And speech that aims at immediate incitement to violence and/or illegal action. Political speech is protected, no matter how hateful, so long as it does not aim at immediate incitement. Therefore, if cross- burning is speech, it does not matter what the associations are, as long as it is not at the time being used to incite to violence. If flag-burning is speech, because of its symbolic nature, then cross- burning is speech. Therefore, if we ban one, we should ban the other, or we should protect the right to both
The whole point of my previous post, which I apparently failed to make clear, is that cross-burning has traditionally been used precisely as an incitement to immediate violence and as a means of intimidation. Flag-burning has been used as a form of generic protest at Government activities. It is also important to note that cross-burning is almost inevitably directed at an individual, flag-burning at an institution. That is why one is banned and not the other. If groups of armed liberals were storming the lawns of conservatives at night, burning flags and chanting threatening slogans, things might be different. This has not generally been the case. |
