Tuesday, April 08, 2003

High court limits ban on burning of crosses

Justice Clarence Thomas refused to join any of O'Connor's opinion, insisting that cross burning is always "intimidating and terroristic conduct" and not protected under the 1st Amendment. In a separate, strongly worded opinion, Thomas criticized the other justices for understating the effect of a burning cross, which he said "is now widely viewed as a signal of impending terror and lawlessness."

"Just as one cannot burn down someone's house to make a political point and then seek refuge in the 1st Amendment, those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point," Thomas wrote. "In light of my conclusion that the statute here addresses only conduct, there is no need to analyze it under any of our 1st Amendment tests."

This is the first time in history that I have agreed with Clarence Thomas, and I can't believe that we actually have to be deciding this issue...STILL.
Burning a cross is tantamount to spraying a swastika. The message is ALWAYS the same, and it is ALWAYS very clear. This is not free speech under any circumstances.

But alas, even the KKK has rights, and it's still not against the law to be inbred.

Kansas @ 2:21 PM