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 K
. . .
Legal intern for the Anti-Defamation League, Los Angeles division. Cross burning similarly reflects a compelling message that, in most cases, can be taken as a forceful threat. Psychologists have determined that at a certain level, racial inferiority becomes a part of each person’s mind; they begin to believe that perhaps the words and symbols that express racist opinions of superiority have some value. South Carolina courts initially allowed a statute to protect persons from the message that the cross signified, but later reversed the law on the grounds that the First Amendment allows all ideas to be expressive, even offensive ones. ” Regardless, these two acts in court proved to reinforce the rights protected by the First Amendment and the convictions were reversed. O’Mara pleaded guilty to cross burning and conspiracy to cross burning but chose to contest the constitutionality of the statute according to the First Amendment. Santa Clara: Santa Clara Law Review. Interview conducted by phone on April 12, 2004. The Supreme Court must continue to look out for the better good for society. In Justice Thomas’ dissenting opinion, he refers to a previous case in which a woman, who had seen a burning cross on her yard, regards the cross as a symbol of the cruel treatment her race had received over the years.
Approximate Word count =
4903
Approximate Pages =
20 (250 words per page double spaced)
Simply subscribe to view this paper, and 100,000 others.
| CREDIT CARD |
ONLINE CHECK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOIN BY PHONE
|
|
|
