Flag burning/Cross Burning: Both expression?

blatham: I would put to you that it is not so much a desire for the law to be an ass, but when asinine activity such as flag or cross burning occurs, the law must respond in kind.

edgar: Normally, I would agree with you regarding political statement and physical intimidation.

Suppose there was a flag burning demonstration at the VA Hospital wheelchair ramp, would that be an example of a political statement or physical intimidation?

The distinction between the two acts is not as clear for me as it apparently is for others, and for that reason I do not feel that either should be protected.

What if someone was an atheist, or hated God, and decided to burn a cross to express this? What about a Satanic cult?

WHO gets to say what burning a cross means?

Piffka--
I despise the term 'hate crime'. This is at the very crux of all this political correctness, IMO.

The development of the term hate crime purports that some murders or crimes are somehow worse than others because of what is in the person's mind when they commit the crime. Talk about 'thought police'.

A story that haunted my sleep for months: A father, infuriated at his son's inability to become potty trained, punished him by bashing his little head inside a toilet bowl, until the child died.

Doesn't qualify as a hate crime.

A man blew his pregnany wife's brains out, and then their three children's, as well.

No hate crime.

Something is wrong here.

They are all just as dead.

Thank you for adding your thoughts into the mix. Your ideas push me to think further.

Lash, come on, that's just intellectually disengenuous. You know precisely what cross burning means.

blatham said--

Lash

No, that's clearly not so. People did get very badly harmed, and intentionally harmed, by the folks who burn crosses. You burning a cross on your front lawn obviously isn't the issue or the problem, and bringing it up here is just irrelevant.

blatham--
***Ah, but you are,...what is the term...wrong.
The burning of a cross in my yard IS relevent. It is illegal, and that is unsupportable. And wrong about cross-burning hurting anyone. You, again, digress when you say people were badly harmed by those who burned crosses. The burning hurt no one. Whatever criminal acts committed by people, who had at some time burned a cross is a seperate issue, and punishable by law.

At issue, the liberal minded 'thought police', who want to protect a certain segment from feelings.

max--
agreed!

Who is to say what act means what where???

Certain groups are co-opting symbols, and the courts are allowing them to designate feelings and motives and thoughts to go with these symbols.

Don't want to get into an argument with you especially since I 'hear' that you hold no truck with the term but let me proceed just a little...

Typically, a hate crime, besides being aimed at a person because of that person's race or whatever is frequently a mob-type action. It is the inciting of other people to join with you in hating and harming an innocent group solely because of their identity that separates it from other crimes of violence.

A person who kills another is also acting in hate, but it isn't considered a hate crime if he/she is not trying to incite others. Of course, murders of young children or any family member are horrendous and deserves the full weight of the law. Those laws should be made as stringent as any other crime for murder -- in my state, they are. I don't know about Georgia, but here we've had a fairly extensive overhaul of our judicial system.

Being politically correct is just a way to try to be sensitive to widely differing cultures. It has certainly been overly used and abused. No one who know me would accuse me of being politically correct. As you say you hate the term "hate crime," I hate the term PC. And I'm not.

hold no truck...hilarious. Its been a while since I heard that one.

I do understand your views on hate crimes, and your explanation is how I believed it to be.

I'm just one of those people, who believes if we just enforced the laws as they are, injustices would be punished.

I want gays and blacks and anyone else, who qualifies for better protection to be protected. Hate crimes, I believe, were instituted to be a further deterrent to crimes against certain people.

I want us all to be protected. I want us all to be treated the same. I want all items to be viewed the same. I want all feelings to be of equal importance.

I guess that reveals a pattern. Equality. I'm stubborn.

P.S.--Didn't want you to think I was flinging the PC label at you. I was flinging it at the issue.

Lash

Should painting swastikas on Jewish graves be protected under freedom of speech?

The Jewish grave is private property. There are laws against defacing/damaging private property.

Another aspect to cross burning: The people who originated the practice were very apt to haul the people who were the objects of their hatred from their homes and hang them from trees - and the law either looked the other way or else applauded them for it. This type of hatred is still expressed today by cross burners. It is a very physical threat we are discussing. There is no way burning a flag as an act of political protest equates to cross burning.

Well, the mob incitings are threats, the symbolic gestures are threats and so maybe they could be called "threat crimes." Surely if someone even talks of wanting to harm the president, he or she can be charged with conspiracy and a couple of other crimes. But there are no conspiracy laws that protect us against these symbolic threats that segments of our society fear, and with good, historical reason.

As I recall, the cross-burning was a call to action by the KKK, an easy to read gesture and warning that it was time somebody was "taught" a lesson. That seems like a fairly strong and vicious conspiracy.

Ah well. The law is what it is. Meanwhile, it is late for me and I'm going to sign off.

Peace

Lash

That is exactly the cop out I knew you'd take.

Should a group of white men in white robes walking down main street with a banner saying "Nigger trash is destroying the Godly white US" be protected?

Edgar--
I hear you.
For the sake of this discussion, still mindful of the violence that went along with cross-burning in the past, we are limiting this conversation on the act of cross-burning in and of itself, with no acts of violence.

It is my contention that if a guy stood on a street corner and burned a flag, and next to him, a guy burned a cross- they have done the same thing.

Passers-by may have different thoughts about what they have seen, but one is no different than the other.

Methinks the cop-out was by you.
We are talking law.
I cited a law that prohibits defacing/damaging private property.


About your next question: Roger said something about a law, which I've not heard of-- Something about inciting violence. I don't know whether or not this would be covered, but to answer you, based on my feelings, Yes.

Freedom of speech is just that.

Should a group of Hispanics be able to march in green leisure suits and proclaim with signage, "Crackers are stupid."

Yes. That is free speech. The problems start when people take them seriously, as if words can hurt them, and start fighting. There are laws against that.

Do you know of a law that prohibits incitement to violence? Who gets to decide what incites people?

Lash
Do you not see the circularity of your reasoning? You limit the scenario so that all meaning is removed, then you say "see, there's nothing there".

But I'll wait for an answer on the banner question.

FBI site on Hate Crimes and federal/state legislation... http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat3.htm#st see Topics and choose 'existing state and federal hate crime laws', then under 'References' choose 1.

Lash

You want the easy way out via an absolute - ALL speech acts ought to be protected. That does have the positive result of avoiding the need to think harder, to consider variations in situations. The courts do not agree with you because they are willing to dog a little deeper.

But, blatham, there is nothing there. Only the power you bestow on it.
And the Supreme Court is the one limiting it. They don't say "You can't burn a cross and then beat people." They say you can't burn the cross, period.

Look at the word "nigger". I can't tell you how many times I've been called honkey, cracker, whitey,... No negative word denoting my race has ever given rise to my blood. This is alot about the endless power the black community has given over to words. And the PC establishment is telling them, you're right! You better not let someone say that to you, or show that to you. It will destroy you.

That flag means alot to me, but I had to realize the burning of a flag doesn't say anything about my country. It only speaks to the character of the one burning it. I believe the same about the cross.

P.S. I answered the banner question previously.

blatham--
I guess what we have here is the basic difference between conservatives and liberals.

I like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they are. Absolute.

When you begin to allow judges to sift through and use their opinions to change, and add and re-write, we move farther away from the framers' intentions.

With this issue, they are making value judgements, which I think is wrong and unjust.
They should use the law as a guide, not as a Scrabble game.

Well, Lash, if you have the courage of your convictions, you'll get off the megaphone and go read the Supreme Court findings on a couple of these cases. But I bet you don't. You seem happy with your simple interpretation.

Am I the only one of us who has a megaphone?

Are you sure in your convictions per this issue?

Are all who are sure of their beliefs on an issue endowed with megaphones?

Am I the only one who must refrain from ad hominems?

I have interest in your opinions on many issues. Though I seldom agree, I do pick up views and differing thoughts from you. It dissipates when you revert to standards you malign in others.
Why the 'megaphone' comment? I feel there has been varied and worthwhile thoughts exchanged.