Virginia's Supreme Court throws out cross-burning convictions, says action is akin to speech

AP ^ | 11-2-01 | JEAN McNAIR

[Oldeconomybuyer]

A sharply divided Virginia Supreme Court struck down a state law against cross-burning Friday, saying such acts of bigotry are a protected form of speech.

In a 4-3 ruling, the court threw out the convictions of three people in two cases. One involved the burning of a cross at a Ku Klux Klan rally; the other involved an attempted burning in the back yard of a black person.

[billorites]

"The same constitutional right that allows you to burn the flag or criticize the government also allows you to express your opinions, as offensive as they may be."

I hate to join with the ACLU and the bigots, but it's true.

Lots of folk think that what I have to say about guns and abortion is offensive and beyond the pale, but it is protected by the constitution.

Count me with the ACLU and bigots on this one.

[Migraine]

The old "protected speech" canard cuts both ways, don't it? Libby-dibs are constantly bumping into themselves doing their left-turns. I love it.

[jdege]

I'm sorry, but as much as I support free speach, the idea that burning a cross in somebody else's yard is protected is absurd.

Buy your own wood, your own gasoline, your own matches, set the thing alight in your own back yard, and I'll listen to arguments that it is protected speach.

But if you come onto my property and try to set fire to a cross, you've gone well beyond your first amendment rights.

[Poohbah]

Burning a cross in the back yard of another individual is speech?

Well, the property owner should have responded to that exercise of First Amendment rights by vigorously exercising his Second Amendment rights in the general direction of the sheet-heads.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

See, this is why we need hate crime legislation.

/sarcasm

[craig_eddy]

I think the issue at hand was the creation of a special punishment. Obviously if the convictions had been for trespassing and vandalism, they would have stood. In fact, I don't know about the statute of limitations here but I wouldn't be surprised to those charges brought.

It's just like the so-called "hate crimes" legislation. All of them must be defeated.

[dasboot]

Cross-burning with the intent to intimidate is a form of domestic terrorism, which is intolerable in a free society.

Huh?

Cross burning is arson, disturbing the peace, disorderly, trespass. No need to punish the symbolism; the act is enough to merit imposition of the law. And who can determine intent with absolute certainty? The necessity for so doing makes for an impossible burden in an otherwise simple, time-tested, common law process.

[RLK]

I agree to some limited extent that freedom of speech includes freedom to commit actions symbolizing an opinion. This includes buring a cross at a private meeting. But it doesn't include burning a cross in someone's yard against their will.

[Dante3]

IMHO burning a cross or anything else on someone elses property has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The same goes for running around nakes, slapping someone or collecting child porn.

Some of the laws, however, seem extreme. Take the case of Edgar R. Barfield, 33 of Virginia Beach. Last years he was sentenced to 9 years in prison -- for burning a cross on the lawn of his neighbors while he was drunk and smoking pot.

Brian Swetnam, 22, of Bowie MD was sentenced last year to 10 yers in prison without parole for buring on Bowie High School grounds a cross. He was upset because some black students had assaulted a friend (or maybe it was him?), thus he was also found guilty of federal hate crimes.

[Arleigh]

Burning a cross in the back yard of another individual is speech?

The point is that if they had burned a circle or a square or some other shape in someone's backyard they would have not been charged with such a serious crime.

All "hate crime" laws are really "thought control" laws.

[Poohbah]

Good thing the pothead didn't burn a cross on my lawn. I would've applied Penal Code Section 223.

[Mark]

In dissent, Justice Leroy Hassell wrote that the law "for almost 50 years has protected our citizens from being placed in fear of bodily harm by the burning of a cross."

I feel that I am placed in fear of bodily harm by the burning of a U.S. flag. What's my option?