Thanks for the clarification. I keep reading "apart from" as "a part of" for some drunkard reason. My bad.
I did say "intimidation/violence/etc" (not merely "volence"). Secondly, the case you cited had nothing to say about 'inciting violence' vis a vis a burning cross, so your odd parsing out of 'violence' above, is entirely irrelevant. And, as you rightly noted, Virgina v. Black did not overturn the Virginia statute that outlaws cross burning, it merely modified its language to require prosecutors to demonstrate, rather than assume, an intent to intimidate. Meaning cross burning is still restricted by law. So I am not sure what this case has to add to our conversation....
BUT you seem to evade my question: Do you find the failure of Viginia v. Black to fully overturn the Virginia ban on Cross Buring disappointing because it still allows the law to infringe upon the rights of cross-burners? Should free-and-unfettered cross burning be allowed for any reason whatsoever regardless of such existential things like "intent to intimidate"?
Quote:A quick research shows that you are wrong. Burning crosses isn't outlawed because of its potential to incite violence, it is outlawed because it is regarded as actual intimidation.Sorry, I am not wrong.
I did say "intimidation/violence/etc" (not merely "volence"). Secondly, the case you cited had nothing to say about 'inciting violence' vis a vis a burning cross, so your odd parsing out of 'violence' above, is entirely irrelevant. And, as you rightly noted, Virgina v. Black did not overturn the Virginia statute that outlaws cross burning, it merely modified its language to require prosecutors to demonstrate, rather than assume, an intent to intimidate. Meaning cross burning is still restricted by law. So I am not sure what this case has to add to our conversation....
BUT you seem to evade my question: Do you find the failure of Viginia v. Black to fully overturn the Virginia ban on Cross Buring disappointing because it still allows the law to infringe upon the rights of cross-burners? Should free-and-unfettered cross burning be allowed for any reason whatsoever regardless of such existential things like "intent to intimidate"?
