Oh jesus you naughty boy. Better luck next time.

[genkaus]

I did say "intimidation/violence/etc" (not merely "volence").

No, what you said was "potential to incite intimidation/violence", the cross-burning is actual intimidation. The difference is prima facie intent to intimidate.

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.

No, actually, that is the whole point. Your argument is that burning crosses is outlaws because of its "potential to incite violence". As noted in the case, inciting violence has nothing to do with outlawing it - it is outlaws because it is a known for of racial intimidation.

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....

What it adds is the information that "potential to incite violence" is the furthest thing from judges mind when deciding upon the constitutionality of the matter - they care about actual intimidation.

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"?

No, I agree with the court's decision. Actual intimidation is a valid criteria for determining if something is a crime. "Potential to incite violence/intimidation" is not a valid criteria. The court used the former and not the latter.