Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (123666)	1/24/2004 9:06:54 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

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-