But the fact is, the obscenity exception to the First Amendment is highly subjective and practically invites government abuse.

THREE REASONS WHY
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS
ESSENTIAL TO A FREE SOCIETY

It's the foundation of self-fulfillment. The right to express one's thoughts and to communicate freely with others affirms the dignity and worth of each and every member of society, and allows each individual to realize his or her full human potential. Thus, freedom of expression is an end in itself -- and as such, deserves society's greatest protection.

It's vital to the attainment and advancement of knowledge, and the search for the truth. The eminent 19th-century writer and civil libertarian, John Stuart Mill, contended that enlightened judgment is possible only if one considers all facts and ideas, from whatever source, and tests one's own conclusions against opposing views. Therefore, all points of view -- even those that are "bad" or socially harmful -- should be represented in society's "marketplace of ideas."

It's necessary to our system of self-government and gives the American people a "checking function" against government excess and corruption. If the American people are to be the masters of their fate and of their elected government, they must be well-informed and have access to all information, ideas and points of view. Mass ignorance is a breeding ground for oppression and tyranny.

[MR. PLUSHEDOUT]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

The trick is simply to define what freedom is then you know what the statement means. Well then, define it for us so that it also encompasses your contention that people who are willing to give up even a little bit of freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. </font>[/QUOTE]What is the difference between Robert burning a cross on his own property and lynching someone? </font>[/QUOTE]The court says none. And rather than fooling around trying create nuances for certain types of cross burning which the historical record doesn't support, they opted to call all of them bullshit. </font>[/QUOTE]Then the court is wrong </font>[/QUOTE]The court interpreted the constitution based on the historical record. That is what the Supreme Court does. Remove the historical record, take the constitution at face value (like you want to do) and we'd still have slavery duke. Nuance and opinion is the essence of constitutional law. The best you can say is that you disagree with the opinion. I agree with it. If the mother****ing Klan is so hell bent on burning shit, let them burn a Swastika. They could probably get away with it under this ruling. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you believe that the proper argument as to why Slavery should be legal or illegal should depend on “Nuance and opinion” of the constitution from the court? </font>[/QUOTE]WHAT YOU FAIL TO REALIZE IS THAT ALL LAWS ARE BASED ON OPINION. ALL RIGHTS ARE BASED ON OPINION. IT'S THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITY. SOEM GUYS SAT AROUND AND SAID, "I THINK WE WHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE THE GOVERNMENT." AND THEY DEBATED ON THE ISSUE, THEN PROPOSED THE ISSUE TO THE PEOPLE AND MORE PEOPLE THAN NOT, THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA. THAT'S ALL IT WAS...A GOOD IDEA. THE MAJORITY'S OPINION. I THINK CROSS BURNING IS BAD. IT'S MY OPINION. APPARENTLY A VAST MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY SHARES IT. SO IT'S ILLEGAL. STILL JUST AN OPINION.

[Koffy Brown]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
I would like to offer a view.

A burning cross is a signal for those of like minds to prepare for and execute action. This is why it has historically proceeded property damage, rapes, lynching, murder. It serves three strategic functions:

</font> A beacon (alarm, signal) that all is clear and action is to proceed.</font> A signal to authorities in the area to stand down and allow those actions to commence.</font> A warning that those who do not comply, or who oppose such acts, will experience the same.</font>
Speech comes before the cross burning. Cross burning is not speech unto itself. It is a call to violent action. I was trying to get this out ... thanks alot...it's the prelude...

Peace...

like a man being executed and they holler dead man walking...the walk is the prelude to his death...

[nev m]

Here is some actual dialogue from an interveiw with a klan member see if you think they deserve freedom of speech after this;
He tells of recruiting young people, "teachin' the principles of the klan. When they came in the door, we had 'Dixie' playin' and they were just thrilled to death.
"I had a call one night from one of our kids. He was about twelve. He said 'I just been robbed downtown by two n*****s'. I'd had a couple of drinks, and that really teed me off. I go downtown,and I saw two young black people. I said, N****r you seen a little white boy up here? I just got a call from him, and was told some n*****s robbed him of fifteen cents'. I pulled my .32 out, and put it right at his head. I said, 'I always wanted to kill a n****r, and I think I'll make you the first one.' I nearly scared the kid to death, and he struck off."

Hmmm!! F***ers like this deserve freedom of speech?

[ April 09, 2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: nev m ]