Hate speech is free speech too

Virginia vs. Black is actually a combination of two separate cases. The first involves two men burning a cross on their property within view of an African-American neighbor. One of the men pleaded guilty to burning a cross in public while reserving the right to appeal, and the other was eventually found guilty. Barry Black, the third defendant and a Ku Klux Klan leader, was arrested for lighting a cross on fire during a rally on private property. The KKK had the consent of the owner, but apparently the burning symbol could be seen by people driving on a nearby road.\nThe two cases were combined when they were appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court. By a vote of 4-3 the Court ended the 50-year-old law banning "any person or group of persons, to burn, or to cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place." \nThe defendants argued that the Virginia statute violates the First Amendment because it discriminates on the basis of content and viewpoint. They also brought up the 1992 decision, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, made by the U.S. Supreme Court calling a law banning certain symbols of hate unconstitutional. It was decided that if a state cannot prohibit the burning of the American flag as a means of protest, than it cannot outlaw the burning of crosses for similar reasons.\nWhen Virginia vs. Black finally reached the floor of the Supreme Court for arguments last month, it seemed as though the decision would stand. This suddenly changed when Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas gave a statement on the long history of Klan intimidation and violence. He explained that just as "fighting words" are not protected by the Constitution, neither are such obvious representations of hate. Justice Thomas's speech seemed to have a deep impact on the court and so it now appears that the Virginia State Supreme Court decision will be overturned.\nNow, as Americans we understand the painful history that lies behind the symbol of raw hatred just as we understand the similar feelings associated with the swastika. The problem with arresting Barry Black was that he didn't hurt anybody. Black was conducting what the KKK considers a religious practice where lighting a cross represents "the Light of Christ dispelling darkness and ignorance" (Considering its participants, it's ironic that the fiery cross is supposed to dispel ignorance).\nNo matter how much we all disagree with this assessment of the notorious burning cross, you cannot outlaw a "religious" practice even if the majority of Americans happen to disagree with it.\n Another problem is that if states can prohibit the burning of a cross than why not other symbols that invoke hatred and anger as a result of their past. Symbols such as the swastika, Confederate flag, and the Duke University Blue Devil mascot are all often referred to as representations of evil or hatred.\n What is the sense in allowing men to burn the American flag, shout their offensive racial supremacy rhetoric, or have a swastika tattooed to their chest while we outlaw the burning of two perpendicular pieces of wood? I was under the impression that the Supreme Court justices were chosen to interpret what is and is not constitutional. Instead, Justice Thomas seems to think that the Supreme Court exists in order to dictate what is and is not offensive.\nThe decision of the Court has to be all or nothing. They can either decide that all symbols people may think to be odious should be outlawed, or they could decide that it takes an actual infraction of one's constitutional rights to necessitate legal action. The Commonwealth of Virginia was wrong to outlaw a specific symbol just because it upsets people.