In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that states may ban cross burning done with the intent to intimidate. Yet the Court also ruled 5-4 that cross burning in general does not imply intimidation.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the majority opinion that the First Amendment permits a state to restrict speech that constitutes a \true threat"" and that burning a cross may qualify as intimidation, a form of a true threat.
In the majority opinion, O'Connor detailed the history of cross burning, concluding that regardless of the origin of the act, over the years it has acquired status as a ""symbol of hate"" because of its association with the Ku Klux Klan.
However, in response to the court's decision, the National Director of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Thomas Robb, told The Daily Cardinal that cross burning is a form of religious speech, not an act of hate. Robb said he could not guarantee that Klan members no longer maliciously burn crosses, but for the most part he thought it was done by others.
""All the so-called reports that I've heard every now and then about somebody lighting a cross on somebody's lawn were always done by some kids, or some guys who were drunk,"" he said. ""It's never done by the Klan.""
Robb said he did think people should be protected from intimidating acts, but he does not see the burning of a cross as an intimidating act.
""It may be offensive to some Negroes, but there are things that I see that offend me,"" he said. ""That doesn't mean that the Supreme Court should step in and say 'We want to make sure you're not offended anymore.'""
The Court's only black member, Justice Clarence Thomas, said in his statement that any kind of cross burning is offensive because it is too intimidating to qualify as protected speech.
""In our culture, cross burning has almost invariably meant lawlessness and understandably instills in its victims a well-grounded fear of physical violence,"" Thomas wrote.
Overall, this decision will probably not have repercussions for other free speech or First Amendment issues, according to UW-Madison Professor Emeritus of Law Gordon Baldwin. Baldwin said the decision was too narrowly tailored to this issue to affect other forms of speech.
""[O'Connor] goes to such a great length giving the history of cross burning and the intimidating effects that I doubt this [decision] will have any effect outside of cross burning,"" he said.
