Cross Burning IS Free Speech, so get over it.

[HeavyStick]

Cross Burning IS Free Speech, so get over it.

Do I endorse it? No.

 

[sheath]

I won't light the match...

But I'll sell 'em some of my trees for lumber.

S.

 

[Lost Cause]

Flag burning is free speech, so get over it.

Do I support it?
No!


*If you are against one, you are against all expression.

 

[RastaPope]

I support it, long as it's on the burner's property.

 

[Dougy]

This question is inherently flawed. Should people be allowed to do things that are designed to be hateful and (no pun intended) inflammatory? The law has been used to give tacit support to too many fucked up things.

The question here should not be should people be allowed to burn crosses, but rather how would you react to such an act.

 

[sheath]

Should people be allowed to do things that are designed to be hateful and (no pun intended) inflammatory?

Under the right of Free Speech you are protected, even if someone else does not like what you are doing or have to say. It might be hateful and inflammatory, but does it actually infringe on someone else's rights? No.

How someone else reacts to it has NO bearing on whether or not it is legal. So...with all due respect...isn't your answer inherently flawed?



S.

 

[Dougy]

How someone else reacts to it has NO bearing on whether or not it is legal. So...with all due respect...isn't your answer inherently flawed?

What I am questioning is the definition of 'allowed to'. If asked if it should be technically legal, I would have to begrudgingly say yes...but if they should be allowed to is another matter entirely.

 

[bluespoke]

Under the right of Free Speech you are protected, even if someone else does not like what you are doing or have to say. It might be hateful and inflammatory, but does it actually infringe on someone else's rights? No.

S.

Doesn't it infringe their right not to live in fear?

 

[REDWAVE]

NOT

Cross burning is NOT protected freedom of speech, but a racist act of intimidation. Just as laws may constitutionally be passed prohibiting communicating a threat, so may laws against cross burning.

 

[sheath]

What I am questioning is the definition of 'allowed to'. If asked if it should be technically legal, I would have to begrudgingly say yes...but if they should be allowed to is another matter entirely.

Ah...I see your point. But...if it is legal, how can they NOT be allowed to burn the cross? I could understand the need for guidelines that would keep other laws from being broken, such as property laws, trespassing, etc. Beyond making sure that fringe laws were not broken, can the government really NOT allow them to do it...if it is considered legal?

S.

 

[Dougy]

Doesn't it infringe their right not to live in fear?

Hell, that's what we do here in the good 'ol U.S.of A.
The right to live in fear is one of the cornerstones of our society.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Doesn't it infringe their right not to live in fear?

It isn't the government's business to guarantee anyone be in a particular emotional state.

 

[Dougy]

Ah...I see your point. But...if it is legal, how can they NOT be allowed to burn the cross? I could understand the need for guidelines that would keep other laws from being broken, such as property laws, trespassing, etc. Beyond making sure that fringe laws were not broken, can the government really NOT allow them to do it...if it is considered legal?

S.

Who said anything about the government being the one to stop things. I'm not going to allow my neighbour to burn a cross in his yard without making it abundantly clear that it is not an acceptable act.

 

[Cerberus666]

if you're not living in fear, you're not living in reality. This world is a scary place. as for the cross burning i could care less. i'm not one for religion so i guess i really wouldnt bother me at all.

 

[sheath]

Who said anything about the government being the one to stop things. I'm not going to allow my neighbour to burn a cross in his yard without making it abundantly clear that it is not an acceptable act.

I understand that.

Just don't break any laws while you make it clear!

By the way...I like the way you think.

S.

 

[HeavyStick]

Re: NOT

Cross burning is NOT protected freedom of speech, but a racist act of intimidation. Just as laws may constitutionally be passed prohibiting communicating a threat, so may laws against cross burning.

Hook, line, and sinker.


What about Flag burning? That is meant as intimidation.


As far as people expressing their rights to burn flag and or crosses. It should be done where the flames pose no hazard to govenrment, public, or personal property.

What's next? On Halloween we can't light bags of shit on fire on PC's porch?

 

[HeavyStick]

bump

 

[Guest]

How someone else reacts to it has NO bearing on whether or not it is legal.

perfectly stated!

 

[DarkAngel]

Burn baby burn

 

[lavender]

Requested bump.

It was also discussed in this thread.

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=134092&highlight=cross+burning

 

[penguindance]

 

[Whizz Kid]

Depends on who's nailed to it.

 

[InnocentAngel81]

i'm against it i vote no

 

[Azwed]

Your poll is way to simple.

As long as the cross is burned on your own private property then fine but if you burn it on someone elses property then no it is not fine.

 

[DevilBoy79]

against it enough said