Related
Translate
Previous entry: The Story of O: Life in and out of a political cult
Next entry: Taliban Reviving Structure in Afghanistan
Get RNB via RSS
 |
RNB's RSS feed What is this? |
Get RNB via Email
 |
 Subscribe by Email What is this? |
Follow: Twitter
Most Popular
This Week:
- Guyana’s Jonestown suicide site gets plaque
- Scientology practices ‘putting people at risk’
- Recession: Muslim schools in UK under threat of closure
- Australian senator tells Parliament of widespread criminal conduct within the Church of Scientology
- When a child dies, faith is no defense
- World’s oldest ocean-going passenger ship, ministry ship Doulos, to stop sailing
- Israel Charges Extremist With Attempted Murder Of Messianic Family
- Scientology’s feet held to the fire in Australia: Struggle between a church and the state
- 1-year prison term for man who participated in cyber attack on Church of Scientology Web sites
- Australian police take up complaints about Scientology
Supreme Court upholds Virginia ban on cross burning
More articles on this topic: Hate GroupsRejected free speech arguments
CNN, Apr. 7, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Supreme Court Monday upheld key portions of a 50-year-old Virginia law banning cross burnings where the intent is racial intimidation.
But it struck down a provision of the law which declared that any cross burning is on its face evidence of intimidation.
The closely divided court rejected arguments that the practice of burning crosses is a constitutional form of free speech.
The 5-4 decision written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor splintered both the more liberal and conservative wings of the Supreme Court.
O’Connor was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer in key portions of the ruling.
“We conclude that while a state consistent with the First Amendment may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional,” the ruling said.
In dissent, the court’s only African-American justice, Clarence Thomas, said he agreed with the majority that states may ban cross burnings, but disagreed they could ever represent free speech.
Thomas said cross burning already constitutes an illegal act of intimidation, and therefore does not need to be seen as a test of free speech.
“This statute prohibits only conduct, not expression,” Thomas said. “Just as one cannot burn down someone’s house to make a political point and then seek refuge in the First Amendment, those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point,” he said.
The Ku Klux Klan and its sympathizers, during what Thomas described as “a reign of terror,” for decades set crosses ablaze in ceremonies.
Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have passed statutes that prohibit cross burning.
What You Can Do From Here
|
Read More Articles On These Topics
Share, Blog About, Bookmark, or Email This Article
Subscribe
Read Another Article
Previous entry: The Story of O: Life in and out of a political cult Next entry: Taliban Reviving Structure in Afghanistan
RNB Homepage with latest headlinesFind Related Information
Find Related Books
|
Share This Article
To share this page simply copy and paste one of these URL's:
