[Tenchiro]

I think they should allow cross burning, I also think that there should be a law that allows people to beat down KKK members with Louisville Sluggers, when a burning cross is present. :devil:
_____

Supreme Court Upholds Cross-Burning Ban
Mon Apr 7, 4:22 PM ET

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can punish Ku Klux Klansmen and others who set crosses afire, finding that a burning cross is an instrument of racial terror so threatening that it overshadows free speech concerns.

Continued...

 

[LordOpie]

can you still burn the flag?

 

[rbx]

why do the KKK burn crosses?

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by rbx
why do the KKK burn crosses?

Sounds like a knock-knock joke. Ok...

I don't know, why?

Maybe they were bad at 2nd grade math?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Well,


I just dont know what to say about this one. I mean on one hand, if they feel the way they feel, stopping them from expressing it is wrong. On the other, what they're expressing is viewed as wrong by most people, and its considered offensive, so itd be wrong to let them continue.

Its just a bad situation all around. I dont know that there is a right answer.

 

[rbx]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Sounds like a knock-knock joke. Ok...

I don't know, why?

Maybe they were bad at 2nd grade math?

no knock knock joke

i am really curious as to why they burn the cross?is there any symbolism behind it?

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by rbx
no knock knock joke

i am really curious as to why they burn the cross?is there any symbolism behind it?

I have seen interviews where they refer to is as "lighting the cross" so it can be viewed better. But when it is put in the lawn of a terrified family, who doesn't know if they will live through the night I call it grounds to take one of the guys in a white sheet and bloody him up.

They do (did) it simply to terrify people.

 

[manimal]

this is kinda off topic but it's a funny story anyway


i grew up in a little hick town in florida and when i was about 10, my uncle and i were coming back from the beach after a day of surfing. anyhoo, there was a huge crowd on the main street of the town and it turns out that there was a klan walk going on. my uncle stopped, pointed to the klansmen walking down the sidewalk holding their signs, then drove slowly up onto the sidewalk and continued driving down the sidewalk until everyone of them were pushe either into the street or onto the muddy grass. it was so funny to see their faces as we drove through them!

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by rbx
no knock knock joke

i am really curious as to why they burn the cross?is there any symbolism behind it?

Its based on a medival Scottish practice of clans burning crosses as a call to arms. In a number of references, Albert Pike is specifically credited with bringing the practice to the kkk. He was a Scottish mason and a member of the klan in 1870's. It was initially burned at their rallies. But as time went on the practice extended to burning them as warning and intimidation.

Knowing a family that had a cross burned in their yard, I'm not sure that you could have done anything that would have left them more terrified.

 

[rbx]

Originally posted by DRB
Its based on a medival Scottish practice of clans burning crosses as a call to arms. In a number of references, Albert Pike is specifically credited with bringing the practice to the kkk. He was a Scottish mason and a member of the klan in 1870's. It was initially burned at their rallies. But as time went on the practice extended to burning them as warning and intimidation.

Knowing a family that had a cross burned in their yard, I'm not sure that you could have done anything that would have left them more terrified.

thanks for the info

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Well,


I just dont know what to say about this one. I mean on one hand, if they feel the way they feel, stopping them from expressing it is wrong. On the other, what they're expressing is viewed as wrong by most people, and its considered offensive, so itd be wrong to let them continue.

Its just a bad situation all around. I dont know that there is a right answer.

They should be allowed to burn the cross. However, when it involves trespassing, terror, and implied threats, it becomes a crime.

 

[rbx]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Well,


I just dont know what to say about this one. I mean on one hand, if they feel the way they feel, stopping them from expressing it is wrong. On the other, what they're expressing is viewed as wrong by most people, and its considered offensive, so itd be wrong to let them continue.

Its just a bad situation all around. I dont know that there is a right answer.

if the symbolism behind it is geared towards hatred then YES it should be considered illegal.

 

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by rbx
if the symbolism behind it is geared towards hatred then YES it should be considered illegal.

This is true--you can have free speech as much as you want, but when there are actions that are intended to terrify, this is when it ends. I don't know about you, but I can't think of a time when a cross burning has had any other purpose than terrifying people of color. There is no other purpose for cross burnings than that...:angry:

 

[BurlyShirley]

I think i read somewhere that they dont actually "Burn" the cross, but rather "light" the cross, so its visible at night. They dont let them burn to the ground. This probably dates back to the 1800s when they had no other way to make a cross bright at night. I dont think that a flaming cross means "black people look out" but rather..."the kkk is here" if there is any difference there.

Its all crap anyway

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I think i read somewhere that they dont actually "Burn" the cross, but rather "light" the cross, so its visible at night. They dont let them burn to the ground. This probably dates back to the 1800s when they had no other way to make a cross bright at night. I dont think that a flaming cross means "black people look out" but rather..."the kkk is here" if there is any difference there.

Its all crap anyway

Good lord you sound like a klan apologist.

 

[Damn True]

Sadly, this issue resides squarely in a gray area that many who fiercely defend the 1st amendment love to play in.

On the one hand it is free expression of speech. While on the other it is an undoubtedly threatening gesture. I think that in the minds of most thinking people the action is clearly more the latter than former. I don't view it as anything but an expression of hatred and a threat.

 

[Tenchiro]

I still say let them burn the cross, but make 'em wear oil soaked polyesther robes when they do it.

Nothing looks better on a racist than fire. :devil:

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Damn True
Sadly, this issue resides squarely in a gray area that many who fiercely defend the 1st amendment love to play in.

I disagree on this one too. There isn't a gray area.

It isn't the act of lighting a cross on fire that is the problem. If way back when Nathan Forrest lit one up in his back yard (and even took pictures of it and published them in the newspaper), no one would care all that much except maybe a few pastors that thought he was desecrated the cross. It's the terror and initimidation that is the problem, and this is already covered by existing laws.

We should be tougher with existing laws, but creating a new law specific to each individual possible expression of hate is ridiculous. If they can't burn a cross, do we think it's going to be any less threatening to a black or Jewish family a gutted pig (or some other freaky symbolism) is left on their front lawn?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Now if everyone would back the [SECOND] amendment just as much as they back the First...

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by manimal
this is kinda off topic but it's a funny story anyway


i grew up in a little hick town in florida and when i was about 10, my uncle and i were coming back from the beach after a day of surfing. anyhoo, there was a huge crowd on the main street of the town and it turns out that there was a klan walk going on. my uncle stopped, pointed to the klansmen walking down the sidewalk holding their signs, then drove slowly up onto the sidewalk and continued driving down the sidewalk until everyone of them were pushe either into the street or onto the muddy grass. it was so funny to see their faces as we drove through them!

Your Uncle rules!

On a side note, I lived in FL too... what do you mean by "surfing"?

 

[Damn True]

I disagree on this one too. There isn't a gray area.

Sure there is. While you and I might find a bunch of klansmen walking the streets with "White Power" signs reprehensible, we know that we cannot deny their right to do so any more than we can deny those who might be demonstrating for "gay pride" or "supporting our troops." That same logic could be applied to the burning of a cross as a similar statement of free speech.

We both know what the intent of these acts is, however, "intent to harm" must be proven in order for it to be a criminal act. A difficult thing to do.

It isn't the act of lighting a cross on fire that is the problem. If way back when Nathan Forrest lit one up in his back yard (and even took pictures of it and published them in the newspaper), no one would care all that much except maybe a few pastors that thought he was desecrated the cross. It's the terror and initimidation that is the problem, and this is already covered by existing laws.

Uh....that's what I said. Sans Nathan Forrest ref. of course.

We should be tougher with existing laws, but creating a new law specific to each individual possible expression of hate is ridiculous. If they can't burn a cross, do we think it's going to be any less threatening to a black or Jewish family a gutted pig (or some other freaky symbolism) is left on their front lawn?

Never mentioned additional laws. I think more stringent enforcement of existing anti-hate laws is appropriate as well.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Damn True
Sure there is.

You misread my post. My argument is that "there is no gray area, burning a cross is NOT illegal."

The question in this thread is "should burning a cross be illegal?" The answer is no.

Threat, intimidation, and trespassing are all illegal and can be treated as such, but if you make burning a cross illegal it actually leaves room for the argument, "I was burning a plus sign."

 

[patconnole]

Now if everyone would back the [SECOND] amendment just as much as they back the First...

we'd be in paradise!




Yeah, I think you should be able to burn any symbol you want in your backyard--- and the trespass laws should prevent the burning crosses being used as a hate tool.

 

[Damn True]

Ahh, I see. Well we are in partial agreement then.

I think the gray area lies not in the act, but in proving the intent of the act. I mean, we all KNOW what the intent is. But proving that is next to impossible.

 

[Serial Midget]

In a six to three ruling, the high court upheld key portions of a 50-year-old Virginia law banning cross carried out with "the intent of intimidating."

The Supreme Court upheld the ban on cross burning in the case of the 2 men who got drunk and set a cross on fire in an interracial couple’s front yard. The act was seen to be intimidating and threatening and therefore illegal. In this case the ban is considered constitutional.

In the other case (argued at the same time) the court, by a 4 to 3 vote, did find certain portions of the Virginia law may be unconstitutional. The mere act of lighting a cross on fire is not in itself a threatening or intimidating act. The case was sent back for further review – “ Four of the justices also wrote that they would find unconstitutional a part of the Virginia law that specifies that any cross burning is evidence in itself of the intent to intimidate.”

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
the intent of intimidating

The act was seen to be intimidating and threatening and therefore illegal. In this case the ban is considered constitutional.

Four of the justices also wrote that they would find unconstitutional a part of the Virginia law that specifies that any cross burning is evidence in itself of the intent to intimidate.?

BAM, there you go. Sometimes I don't give the judicial system enough credit.

 

[Serial Midget]

When not busily appointed presidents, those old ducks sometimes do good.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
In a six to three ruling, the high court upheld key portions of a 50-year-old Virginia law banning cross carried out with "the intent of intimidating."

The Supreme Court upheld the ban on cross burning in the case of the 2 men who got drunk and set a cross on fire in an interracial couple’s front yard. The act was seen to be intimidating and threatening and therefore illegal. In this case the ban is considered constitutional.

In the other case (argued at the same time) the court, by a 4 to 3 vote, did find certain portions of the Virginia law may be unconstitutional. The mere act of lighting a cross on fire is not in itself a threatening or intimidating act. The case was sent back for further review – “ Four of the justices also wrote that they would find unconstitutional a part of the Virginia law that specifies that any cross burning is evidence in itself of the intent to intimidate.”

I agree with that. However, I, and I think everyone else knows that the burning of a cross IS intended to threaten and intimidate. But I suppose the precedential reprecussions of making it illegal outweigh that.