Is cross burning a form of free speech?

Some friends and I were riding horses in a county park in Michigan few years ago and came across a HUGE cross all charred, with burnt grass around. Needless to say, we were terrified.

I wasn't frightened because there had been people there who hate someone. I was frightened because nobody would burn a cross except some who is insane, crazy, imbecelic. I don't think burning crosses is free speech, it is insane. Who would meet in an isolated place and burn a cross? I don't really want to know!

Hi, Tex-Star...Welcome to A2K!

There was a program on either one of the History Channels or one of the Discovery Channels not too long ago, and they allowed a film crew to watch the cross burning ceremony right up until the time that they were going to light it. This wasn't in someone's yard, but in a field. It was very scary...and what made it more scary than anything else was who the people were that were participating in the ceremony. "Pillars" of the community. Those whom if we didn't know any better, we'd tell our children to look up to.

People like Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond, that is the problem.

re my above comment about the cross burning in my yard i should mention that my wife at the time went to the landramat and when i joined her there she had machines going at each end of the landramat and all those in between were empty so i asked why she did that and she point at a sign at one end that said "whites only"

CNN has a poll going on the front page of their website right now asking if cross burning is a matter of free speech or a symbol of hatred. Right now, with 12,416 votes cast so far, 29% say cross burning is a matter of free speech, and 71% say that it is a symbol of hatred.

dyslexia...I admire your sense of humor, and that of your wife's.

My sister actually fell for that one, dyslexia. We moved from the North to south Florida in the mid-fifties, and the first laundromat we visited had "whites only" on a sign in front. We had a lot of surprises the first few months.

December 12, 2002

An Intense Attack by Justice Thomas on Cross-Burning

By LINDA GREENHOUSE


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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/12/politics/12SCOT.html?todaysheadlines
It would seem that the Supreme court may be ready to rule cross burning a crime.

As abhorrent as racism is, cross-burning itself hurts no one and must be protected as free expression. UNLESS it is done on someone's property without their permission. However, I would throw the book at crossburners where possible for arson, violating open burning laws, etc.

In my opinion cross burning is meant to intimidate and threaten and should be made illegal. It has no place in today's society.

Equus, cross burning destroys people. How can anyone ever forget such a hedious act by just some neighbors? Or, the town's politicos and business owners.

Cross burning would destroy a person's future the same as being raped, man or woman.

Personally, I think all of us would rather see a crossburning than be raped.
I understand crossburning is abhorrent, really I do. But letting it get under your skin is exactly what the hate mongers want. As long as they leave it at cross burning, laugh at the idiots. If they progress to property damage and direct confrontation, then is the time for the law to take action.

Equus
Is there a choice cross burning or rape? Cross burning with all it's implications should be illegal. I believe the USSC will rule that it is illegal on the grounds that it is a form of intimidation.