Joe DeFuria
08-Apr-2003, 14:21
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/supremecourtopinions/2003-04-07-scotus-crossburning_x.htm
From what I can gather, the consequence of the decision is as follows:
1) Cross-burning, in and off itself, is protected constitutionally.
2) States can pass and eforce certain laws against cross-burning.
3) The leagailty and applicability of a cross-burning law hinges on the premise of tying it to specific intimidation. In other words, someone using such a law to prosecute, must use it in the context that the cross burning was used as a direct form of intimidation toward someone.
I mostly agree with the above, though it leaves a lot of grey area. (Not necessarily a bad thing...just means that it will come down to judge and jury, rather than some black-and-white litmus test). Some would argue (like Clarance Thomas did) that ANY cross burning is by definition based in intimidation. I disagree with that.
From what I can gather, the consequence of the decision is as follows:
1) Cross-burning, in and off itself, is protected constitutionally.
2) States can pass and eforce certain laws against cross-burning.
3) The leagailty and applicability of a cross-burning law hinges on the premise of tying it to specific intimidation. In other words, someone using such a law to prosecute, must use it in the context that the cross burning was used as a direct form of intimidation toward someone.
I mostly agree with the above, though it leaves a lot of grey area. (Not necessarily a bad thing...just means that it will come down to judge and jury, rather than some black-and-white litmus test). Some would argue (like Clarance Thomas did) that ANY cross burning is by definition based in intimidation. I disagree with that.