Display:
Permalink :: 27 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Hillary Clinton and Flag-Burning (none / 0)

I want to clarify one thing that was said in the Matt Stoller posting. It has to do with the comparison between flag burning and cross burning which is used by those who want to outlaw desecration of the flag. Matt said, "Cross burning is well-understood as a sign of terrorism. It was used to suppress blacks organizing themselves in both the South and the North from the post-Civil War era until the late 1960s. It was a sign of intimidation, of terrorism, or impending hate crimes." That is certainly true, but the distinction goes further. The Supreme Court upheld the right of the State of Virginia to pass a law that made it "unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place." However, they held unconstitutional a part of the law that said "Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons." Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) In other words, without explicit evidence that the cross burning was done with intent to intimidate a person or group of persons, it is not a criminal act to burn a cross. Just acting out that expression of racial hatred is not a crime. Similarly, there is no way, consistent with the First Amendment, to make it a crime to desecrate a U.S. flag.
by musawwir on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:25:30 PM EST


Login
Username:

Password: