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.

1.that's just you -it's your HATE filled, bigoted, racist OPINION only
2. it's a hate crime if you do it on someone else's property
3. blacks commit hate crimes at TWICE the rate of whites
4. again AGAIN--you people concentrate on what's not a real problem instead of the real problems like black murder/crime rates and low grad rates

For at least the 10th time Harmonica, when did you graduate and what fields are your degrees in? I would just about bet that my 20 year old niece has more degrees than you do.

As far as my opinion, at least it's based on an educated interpretation of our constitution, laws and case law. And believe it or not (as I'm sure you won't), I am paid good money for my "professional opinion".

Don't be stupid.

very childish of you
..I KNOW my nieces graduated high school--a lot better than you

It may have been a childish response but it's 100% the truth.

And I'm not talking about your nieces, I'm talking about you. Nor am I referring to high school diplomas, my niece already has a college degree and she's not even 21 yet.

Have you seen this before?:

"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.​

​

You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair"​

Why is your focus continuously on the couple of million or so of black Americans who are in the criminal justice system versus the 35+ million who are not and who are doing fine with or without a diploma or degree? What is it exactly that prevents you from being able to focus on anything positive when it comes to black people?

Well, I am glad that your niece that you tout so proudly is doing well. Too bad her aunt didn't provide a good example. WTF does her education have to do with you anyway. Moron

Well I guess you don't read very well either do you...

Harmonica is constantly denigrating black people as criminals and for having lower graduation rates, yet he himself has no room to talk (go ahead, ask him).

What makes you think I haven't provided my niece with a good example? Oh wait you've already created some stereotypical image of who I am in your mind, right?

no denigration--FACTS
''no room to talk''--hahahhahahahahahahhahah

Well then ante up and put your money where your mouth is. I'm game, what about you?

whatever you have, I have a better one
DUH

 

[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.

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.

I agree, as ugly as it is, it is protected and needs to remain protected. When it is done we need to use our first amendment rights to speak out against and condemn such actions.

Unless I'm interpreting the SCOTUS decision and subsequent case law incorrectly, cross burnings are still protected under the First Amendment as long as they are not being done for the purpose of intimidation.

I suspect they provided this caveat in order to not violate the Klan's first amendment right to hold their rallies, marches and cross burnings even though it was known what the sight of these gatherings/events did to instill fear and terror in black people because as another member pointed out, the burnings were often a precursor to violence or death.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

I agree, as ugly as it is, it is protected and needs to remain protected. When it is done we need to use our first amendment rights to speak out against and condemn such actions.

Unless I'm interpreting the SCOTUS decision and subsequent case law incorrectly, cross burnings are still protected under the First Amendment as long as they are not being done for the purpose of intimidation.

I suspect they provided this caveat in order to not violate the Klan's first amendment right to hold their rallies, marches and cross burnings even though it was known what the sight of these gatherings/events did to instill fear and terror in black people because as another member pointed out, the burnings were often a precursor to violence or death.

Can you prove motive? That is the issue, as far as I’m concerned, I have no use for racist groups however speech needs to be protected. Could the KKK still commit violence or kill someone without a cross burning?

 

[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.

I agree, as ugly as it is, it is protected and needs to remain protected. When it is done we need to use our first amendment rights to speak out against and condemn such actions.

Unless I'm interpreting the SCOTUS decision and subsequent case law incorrectly, cross burnings are still protected under the First Amendment as long as they are not being done for the purpose of intimidation.

I suspect they provided this caveat in order to not violate the Klan's first amendment right to hold their rallies, marches and cross burnings even though it was known what the sight of these gatherings/events did to instill fear and terror in black people because as another member pointed out, the burnings were often a precursor to violence or death.

Can you prove motive? That is the issue, as far as I’m concerned, I have no use for racist groups however speech needs to be protected. Could the KKK still commit violence or kill someone without a cross burning?

Thats the issue I have... How is it decided what is appropriate or not? Could a group decide that taking a knee during the national anthem or raising a fist is hate speech? I sure hope not, and I want to make sure it doesn't get too easy to classify things as such. Now admittedly I don't know the history of burning crosses very well. I know the KKK used to do that in people yards to instill fear and intimidation which I think is abhorrent and should absolutely be punished. From a bit a poking around for this conversation it appears that cross burning originated in Scotland as a symbol of rallying troops for battle which has nothing to do with race. But it was used by the KKK for decades as a symbol for hate and intimidation. After looking at the history of how this act was used in our country I don't think it inappropriate to talk about banning it, especially if it is something that is still being used.

 

[harmonica]

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.

1.that's just you -it's your HATE filled, bigoted, racist OPINION only
2. it's a hate crime if you do it on someone else's property
3. blacks commit hate crimes at TWICE the rate of whites
4. again AGAIN--you people concentrate on what's not a real problem instead of the real problems like black murder/crime rates and low grad rates

For at least the 10th time Harmonica, when did you graduate and what fields are your degrees in? I would just about bet that my 20 year old niece has more degrees than you do.

As far as my opinion, at least it's based on an educated interpretation of our constitution, laws and case law. And believe it or not (as I'm sure you won't), I am paid good money for my "professional opinion".

Don't be stupid.

very childish of you
..I KNOW my nieces graduated high school--a lot better than you

It may have been a childish response but it's 100% the truth.

And I'm not talking about your nieces, I'm talking about you. Nor am I referring to high school diplomas, my niece already has a college degree and she's not even 21 yet.

Have you seen this before?:

"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.​

​

You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair"​

Why is your focus continuously on the couple of million or so of black Americans who are in the criminal justice system versus the 35+ million who are not and who are doing fine with or without a diploma or degree? What is it exactly that prevents you from being able to focus on anything positive when it comes to black people?

hahhahaha
.....you are lying through your teeth ..stop your LYING babble crap.....you and they probably never graduated from HIGH school
View attachment 457068

I rarely lie Harmonica and I have absolutely no reason to lie to you or anyone else on this board. I'm seriously curious about this though, why do you think I never graduated from high school?

By the way, it's impolite to falsely call someone a liar.

YOU are the one who is saying YOU are superior = YOU are a racist

I NEVER said I was superior to you or anyone else as a matter of fact.

I suspect I may have more education than you and may have stated that but I am 100% certain that I never said I was superior to you, and certainly not because of race.

It's because I'm female

more education = superior = you are a racist

 

[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.

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.

I agree, as ugly as it is, it is protected and needs to remain protected. When it is done we need to use our first amendment rights to speak out against and condemn such actions.

Unless I'm interpreting the SCOTUS decision and subsequent case law incorrectly, cross burnings are still protected under the First Amendment as long as they are not being done for the purpose of intimidation.

I suspect they provided this caveat in order to not violate the Klan's first amendment right to hold their rallies, marches and cross burnings even though it was known what the sight of these gatherings/events did to instill fear and terror in black people because as another member pointed out, the burnings were often a precursor to violence or death.

Can you prove motive? That is the issue, as far as I’m concerned, I have no use for racist groups however speech needs to be protected. Could the KKK still commit violence or kill someone without a cross burning?

You mean intent? Sometimes it can be proven through circumstantial evidence but that's still a very high bar, especially since circumstantial evidence is subjective and can be open to interpretation.

Pretty much all of our anti-discrimination laws are this way, it's almost like they passed the laws with an out, the perpetrator simply has to say "that wasn't my intent" even when the intimidation or discrimination was exactly their intent.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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.

Is burning The United States Flag free speech?

SCOTUS has deemed it so. I believe it falls under "freedom of expression".

Therefore, cross burning is free expression.

 

[Coyote]

The Focus of the CDZ is Civil Discourse. That means no attacking, flaming, or putdowns - blatant or otherwise. If you can't handle it, then posting in the CDZ may not be for you.

43 posts were deleted - either because they were off topic, or flaming, put downs or trolling. Multiple infractions were handed out. Discuss the topic. If you are unsure - refer to POST #1 of the thread.

The topic is not the character or education of individual members, nor is it the history of slavery in today's political parties, or anything to do with political parties.

Thread reopened.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

I agree, as ugly as it is, it is protected and needs to remain protected. When it is done we need to use our first amendment rights to speak out against and condemn such actions.

Unless I'm interpreting the SCOTUS decision and subsequent case law incorrectly, cross burnings are still protected under the First Amendment as long as they are not being done for the purpose of intimidation.

I suspect they provided this caveat in order to not violate the Klan's first amendment right to hold their rallies, marches and cross burnings even though it was known what the sight of these gatherings/events did to instill fear and terror in black people because as another member pointed out, the burnings were often a precursor to violence or death.

Can you prove motive? That is the issue, as far as I’m concerned, I have no use for racist groups however speech needs to be protected. Could the KKK still commit violence or kill someone without a cross burning?

You mean intent? Sometimes it can be proven through circumstantial evidence but that's still a very high bar, especially since circumstantial evidence is subjective and can be open to interpretation.

Pretty much all of our anti-discrimination laws are this way, it's almost like they passed the laws with an out, the perpetrator simply has to say "that wasn't my intent" even when the intimidation or discrimination was exactly their intent.

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.

I agree, as ugly as it is, it is protected and needs to remain protected. When it is done we need to use our first amendment rights to speak out against and condemn such actions.

Unless I'm interpreting the SCOTUS decision and subsequent case law incorrectly, cross burnings are still protected under the First Amendment as long as they are not being done for the purpose of intimidation.

I suspect they provided this caveat in order to not violate the Klan's first amendment right to hold their rallies, marches and cross burnings even though it was known what the sight of these gatherings/events did to instill fear and terror in black people because as another member pointed out, the burnings were often a precursor to violence or death.

Can you prove motive? That is the issue, as far as I’m concerned, I have no use for racist groups however speech needs to be protected. Could the KKK still commit violence or kill someone without a cross burning?

You mean intent? Sometimes it can be proven through circumstantial evidence but that's still a very high bar, especially since circumstantial evidence is subjective and can be open to interpretation.

Pretty much all of our anti-discrimination laws are this way, it's almost like they passed the laws with an out, the perpetrator simply has to say "that wasn't my intent" even when the intimidation or discrimination was exactly their intent.

You raise some valid points, however I am one that prefers the high burden of proof to keep racism out of the justice system. Too many times I believe that racism has played a part of convicting the wrong person. It is a thin line, I’d rather see a guilty man go free than convicting an innocent man.

I admit I don’t have any idea how you see the justice system but I do believe that the past has convicted many blacks and Hispanics that were innocent and stereotyping and racism have played a part.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Cross burnings shouldn't be given free speech protection because it was used almost exclusively by the KKK for threatening and intimidation purposes. Many seems to forget blacks were living in a hostile demeaning segregated society with around 12% of the population that whites dominated them through the offices of government during those times. There were local government and law enforcement people also involved in the terror activity behind the burning crosses too.

Free speech isn't 100% free it never is, since there are penalties given for slander, defamation and more. Cross burning was a well known KKK gang signal that black people in the area of the burning were in danger for their property or their lives. There is no other known reason for burning crosses, therefore it was strong danger signal to blacks who know it by long experience.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

Is burning The United States Flag free speech?

SCOTUS has deemed it so. I believe it falls under "freedom of expression".

Therefore, cross burning is free expression.

Oh it is expression alright, it is has a loaded terror message behind it, and it is done solely for controlling/intimidating/hurting blacks.

This is clearly not a free speech activity, it is a gang related activity for which they often carry out their intended business on the only people it is used against, blacks.

Since only ONE known terror group does it, the KKK and virtually no one else, it by its very nature a terror symbol.

 

[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.)

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.

Hogwash. BLM vandalism represents racism, black supremacy, censorship, violence, marxism and anti-Americanism. It’s victims are a much larger group.

 

[AMart]

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 legality of starting a fire, burning a cross, on your own property is generally based on where you live....a city, suburb, township, rural area etc. Of course trespassing, let alone burning a cross on someone else's property, is illegal. So OP please point out where cross burning is legal in the constitution.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

Hogwash. BLM vandalism represents racism, black supremacy, censorship, violence, marxism and anti-Americanism. It’s victims are a much larger group.

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.

 

[jbrownson0831]

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 Dims wanted it that way when they formed the KKK

 

[martybegan]

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.

In those cases the cross was burned on someone's property or directly in front of their house, which was an actual threat.

What is protected is burning a cross at say a rally, or on one's own property.

 

[IM2]

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 Dims wanted it that way when they formed the KKK

Whites formed the KKK and whites from both parties have been members.

 

[IM2]

“The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have. If the Negro wasn’t taken, tricked or deceived by the white liberal, then Negros would get together and solve our own problems. I only cite these things to show you that in America, the history of the white liberal has been nothing but a series of trickery designed to make Negros think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems. Our problems will never be solved by the white man.” -- Malcolm X

This was spoken in 1964. X didn't have to say anything about conservatives because everybody black knew the deal about them. It is time white conservatives quit taking the words of past black leaders out of context and then trying to argue with blacks using them. X disliked both liberal and conservative whites. He stated that he was neither a democrat or republican. White conservates here need to understand that.

 

[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.)

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.

Hogwash. BLM vandalism represents racism, black supremacy, censorship, violence, marxism and anti-Americanism. It’s victims are a much larger group.

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.

Yes, BLM does cross-burnings in the form of painting-public-property vandalism in conjunction with their rioting, looting, assault and intimidation.