And on that I agree. The “hate” part is added on to a pre-existing crime, not inherent in the swastika itself, as it now is in the burning cross.
IN Germany, display of a NAZI symbol is, IIRC, a crime. But not in the US of A.
I think under Virgina v Black it probably could be. It would however be harder to show the intimidation requirement. That’s not to say that the Swastika is not equally as symbolic of evil (if not more so) as a cross burning, but I think a couple of factors would weigh against the analysis in Black. First, a cross burning is immediate, and the message is 'We are here, and we are ready to deal with you now." While flying a flag also indicates presence, I don’t see the court seeing it as having the same immediacy as a cross burning, which would tend to happen at the end of a gathering. Similarly, I don’t think display of a picture of a burning cross, or a video tape of it would be seen as intimidatory in the same way. Secondly, and linked, a burning cross is a rarer sign, and so the intimidation aspect might be seen as greater. It just isn’t possible to walk around with an actual burning cross on a t-shirt, as way too many idiots do with swastikas.
So, I think the law could pass muster under the existing precedent (precedent I don’t think is particularly good law, for what it is worth). I am not aware of any such laws existing, which is kind of what I was asking for. Even if the law did exist, it would be much harder to gain a conviction than for cross burning. I suppose the paradigm would be of a Neo-Nazi group buying property opposite a synagogue for the sole purpose of a display of Swastikas. I have a horrible feeling I am missing something from the analysis here, and it has been a long time since I read Black but that is what I can think of off the top of my head.
Not that agree with making cross burning illegal, but doesn’t the argument rest on the specific nature of that act in this country, and it’s long standing tradition of being tied to violence ( and specifically lynching) against Blacks? Nazi symbolism in the US does not have that same history, even it has an even worse history in Europe.
I think so, though I don’t think that would exclude ‘foreign’ intimidation, if it was extreme enough, just would make the proof a lot harder. Certainly if the rationale is limited only to cross burning it is an even worse decision.
Sorry ScottPlaid that I didn’t reply directly to you. No offense intended. The exchange amongst revtim, JohnMace, Diogenes and myself covered the topic
rather thoroughly.
If you followed it you probably noted that I had been re-examining my stance on this issue and have come to the conclusion that I was wrong and am now against the amendment.
Even though this is the pit, I don’t take kindly to foolish insults and usually reply in kind or simply ignore. If I make a horrible leap in logic and get called on it, I usually take my lumps and listen and am open to persuasion.
Case in point: this thread, I have been persuaded.
But if someone calls me moron, dumbass, etc. because they disagree with my opinion, well, we all knew jerks like that in high school or sadly even college, and
there’s no avoiding them. They really don’t deserve one’s time.
meh. I thought what I was saying put a slighly diffrent spin on the issue, but that’s up for debate. I was just hoping to see if you follweed my logic, and I am still guessing. Well, you came to the right conclusion anyway, which is that the situation is diffrent from what you thought it was at first glance.
:rolleyes: Go fuck yourself, asswhipe.
BwanaBob, I’m pleased you have re-evaluated your position. That takes a great open-mindedness than I think most people lack. I salute you!
Really? How do you think US Jews feel about Nazi symbolism? Is their fear and revulsion not justified, just because the Holocaust happened in Europe?
What he said. Sorry about calling you a moron.
Hmmm, let’s see now, DexOnline usually pretty good…Ah! Here we go!..a listing for “Fatted Calfs 'R Us”! Just the ticket!
I’m sure they feel horrified. But that doesn’t make displaying Nazi symbols illegal, nor should it. Are you arguing that it should?
I am arguing that it is false to suggest that American Jews are less horrified than European Jews, which is what your statement implied. Do you want to rephrase that?
People, people…
can’t you see that your fine, upstanding wise Representatives only have what’s best for you and your children at heart? This is simply a health and safety issue!
Do you have any idea how dangerous all those burning nylon molecules can be for little lungs? The carcinogens given off? Really, It’s for the best.
And it’s kevlar helmets off to George Bush on this one, by the way; it’s a masterstroke of international Green diplomacy. What, you don’t see it? This is 'ol George’s way of taking the first little baby step towards getting the US of A online with the Kyoto Protocols, folks! Got to start cutting back on those hydocarbon emissions somewhere–and how better than with a symbolic gesture like this. The man is nothing if not a communicaticor.
Oh, and next time you’re in Canada, remember to visit Honest Rodd’s chain of Flammable Flag stands; legal Same-Sex Marriages performed, Cuban Cigars sold, and US currency accepted at par. Within sight of the 49th parallel, VISA and MasterCard accepted.
I recant my postion. Bush is on the right side for once.
:dubious: And if you believe that, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
No I don’t, because the law wasn’t based on how horrified anyone feels. It was based on historical acts against Blacks in the US. I wouldn’t try to quantify the level of horror American Jews feel vs what European Jews feel.
And to clarify one more time… I don’t agree with cross burning being made illegal, in and of itself. I’m explaining why it might make sense to some people to ban cross burning but not Nazi symbols, even though it doesn’t make sense to me.