You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #16: I see. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #6
16. I see.
I can understand that. I guess this would be analogous to banging on a black family's front door and telling them "Me and my white supremacist buddies are I'm going to beat the crap out of you if you get uppity." Seems to make sense. Harrassment isn't a constitutional right.

I guess the question is where the line is drawn. Would it be intimidation to burn a cross on your own property if the intent is to intimidate the black family across the street? I suspect so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -My Take On The Flag Burning Amendment... DemocratSinceBirth  Nov-12-03 07:55 AM   #0 
  - I wholly agree, but my question has always been...  FunBobbyMucha   Nov-12-03 08:05 AM   #1 
  - Could you explain something please?  Skinner   Nov-12-03 08:06 AM   #2 
  - I Believe It Prohibited All Cross Burning...  DemocratSinceBirth   Nov-12-03 08:17 AM   #3 
     - Hmm. That surprises me.  Skinner   Nov-12-03 08:19 AM   #4 
     - Intent is the deciding factor on cross burnings  HFishbine   Nov-12-03 08:23 AM   #6 
     - I see.  Skinner   Nov-12-03 09:32 AM   #16 
     - Here's a link for you  bicentennial_baby   Nov-12-03 08:23 AM   #7 
     - Right ... "with the intent to intimidate."  HFishbine   Nov-12-03 08:26 AM   #10 
     - Thanks. That makes sense.  Skinner   Nov-12-03 09:36 AM   #19 
     - Clarence Thomas Wrote The Majority Opinion...  DemocratSinceBirth   Nov-12-03 08:24 AM   #9 
     - If I remember correctly...  jumptheshadow   Nov-12-03 08:23 AM   #8 
  - My advice to liberals would be  zeemike   Nov-12-03 08:20 AM   #5 
  - or why not  HootieMcBoob   Nov-12-03 08:29 AM   #11 
  - Hootie  HFishbine   Nov-12-03 08:49 AM   #14 
  - Actually, I think it would be approved by states very quickly.  Skinner   Nov-12-03 09:34 AM   #17 
  - It's not about flag BURNING, it's about flag DESECRATION  Mairead   Nov-12-03 08:33 AM   #12 
  - No, it about expressing a view that offends other people.  Brian Sweat   Nov-12-03 08:44 AM   #13 
     - Really? It criminalises expressing views that offend?  Mairead   Nov-12-03 09:20 AM   #15 
        - If offense wasn't involved, why would it be an issue?  Scott Lee   Nov-12-03 01:22 PM   #21 
           - But the language isn't about offending, the language is about  Mairead   Nov-12-03 05:46 PM   #22 
  - My take is: who cares?  Selwynn   Nov-12-03 09:35 AM   #18 
  - Always the 'regressives', distinguishing themselves  leanstreets23   Nov-12-03 09:57 AM   #20 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC