Supreme Court Upholds Cross-Burning Ban reasoning in Laughable.
The Supreme Court will never be an institution that
can pride itself to adhering to the principles of the US constitution.
More often than not they are all over the place.
You don't want your case to go to the Supreme Court. You don't know
what you might get.
As much as I would like to say that cross burning shouldn't be protected
under the first amendment, I believe it is.
However the Supreme Court of the United States, this time around,
disagrees with me.
Virginia Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore predicted the decision
would prompt more states to outlaw cross burning. "A
burning cross is a symbol like no other. It doesn't just say we don't
like you. The message is we are going to do you harm,"
Kilgore said.
I agree with Kilgore, burning a cross in someone's front yard does
say, "get ready, we are bringing the
pain" like no other, but until you actually "bring
the pain", I am afraid that you haven't done anything
outside of your right to express that you are a pissed off, scapegoat
seeking, no taking responsibility for yourself redneck bastard.
I mean, why not ban wearing a white hood over your head? That says
"get ready we are bringing the pain
too" just as much as a burning cross. Trust me.
A bunch of Billys and Necks in hooded sheets standing in my front
lawn is just as fucked up in-an-of itself.
Lighting up a cross is just overkill.
And the majority on the court found support for their decision from
the most unlikely of judges. The always disappointing, borderline
incompetent Clarence Thomas who has never voted in favor of a civil
rights case presented before him since he has been sitting on the
supreme court, decided to break his streak and vote in favor of saying
that "burning a cross"
isn't protected speech under the first amendment.
And what is his reasoning? Remember that is the question I have been
asking you to ask people, "so how did
you arrive at your conclusion"?
This is how he did it.
"Just as one cannot burn down someone's
house to make a political point and then seek refuge in the First
Amendment, those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make
their point," he wrote.
Now I know why Clarence Thomas doesn't vote in favor of civil rights.
Clarence Thomas is woefully out of practice when it comes to being
black.
That analogy makes no sense.
First of all, burning someone else's
property down and burning something you bought and paid for down to
the ground are two entirely different things.
This Virginia law that was being challenged in the hollowed halls
of the unprincipled and self-important makes cross burning a crime
even if the KKK were burning it in their own backyard or at their
own rally without a Negro within 40 miles.
Even Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is normally my favorite judge,
writing for the majority, said the protections afforded by the First
Amendment are "not absolute"
and do not necessarily protect cross burners.
Why not? The first amendment was good enough to shield flag
burners and Neo-Nazi that march through Jewish neighborhoods
holding signs with Swastikas on them?
Their point was that burning a flag was an "act
of intimidation" which until this moment I had no idea
was against the law either.
But since that is their criteria, being an "act of intimidation"
a how the fuck did Swastikas slip under the radar?
I mean, I am not pro-cross burning
by any means, and I know what many of you are saying to yourselves
is, "well if you don't want cross burning
to be legal either then why don't you just shut up?" Yes,
I would prefer it if no one ever burned a cross anywhere in America
but dammit, I think it is bullshit to say it isn't within their first
amendment rights. Besides, if they came to my house and burned a cross
in my front yard I am sure they would be guilty of something.
Its not like I invited them son-of-a-bitches.
Why can't the district attorney get them for "criminal trespassing"
or breaking some sort of "fire code"?
Why can't you be satisfied for getting them on that? I know they didn't
get a permit to do that shit.
I mean no one wants cross burning to be against the first amendment
more than me but if I could just make the law up as I went along because
I "felt like it" the judicial
system would be more fucked up than it is already.
To argue that cross burning isn't protected under the first amendment
because it is an "instrument of racial
terror that is so threatening that it overshadows free speech concerns"
is disturbing. Burning a cross doesn't
beat your ass; it's the people that set the cross of fire that come
beat your ass. Burning the cross in someone's front yard is like sending
out the Bat signal. Although admittedly intimidating, 9 times out
of 10 that alone isn't going to stop the Joker.
Now that I have heard their reasoning on this case I have all kinds
of questions running through my head that I need answers to. So following
this courts logic why is flying the fucking confederate flag protected
but a burning cross not? Hell, the confederate flag was an instrument
of racial terror way before cross burning. That flag represents the
intentions of a whole nation of white supremacist masked behind a
love for southern culture. It represents a southern culture all right;
a southern culture that was built upon the slave labor and the belief
in the inherent inhumanity of the African slave and was willing to
die to keep it that way.
And I will be damn if you can find a white sheet or a burning cross
anywhere in America and not find one of those confederate flags somewhere
in the vicinity.
When it doubt always try looking under the O' Reilly Factor Black Chamois Fleece.
Shit, if you just want to ban shit that historically scares the shit
out of black folks why don't you ban the whole library of essential
redneck ass backwards fascist accoutrements.
Ban the gun rack, ban household appliances rusting on the front porch,
ban screen doors that don't have screens in them, ban more than 8
dogs running loose in a yard, ban vehicles resting on blocks in the
front yard.
Thomas who normally doesn't open his mouth was at no loss for words
as he talked about growing up in a segregated Georgia and how he grew
up under the threat of violence and terror at the hands of the Klan
and other white supremacy groups and how the burning cross was a symbol
of that reign of terror.
Ok, so?
Since he is black, cross burning isn't protected by the first amendment.
Since he isn't Jewish, walking around with a Swastika is?
This is what I am talking about when I say that the Supreme Court
justices are unprincipled. Being
a person of principal means that sometimes the principles you defend
puts you on the same side of people or things that you don't like.
Being a person of principle means that you have to deal with an awful
lot of shit you don't like because if you don't, people won't have
to put up with the shit that they don't like about you.
I might not like my neighbor across the street hoisting a confederate
flag above their front porch but I don't say shit because I don't
want him saying shit to me when I stand my life size standup cutout
of Louis Farrakhan on my front porch. We have an understanding.
MSNBC
Apologizes For Nigger Innis Misspelling "Oh,
God, I thought you guys thought I was a rapper or something,"
Uncle Tom Innis told Jarrett with a perfect impersonation of Willie
Best, the buck-eyed, forever-terrified 'Coon' made famous in so
many Bob Hope comedies.
