CDZ Why Are Cross Burnings Protected Under the First Amendment?

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Cross-burnings are the equivalent of Black Lives Matter vandalism painting.
If you want to blame cross-burning defense on institutional racism then you must hold BLM to the same standard.
I think they’re both very bad and neither qualifies the other.
Good luck with your rationalization.
(Talk about institutional racism and bigotry... my spell-checker capitalizes Black Lives Matter and BLM but not kkk or ku klux klan.)

 

[MeBelle]

For the same reason the burning of the US Flag is protected.

"Free Speech"

 

[there4eyeM]

For the same reason the burning of the US Flag is protected.

"Free Speech"

Definitive response.

 

[2aguy]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

Wrong.......we have a 1st Amendment to protect all speech...because when you allow the government to ban some speech...they eventually ban good speech......

 

[fncceo]

Assault is sometimes defined as any intentional act that causes another person to fear that she is about to suffer physical harm

Because, historically, the burning of a cross has been a precursor to physical harm, or worse. A reasonable person could agree that the burning of a cross in view of or close proximity to the traditional victims of that harm, i. e. Black Persons, is assault and, therefore, not protected speech.

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

A small thing called freedom of expression and freedom of speech - no matter how unpalatable the gesture might be.

The problem is, if it's amended to the point where if it may cause offence to people then it's not allowed (and there's every chance that will happen at some point) then you open the biggest can of worms ever that you'll never get the lid back on.

Because, everything offends someone, somewhere.

For example I stayed at my Aunt and Uncles last night - this morning my Aunt & Uncle were watching a documentary on George Michael. Was OK with it until it got to the bit about him committing gay sex acts in public toilets and then it said how instead of finishing his career it made him bigger and more popular. Then he was on talk shows laughing about it with audience clapping and them all embracing it.

The reason I'm saying this is because the celebration of it offended me on many levels. The fact it was popularised.

My Auntie found it funny. I was offended.

But I don't want the documentary cancelled and never shown again and the TV station and show makers lobbied and have them all never work again.

That's the difference.

I accept it's something I didn't like and me being offended is no big deal because I'm nothing special.

It's a shame that's not a general way of thinking and others feelings matter more than others on some issues.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

The first amendment was never intended to protect speech that didnt offend anyone. Why would you need to protect good speech? The intent of the founding fathers was to allow people to put up bad speech and then let the people decide what to do about it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Assault is sometimes defined as any intentional act that causes another person to fear that she is about to suffer physical harm

Because, historically, the burning of a cross has been a precursor to physical harm, or worse. A reasonable person could agree that the burning of a cross in view of or close proximity to the traditional victims of that harm, i. e. Black Persons, is assault and, therefore, not protected speech.

So if someone burned a cross on my lawn I would be within my rights to shoot them ? If I lived in America obviously.

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

Assault is sometimes defined as any intentional act that causes another person to fear that she is about to suffer physical harm

Because, historically, the burning of a cross has been a precursor to physical harm, or worse. A reasonable person could agree that the burning of a cross in view of or close proximity to the traditional victims of that harm, i. e. Black Persons, is assault and, therefore, not protected speech.

So if someone burned a cross on my lawn I would be within my rights to shoot them ? If I lived in America obviously.

Not quite. You wouldn't really be defending yourself, you'd be defending your lawn which is out with the bounds of reasonable.

*according to a couple of Google searches - but it's what I already thought anyway.

 

[fncceo]

Assault is sometimes defined as any intentional act that causes another person to fear that she is about to suffer physical harm

Because, historically, the burning of a cross has been a precursor to physical harm, or worse. A reasonable person could agree that the burning of a cross in view of or close proximity to the traditional victims of that harm, i. e. Black Persons, is assault and, therefore, not protected speech.

So if someone burned a cross on my lawn I would be within my rights to shoot them ? If I lived in America obviously.

Actually, no. Self-defense laws in America are similar to those in the UK. The response to the threat must be reasonable.

 

[fncceo]

To be fair, you could legally shoot an intruder in The UK.

You are allowed to own a firearm in The UK with a valid reason such as competition shooter, or hunting. You can't own one for self defense.

However, if you legally own a firearm in The UK, you can use it, proportionately, to defend yourself against attack.

An intruder threatening you with a knife would be a reasonable proportionate response.

 

[Slade3200]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

 

[harmonica]

Assault is sometimes defined as any intentional act that causes another person to fear that she is about to suffer physical harm

Because, historically, the burning of a cross has been a precursor to physical harm, or worse. A reasonable person could agree that the burning of a cross in view of or close proximity to the traditional victims of that harm, i. e. Black Persons, is assault and, therefore, not protected speech.

key words ''''in view or close proximity''' --AND RoshawnM is exactly right--what BLM does is the same thing--precursor to physical harm/etc

 

[Tommy Tainant]

To be fair, you could legally shoot an intruder in The UK.

You are allowed to own a firearm in The UK with a valid reason such as competition shooter, or hunting. You can't own one for self defense.

However, if you legally own a firearm in The UK, you can use it, proportionately, to defend yourself against attack.

An intruder threatening you with a knife would be a reasonable proportionate response.

Well I suspect that Belfast is the only part of the UK where they practise cross burning so I think I am safe over here.
I was thinking more in terms of the "stand your ground" laws that you have over there. I would definitely feel threatened by this and would be looking to protect my home and family. Surely this law would protect me if I wanted to shoot a few cross burners ?

 

[fncceo]

Surely this law would protect me if I wanted to shoot a few cross burners ?

It would not except in very specific incidents of reasonable threat.

 

[justinacolmena]

So if someone burned a cross on my lawn I would be within my rights to shoot them ? If I lived in America obviously.

I should hope so.

 

[justinacolmena]

It would not except in very specific incidents of reasonable threat.

You're jewing the right of self-defense away to total meaninglessness.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Assault is sometimes defined as any intentional act that causes another person to fear that she is about to suffer physical harm

Because, historically, the burning of a cross has been a precursor to physical harm, or worse. A reasonable person could agree that the burning of a cross in view of or close proximity to the traditional victims of that harm, i. e. Black Persons, is assault and, therefore, not protected speech.

So if someone burned a cross on my lawn I would be within my rights to shoot them ? If I lived in America obviously.

Those who burned crosses in black peoples lawn were southern white democraps who had their governors and such keep the blacks from owning firearms, so the blacks couldnt defend themselves from the prog KKK. Just like in the inner cities where blacks are prevented from owning weapons to protect themselves so BLM/ANTIFA can come burn their buildings, loot their stuff and even murder those blacks of the inner city. Nothing has changed with Democrats and their terrorizing of black people. But down here in Florida, come burn a cross in my yard, and i will put a couple 12 gauge shot into your belly and then call the police.

 

[IM2]

Cross-burnings are the equivalent of Black Lives Matter vandalism painting.
If you want to blame cross-burning defense on institutional racism then you must hold BLM to the same standard.
I think they’re both very bad and neither qualifies the other.
Good luck with your rationalization.
(Talk about institutional racism and bigotry... my spell-checker capitalizes Black Lives Matter and BLM but not kkk or ku klux klan.)

Totally untrue. There is no equivalence between the two.