Flag burning/Cross Burning: Both expression?

EhBeth--

And I see it as backing my assertion.

The blowtorch is innocent. Who gets to decide what my intentions are?
If all I do is light my blowtorch and stand there.
If all I do is light a cross and stand there.

Craven posted that it is illegal to threaten using a blowtorch. That is intent. I'm not sure how they determine/measure that intent - but it is the intent that is illegal.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's the law.

I suspect that this goes back to the discussion of cross vs flag burning. Cross burning was long linked to intent/threats of further action - that is what made it illegal. Flag burning was not linked to further threatening action, therefore not illegal.

ehBeth--

You are so kind to be so patient with me. I imagine my simplistic beliefs are infuriating to some.

I am threatened by flag burning. Call me a honkey or a stupid, Southerner, a redneck or a Cracker...and I feel no rising of anger. It falls away. Burn my flag, and a physiological change takes place in me. I become physically angry. I feel my lifestyle is threatened, and the blood of the men in my family, who fought and died for the freedoms here, has been thrown in my face.

I guess I wonder why those of us who are threatened by flag burning are less important than those who are threatened by cross burning.
Can you understand?

ehBeth-- Always wanted to tell you. Love your hat.

Which hat (i've got gazillions)? and thanks :smile:

I understand about the flag-burning. A friend of mine was arrested for burning a Canadian flag and then stomping on it - it was some kind of artistic thing he was doing. The police in Gananoque didn't care about his intent, burning the Canadian flag was all they needed to see. I'm glad he was arrested.



edit - ahhhhhh my garden hat! :wink: thanks again

Lash,

By all means burning a cross should be legal. So should burning a flag. But there is a precedent for cross burnings that gives it a difference over flag burning. I think it's not what's burned that makes something illegal but whether it's a physical threat.

You mention that you feel threatened by flag burning but you'd have to establish that it was a threat beyond the reasons given and there would probably have to be some kind of precedent for it to be declared illegal in a court.

Seeing a flag burning on TV probably won't qualify and I don't think it should. Seeing a cross burn on TV is the same to me. It's not an immediate threat of physical harm to anyone.

Hmmmm - it is not an IMMEDIATE threat of harm, because the cross burners cannot leap from the television screen - but is it not (unless burned by someone making some sort of comment -possibly artistic or political re christianity, which is what the gesture would normally mean in my country) a symbolic act meant to create a climate of threat or intimidation to black Americans - or others targeted by the Klan or their imitators?

Again - I think flag burning can be seen as rude and offensive and disgusting to those for whom flags have meaning, but not normally as creating fear. Although I can imagine circumstances in which it might do so...

Oh - and I may have misunderstood some of the discussion re the INTENT behind acts - I think some people were sayng the law ought not to engage in assessing intent? Forgive me if I am wrong.

At least in British or Australian law the question of intent - guilty mind, or mens rea - is often at the nubbin of questions of guilt or innocence - eg defences of insanity or mental incompetence argue that if one is unable to form intent, this is a defence - mens rea is also crucial- whether rightly or wrongly- in rape cases - intent behind an act is therefore often seen as crucial.

i don't care one way or the other if someone wants to burn a cross or flag so long as it does not physically threaten anyone. do i personally like it? no i don't, but if you want to act like an idiot, be my guest. just remember to pick up the ashes when you're done.

I don't think you are make a fine enough distinction, Deb. Attempted murder, for ex, would have to involve intent to meet the specifications. In some jurisdictions, I suppose there would be enhanced penalties if it is also judged to be a hate crime - for racial reasons, perhaps. Not that hatred couldn't exist in such a crime without it becoming a hate crime.

The inner roger is saying that wasn't quite clear. Maybe I can do better later.

Fine enough re which post, Roger?

"Murder" without intent in my country might well end up as manslaughter - although the standard of the reasonable person as to reckless disregard of danger would apply, and it could be murder again.

People who kill others in MVA's are charged with death bu dangerous driving, if the driving was dangerous - there are factors - like drunkenness - which up the ante...

I would reword that to say the law should not be used to pre-judge intent. It seems that many presume to know the intent of someone who might burn a cross and think the act should be outlawed because the assumed intent is vile. That is not the way US Law is generally written however. Most of our laws are written in such a way that what you do with any item you own is your perogative until such time as malice is demonstrated and when it comes to freedom of speech that malice usually has to present a clear and immediate threat of individual physical harm before a ban is upheld. Our Congress and States can not pass a law that voilates an individual's rights guaranteed in the Constitution. To do so would make the law unconstitutional and useless.

Nice points, eh? 'Tis an interesting discussion...

Even more interesting with the number of participants from outside the US! I think because the way the laws developed in each country we all grown with a different concept of how to go about eliminating the "vile" in our respective societies and how we each interact with that.

When I first stumbled onto this thread I would have never expected so many participants from outside of the US.

Hmmm - we have anti-vilification laws that were extremely controversial - these matters exercise minds in all democracies, I think - hence are always interesting to discuss.

Agreed Deb! I was just expected the cross burning issue to be pretty much a US issue. Over here we don't here about it happening very often anywhere else.

Can you provide us some insight on the types of controversy going on down under? The US News outlets provide us with scant insight there.

Fishin' - most of the western world is well familiar with the Klan and the symbolism of cross burning. I think, occasionally, the sort of miserable, pathetic souls who imbibe hate and prejudice have copied that symbolism and there have been one or two episodes of copy-catting here.

Main debate in Oz continues to be treatment of asylum seekers/illegal immigrants, the possible threat of terror here and how to respond - (there was a bill presented in the last session of Federal Parliament that was similar to your anti-terrorism bill - it was NOT passed, because of civil liberties concerns of our opposition parties) - various purely local concerns and, of course, ongoing debate about the US's intention to attack Iraq and the wisdom, jusification and worries about that - and also our involvement, if any.

We, of course, watch Indonesia closely - largest Islamic nation on earth, the source of the Bali bombing, with an increasingly weak and out of control government and very unhappy with us (cos they like to be, and also because of our intervention in East Timor) - and a strong tradition of very moderate Islam - but, like all Moslem countries, with fundamentalism currently on the increase.

But -'tis still silly season here - and, if it was not for Iraq and Korea and burning detention centres we would all be asleep, if possible - and watching tennis or cricket!

Roger

It is always prudent to listen to one's inner voice.

Lash

On your statement that you feel a threat when seeing a flag burning, thus again, you imply, both cases are equal. ARGHH. To hold to your thesis, you again slip out from a cautious view of what makes the cases DIFFERENT. Your argument would have merit if, and only if, there was a rich jolly history of white folks like you living as an enslaved minority under another group who commonly murdered and raped members of your minority and who might arrive at any time in your front yard, burn a flag, then set to their jollies with your husband or daughters. It's the differences here that you continue to avoid discerning.

Why thank you blatham. Never so delicately have I received such advice, my friend.

i used to have an inner voice but my meds seems to have cleared that up.