Supreme Court Upholds Cross Burning Ban

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A divided Supreme Court upheld a state ban on cross burning, ruling Monday that the history of racial intimidation attached to this symbol outweighs the free speech protection of Ku Klux Klansmen or others who might it.

A burning cross is an instrument of terror, and government should have the power to stamp out or punish its use, Justice Sandra Day O\'Connor wrote.

"The protections afforded by the First Amendment ... are not absolute," O\'Connor wrote for herself and four other justices.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the court\'s only black member, dissented, but made clear his reasons have nothing to do with protecting free speech rights of the Klan.

Thomas said the court didn\'t even have to consider the First Amendment implications because cross burning is clearly intimidation.

"Just as one cannot burn down someone\'s house to make a political point and then seek refuge in the First Amendment, those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point," he wrote.


Opinons?..Thoughts..heresay....

Discuss.........

Just one thought really.

The KKK can burn in hell with chillis inserted in various orifices as far as I\'m concerned, they\'re just a stumbling block to everyone getting along a bit better and serve no constructive purpose. A few years ago Mapplethorpe did some great photos of the clansmen and they are turned out quite nicely, but what they stand for leaves a taste something like I can only imagine sh*t to be like, in my mouth.

The less religious effegies people burn the less religion will have a bearing on future problems, tensions must be kept to a minimum.

Even freedom of speech has to have its sensible limits.

The thing that gets me in it all is the fact that they use the free speech angle for this bullshit.

Free speech all of the way untill it infringes upon others rights, which this does.

They arent trying to have or protect the right to burn crosses on their own lawns or even at their rallies, but only as intimidation on others property.

They\'re obviously just not sane, someone who is wouldn\'t even suspect that kind of sick shit would be legal.

If the law didn\'t protect people then I\'m sure they could always get them for criminal damage, disturbing the peace and trespassing (if it\'s on someone elses lawn) then sue for mental anguish.

With the advent of this compensation culture, people like the KKK are going to find it increasingly difficult to do anything (the masks really don\'t hide anything, they\'re still uncontrolled animals without them), which is fine by me as I feel the only thing that keeps blacks and whites segregated are these out of date beliefs of people who refuse to accept the fact that the world is getting smaller every day

I just wish I could be alive when everyone is the same..mutts.

Hell, then we would have the brown eyes vs. the green vs. the blues.

It will never stop.

As I said in another thread the Klan is dead realistically.  Its height was back in the 1920s and today it is an ever decreasing shadow of its former self.  

The Klan represents an extreme form of racism and most people here in the south are racist to an extent, but they don\'t belong to the Klan.  HBO did an interesting piece on skinheads and the Klan which was documented near Montgomery Alabama a few years ago.  These guys were loners who couldn\'t get more than 20 people to march with them in one of their so called parades.  Most of the cross burnings that take place today are done in the middle of the woods on private property during their ceremonies.  I say let the kooks do what they want as long as they don\'t infringe on the rights of others.

In that case tho, it was about some who wanted to burn a cross on their own property in display.

The second was a case of someone burning it on someone elses lawn.