VIRGINIA v. BLACK and Quran burning

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

The United States did not, in VIRGINIA v. BLACK, outlaw burning crosses. The Supreme Curt doesn't make things legal or illegal, it determines the constitutionality of laws passed by legislatures.

It upheld a Virginia state law against burning crosses with the intent to intimidate, relying on a history of "real threat" limitations on speech.

1) Is there a Florida statute outlawing burning the Quran?

I haven't heard of one.

2) Let's pretend there was a Florida statute against Quran burning. Than what?

The statute would be unconstitutional if applied to this case. Such a statute would only be constitutional if it prohibited burning the Quran as a mode of intimidation that constituted a "real threat", like being associated with an historical and widely understood history of burning Qurans in America as a threat often followed by violence.

Burning Quran's because one believes them to be written by the devil is not prima facie motivated to be and act of intimidation. It may be read as intimidating. I doubtless makes Muslims feel insecure in America. It is not, however, an unambiguous "real threat."

Under the Virginia law in BLACK (if it was about Qurans rather than crosses) I am not seeing evidence that the statute would even be applicable. I have heard a lot of gibberish from this bozo but I have not heard any threats of subsequent violence against Muslims. And no, the presumption that such motive underlies the action cannot be assumed.

One is not free to speculate and extrapolate... the question is not whether someone can think up a tangential argument about how people feel seeing their holy book burned on TV. It is even irrelevant what the supposed victim thinks. The question is the motive of the actor and the realness of the threat.

IF Florida has a broad racial/religious intimidation law and IF these bozos go to some Muslim person's house and pile Qurans on his lawn and burn them then it will surely be an overt act of intimidation, motivated as such. But burning Qurans on your own property among the members of your own church cannot be prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate.

And the intimidation must be a "real threat." Not a presumed threat, or "we can see where this is going", or "someone may be inspired by this on TV."




This stuff is so fucking tedious I can scarcely bear it. The existence of some exceptions to the first amendment (most of which are facially anti-constitutional judicial fancies, BTW) is not an invitation to seek to destroy the thing altogether.

"Isn't this guys opinion similar to child pornography or espionage if you look at it this particular way..."

[hlthe2b]

1. Ahh, hell just deport him. That mustache of his sure looks furin!

Maybe he's one of those alien babies! ;)

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

2. Yes, that's a very good summary of the Supreme Cour decision . . .

. . . as it bears on the current situation. Thanks for posting this, as there has been some confusion and misunderstanding here, it seems to me, as to what the Supreme Court did (and didn't) do and say in the Black decision.

[damntexdem]

3. There IS a local ordinance against burning without a permit.

And I believe that no permit has been issued.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. That is not the sort of statute referred to in the OP

Nothing in Black vs. Virginia concerned whether one could or could not burn a cross with or without a permit.

The permit in question is permit to have a bonfire or burn leaves or otherwise have a fire in your yard.

But that would apply precisely the same whether he was burning books or old newspapers or stacks of blank paper.

[Codeine]

5. So he'll get the same fine somebody burning leaves or trash would.

Quit trying to figure out an end-run around the 1st Amendment.

[Codeine]

6. It's interesting that the poster who is loudest about making

the argument that it I illegal has the same Venus avatar as you have. I was a bit confused at first.