Home >  About Us >  First Amendment

Monday, April 07, 2003

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- A divided Supreme Court upheld a state ban on cross burning, ruling today the history of racial intimidation attached to it outweighs the free speech protection of Ku Klux Klansmen or others who might use it.

Although the case dealt with a Virginia law, it involved in part the actions of a KKK leader from Johnstown, Pa.

A burning cross is an instrument of terror, and government should have the power to stamp out or punish its use, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the 5-4 ruling.

The protections afforded by the First Amendment "are not absolute," she wrote.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's only black member, dissented, but made clear his reasons have nothing to do with protecting free speech rights of the Klan. Thomas said the court didn't even have to consider the First Amendment implications because cross burning clearly is intimidation.

"Just as one cannot burn down someone's house to make a political point and then seek refuge in the First Amendment, those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point," he wrote.

"In our culture, cross burning has almost invariably meant lawlessness and understandably instills in its victims well-grounded fear of physical violence."

At issue was a 50-year-old Virginia law that makes it a crime to burn a cross as an act of intimidation. A lower court ruled the law muzzled free speech.

O'Connor was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer.

The Supreme Court historically has been protective of First Amendment rights of unsavory or unpopular groups and causes, including the Klan, flag-burners, pornographers and strippers.

More than a decade ago, the court struck down a local law in St. Paul, Minn., that prohibited placing symbols including a burning cross or a swastika on someone else's property out of racial, religious or other bias.

The cross-burning case in Virginia evoked a mostly bygone era in the South, when "nightriders" set crosses ablaze as a symbol of intimidation to blacks and civil rights sympathizers. Virginia and other states tried to outlaw the practice, but the laws have run into trouble on free-speech grounds.

During oral arguments in the case in December, Thomas recalled what he called a century-long "reign of terror" by the Klan and other white supremacy groups, and called the flaming cross "unlike any symbol in our society."

"The cross was a symbol of that reign of terror," Thomas said in apparent exasperation that a government lawyer was providing only tepid, legalistic justification for the Virginia law.

"My fear is ... that you're actually underestimating the symbolism of, and the effect of, the cross, the burning cross," Thomas said.

The moment was electric, in part because Thomas almost never speaks during the court's oral arguments, and because of his race.

The case began five years ago, with two separate prosecutions.

In one case, two white men in Virginia Beach, Va., ended a night of partying by trying to burn a 4-foot cross in the yard of a black neighbor, James Jubilee. Jubilee later moved his family out of the neighborhood because of concern for their safety.

In the other case, Barry Elton Black of Johnstown, Pa., was convicted of burning a 30-foot cross on private land in rural southern Virginia during a 1998 Klan rally.

Lawyers for Virginia told the court the Klan rally was held after whites became angry about mixed-race couples.

In addition to Virginia, anti-cross burning laws are on the books in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Montana, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington state and the District of Columbia.