Arthur Frank writes

For me, this falls into the same category as flag burning.  And, I'm sure
some of you will disagree, but I think that's a free speech issue as well.

This has nothing to do with running into a crowded theater and yelling
"FIRE!" when there is no fire. That sort of "free speech" is outlawed (or
should be outlawed) because it needlessly incites panic, which could result
in human harm or death.  Burning a cross/flag/bra/symbol-du-jour at a public
gathering is a political/religious/social statement.  As long as the fire
complies with all federal, state, and local laws (did you get that burning
permit?) and nobody gets hurt, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Intimidating or scaring people?  That may already be illegal, and, if not,
maybe it should be.  But if me and my posse of narrow-minded zealots gets it
in our heads to scare and intimidate a specific group of people, we can do
that pretty easily without burning crosses.  Eliminating forms of expression
does nothing to address the underlying hatred and intolerance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Arthur is correct about the free speech issue.  However it is the
intimidation issue that is the wild card.  California and Virginia created
cross burning/religious symbol burning acts.  Virginia basically said any
cross burning is intimidation and had their state supreme court toss it out
as too general.  California's law was much narrower and said only cross
burning specifically targeted at individuals, such as burning on their
private property, was an intimidation crime.  Doing it in a field against no
particular individual was protected speech.  The California state supreme
court said ok to this law.  The US supreme court will be hearing the case
with these state precedents in mind.

Mike Berkowitz
Guess? Inc.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *