Oh jesus you naughty boy. Better luck next time.

[HopOnPop]

(I skipped over everything above. You have finally given an answer to my question from three days ago thus making everything above irrelevant -- but if you wish to raise up things past again, feel free -- but I am thinking we are both have had enough of this thread, no?)

My agreement with the court's decision answers both of those questions - no, the court shouldn't have struck down the entire statute. Yes, burning of crosses publicly or privately with no demonstrable intent of intimidate should and is allowed. And yer, this particular activity is a right of expression as long as it is not expressing intimidation.

Great. Thank you for the clarification.

On the other hand, if you agree that the state has a legitimate right to step in and ban cross burning, I think that supports my original idea I proposed re: Jesus BJ -- namely, that if one can demonstrate some form of intent to intimidate on the part of this kid with this photo-bomb on facebook, they could rightly have grounds to prosecute him over and above any free-speech/expression rights he might may also be exercising.

I'll put it as simply as I can - you have freedom of expression, but the limit to that freedom is when it becomes coercive. If the government enacts laws to prevent coercion, then it is right to do so. If it enacts laws to curb free-speech that is not coercive then it has overstepped its bounds.

Great. This is in line with what I have both thought and wrote.

Re: cross-burning. The government did overstep its bounds by banning all cross-burning. The courts corrected that overreach by declaring only the cross burnings with intent to intimidate as illegal. Which means, if you simply dislike Christians or you are getting rid of bunch of old stuff or you are creating an art piece - basically, anything that results in you burning a cross without an any intent to intimidate - then that should be and is allowed.

Also agreed.

Re: Christ BJ. There was no intent to intimidate on the kid's part. The prosecutor didn't even hint that any such intent was present.

Wrong. You cannot know these things, so you are merely speculating. There is no way to know what was or wasn't actually charged, discussed, agreed upon, etc. (its a juvenile case so the books are sealed on it) nor even how the final plea was arrived at. The lack of information coming out of the mouth of the prosecuting DA is merely him following the law.

And there is no established practice that indicates that Christ giving a blow-job is a form of intimidation.

There doesn't have to be. Not every case is based on precident.

So this is a much clearer case of legal over-reaching.

I disagree. We have no evidence at all to demonstrate your assertion. Virginia v Black, on the other hand, was a rather slam dunk case of over-reach. In the end your only argument pretty much reduces down to a product of your own internal biases. That is the definition of "unclear" in my mind.

I still contend the kid got what he deserved.