Ah, didn't realise the distinction, thanks -
' "We conclude that while a state consistent
with the First Amendment may ban cross
burning carried out with the intent to intimidate,
the provision in the Virginia statute treating
any cross burning as prima facie evidence of
intent to intimidate renders the statute
unconstitutional," the ruling said.'
Given the history of the area, it's not hard to see reason for the ban, for a period of many years at least [maybe legislation like this should have sunset clauses, defaulting back to freedom once folks have regained, or gained, a sense of humour] ..... in much of the world, you could burn a cross and people would just think you were having a weird party, there's not the meaning behind it, the cultural baggage ....... sort of like we norteamericanos, who did not have those cattle cars of condemned roll across our soil, while the euros did
Today there are jewish groups protesting Mel Gibson's new passion play - seattletimes.nwsource.com
..... buncha messiah-deniers, geez, it's not like he'll have the woad on in this one [get that? - 'woad on', 'Woden', just a little junk food for thought]
Your post number ends in 666 - is that legal? -g- |
