Kindly read this (very short, thankfully) article.
Now, I want to make a couple of things very clear here. I would never desecrate the Christian Bible (or the Koran, or the Hindu texts–you get the picture). I am personally against such acts of hate. And pursuant to that, I would never desecrate the American flag either.
But that last one brings up another good issue. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, flag burning is protected by our First Amendment (and I do strongly support the First Amendment–sorry, if you disagree:)). So why wouldn’t Bible burning be too?
In Virginia V Black (what a name for a case on cross burning) the Supreme Court found that laws against cross burning were constitutional so long as the intent was to intimidate. I believe they found that the simple fact the cross was burned was not enough unless it was also shown that the intent was intimidation. There could be a similar law here. I doubt they would have any trouble proving intimidation here.
Found the law here and that turns out to be exactly it. 13_1707 is an anti KKK cross burning law (wouldn’t have thought it necessary in Arizona) and 13_1708 is an anti- burning anything else law. Sounds like someone tried to get around the law by redefining cross or something and they widened it.
[del]What was he charged with?[/del] Flag desecration may be protected speech, but starting a fire and urinating on someone else’s property isn’t. Edit: Never mind, I see it says “unlawful symbol burning.”
Bible Burning is perfectly protected speech under the Constitution.
However, most cities have laws against open fires, for safety reasons.
Trespass laws are relevant too.
And, yes, there are ways in which it could be construed as illegal intimidation. One has to be careful. On the other hand, the authorities can’t use that as a general loophole to infringe on legitimate protest and symbolic speech.
(I’m reminded of the bad cop who tried to shut down the filming of a porno movie by claiming that, since people were being paid to have sex, it was illegal, being “prostitution.” The judge scolded him for trying to make an end-run around the First Amendment. Anyone trying to claim that any act of Bible burning is “intimidation” is committing the same sin.)
The first amendment doesn’t say anything about whether symbolic actions like burning objects is a form of speech. So the political appointees who make up the Supreme Court are perfectly free to say that flag burning is protected and Bible burning is not. Why would that be remarkable?
I did read something this morning that may or may not explain why the US Constitution, and the semi-democratic political institution that sets its contemporary meaning, is treated the way it is in forums like this:
What I get from the above is that there is a legalistic aspect of American patriotism I just don’t feel deep down the way some of my countrymen do.
I realize that when the Supremes write their decisions, they try quite hard to ground them in that set of legal rules. And if there isn’t much of political controversy over some issue, legal rules may trump a slight personal preference. But on hot button issues, I say that consistency has nothing to do with it – the politically appointed justices are going to vote their political preference. This doesn’t make us a bad country, but it doesn’t distinguish us from other democracies either.
Sometimes, but they tend to be condemned for it. This is also why the approval process is so tough. The President nominates, and the Senate grinds the poor bastard into yoghurt.
The ideal really is adherence to the constitution, and, with some very painful exceptions (like Scalia, who will flip-flop on things like legislative intent as it suits his conservative-only legal analysis) the big nine stick to that.
In addition to all that, I would say that the U.S. still holds very strongly to “assimilation” nationhood. If you play along, you’ll be largely welcomed. Racial prejudice is a big dent in this ideal, but it really is the ideal. The “American Dream” is…to be part of the American Dream.
I can see the case for intimidation in this instance, but I’m not sure it supports a conviction. What did this idiot think would be the effects of his intimidation? It sounds a lot more like a cross between a desperate attempt to be cool and a genuine crazy person attempt to cast a curse. That is not analogous to a KKK cross burning, with its real-world intimidation effects.
You can burn a Bible to make a point (that’s exercising Free Speech), but you can’t do it to scare people. I’d go so far as to say you oughtn’t burn a Bible for any reason if you *might *scare people, but that’s the world according to me, not the law.
Just this month, someone approached me before a public ritual and asked me if we could burn some family Bibles that no one wanted any more. His intent was fully respectful, and in fact the action was suggested by his mother, an Episcopalian Priest. I couldn’t do it. Not because I was afraid of the law - clearly, the intent was not to intimidate anyone - but because I didn’t want to inadvertently offend anyone. The last thing I wanted was someone getting upset and running to the local press with the news that a bunch of Pagans were burning Bibles at their Lammas ritual. In rural southern Indiana, which is part of the Bible Belt. :smack:
We did burn them later that night, with a complete explanation and the consent of everyone who was left around the fire, who were all people we knew and thought would understand the situation.
Has this particular AZ law been challenged in court? Has such a challenge gone to the SCOTUS? If not, then we really don’t know if it would be upheld or not. It’s not uncommon for it take some time to clean out the various state laws that one might think an earlier SCOTUS decision made unconstitutional.
Or, this particular person may not have acted in a manner that the SCOTUS would say is protected speech, even if some other person prosecuted under that law could be.
I would worry about escalationists – provocateurs – who would make sure to move aggressively forward to declare that they are terrified by the vicious threats against them that the burning represents.
Very true… But I want to make sure to protect the right to be a jerk. I hate everything Rush Limbaugh says…but I will (holding my nose) fight to protect his right to say it. If jerkish speech is not protected…then you may be sure, someone will come forward and claim that any given speech is “jerkish.”
Did you actually read the law? You think it should be legal to burn things on other people’s property to intimidate them? You think I should be able to set a pig’s head on fire on your front porch, without your permission, to send you a message?
