>
> > But KKKers don't generally burn crosses in their own yards, to "express"
> > their bigotry. It's usually done on someone else's property and
>intended
> > (and understood) expressly as a threat. Doesn't that put it in a
>somewhat
> > different category than just speech? Not incitement, exactly (though it
> > could be that), but sort of like scrawling "I'm going to kill you" on
> > someone's door. Burning crosses, considered abstractly, might be
>protected
> > speech; but doesn't context matter?
>
Yes, context matters. The Brandenburg case involved a Klansman who gave a speech in which he said, darkly and illiterately, that "revengance would be taken." He was prosecuted, but the SCt said that was OK, If he'd pointed out a black person or a Jew, a particular one, and regged on the KK to take revengance, that would not be protected. jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp