There is a case before the supreme court "that asks whether burning a cross is constitutionally protected expression or an overt threat that can be banned by the states."
  • Is the Klan's First Amendment freedom of speech being violated?
  • Even if their rights are being violated, is cross burning offensive enough and threatening enough that the meaning of the act is more important than Free Speech in these cases?
  • Is cross burning not a matter of expression at all but a threat implied by decades of terror?
  • If you burn a cross on someone else's property there are other laws against trespassing that cover the act but what about at Klan ralllies?
I understand that there may be a great deal of history, especially emotional, that I might never be able to understand when it comes to burning a cross. I still think it is a detestable sight and not a bright spot in American history. If someone lit a cross in my front yard ,I would probably be terrified and angered myself. The question becomes are these feelings more important than the way an organization chooses to express themselves. I feel that if that organization implies harm by the act, then yes, it is more important to ban such demonstrations.

America is still young and still experiencing growing pains. These are the decisions that will determine what type of nation we continue to evolve into.