Cross Burning - archaic practice that should be abolished

[almaty 19]

agreed..but there are federal legislation in the books..buring a cross on an african american lawn is a hate crime.....freedom of speech is fine ..but crosses hte line when it is target is a minority of society...per current laws

so it's legal to burn a cross on the lawn of a white person?

hrmmm

no sister lisa, but historical reference, it is not the same

[Fandango 1,439]

agreed..but there are federal legislation in the books..buring a cross on an african american lawn is a hate crime.....freedom of speech is fine ..but crosses hte line when it is target is a minority of society...per current laws

so it's legal to burn a cross on the lawn of a white person?

hrmmm

no sister lisa, but historical reference, it is not the same

No it's not, but isn't justice supposed to be blind?

[almaty 19]

agreed..but there are federal legislation in the books..buring a cross on an african american lawn is a hate crime.....freedom of speech is fine ..but crosses hte line when it is target is a minority of society...per current laws

so it's legal to burn a cross on the lawn of a white person?

hrmmm

no sister lisa, but historical reference, it is not the same

No it's not, but isn't justice supposed to be blind?

it is.blind ...but awhile back there was no justice if you were black and in certain parts of america..i remember my school allowed the first 3 black youngsters in the school...and there was a walk-out ...there were folks were burned out..and my town had a rule " don't let the sun set on your black azz in this town"...so, a hate crime is inspired or motivated by hatered or strong dislike for an individual based n ot on this person's behavior but his or her color or religion..where is the justice there?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The gov't should not govern morality. I agree that spewing hate is vile, but once you start censoring what's acceptable and what isn't, then where does it stop?

How long is a piece of string, yanno?

Is it censorship or just asking people to be responsible for what they say. You can say whatever you like about anything or anyone, but its quite reasonable to expect the consequences if you say something that endorses criminal behaviour or amounts to a crime.

[Fandango 1,439]

The gov't should not govern morality. I agree that spewing hate is vile, but once you start censoring what's acceptable and what isn't, then where does it stop?

How long is a piece of string, yanno?

Is it censorship or just asking people to be responsible for what they say. You can say whatever you like about anything or anyone, but its quite reasonable to expect the consequences if you say something that endorses criminal behaviour or amounts to a crime.

You should not say 'LET'S KILL____________'

but where do you draw the line as far as speech...i don't know! Sure you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded theatre, i know that. But like it or not, we have freedom of speech...you don't have to agree with what;s being said, but I certainly support people's right to say it. And where does the line get drawn? Where does big bro come into it. pro-lifers calling ppl murderers should be sanctioned cos it's not positive & fluffy? I certainly don't endorse the hate that these groups are spewing, but I'd take them over not having free speech to begin with.

[Uxorious 0]

Where do you draw the line? Avery tough question.

For me, I draw the line at banning books like "How to assasinate".

Reminds me of an ancient paradox called "sorites"

You add a few grains of sand at a time. Keep on adding. At what point, then, does the pile become a heap?

agreed..but there are federal legislation in the books..buring a cross on an african american lawn is a hate crime.....freedom of speech is fine ..but crosses hte line when it is target is a minority of society...per current laws

so it's legal to burn a cross on the lawn of a white person?

hrmmm

no sister lisa, but historical reference, it is not the same

No it's not, but isn't justice supposed to be blind?

it is.blind ...but awhile back there was no justice if you were black and in certain parts of america..i remember my school allowed the first 3 black youngsters in the school...and there was a walk-out ...there were folks were burned out..and my town had a rule " don't let the sun set on your black azz in this town"...so, a hate crime is inspired or motivated by hatered or strong dislike for an individual based n ot on this person's behavior but his or her color or religion..where is the justice there?

[/quot

Edited May 29, 2006 by Uxorious

[Nessa 23]

are u kidding freedom of speech? ppppppppppppppppplease

[Fandango 1,439]

Where do you draw the line? Avery tough question.

For me, I draw the line at banning books like "How to assasinate".

Reminds me of an ancient paradox called "sorites"

You add a few grains of sand at a time. Keep on adding. At what point, then, does the pile become a heap?

agreed..but there are federal legislation in the books..buring a cross on an african american lawn is a hate crime.....freedom of speech is fine ..but crosses hte line when it is target is a minority of society...per current laws

so it's legal to burn a cross on the lawn of a white person?

hrmmm

no sister lisa, but historical reference, it is not the same

No it's not, but isn't justice supposed to be blind?

it is.blind ...but awhile back there was no justice if you were black and in certain parts of america..i remember my school allowed the first 3 black youngsters in the school...and there was a walk-out ...there were folks were burned out..and my town had a rule " don't let the sun set on your black azz in this town"...so, a hate crime is inspired or motivated by hatered or strong dislike for an individual based n ot on this person's behavior but his or her color or religion..where is the justice there?

I agree with the banning of books & speech like that...unfortunately that information will always be out there.

I like your "sorites" analogy, but I can also see it working in reverse...one grain gets taken away, then another then another & soon it's empty.

Free speech is what allowed MLK to make his speeches...you can say 'you can't compare the two'...but at the TIME he was going against the grain...speaking against the law & what was considered acceptable behavior at the time. Some might even say subversive.

Now we can look back and say THANK GOD! we live in a land that allowed that...THANK GOD we have evolved from that sort of disgusting behavior (like what you're saying about the school)...but at the time, it was not 'acceptable' thing to do. And the reason why I'm bringing this up is to just illustrate that we must allow the bad with the good, because free speech is what allowed MLK to speak. The pendulum truly does swing both ways, but thank God it swings.

It is a very fine line indeed...you could ask tons of people and get tons of answers. But freedom of speech is bigger than a bunch of racists. Let them discredit themselves, I say.

And as for the cross-burning, I can assure you, as a white woman, if anyone burned a cross in my front lawn I think I'd poop in my pants. If this country is all about TRUE equality, it shouldn't matter who the victim is..whether white or black , man or woman,etc. There shouldn't be laws in effect that say 'oh a burning cross? On a black man/woman's porch?' Thats discrimination in itself.

[pedroh 21]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The gov't should not govern morality. I agree that spewing hate is vile, but once you start censoring what's acceptable and what isn't, then where does it stop?

How long is a piece of string, yanno?

Is it censorship or just asking people to be responsible for what they say. You can say whatever you like about anything or anyone, but its quite reasonable to expect the consequences if you say something that endorses criminal behaviour or amounts to a crime.

You should not say 'LET'S KILL____________'

but where do you draw the line as far as speech...i don't know! Sure you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded theatre, i know that. But like it or not, we have freedom of speech...you don't have to agree with what;s being said, but I certainly support people's right to say it. And where does the line get drawn? Where does big bro come into it. pro-lifers calling ppl murderers should be sanctioned cos it's not positive & fluffy? I certainly don't endorse the hate that these groups are spewing, but I'd take them over not having free speech to begin with.

The law ultimately draws the line. You can say whatever you like, but you have to be prepared to take the consequences if you say something that amounts to a crime. Preaching hatred against other social groups, the way the KKK and islamic fundamentalist groups do is illegal in a number of countries, for instance... That doesn't take away from their right to express their opinion - just to take responsibility for it.

[Fandango 1,439]

The gov't should not govern morality. I agree that spewing hate is vile, but once you start censoring what's acceptable and what isn't, then where does it stop?

How long is a piece of string, yanno?

Is it censorship or just asking people to be responsible for what they say. You can say whatever you like about anything or anyone, but its quite reasonable to expect the consequences if you say something that endorses criminal behaviour or amounts to a crime.

You should not say 'LET'S KILL____________'

but where do you draw the line as far as speech...i don't know! Sure you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded theatre, i know that. But like it or not, we have freedom of speech...you don't have to agree with what;s being said, but I certainly support people's right to say it. And where does the line get drawn? Where does big bro come into it. pro-lifers calling ppl murderers should be sanctioned cos it's not positive & fluffy? I certainly don't endorse the hate that these groups are spewing, but I'd take them over not having free speech to begin with.

The law ultimately draws the line. You can say whatever you like, but you have to be prepared to take the consequences if you say something that amounts to a crime. Preaching hatred against other social groups, the way the KKK and islamic fundamentalist groups do is illegal in a number of countries, for instance... That doesn't take away from their right to express their opinion - just to take responsibility for it.

So should abortion doctors be able to sue those who call him/her a murderer? I'm merely asking for the sake of argument here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The gov't should not govern morality. I agree that spewing hate is vile, but once you start censoring what's acceptable and what isn't, then where does it stop?

How long is a piece of string, yanno?

Is it censorship or just asking people to be responsible for what they say. You can say whatever you like about anything or anyone, but its quite reasonable to expect the consequences if you say something that endorses criminal behaviour or amounts to a crime.

You should not say 'LET'S KILL____________'

but where do you draw the line as far as speech...i don't know! Sure you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded theatre, i know that. But like it or not, we have freedom of speech...you don't have to agree with what;s being said, but I certainly support people's right to say it. And where does the line get drawn? Where does big bro come into it. pro-lifers calling ppl murderers should be sanctioned cos it's not positive & fluffy? I certainly don't endorse the hate that these groups are spewing, but I'd take them over not having free speech to begin with.

The law ultimately draws the line. You can say whatever you like, but you have to be prepared to take the consequences if you say something that amounts to a crime. Preaching hatred against other social groups, the way the KKK and islamic fundamentalist groups do is illegal in a number of countries, for instance... That doesn't take away from their right to express their opinion - just to take responsibility for it.

So should abortion doctors be able to sue those who call him/her a murderer? I'm merely asking for the sake of argument here.

No - but they should be able sue someone who, on the basis of that same belief sets fire to their office/home/car.

Also the whole issue gets rather muddy when you consider libel and defamation laws... Hence if you write in a european newspaper that "Tom Cruise is gay", for example, he will sue you for it.

[Chuckles 0]

I apologize if this has been mentioned before, because I did not read all messages in this thread.

The burning cross was and is an important religous symbol for many Christian sects. It was used at ceremonies for many many years before it was placed near the homes of black people in the south.

So I am unclear why the problems with the law.

Burning a cross on your own property for religous purposes = your own damn business and by no means degrading to Christian tradition.

Doing it on someone else's property to or to instigate violence = bad and against the law. As it has been for ... I dunno, at least 200 years? Not sure where that property law came in.

Freedom of speech really only applies so long as it doesn't promote hatred and persecution based on that hatred.

You burn a cross in your front yard it sends a very clear, recognisable and unwelcome message to African Americans. For that reason alone it should be outlawed and does not form a part of reasonable free speech.

For the same reason in Germany, you will be arrested if you display Nazi insignia in public or recite nazi slogans.

Yeah then why are the KKK allowed to have rallies?

Because our society tolerates the right of a bunch of uneducated racist fucks to act like uneducated racist fucks.

Yet at the same time, we are totally intolerant of islamic fundamentalists who preach support for Al Qaeda, for instance.

In the end its much the same, both groups are equally offensive and distasteful. Why tolerate one and not the other?

2 different things.

It is illegal to conspire to murder US citizens under US law. People in the KKK, Nazi party, Al Qaeda, and other 'hateful' groups have been brought up on charges of conspiricy to murder.

You can peacefully assemble and talk about whatever you want, including if you think you are superior to someone. Anything beyond that, angainst the law and the law is blind to who that party is.

I worked at a company once where some of the employees refused to talk to me because I was not a muslim. It was their right. Strange? Angainst most american traditions? Yes. Illegal, no.

[Fandango 1,439]

The gov't should not govern morality. I agree that spewing hate is vile, but once you start censoring what's acceptable and what isn't, then where does it stop?

How long is a piece of string, yanno?

Is it censorship or just asking people to be responsible for what they say. You can say whatever you like about anything or anyone, but its quite reasonable to expect the consequences if you say something that endorses criminal behaviour or amounts to a crime.

You should not say 'LET'S KILL____________'

but where do you draw the line as far as speech...i don't know! Sure you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded theatre, i know that. But like it or not, we have freedom of speech...you don't have to agree with what;s being said, but I certainly support people's right to say it. And where does the line get drawn? Where does big bro come into it. pro-lifers calling ppl murderers should be sanctioned cos it's not positive & fluffy? I certainly don't endorse the hate that these groups are spewing, but I'd take them over not having free speech to begin with.

The law ultimately draws the line. You can say whatever you like, but you have to be prepared to take the consequences if you say something that amounts to a crime. Preaching hatred against other social groups, the way the KKK and islamic fundamentalist groups do is illegal in a number of countries, for instance... That doesn't take away from their right to express their opinion - just to take responsibility for it.

So should abortion doctors be able to sue those who call him/her a murderer? I'm merely asking for the sake of argument here.

No - but they should be able sue someone who, on the basis of that same belief sets fire to their office/home/car.

Also the whole issue gets rather muddy when you consider libel and defamation laws... Hence if you write in a european newspaper that "Tom Cruise is gay", for example, he will sue you for it.

Of course arson is different!

[almaty 19]

a different time and place you were born sister lisa..it makes sense if you saw it first hand...enuff said