Cross burning and intimidation - Constitutional??

[MaximumSam]

Is cross burning constitutionally protected speech or criminal conduct?


WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 - The question for the Supreme Court in
an argument today was whether a state may make it a crime
to burn a cross without at the same time trampling on the
protection that the First Amendment gives to symbolic
expression. The case, concerning a 50-year-old Virginia
law, raised tricky questions of First Amendment doctrine,
and it was not clear how the court was inclined to decide
it - until Justice Clarence Thomas spoke.

A burning cross is indeed highly symbolic, Justice Thomas
said, but only of something that deserves no constitutional
protection: the "reign of terror" visited on black
communities by the Ku Klux Klan for nearly 100 years before
Virginia passed the law, which the Virginia Supreme Court
declared unconstitutional a year ago.

A burning cross is "unlike any symbol in our society,"
Justice Thomas said.

"There's no other purpose to the cross, no communication,
no particular message," he continued. "It was intended to
cause fear and to terrorize a population."

During the brief minute or two that Justice Thomas spoke,
about halfway through the hourlong argument session, the
other justices gave him rapt attention. Afterward, the
court's mood appeared to have changed. While the justices
had earlier appeared somewhat doubtful of the Virginia
statute's constitutionality, they now seemed quite
convinced that they could uphold it as consistent with the
First Amendment.

Justice Thomas addressed his comments to Michael R.
Dreeben, a deputy federal solicitor general who was arguing
in support of Virginia's defense of its statute. But he did
not have questions for Mr. Dreeben, who in any event agreed
with him in nearly all respects. The threat of violence
inherent in a burning cross "is not protected by the First
Amendment" but instead is "prohibited conduct," Mr. Dreeben
had just finished arguing.


From the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/12/politics/12SCOT.html?ex=1040704320&ei=1&en=1e891a1dd8eebb69 )

[Lopeover]

I am gonna stand with Justice Thomas on this one.

On a side note, it is ever so interesting that this is going on in Virginia, home of the KKK Senator Byrd!

Hmmmmmm?

[Radical-Conservative]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Is cross burning constitutionally protected speech or criminal conduct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it could be considered inciting a riot

[Westbrook]

I think the White Nigger Senator is from West Virginny.

[Lopeover]

Ha! Thanks Westbrook! I stand corrected.

[dajoga]

Maxi: Do I have this staight? Virginia had a law making cross-burning a crime. The VASC declared it unconstitutional. Now SCOTUS is being asked to reinstate this law, correct? Just wanted to have it straight first.

Comment: If burning the USA flag is protected, why not crosses? BUT, cross-burning is usuallly done on someone else's property, I think. That should be a crime. But if you want to burn a cross on your own property to show everyone what a stupid bigot you are, go for it! On MartinLuther King's birthday, I usually see several rednecks driving their PU around with a big confederate flag flying. Seems to me to be the same thing as cross burning: i.e. claiming to be a stupid bigot.

[Warlady]

dgauw, you are wrong about the Confederate flag. As we speak there is a black man walking 1500 miles across the South proudly carrying the Confederate flag. He was on Fox news this morning. He goes to schools to teach the true history of the Confederate battle flag.

As stated above if you want to burn a cross on your own property it is free speech.

[MaximumSam]

Maxi: Do I have this staight? Virginia had a law making cross-burning a crime. The VASC declared it unconstitutional. Now SCOTUS is being asked to reinstate this law, correct? Just wanted to have it straight first.


The law is somewhat more complicated than that. Under the law, burning a cross on your own property is not illegal. However, burning it basically anywhere else (someone else's property, public places) with the intent to intimidate is outlawed. However, burning it in those places is prima facie evidence of your intent to intimidate. (Basically, it is illegal to burn a cross anywhere but your own property, unless you can prove you weren't trying to intimidate anyone).

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I think the White Nigger Senator is from West Virginny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhmm..... Say what, now?

[dajoga]

WL: I've heard about this guy. Is Fox the only major media giving him coverage? I hope he can make his case well and that most blacks will realize the flap over the CF is just an excuse by civil rights jerks to keep the racial pot boiling.

I'm not saying that most uses of the Conf. flag are racially motivated. My comment was based on the fact that these clowns that I saw only do this on MLK's birthday, so for them it seems to be a definite racial thing, though maybe a little more subtle than cross burning.

[aresian]

There are three instances where speech is not protected. One is when such speech endangers the public (shouting fire in a crowded theater). Second is obscenity. Third are fighting words. Burning a cross violates the first as it is a threat and quiet possibly the third. Flag burning should have been ruled unconstitutional as fighting words. (In Tennessee the General Assembly tried to pass a law making the penalty for assaulting someone burning the flag a fine of $2.) In neither instance can it be reasonably defined as political speech. A political grunt possibly.......

[Westbrook]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />

Ahhmm..... Say what, now?


[/ QUOTE ]
Sen. Byrd said something about knowing some "White Niggers" just a few months ago.

I submit that he shaves one every morning.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Justice Thomas can appear intelligent if you just look at his voting score card. He has a good conservative record. But, when he talks doesn't appear so smart. He must know this as he rarely talks. At least he doesn't speak gibberish as the guy in his slot before him. Anyway, calling cross burning a symbol, as it is and as Thomas calls it, puts it squarely in the protection of the First Amendment. For Thomas to vote against allowing cross burning would simply be lawless. Those folks who without authorization strung up black criminals were lawless.

The Supreme Court already protects burning the US flag and simulated child pornography.

Some people ignorantly think this case is about cross burning. If the flag is not protected then neither is the confederate flag or swastica going to be protected. If those aren't protected then any symbol used by white racists won't be protected. If racists aren't protected then no one Politically Incorrect will be protected. We already see efforts to ban all sorts of Politically Incorrect speech. The cross burning is a foot in the door. Why not? The Constitution is already a dead letter and freedom is already mostly a thing of the pre-WWII past.

The concept of banning flag burning to protect blacks is totally ignorant. Cross burning is already so socially unacceptable that anyone caught doing it will get plenty of punishment even without going to jail for cross burning. And, anyone willing to do it isn't going to be stopped by a law. It's like someone willing to commit murder isn't going to be stopped by the threat of thought/hate crime conviction.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Sen. Byrd said something about knowing some "White Niggers" just a few months ago.

The guy who took over the head of the Democrat party after Clinton left office has a habbit of calling blacks "coloreds". The Democrat party is full of old white racists, as well as young black racists.

[aresian]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Justice Thomas can appear intelligent if you just look at his voting score card. He has a good conservative record. But, when he talks doesn't appear so smart

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever heard Justice Thomas speak? I saw him on CSPAN a few years ago talking to students and he was very articulate and thoughtful. And as further evidence here is an excerpt from a speech he gave in Feb. 2001 at the American Enterprise Institute (http://www.aei.org/boyer/thomas.htm)
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
In addition to these personal challenges, judging is difficult, because the Constitution itself is written in broad, sometimes ambiguous terms. And, unfortunately the Constitution does not come with Cliffs Notes or a glossary. When it comes time to interpret the Constitution’s provisions, such as, for instance, the Speech or Press Clauses, reasonable minds often differ on their exact meaning. But that does not mean that there is no correct answer, that there are no clear, eternal principles recognized and put into motion by our founding documents. These principles do exist. The law is not a matter of purely personal opinion. The law is a distinct, independent discipline, with certain principles and modes of analysis that yield what we can discern to be correct and incorrect answers to certain problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Warlady]

Justice Thomas is incredibly articulate. The Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is a form of free speech.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

I am disturbed that the act of burning a cross is taken as prima facie evidence of intent in Virginia. I think that portion of the law is unconstitutional. As to the other portions, I'm really not sure at this point. It is a tough one for me to pass judgement on.

Clarence Thomas is not stupid. He is highly intelligent and he has a unique vision that is just now being realized. He is still one of my favorites! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon16.gif

P.S. I liked how the Court seemed to do a 180 after Thomas spoke. They may still vote to strike down the law, but it shows they have some respect for him. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon115.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

[MaximumSam]

Philip,

Some people ignorantly think this case is about cross burning. If the flag is not protected then neither is the confederate flag or swastica going to be protected. If those aren't protected then any symbol used by white racists won't be protected.

It isn't just about cross burning. It is about cross burning with the intent to intimidate other people. That is something the flag burning cases haven't dealt with.

Cross burning is already so socially unacceptable that anyone caught doing it will get plenty of punishment even without going to jail for cross burning.

Is that any reason not to make it illegal. Murder also might lead to someone getting punished without the law, but the government ought to outlaw murder.

It's like someone willing to commit murder isn't going to be stopped by the threat of thought/hate crime conviction.

But if someone is going to commit murder (or any violent crime) based only on race, shouldn't we punish him more, to keep him off the streets?

[MaximumSam]

Aresian,

Flag burning should have been ruled unconstitutional as fighting words. (In Tennessee the General Assembly tried to pass a law making the penalty for assaulting someone burning the flag a fine of $2.) In neither instance can it be reasonably defined as political speech. A political grunt possibly.......

Why should flag burning be fighting words? Can't someone burn a flag without looking to start a fight - can't they just burn the flag in protest of the government?

[MaximumSam]

TIU,

I am disturbed that the act of burning a cross is taken as prima facie evidence of intent in Virginia. I think that portion of the law is unconstitutional. As to the other portions, I'm really not sure at this point. It is a tough one for me to pass judgement on.


Do you think the SCOTUS might fudge it and remand that issue back to Virginia? I had to argue this case for class, so I know way too much about it. I had to argue Virginia's side, and that was my main argument for the prima facie clause, since I didn't really know what to do with it.

[aresian]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Why should flag burning be fighting words? Can't someone burn a flag without looking to start a fight - can't they just burn the flag in protest of the government?

[/ QUOTE ]


If they want to make a political point then fine...make one. The only reason they burn the flag is because it has such emotional overtones. And those emotional overtones are quiet likely (in some areas of the country) to begin a violent confrontation. If you want to make a political statement and aren't quient bright enough to print words on a poster then burn someone in effigy.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Sure its constitutional.

As long as its zoned by the fire dept. and a burn day, on private property.

[Radical-Conservative]

H.K Edgerton's march across Dixie (http://www.southerncaucus.org/hkedgerton.htm)

[DesertFox]

Sam, by that reasoning anybody should be able to say "nigger" free of legal problems.

[MaximumSam]

Sam, by that reasoning anybody should be able to say "nigger" free of legal problems.

Unless you are trying to start a fight, or you say it in a way that a reasonable person would think should start a fight, then you shouldn't have any legal problems. You just said it, and I doubt you'll have any legal problems.

[DesertFox]

If you believe that, Sam, you're living in a fantasy world.

[MaximumSam]

??

Is someone having legal problems (re: First Amendment) because they said the word "nigger"? It certainly would be an interesting case.

[Westbrook]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />

Is someone having legal problems (re: First Amendment) because they said the word "nigger"? It certainly would be an interesting case.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't a woman arrested, tried, and convicted of a "hate speech" crime just this year? I think she used the word "spic" in a private conversation. Some spic overheard it and told the cops. She was arrested, tried, convicted, and fined, last I heard.

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

Bad facts make bad law.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
It isn't just about cross burning. It is about cross burning with the intent to intimidate other people. That is something the flag burning cases haven't dealt with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I respect Justice Thomas, and he is an accomplished and sought-after public speaker, but I have some problems with this case turning on whether he is personally offended by the proscribed act. What we appear to be poised to do is put a subjective element (intimidation) into the 1st Amendment. If speech can be regulated because some find it intimidating, then we've opened a door in our protection big enough to drive a Mexican semi through. Example, some people are intimidated by me in a deposition. The ones who are, generally are the crooked type. Would the burning cross case allow the State to regulate the way I take some depositions because the subject of my speech is, in his own mind, intimidated?

Some here no doubt, some of the DU ilk, are intimidated by the overwhelming logic of the conservative point of view. Again, will we be subject to regulation because Justice Thomas feels put upon?

Or is this to limited to "conduct is speech" cases like flag burning and cross burning? If so there are still a ton of threats to our freedom is subjective intimidation is allowed in. Suppose the legislators in Nashville decide they are intimidated by the tax payers opposing an income tax. Protestors jailing upheld by this case?

Suppose I feel intimidated by Jehovah's Witnesses coming to my door. By a gay pride parade? By the bell ringers outside of Wal-Mart. By unionists marching for higher wages?

Bad facts make bad law.

[Trau]

I'm curious to know as to why there is so much defense for the Confederacy.

[MaximumSam]

If we are thinking of the same case, it was in 1998, not last year. Also, she was convicted for fighting words (which backs up hate speech laws). She said "I wish these damn spics would move out of the way." to a friend, but in front of a police officer of Hispanic dissent, and apparently in reference to his father. So no, this isn't the type of example that I'm looking for.

Also, it isn't very kind or Christian to call people 'spics.'

[**DONOTDELETE**]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Also, it isn't very kind or Christian to call people 'spics.'

[/ QUOTE ]

Touche!

[Venus]

"Why should flag burning be fighting words? Can't someone burn a flag without looking to start a fight - can't they just burn the flag in protest of the government?"


Osammie, why should cross-burning be fighting words? What if somebody wanted to burn a cross in protest of affirmative action laws which are established by government?

Why isn't it simply commentary?

[Trau]

Oh, come on. No one burns a cross just in protest of affirmative action. It's a racially intimidating symbol meant for just that, intimidation. It isn't directed at a group, it is directed at individuals.

[Venus]

Trau chastised:

"Oh, come on. No one burns a cross just in protest of affirmative action.'

Are you clairvoyant? A mind reader perhaps?

"It's a racially intimidating symbol meant for just that, intimidation. It isn't directed at a group, it is directed at individuals."

Are there a set of rules to be followed when burning a cross? That is, is there a written code restricting its use to one specified purpose, such as you cite?

I hope that Sam gives a more thoughtful reply to my question which, after all, was directed to him, not you.

[TheRealLobo]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
But if someone is going to commit murder (or any violent crime) based only on race, shouldn't we punish him more, to keep him off the streets?

[/ QUOTE ]

So if someone calls someone else a bad name, they're likely to commit murder?

Nahh, I know that's not what you're saying, but at first glance, it could be.

I think crack addicts that kill for money, are just as (or more) dangerous as racists that kill for hate.

[MaximumSam]

RANDy,

Bad facts make bad law.

Here are the facts of these two cases. In one, a guy was convicted for having a KKK rally on someone else's property, with their permission. During the rally, he lighted a cross about 25-30 feet high. He was arrested by the sheriff. At trial, he put forth no defense and let the trial go to jury after the state was finished. He was convicted and sentenced to a fine of $2500.

The other case is of some guys who lighted a cross at night on a black guy's lawn. He found it, burnt, the next morning. The culprits were eventually found and convicted.

Example, some people are intimidated by me in a deposition. The ones who are, generally are the crooked type. Would the burning cross case allow the State to regulate the way I take some depositions because the subject of my speech is, in his own mind, intimidated?


But RANDy, it isn't intimidated, its intent to intimidate, and that's nothing new. The judge would hold you in contempt if he thought you were trying to scare witnesses into testifying.

Or is this to limited to "conduct is speech" cases like flag burning and cross burning? If so there are still a ton of threats to our freedom is subjective intimidation is allowed in. Suppose the legislators in Nashville decide they are intimidated by the tax payers opposing an income tax. Protestors jailing upheld by this case?


Can we make a difference between protest, and protest with intent to intimidate? I think so. If your actions reasonably put someone into fearing for their safety, and that is your goal, then why should this conduct be protected?

Suppose I feel intimidated by Jehovah's Witnesses coming to my door. By a gay pride parade? By the bell ringers outside of Wal-Mart. By unionists marching for higher wages?

Why would you feel intimidated by any of those things. Surely, black people have a legitimate beef on being intimidated when someone burns crosses. This doesn't apply to everything. A swastika would intimidate a Jewish person. A rainbow shouldn't intimidate anyone.

[MaximumSam]

Venus,

Osammie, why should cross-burning be fighting words? What if somebody wanted to burn a cross in protest of affirmative action laws which are established by government?

Well, I won't post my 30 page brief on the subject, but in essence, Trau hit the question square on the head. What makes cross burning speech? The fact that it has been used for years to intimidate and scare black people. So if the primary message of cross burning is to scare people, and intentionally scaring people is illegal, we should be able to restrict it. Restrict is the proper word here, since the statute doesn't ban all cross burnings - there can still be cross burnings done in connection with other, protected messages.

[MaximumSam]

I think crack addicts that kill for money, are just as (or more) dangerous as racists that kill for hate.

Well, don't you think we should be able to increase the sentence of someone who kills or steals for crack money?

[Westbrook]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />

Also, it isn't very kind or Christian to call people 'spics.'


[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, Sam. I am ashamed of that lapse.

I grew up in a neighborhood where everybody had a nickname, usually prefaced or suffixed with a derogatory ancestral reference. Nevertheless, if somebody from another neighborhood used a reference like that on one of us, there was HELL to pay. After all, we were friends.

[Riverboat]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Comment: cross-burning is usuallly done on someone else's property, I think. That should be a crime. But if you want to burn a cross on your own property to show everyone what a stupid bigot you are, go for it!


[/ QUOTE ] I agree with everything you said except for the part about the Confederate flag.

Come to think of it, ever wonder why the libs don't get togother and burn the Confederate flag?

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

Sam,

Bad facts make bad law.

By that I meant, no one wants to be on the cross burning side. Well, no rational human anyway. So, the Supremes (as we've seen before) warp the interpretation to prevent the abhorrent conduct which otherwise would be protected. Ten years later, the ambitious State is banning something under the authority of the cross-burning case which ought rather to be protected speech.


But RANDy, it isn't intimidated, its intent to intimidate, and that's nothing new.

But in this case intent is presumed. The same can be said for other conduct down the road, like publicly reading from the Bible. No, that is not far fetched. Such evangelism is already being outlawed in Europe. Or another example, posing naked to protest the treatment of animals. (I'm sure you can think up better examples than I) With the stroke of a pen, any legislature could say, public Bible reading is intimidating to muslims so if you do so the law will presume, subject to your disproving it, that you intended to intimidate by reading the Bible.

Can we make a difference between protest, and protest with intent to intimidate? I think so. If your actions reasonably put someone into fearing for their safety, and that is your goal, then why should this conduct be protected?

]We can make that distinction but is not the goal of all protest to sway public opinion or achieve your desired result? Take the Tennessee example. I dare say it was the goal of the tax protestors to intimidate the legislatures. That is, to force them into the action the protestors wanted. That being the case then we can easily see how any form of political march or protest can be chilled by what the Supremes do with this cross-burning case based on "feelings" rather than law.

Randy: Suppose I feel intimidated by Jehovah's Witnesses coming to my door. By a gay pride parade? By the bell ringers outside of Wal-Mart. By unionists marching for higher wages?

Sam: Why would you feel intimidated by any of those things. Surely, black people have a legitimate beef on being intimidated when someone burns crosses. This doesn't apply to everything. A swastika would intimidate a Jewish person. A rainbow shouldn't intimidate anyone.

A rainbow shouldn't intimidate anyone but it does. Especially now in these days when ordinances are being crammed down voters necks by cities specifically at the demand of homosexual activists using intimidating tactics. Different people react differently to the same act. What initimidates one will be laughable to another. And the defense of "Gee, I didn't mean to scare him, I was just being funny" will not prevail when one is charged with intimidation. A black panthers beret shouldn't intimidate anyone but it does. The bow tie of the "Fruit of Islam" shouldn't intimidate anyone but it does. All those forms of expression are at risk if we decide 1st Amendment issues on the basis of Clarence Thomas' "bad vibes" about the burning cross, as opposed to the cold, harsh, disinterested application of the law.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
You are right, Sam. I am ashamed of that lapse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Touche!

Westbrook's post is the epitome of class. We all err. It takes a man of honor to admit it. A lessoned unlearned by the President Clinton.

[Dania]

Because it is just as much a part of some people's heritage, ancestry and culture, as the African, Native American, Asian, Mexican, etc., is to others. The main point is, it's not just about the 'few' that are insulted by seeing the Confederate Flag. It's about EVERYONE. Some southerners never even HAD slaves and yet their heritage is rooted in the Confederacy. It was part of our history. It happened. We learned from it and moved on. Why can't 'some' people manage to do just that....move on?

I use the analogy of my ancestors, Native Americans. Using the logic of those that are insulted by seeing the Confederate Flag flying, Native Americans 'should be' just as, if not more so, insulted, inflamed, etc., by seeing the AMERICAN flag everywhere. Have you heard them raise a stink over the US flag? No, and I doubt you ever will, cause for the most part, even though they were treated like animals by the US government back then (and some are still getting a raw deal), most of them are too patriotic to diss the flag. We ARE all Americans, aren't we???

Lapcat

[Maggie_T]

I don't agree with burning flags or crosses. It's childish and doesn't conduce to any good.

Now, about intimidation. Are we talking about intimidation a la harassment by the politically correct police? Are we talking about Jessie Jackass stalking into offices and telling the CEOs that if they'd better start hiring more AA, regardless of their qualifications - or lack thereof - or else? Are we talking about forbidding children to take toy guns to school under threat of being kicked out? Are we talking about college students booing conservative speakers (e.i. Horowitz) and harassing conservative students because they don't sieg heil to the thought police? Are we talking about eco-nazis destroying whole plantations and private property and preventing poor countries from fighting malaria because genetically engineered food and DDT are un-pc? Are we talking about Nativity sets at Christmas being forbidden, but offensive anti-religious "art" being an excuse for touting the 1st Amendment? Are we talking about stormtroopers storming into private houses in the middle of the night and dragging little children out to please some foreign leftist dictator?

Is that what we're talking about? If so, then I'm firmly convinced that intimidation is un-constitutional and downright BAD.

Of course, if what is discussed here is "selective" intimidation - as in if Jesse Jackson does it, it's for a noble cause - then you can continue without me.

[Trau]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Are you clairvoyant? A mind reader perhaps?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, just sensible.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Are there a set of rules to be followed when burning a cross? That is, is there a written code restricting its use to one specified purpose, such as you cite?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It's called Common Sense.

[TheRealLobo]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I think crack addicts that kill for money, are just as (or more) dangerous as racists that kill for hate.

Well, don't you think we should be able to increase the sentence of someone who kills or steals for crack money?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sam, we've had this discussion before, and you know where I stand on it.

I think 1st degree murder is simply that, and that there are no mitigating circumstances. Let's just call it murder (and you know the difference between that and manslaughter, etc...) and be done with it.

If someone robs a store, and kills the person behind the counter, or mugs someone on the street, and kills them, or shoots someone because they're black, or white, or whatever, then the murderer should receive identical sentences.

To make a case for "life without parole", "two life sentences without parole", "life without parole plus 20 years", or "160 years to be served concurrently", is ridiculous.

If someone is going to be executed for a murder, then their motivation means little.

In my three cases above, which victim is more dead? Which is a more heinous crime?

[MaximumSam]

Lobo,

I think 1st degree murder is simply that, and that there are no mitigating circumstances. Let's just call it murder (and you know the difference between that and manslaughter, etc...) and be done with it.


I'm not sure I follow all the way. Are you saying all intentional homicides should be murder, while unintentional homicides should be manslaughter? (Manslaughter and murder are different in every state, so I'd like to be precise as what we mean).

If someone is going to be executed for a murder, then their motivation means little.

A man walks in on his wife, and finds her with some other man. The man gets real pissed and hits the guy with a tire iron, killing him. Is this the same as a dude that decides he wants to kill white people, so goes out and shoots a white person?

Shouldn't we have any leeway in determining sentences?

In my three cases above, which victim is more dead? Which is a more heinous crime?

Under the law, there is no difference between killing someone because they are white or black.

[DeclinetoState]

I heard on Rush today that Tip O'Neill's nickname for Sen. Byrd was "Sheets."

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon133.gif

[Venus]

Sensible?

Common sense?

Trau, you're not being sensible if you make presumptions about people's private thoughts and motives that are unknowable to all others. Not only is it foolish, it can also be dangerous.

[Venus]

Osammie, Lobo already observed that there's a difference between murder and manslaughter, so you've set up quite a tidy little fallacy with this, in relation to Lobo's point about the irrelevancy of motive:

"A man walks in on his wife, and finds her with some other man. The man gets real pissed and hits the guy with a tire iron, killing him. Is this the same as a dude that decides he wants to kill white people, so goes out and shoots a white person?"

This is not an accurate illustration of what Lobo is saying because the intent is different between the scenarios you pose. An accurate illustration would pose this: a guy wakes up and decides he's going to kill somebody, anybody, and does it. Is this the same as a dude who wakes up and decides to kill a white woman, and does it?

Osammie, I'm just sure you know the difference between motive and intent.

[TheRealLobo]

Lobo,

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I think 1st degree murder is simply that, and that there are no mitigating circumstances. Let's just call it murder (and you know the difference between that and manslaughter, etc...) and be done with it.


I'm not sure I follow all the way. Are you saying all intentional homicides should be murder, while unintentional homicides should be manslaughter? (Manslaughter and murder are different in every state, so I'd like to be precise as what we mean).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sam, that's why I specified "1st degree murder".

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
If someone is going to be executed for a murder, then their motivation means little.

A man walks in on his wife, and finds her with some other man. The man gets real pissed and hits the guy with a tire iron, killing him. Is this the same as a dude that decides he wants to kill white people, so goes out and shoots a white person?

Shouldn't we have any leeway in determining sentences?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sam, that's why I specified "1st degree murder".

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
In my three cases above, which victim is more dead? Which is a more heinous crime?

Under the law, there is no difference between killing someone because they are white or black.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have now entired the realm of silliness sam. I made no distinction between white and black. I made the distinction between killing during a robbery, and killing out of 'hate'.

Under hate crimes legislation, killing someone in a hate crime would make them more dead than 'merely' killing them during a robbery. At least you'd think so by the punishments.

[MaximumSam]

RANDy,

By that I meant, no one wants to be on the cross burning side. Well, no rational human anyway. So, the Supremes (as we've seen before) warp the interpretation to prevent the abhorrent conduct which otherwise would be protected. Ten years later, the ambitious State is banning something under the authority of the cross-burning case which ought rather to be protected speech.

But if anything, government's ability to restrict speech has been curtailed significantly. All the traditional bases where government did restrict speech, obscenity, fighting words, incitefulness, have been significantly lessened over the last 100 years, not the other way around. It would be hard for any symbol to garner the hatefulness of cross burning in 10 years, so I think we are probably safe from any slippery slope.

But in this case intent is presumed. The same can be said for other conduct down the road, like publicly reading from the Bible. No, that is not far fetched. Such evangelism is already being outlawed in Europe. Or another example, posing naked to protest the treatment of animals. (I'm sure you can think up better examples than I) With the stroke of a pen, any legislature could say, public Bible reading is intimidating to muslims so if you do so the law will presume, subject to your disproving it, that you intended to intimidate by reading the Bible.


The First amendment free exercise protects reading the bible, so we are safe from that.

CCan't we outlaw threats - if I call your wife and tell her I want to kill her, does my right to say whatever I please supercede her right to be free of fear and intimidation. I could prove I was just joking around and didn't mean to frighten her - should that help me out?

Cross burning definitely has this exact same message to many people, and that's why cross burning was restricted in Virginia.

We can make that distinction but is not the goal of all protest to sway public opinion or achieve your desired result? Take the Tennessee example. I dare say it was the goal of the tax protestors to intimidate the legislatures. That is, to force them into the action the protestors wanted. That being the case then we can easily see how any form of political march or protest can be chilled by what the Supremes do with this cross-burning case based on "feelings" rather than law.

But surely, there is a difference between intimidation by violence and intimidation by voting someone out of office. You probably agree with the result in Renton, where porno houses where kept away from schools. This was to keep the surrouninding effects of porno houses (smut, crime, etc.) away from children and other public areas. The effects of cross burning are clear enough - black people think someone is out to get them. Can't we keep that out of public places, as well?

A rainbow shouldn't intimidate anyone but it does. Especially now in these days when ordinances are being crammed down voters necks by cities specifically at the demand of homosexual activists using intimidating tactics. Different people react differently to the same act. What initimidates one will be laughable to another. And the defense of "Gee, I didn't mean to scare him, I was just being funny" will not prevail when one is charged with intimidation. A black panthers beret shouldn't intimidate anyone but it does. The bow tie of the "Fruit of Islam" shouldn't intimidate anyone but it does. All those forms of expression are at risk if we decide 1st Amendment issues on the basis of Clarence Thomas' "bad vibes" about the burning cross, as opposed to the cold, harsh, disinterested application of the law.

Who does a rainbow intimidate? Why? Or a beret, or a bow tie? None of these have the connotations of cross burning or a swastika. Certainly, I suppose states could try to ban all sorts of things, but I see them doing that - there just isn't any reason too, and nearly all such bans would be struck down unless they had some very strong basis. This statute applies to people who are trying to frighten others? What could be wrong with that?

[MaximumSam]

Venus,

This is not an accurate illustration of what Lobo is saying because the intent is different between the scenarios you pose.

Why is the intent different? They both intentionally killed someone. This only has to do with motive. One killed a person because he saw him cheating on his wife, and the other killed someone becase of his race.

[MaximumSam]

Lobo,

Sam, that's why I specified "1st degree murder".

?? But what do you mean by that. As I said, degrees of murder are different in every state. Not every state even has first degree murder. That's why I asked you to define what you are saying. In my example, both cases could be murder, and both victims certainly end up dead.

Also, I don't know how hate crime statutes affect first degree murder - they can't bump up the penalty any more.

You have now entired the realm of silliness sam. I made no distinction between white and black. I made the distinction between killing during a robbery, and killing out of 'hate'.

Almost always, felony murder will get you convicted of the highest penalty, so under the law, there isn't any difference here, either.