12-12-2002 23:39									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

This is all very confusing since I agree with you Che. I dont know what to discuss!

The nazi flag and burning cross are equally offensive when they're on private property (as opposed to someone elses property).

	12-12-2002 23:44									#62
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

You can definately make the argument that since they went to the trouble of procuring a Nazi flag they were willing to get rid of, that planting one on my lawn would be a specific threat targetted at me. They aren't all that easy to come by, so I'd have to think they meant something more than just an insult. That, however, requires me to think about it for a moment, as opposed to the instant reaction of fear and terror a burning cross would provide.

	13-12-2002 00:02									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Ok, you've convinced me:

1) burning cross on someone's lawn: specifically threatening act, therefore should be illegal.
2) burning cross on your own property: you're an *******, but it should be legal.

-Arrian

	13-12-2002 00:05									#64
	Put an end to popups!

I cannot possibly understand a specific law against cross burning. On someone elses property it is a crime under a number of different laws, in public it falls under yelling fire in a crowded room not to mention being deliberate intimidation. If its on your own property then there is the further question of whether it could be considered as threatening to your neighbours. Black guy moves into the suburbs and decides to take a walk one night only to find a burning cross on every other lawn or just one other lawn this could be considered deliberate intimidation.

Flag burning cannot be considered intimidating to any specific individual.

	13-12-2002 00:13									#65
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

OK, your name is Horowitz and your next door neighbors love to play Deutschland Uber Alles while standing under their Nazi flags. I would think that you might feel threatened.

That doesnt mean that I think it's illegal or should be banned.

	13-12-2002 00:14									#66
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by gsmoove23 I cannot possibly understand a specific law against cross burning

Because we never have one law about something when three will suffice?

	13-12-2002 01:16									#67
	Got spare money?

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.

Twice in one week. All this agreement between you and I is freaking the hell out of me, che.

Nice post.

	13-12-2002 01:31									#68
	Put an end to popups!

Che, I disagree that burning a cross can suddenly become ok if it's done on your property. Could I put up a sign on my lawn saying "Kill All Niggers"? No, even though it's done on my property can still initmidate. Say there was an all white neighberhood and a black family suddenly moved in. Then say the person who lived across from the black family and the people who lived next to that family all burned a cross on their property? The effect of such an action would be to intimidate the black family and prevent them from fully enjoying their property. The fact that it is your property doesn't mean you can use it to intimidate people.

	13-12-2002 01:46									#69
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Part of the intimidation factor of burning a cross is you don't know who is doing it. If you burn it on your own lawn, everyone knows its you (provided someone sees you). The Klan strikes from anonymity. When you don't know who is out to get you, it's a lot scarier than some dumbass across the street torching his own lawn. Granted, if you are isolated, it can be quite scary. In your example, the purpose is still to terrify, where as I'm thinking a Klan rally at some farm, where the cross burning is in back, away from easy sight.

	13-12-2002 01:55									#70
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Why is it then, that when I stand on the corner waving a gun at passer buys I get arrest? It doesn't make sense!

A gun is a merely a symbol of protection, while burning a cross is a symbol of racism.

So, I guess it is legal to demonstrate racism, but illegal to demonstrate protection?

Another hypothetical: What if you found out that your neighbor was plotting to kill you. You sneak into their house and find a room that is dedicated as a murder shrine to you. What can you do? Nothing?

Intent is just a prosecutable as is action, and burning a cross displays intent.

Or am I just over looking the whole issue?

	13-12-2002 02:01									#71
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I disagree with everyone, what a surprise.

1. Cross-burning, flying the Swastika on your private propery, etc. should be protected speech. It's objectively no different from burning a flag or a marshmellow. They have horrible poltical opinions, yes, but they should face social stygmatization, not legal prosecution.
2. Hate crime legislation is prefectly reasonable, provided it's not too extreme. Lynching a black guy, for instance, is not simply a normal crime. It is intended to terrorize other members of the community. As such, it should carry heavier sentences. Just like how a first degree murder carries heavier sentences than a second degree murder or manslaughter. That said, I don't like how the term is named.

	13-12-2002 02:07									#72
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Ah, heck, Texas ain't in America!

How can social stygmatization be applicabble in a community that is full of racists?

I agree with point number 2.

	13-12-2002 02:28									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

In regards to actions on your own property, I believe if someone can argue you are playing Deutschland Uber Alles while standing under your Nazi flags in order to intimidate that is a crime(certainly if you've taken special pains to make sure 'certain' people see). Though what kind of sentence you could get for intimidation I don't know.

	13-12-2002 03:26									#74
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

free speech covers symbolic acts (in the US legal system anyway).

burning crosses, burning flags, wearing black armbands in school to protest war in Vietnam, all good and legal.

edit: provided you burn your own cross on your own property etc.

	13-12-2002 03:31									#75
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The short anwser is that offensive free speech is the primary type of speech that truly needs protection. Let's face it popular free speech never gets protested because everyone agrees with it. It doesn't need protection.

Offensive free speech, as loathsom as it is, deserves protection as long as it doesn't cause clear and emminent harm. Someone claiming offensive speech should be censored simply because it offends their sensabilities just isn't a good enough reason for censorship.

That being said one person's right to free speech doesn't mean they can damage another person's right to property so if I burn a cross on your lawn you have every right to sue me for damages.

	13-12-2002 03:45									#76
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Offensive free speech, as loathsom as it is, deserves protection as long as it doesn't cause clear and emminent harm.

I agree with this statement, though I would consider instilling significant fear in the population or any part of the population is clear and emminent harm.

	13-12-2002 04:45									#77
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by gsmoove23 I agree with this statement, though I would consider instilling significant fear in the population or any part of the population is clear and emminent harm.

Fear would be enough unless a reasonable person would conclude that he's life is in danger. Emminent harm is more then just how people feel; it's a clear and present danger.

	13-12-2002 04:59									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Words have been know to spark action. Symbols as well.

Question: If one to give a speach that resulted in a riot, would that person who gave the speach be held responsible if they encouraged such actions?

I think they can, and do. It's called conspiring to incite riots and inciting communal frenzy. Federal jury's have prosocuted on this before and have actually convicted ppl on it, some with crossing state lines with intent to incite riots. One case in point was the riots at the 1968 democratic convention resulted in the prosocution of the "Chicago 7". 5 of whom were convicted.

Why do I write this? Because the actions of buring a cross or flag could be considered as such, and I feel that it does.

	13-12-2002 05:12									#79
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

To follow these inane arguments to their stupid conclusions. Whats next? I get arrested because 'you feel intimidated' by me in the workplace or while walking down the street despite that I've done nothing to you.

	13-12-2002 05:14									#80
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Sure, you would have to make a pretty good case saying the perpetrator knew that his actions would result in a riot or communal frenzy though or desired it or that his actions were the prime instigators.

	13-12-2002 05:15									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

All these arguments would have to hold up in court and in various appeals. Not very easy I would imagine.

	13-12-2002 05:18									#82
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH To follow these inane arguments to their stupid conclusions. Whats next? I get arrested because 'you feel intimidated' by me in the workplace or while walking down the street despite that I've done nothing to you.

That there is a clear and likely probability that the statement of one person will lead to a direct illegal action by someone else or otherwise cause danger to public safety (ie, inciting someone to do something, or threatening them with a burning cross, or yelling theater in a public theater).

These things aren't always clear, and thats what juries are for.

	13-12-2002 05:21									#83
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

THEATER!!!

	13-12-2002 05:24									#84
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Or even "Fire!"

	13-12-2002 05:26									#85
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

While I absolutely hate the Nazis and KKK, and even though if I were dictator, I would ban this type of protest, as an American citizen who cherishes the 1st Amendment; I am forced to say that cross burning is okay. Except, when you burn a cross on someone else's property, you could be charged with arson and trespassing. The actual act of cross burning is fine. I might want to do it someday in protest of Christianity if this nasty right-wing push to get religion in government continues.

	13-12-2002 05:29									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Under this law, could you burn an upside down cross, if say you wanted to demonstrate against satanism?

	13-12-2002 06:07									#87
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Japher Question: If one to give a speach that resulted in a riot, would that person who gave the speach be held responsible if they encouraged such actions?

The classic example is if a person yells "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre resulting in a stampeed for the exits. Is the perpitrator responsible for the people who got killed and injuried or was he simply excersizing his right to free speech? The supreme court actually heard a case just like this and they ruled that yelling "fire" was not covered by free speech since it the perpetrator either knew or should have known that it would result in people getting killed or injured.

	13-12-2002 08:02									#88
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Slowwhand,

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

Well no ****, if you ACTUALLY believe that, you should be a Libertarian. But burning a cross or flag on your property infringes on no one's rights.

Would you agree with the statement that keeping a gun in your house, and advertising that fact with a sign, infringes on the rights of others? If not, you have no basis for saying that burning a flag or cross on your own property infringes on anyone's rights. Someone can feel just as threatened by a gun as by a burning cross or flag.

Shi,

quote: I put up a sign on my lawn saying "Kill All Niggers"? No, even though it's done on my property can still initmidate.

I don't know what the law says, but you SHOULD be able to do that.

Sava,

quote: as an American citizen who cherishes the 1st Amendment

Interesting how you seem to support some Amendments, and think they should be upheld, but have a totally opposite viewpoint on others, isn't it?

	13-12-2002 09:05									#89
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I assume you are referring to the 2nd Amendment. Well, I am very much for strictly following and upholding the 2nd Amendment. Everyone should be able to own weapons that were available at the time the constitution was written. The founding Father's, in their infinite wisdom, did not bother to think about how the technology of firearms would evolve. In their time, one couldn't possess a weapon capable of firing 20 rounds a second; or possessing a concealed handgun that fires 15 semi-automatic rounds with exceptional muzzle velocity which creates high stopping power and penetration.

If the Fathers were alive today, I doubt they would approve of this libertarian idea about having no restrictions on weapons that are nightmarish compared to the slow-loading, inaccurate muskets of the Revolutionary Era.

But I'm sure you think that people shouldn't have to get driver's licenses, or even pilot's licenses. Yeah! It's so unfair that the government won't let you fly a commercial jet without getting a license... YEAH THE GOVERNMENT SUCKS

Gun control isn't about restricting the 2nd Amendment. It's about being smart and responsible. And likewise, if there were no restrictions on automatic weapons, grenade launchers, guided missiles, grenades, etc... it would be STUPID AND IRRESPONSIBLE... like most NRA card carrying, flag waving, 2nd Amendment protecting, right-wing gun nuts.

	13-12-2002 09:09									#90
	Put an end to popups!

quote: If the Fathers were alive today, I doubt they would approve of this libertarian idea about having no restrictions on weapons that are nightmarish compared to the slow-loading, inaccurate muskets of the Revolutionary Era.

Then obviously you aren't too clear about their feelings on the subject of "big government".

quote: But I'm sure you think that people shouldn't have to get driver's licenses, or even pilot's licenses. Yeah! It's so unfair that the government won't let you fly a commercial jet without getting a license...

Who's talking about that? I've already stated that since the roads are public, I see little problem with driving regulations, but that I also think roads should be private and as such subject to private rules.

quote: Gun control isn't about restricting the 2nd Amendment.

Yes it is, by definition.