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: marcos who wrote (123669)	1/24/2004 9:50:05 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I worked on a case a while back involving three juveniles who snuck onto their high school property in the middle of the night and burned a cross or two - nobody was around to see them, and when the crosses burned out they went home. They could have gotten away with it but being idiots, they bragged about it, and were busted. We argued to the judge that it was free speech, and won. The lead counsel got on TV and was otherwise in the news. Even though it was my idea, I, being NOT lead counsel, got bupkis but an attagirl. That was years before this particular case and if I had a new case about it, I'd have to tailor my arguments more carefully, but still the general point holds. I don't like cross-burners but just standing around in the public square burning crosses is for dorks and losers. Going onto someone else's property in order to frighten them is a different proposition altogether. I have one more argument in favor of free speech which you may find amusing. Allowing idiots to have their say in the public square makes it easier for the government to maintain surveillance. If you drive them underground, it is just that much harder for law enforcement to keep tabs on them.