Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As a private expression they are and should be protected under the first amendment. By private I mean your cross and on your property although there is also the local fire code to consider. Same with BLM graffiti minus the fire code.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.)
No, vandalism on public property and other people’s property is not legal.As a private expression they are and should be protected under the first amendment. By private I mean your cross and on your property although there is also the local fire code to consider. Same with BLM graffiti minus the fire code.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.)
Burning one on someone elses property or someone elses cross is not protected same as BLM vandalism graffiti.
Yes that is the point. Neither is burning a cross on someone elses property or public property. Same thing.No, vandalism on public property and other people’s property is not legal.As a private expression they are and should be protected under the first amendment. By private I mean your cross and on your property although there is also the local fire code to consider. Same with BLM graffiti minus the fire code.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.)
Burning one on someone elses property or someone elses cross is not protected same as BLM vandalism graffiti.
The KKK lynched as many YT Republicans as they did Blacks.Whites formed the KKK and whites from both parties have been members.The Dims wanted it that way when they formed the KKKIn 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.
No they did not. Todays republican party is the party of white supremacy. We see this here at USMB.The KKK lynched as many YT Republicans as they did Blacks.Whites formed the KKK and whites from both parties have been members.The Dims wanted it that way when they formed the KKKIn 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.
Since BLM does none of those things...Yes, BLM does cross-burnings in the form of painting-public-property vandalism in conjunction with their rioting, looting, assault and intimidation.Hogwash. BLM vandalism represents racism, black supremacy, censorship, violence, marxism and anti-Americanism. It’s victims are a much larger group.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.)
No Cross burning is a specific KKK gang activity with only one purpose, to intimidate, terrorize and threaten black people, it isn't a free speech message, it is a "I am here thinking about giving you a beating" message. Many times something bad happened, ranging from making terror threats to murder.
Painting some words on a building is nothing in comparison.
Cross burning is a million times worst than paining some words on walls, not even remotely equivalent at all.
The topic is about free speech protections, I haven't defended or supported the BLM group at all.
Then BLM does cross burnings, right before terrorizing people?
The KKK and De Facto segregation was a threat to the ENTIRE black people of America (MILLIONS of people) ..., for many decades.
The South had De Jure segregation.
The North had De Facto segregation, some small areas that still exist today nationally.
An equal magnitude as ruling that some human lives are property to be disposed of at the will of its owner?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 Dred Scott decision is considered the worse ruling SCOTUS has ever handed down, possibly because it took an amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the 13th and then the 14th amendment) to correct the damage it inflicted.An equal magnitude as ruling that some human lives are property to be disposed of at the will of its owner?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.
You should read Stephen Alexander’s cornerstone speech.The Dred Scott decision is considered the worse ruling SCOTUS has ever handed down, possibly because it took an amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the 13th and then the 14th amendment) to correct the damage it inflicted.An equal magnitude as ruling that some human lives are property to be disposed of at the will of its owner?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 magnitude I was referring to was in terms of allowing damage to continue to be inflicted upon the black population in the United States. If you don't have equal protection under the law or the laws allows activity that targets you or your race, it's not much different than the Dred Scott ruling in which justice Taney stated
It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. ... They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order ... and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.
So if someone burned a cross on my lawn I would be within my rights to shoot them ? If I lived in America obviously.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.
[/QUOT]
You would be in violation of their civil rights and subject to prosecution. Now if they entered your house you can shoot them dead! You don’t have to live in America, don’t let the door hit yer ass when you leave.
The Dred Scott decision is considered the worse ruling SCOTUS has ever handed down, possibly because it took an amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the 13th and then the 14th amendment) to correct the damage it inflicted.An equal magnitude as ruling that some human lives are property to be disposed of at the will of its owner?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 magnitude I was referring to was in terms of allowing damage to continue to be inflicted upon the black population in the United States. If you don't have equal protection under the law or the laws allows activity that targets you or your race, it's not much different than the Dred Scott ruling in which justice Taney stated
It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. ... They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order ... and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.
I never understood the symbolism of cross burning. Why did the KKK burn crosses? I don't get it.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 didn't know this:I never understood the symbolism of cross burning. Why did the KKK burn crosses? I don't get it.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.
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.
With the exception of those prone to following cult type leaders. How did we get to a place that people think having a different political view (whether they are Republican or Democrat) makes them dumb or evil in there everyday life's?
Burning crosses? When is the last time that was being done? Why are you fighting a ghost from 100 years ago, rather than fighting the rampant crime in the black community today? Burning crosses is about the last thing black people need to worry about today. Your priorities are just plain shameful.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.
