
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
I'm not sure how I feel about this ruling from the Supreme Court:
WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court upheld a state ban on cross burning, ruling Monday that the history of racial intimidation attached to this symbol outweighs the free speech protection of Ku Klux Klansmen or others.On one hand, I think if it is your cross on your property, then it's your right to do with it as you wish. On the other hand, a burning cross is easily interpreted as a threat of physical violence against a specific person or persons, which is and should be illegal.
Thoughts?
I wonder how long until someone tries to compare my desire to prevent physical violence among citizens to my support for a war in Iraq. I give it a couple hours, tops. As I've previously covered the issue of using coercion to instill property rights versus the use of coercion to violate property rights, I won't bother doing it again.