>[NYTimes]
>November 3, 2001
>Court Voids Law Banning Cross Burning
>By WILLIAM GLABERSON
>
>In a case with echoes from the civil rights movement, the Virginia
>Supreme Court struck down a state law yesterday that banned cross
>burning, saying the federal Constitution protects speech no matter how
>offensive.
>
>
Yes, Ian, bigotry is constitutionally protected. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, a Klan speech case that is the basis of modern First Amendment ("incitement to illegal activity" jurisprudence. Charles B wants to resurrect US v. Dennis, where the S.Ct put the CPUSA leaders in jail for "conspiring to advocate the overthrow" of the US government (it's never been overruled), because he wants to have a "bad tentency" test, allowing the govt to ban speech that has a bad tendency. For Charles that is racist and fascist speech, but the govt might think it included communist and socialist speech, as it has in the past, for example in Dennis. The thing about Brandenburg is that the test limits a ban on incitement to illegal activity to cases where the illegal activity is immanent. Burning crosses is protected. "Get that guy over there!" is not. I think it's a good rule. jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp