12-12-2002 21:43									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

This is a gray area. NPR did a story on this a couple of days ago, and I listened on the way to work (this was before Thomas' speaking up, clearly).

As I understand it, the people who were charged under Virginia's statute (which then gave rise to this challenge of the statute) were at a clan rally: the cross was being burned out in a farmer's field with permission.

That makes it somewhat problematic. I have zero love for the KKK, and I see Thomas' point re: cross burning is a pretty unique symbol with a widely understood meaning: "we're comin' to get you, Nigger."

Mix all that together and my personal feeling on the matter is that it shouldn't be protected by the first amendment. It's a tough call, though. Logically, I follow DF's argument as well. And I suppose that technically he may be right. But there are other cases that have upheld laws that are not really Constitutional as far as I can see (CERCLA, for instance).

-Arrian

	12-12-2002 21:52									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Caligastia Hate crime = thought crime Don't punish thoughts, punish crimes.

Hate crime = thought crime?

Do you know what hate crime is?

	12-12-2002 21:55									#33
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Caligastia You don't think people should be allowed to do these things on their own property?

Up to a point, certainly.
But as paiktis questioned, cross burning is only meant as a terroristic statement.
I include flag burning in that definition.

	12-12-2002 21:56									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Hate crime = thought crime? Do you know what hate crime is?

Yes. It punishes the thoughts as well as the crime.

	12-12-2002 21:56									#35
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand Up to a point, certainly.

What point is that, exactly?

	12-12-2002 22:01									#36
	Put an end to popups!

To the same point where your outstretched fist meets my nose.

	12-12-2002 22:04									#37
	Tired of ads?

Justice Thomas correctly set out the history of cross-burning. It was a precursors to violent activites by the Klan and was designed to intimidate blacks, Jews and other minorities. As such it was not protected speech but naked intimidation.

There is a consolidation of two cases now pending before the Supremes. One involved the burning of a cross on the property of a mixed couple. This actitive was obviously designed to intimidate. It is not protected.

The second case arose from a man burning a cross on his own property. This activity was not part of any Klan activity and was not a precursor to violence. It looks to me that the guy was trying merely to communicate pro-Klan sentiments, expounding white surpremacy and/or white power. His actions are not an extension of the old Klan intimidating tactics, but instead he's merely being a jerk. Saying stupid things is constitutionally protected...as long as you're not trying to intimidate people.

	12-12-2002 22:20									#38
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Of course it's free speech. In fact, Thomas' own outburst indicates that: a burning cross communicates, and communicates powerfully. Something tells me the contradiction would be lost on him, however...

I agree. A symbol is a symbol, and in most circumstances shouldn't be prohibited because of the history it entails. There's a lot of symbols that meet this definition and could be considered a crime for brandishing ( swastikas, klan or neo nazi regalia); that, IMO, is a 1st amendment infringement.

Obviously, one someone else's property is completely different.

	12-12-2002 22:24									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I am tired of the whole debate on what "hate crime" means. For crying out loud you all know what it means!

I crime commited out of a extreem loathing. It doesn't mena that the person just said, "I hate blacks" (a thought), it means that person commited a crime vs. blacks .

A "thought crime"? Yeah, they got those, it's called premeditative.

It is totally a good method for persecuting the criminal based on weather they had intent or not.

Burning a cross or anything for that matter to express a hatred towards a specific race, creed, or nation should be illegal. Freedom of speach does not protect those who are expressing intent to do harm. As someone here on the board noted is should be taken as threat, weather it is done in private or in public.

	12-12-2002 22:24									#40
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Cross buring is free speech. It is a right of an american to hate, and to express hatred so long as no one's elses rights are tramped on.

The sumpreme court will support Cross burning. Since this is basicly the same court that said you can burn flags.

I do not like people buring Crosses or our flag, but they have a right to do so.

	12-12-2002 22:26									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand To the same point where your outstretched fist meets my nose.

Hey, I agree that those actions are offensive, but I don't think the right to carry them out on private property should be restricted.

	12-12-2002 22:28									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

So Daveo, if I keep a child locked in a closet, MY closet, in MY house, that's cool ?

I know. You're thinking that's no the same, but it is.
Your rights end when they infringe on mine, or another's.

	12-12-2002 22:40									#43
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Well, come on, it's not the same, and you know it. Clearly the display of a symbol is a far cry from committing outright, harmful abuse against another person.

And if you think certain symbols infringe on others rights, what criteria do you come up with to separate the acceptable ones from the unacceptable ones?

	12-12-2002 22:43									#44
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Symbols have no inherent value or power.

	12-12-2002 22:46									#45
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand So Daveo, if I keep a child locked in a closet, MY closet, in MY house, that's cool ?

We are not talking about other people that have rights. We are talking about inanimate objects that have no rights.


Although, I would guess the Sierra Club would be upset at the KKK for cutting down the tree to make the cross to burn.

	12-12-2002 22:51									#46
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by TheStinger I fail to see why it worse to murder someone because they are black than if they looked at your girlfriend in a funny way

Possibly because, in *some* cases, if you're murdering someone because of their skin color, you're not just murdering him but you're also threatening the black community as a whole? Indeed, lynching an individual to try to get the rest of the black community to feel insecure and/or leave the area shares much of the same principles of terrorism - not just trying to kill someone, but making victims of the community and, possibly, make them do what you want them to do.

	12-12-2002 23:05									#47
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Arrian As I understand it, the people who were charged under Virginia's statute (which then gave rise to this challenge of the statute) were at a clan rally: the cross was being burned out in a farmer's field with permission.

Two of them were. The third was charged with burning a cross on someone else's property.

quote: I have zero love for the KKK, and I see Thomas' point re: cross burning is a pretty unique symbol with a widely understood meaning: "we're comin' to get you, Nigger."

Actually, drop the last word. A burning cross on your lawn means, "We are coming to get you." You meaning, you personally. That is where it cross the line from protected to illegal speach. It is a threat against your health, life, and property. That's illegal and should be illegal. Burning a cross on your own property, or even as a part of a demonstration, like burning a flag, is a more general statement, not a threat directed at a person or group of specific persons. We may or may not find one or the other particularly hateful, but since no one specifically is being threatened, it's Constitutionally protected speech, and should remain so.

	12-12-2002 23:08									#48
	Got spare money?

So a burning cross is threatening (and therefore banable) but a nazi flag isn't?

	12-12-2002 23:08									#49
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Edan Indeed, lynching an individual to try to get the rest of the black community to feel insecure and/or leave the area shares much of the same principles of terrorism -

Then they should be charged with terrorism, not hate thought. Intent itself should not be criminalized, but can fairly be considered as either mitigating or damning factors in jury deliberations and the penalty phase of a trial.

	12-12-2002 23:08									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Actually, drop the last word. A burning cross on your lawn means, "We are coming to get you." You meaning, you personally. That is where it cross the line from protected to illegal speach. It is a threat against your health, life, and property. That's illegal and should be illegal. Burning a cross on your own property, or even as a part of a demonstration, like burning a flag, is a more general statement, not a threat directed at a person or group of specific persons. We may or may not find one or the other particularly hateful, but since no one specifically is being threatened, it's Constitutionally protected speech, and should remain so.

	12-12-2002 23:15									#51
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't agree, naturally. It may not be in a threatening manner in the same manner as a cross burning, but it still is meant to provoke and insult.

	12-12-2002 23:16									#52
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Then they should be charged with terrorism, not hate thought. Intent itself should not be criminalized, but can fairly be considered as either mitigating or damning factors in jury deliberations and the penalty phase of a trial.

Holy ****, it must be a full moon in Florida. I agree with this and the previous quote.

	12-12-2002 23:16									#53
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Then they should be charged with terrorism, not hate thought.

This would be fine to me.

quote: Intent itself should not be criminalized,

How is charging them with terrorism any different?

	12-12-2002 23:17									#54
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand I don't agree, naturally.

Its natural for you to disagree?

	12-12-2002 23:17									#55
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Actually, drop the last word. A burning cross on your lawn means, "We are coming to get you." You meaning, you personally. That is where it cross the line from protected to illegal speach. It is a threat against your health, life, and property. That's illegal and should be illegal. Burning a cross on your own property, or even as a part of a demonstration, like burning a flag, is a more general statement, not a threat directed at a person or group of specific persons. We may or may not find one or the other particularly hateful, but since no one specifically is being threatened, it's Constitutionally protected speech, and should remain so.

I couldn't put it better myself. Yes I do not agree with it, but it's a consitutional right. I have the right to hate anyone, including groups of people. So long as I infring on their rights (like burning a cross a likeness of a person I hate on their own lawn).

Yes it is moraly wrong, but we live in an age were the vast majority of people can't see evil even if it bit them in the ***.

	12-12-2002 23:19									#56
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH So a burning cross is threatening (and therefore banable) but a nazi flag isn't?

Let me pt it in personal terms. I'm in an interracial relationship. That (along with being a commie) makes me a target for white supremacy types (though I don't avertise my politics, it's hard to hide the fact that people of two different races are living together).

If someone spraypainted a swastika on my door, I'd be pretty upset. It could be just some smartass kid defacing property, it could be some lunkehead who doesn't like white/black relationships. It's most like not a direct threat against my life and health, but someone just saying something mean.

If, however, someone planted a burning cross outside our window, I'd know someone meant business, and was threatening to harm me. I'd be freaked out, angry as hell, and probably go avail myself of one of my Constitutional freedoms, I'd buy a shotgun.

The difference is because of history. Burning crosses have almost always been a prelude to violence, where swastikas, as evil a symbol as they represent, haven't.

	12-12-2002 23:27									#57
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand I don't agree, naturally. It may not be in a threatening manner in the same manner as a cross burning, but it still is meant to provoke and insult.

I'm allowed to provoke you. I'm even allowed to insult you. I'm not allowed to threaten you. And you aren't allowed to threaten me, even with provocation. While I think burning the American flag is stupid, since it tends to shut people off to what you are trying to say, it also expresses anger with the government.

	12-12-2002 23:29									#58
	Put an end to popups!

The difference between burning a cross on one's own property and on someone's lawn is the same as the difference between saying, "Let's kill all crackers" and "Let's kill Slowwhand."

	12-12-2002 23:31									#59
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I'm allowed to provoke you.

That depends. Is the fighting words doctrine still good law? If so, it all depends on how it is currently being interpreted.

	12-12-2002 23:37									#60
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Okay, I'm allowed to provoke you up to a point. (Happy?)