Reason.com
Burning Question
Civil libertarian (and Reason contributor) Harvey Silverglate argues in the Boston Phoenix that upholding Virginia's ban on cross burning would not imperil freedom of speech. The actions targeted by the law, he says, amount to "threats, not mere insults." Phoenix columnist Michael Bronski disagrees. His piece is too stridently partisan for my taste, but he draws an interesting parallel between Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' argument in favor of the law and the anti-pornography theories of radical feminist Andrea Dworkin.
Two other essays on the case that are worth a look, likewise taking opposite positions: Clarence Page's December 15 column and a December 24 Washington Times op-ed piece by D.C. attorney Bruce Fein. "As an African-American," Page writes, "I appreciate the emotional power of the burning cross as a symbol. I also resent the notion that any bonehead with a match, lighter fluid and a couple of sticks can send me into irrational spasms of rage." Fein, who usually takes a middle-of-the-road position on civil liberties issues (such as military tribunals and "enemy combatant" detentions), is surprisingly dismissive of constitutional concerns.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Are We Headed for a Fight with China? (5.28)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
- Lessons From the United Fruit Company (5.28)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
Mark S.|12.26.02 @ 8:18AM|#
Wasn't the "fighting words" arguement used by the Right to justify their attempted ban on flag burning?
|12.29.02 @ 9:43AM|#
I am just a humble southern hemisphere lawyer and am ignorant of the finer points of first amendment arguments however i think it breaks down like this
I If you put a big burning anything on someone's lawn with intent to intimidate the f*** out of them because of whatever reason then you should be guilty of something;
II If with your inbred mates you like to light up wooden whatever on your own property and in a way unlikely to give offence to other people then as we say bob's your uncle
Regards
Z