 |
|  |
 |
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999 time: 00:24
|
|
"I think there's legally punishable intimidation if and only if there's an associated agressive act; there's an expression of hatred, yes, but there is no expression of a threat. "
I think an agressive act is something inherently associated with the burning cross given what it historically represents. Refering back to the original article:
quote: A burning cross is indeed highly symbolic, Justice Thomas said, but only of something that deserves no constitutional protection: the "reign of terror" visited on black communities by the Ku Klux Klan for nearly 100 years before Virginia passed the law, which the Virginia Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a year ago.
A burning cross is "unlike any symbol in our society," Justice Thomas said.
"There's no other purpose to the cross, no communication, no particular message," he continued. "It was intended to cause fear and to terrorize a population." |
The Burning Cross is naturally intimidating and should rightfully be banned.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gsmoove23
|
|
I liked DF's KILL ALL NIGGERS example. If I put that in my neighbourhood the threat would be to me.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gsmoove23
|
|
It would be fun to set up my own road system. I'd have a toll gate and stand their with a big staff telling everyone "to pass you must best me!"
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|