Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Cross Burning

[Cyrus]

Wake Up CALL argues that we should not try to interpret the United States Constitution because this is the job of the Supreme Court. I will go one step further in sin and criticize a decision by the Court itself!

I disagree with the banning of cross-burning :

Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Cross Burning (http://www.csamerican.com/linkFrame.asp?p=a&k=2012)

Do you think the Ku Klux Klan should be legally protected in its right to publicly burn crosses?

[ACPlayer]

A lay opinion on the issue, based partly on the link you provided.

1. Cross burning in and of itself should be permitted as a statement of personal conviction by white supremacists.
2. Cross burning on anothers property should be handled as any issue with violation of personal property. That is you cannot enter my back yard to burn the cross. just as you should not be able to enter my private property to wave the flag.
3. Cross burning on public property should be permissible but may be regulated by local authorities, in that a permit may be required, similar to a permit to hold a demonstration etc on public lands.
4. Cross burning as intimidation is not free speech. But, IMO, the act of burning a cross is not by itself intimidation. If it is accompanied by a pattern of intimidation that is a different matter. This is similar to, for example, christian fundamentalists who demonstrate outside abortion clinics. By itself, that is not initimidation, but getting in the face of a woman waving a bible is intimidation.

Gosh, I just defended two groups, who's policies I disagree with. What's next?