Virginia v Black: A battle of freedoms
What is more important... absolute protection of the First Amendment, or the right to equality as guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment? Furthermore, what exactly IS guaranteed by the First Amendment, and what lies outside the boundaries? Virginia v Black 123 S.Ct. 1536 (2003) addresses the issue of symbolic hate speech in the form of cross burning and its interaction with the First Amendment. Cross burning has been a notorious symbol for the Ku Klux Klan and has previously been used to threaten the lives of racial minorities, Catholics, Jews, Communists, and other groups. Does this fact constitute enough prima facie evidence in order to convict the violators of cross burning laws? This tension between the right to free speech and right to live without fear of violence exists and is debated today. This case sets the stage for future actions taken by the courts to preserve free speech while preventing racist movements from continuing. Many groups and organizations are and will be affected by Virginia v Black in varying degrees as cross burning with the intent to intimidate becomes a prosecutable offense. On August 22, 1998, a leader of a Ku Klux Klan, Barry Elton Black, burned a 25 - 30-foot-tall cross during a
The eventual goal of the United States should be to have an integrated system with the least amount of racism and bigotry, and through these court decisions this is being encouraged. Essentially, the constitution guarantees the right to believe whatever one desires to believe, but it does not protect one's right to act upon one's beliefs. The Supreme Court, despite their former decision in the previous case, upheld the statute on the grounds that the particular motivation causes great criminal harm, and therefore can be considered in sentencing but not in the decision to convict. Now that cross burning is officially prosecutable in courts, more states will likely move to prohibit the symbolic act when the intention is to intimidate. The cases involved not actual written or spoken word but the symbols were clear enough that they could easily be deemed expression. Historically, when a black family encounters a burning cross on their property, they often fear traveling in their own community or returning to their home. This qualifier, for their courts, contained neutral enough terms in order for it to not violate the requirements of R. This psychological reaction is integrated into the opinions of critical race theorists as a reason for why the First Amendment perhaps should not be absolute. Officially, states can make laws against cross burning with the intent to intimidate; however, because of the prima facie decision, the burden currently lies on the government to prove the motivation behind the act.
Common topics in this essay:
Supreme Court,
Alexander Tsesis,
Virginia Black,
Justice Thomas',
African American,
Coalition Censorship,
Klux Klan,
Justice Scalia,
Hate Speech,
Amendment Essentially,
cross burning,
prima facie,
supreme court,
hate speech,
virginia black,
burning cross,
prima facie evidence,
facie evidence,
black 2003,
protected amendment,
free speech,
virginia black 2003,
critical race theorists,
burning intent intimidate,
cross burning intent,
|
Acceptance Essays
