Well, it’s attitudes like this which make me question my committment to freedom of speech for Communists and other radical leftists. Should we allow freedom of speech for people who use that freedom to seek to destroy freedom of speech?
However, in the end I think the right answer to speech which seeks to incite racial hatred, or to undermine the Bill of Rights in the name of some ideology, is not censorship but more speech.
I’m not a communist or a radical leftist. You have to go with the system that actually gives people the most freedom, for example comparing the UK and the US over the last 50 years, despite the fact until earlier this year the UK had no constitution, in general free speech in the UK has been better protected than the US (now don’t take that to mean that the UK is a paragon of virtue in this respect) and that is despite the introduction of laws curtailing hate-speech.
Ignoring the free speech issue for now, I cannot imagine a law banning cross burning would do any good whatsoever. No matter how it is worded, there will be easy ways for KKK-like idiots to get their point across.
They can burn a shape different from a cross. Instead of burning they can splash the symbol with red paint or animal blood. The list is literally endless.
Yes. The neighbor’s KKK rally on his own private property is covered under both the Freedom of association/assembly and the Freedom of expression sections of the First Amendment.
There is the question of disturbing the peace, etc. Are they playing a stereo really loud while they burn the cross or having their party after 10pm? Are they infringing on their neighbors’ right not to be disturbed by excessive noise while trying to sleep?
But nobody has a right not to be offended.
Yes, still protected speech, and should be.
Yes.
This is where it gets shady. It may be enough for an assault.
That’s a definite assault :D.
I absolutely agree, GENIE FOR PRESIDENT!, gimme a G!, gimme a E!, well, you get the idea.
unclviny
Let’s see, now:
“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.”
SCOTUS has already made it clear that this Amendment doesn’t mean unlimited speech. Slander is a crime, incitement to riot is a crime, shouting “fire!” in a theater is a crime, and just see how far you get if you even jokingly yell “hijack” in an airport. The First Amendment protection was aimed at political speech, because the framers were sensitive to the abuses of power that kept ideas from being expressed. If you have the idea that another form of government is better than the current one in the US, you have the right to express it in speech or in writing. You can argue it, advertise it, sing it from the rooftops. But when you encourage others to overthrow the government by force, you commit a crime.
The word “peaceably” is key to the understanding of the right to assemble. If you assemble in front of my business door, forming a human wall to restrict the ingress and egress of my customers, you comit a crime whether you are rowdy or vociferous or not. Intent has much to do with it. Even a rowdy gathering at, say, a football game is protected as long as no one is threatened. A gathering persons with a known racial hatred next door to a family or an individual who is one of the objects of that hatred may be merely offensive to your way of thinking. But when that gathering is burning a cross, which is well known in our culture to represent a threat, it is way beyond offensive. It is threatening, and therefore should not be protected.
If you can’t empathize with the blacks next door, being hit over the head with the Constitution will do you no good. You just don’t get it.
You’re absolutely right. But they do have the right not to be threatened.
These statements are sort of taken as a truth. Does anybody have information on the correlation between cross burning and murders? Do they traditionally burn a cross as a marker for who they will attack? My understanding is that burning a cross is certainly a sign that they don’t like you, but I’d like to see something that correlates cross burning with violence.
I forgot about this before I posted. People do have a right to not be threatened if it causes reasonable apprehension of harm.
But if the people who had the cross burned on their yard were in fear, then the burners could be charged with assault as well as trespassing. What Virginia did, however, was charge them with a statute that makes burning a cross a crime. They have made a certain type of expresssion illegal for the message it carries and that’s why the law will likely be found unconstitutional.
In your example of blocking your store it doesn’t matter if Nazis or the League of Women Voters are blocking your store. In Virginia v. Black it did matter and that’s passing a law based on viewpoint, not based on a neutral principle.
You keep saying that. Yet all the evidence you present is the fact that, de jure American free speech is a broader protection than English and European free speech.
Could you kindly provide de facto evidence to back up your assertion? While you certainly have the free speech right to keep saying that, you don’t have the right to have your conclusory assertion believed unless you provide evidence.
Sua
Burning a cross with your friends in your own yard is not slander.
Nor is it inciting a riot.
Now tell me again how any of the above relates to actions undertaken in your own yard, on your own property, in front of your own residence.
Unless a threat is explicitly made, your argument is invalid. People in the US have a great deal of leeway when it comes to activities on their own property. I can say whatever I want on my property, and I can do pretty much whatever I want as long as it’s not harming anybody. Burning crosses are symbolism and are speech - expressing a dislike for non-white people. Period. If the burning cross had a sign that read “We’re coming to get you, neighbor!” then that is a threat. The gathering and the cross, regardless of who lives next to them, are not.
Oh I do indeed get it. What I get is that we err on the side of liberty. If no threat has been made, and no indication of violence, then it is a legal gathering.
And remember again - it is on private property.
Correct. But if no threat has been made, then there’s no legal grounds for restricting speech. As Zoff said above, prosecute on other grounds instead of passing an unconstitutional law restricting expression. Get 'em for trespassing or for disturbing the peace or whatever crime applies. But prior restraint of speech is unconstitutional.
Racism is wrong and evil, but you can’t legislate attitudes and opinions.
American free speech is only more protected in THEORY (so if your looking for some direct legal comparision, that is not what I am saying), you just have to look at the McCarthy witch hunts and the persecution of communists, the recent patriot act and the arrests it has brought and a many other instances to see that in practice constitutionally protected rights is in no way a better way to protect free speech than the older European non-constitutional systems.
Wow. I’ve never been nominated for President before, but I did have the ambition to be the first woman president when I was 10. Here’s my chance!
if i buy enough tiki-torches and anchor them to a cross pattern and light them, is that illegal too? Is the the pattern or the flame that is terror related? Suppose I build a Jewish Star and layer a universal “no” sign on it?
I think the court system waste too much time trying to appease children in adult bodies.
I’ve never seen a flaming star of David as a symbol off hate so I think your’re delibrately missing the point here. Free speech should not cover the right to terrorize or incite hatred against people.
So we can make burning the US flag illegal? After all it does incite hatred against people.
Marc
No, I like flag burning
I have to call you on this regarding the guy who made, as you call it, a bar room joke about ‘Burning Bush’. This guy had a history of 25 arrests. One of the more interesting arrests had Richard Humphreys impersonating a police officer. When he was arrested he told the investagators that Bill and Hillary Clinton were going to commit suicide because the world was going to end.
At the same time the FBI found a note in the guys truck that said:
That sounds like a threat to me.
If you want to read more about this nutball go [URL=http://www.argusleader.com/news/Saturdayarticle3.shtml]here.
As far as cross burning goes, if they do it on their own property it is free speach. I do not agree with it. I actually hate it but they can do whatever they want on their own land. If someone feels threatened by the cross burning that just sucks. I’d like everyone to get along but it just isn’t going to happen. Racists are here to stay no matter what color they are.
I hope things get better, and I believe that things have improved but there is always going to be a set of people who regard their skin color more important than their brains. It sucks. At the same time I doubt we can ge rid of ignorance across the board.
Slee
Interesting – it looks like the SUpreme Court might uphold this law in both cases, based on the idea that a burning cross is an explicit threat of terrorism:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/12/politics/12SCOT.html
Daniel
I agree. I was impressed that Thomas, who rarely speaks, made such a strong statement. Still, given that the burning cross meant what he said in the past, it’s not necessarily the case that it has the same meaning today.