** Supreme Court Accepts Cross-Burning Case **

From Associated Baptist Press (ABP) ... The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that symbolic burning of the American flag is free speech that is protected by the Constitution. But what about burning the cross? The high court is about to take on that question. Justices agreed May 28 to review a ruling by Virginia's top court finding unconstitutional the state's 50-year-old ban on cross burning intended to frighten or intimidate. The Virginia court cited a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a law in Minnesota that banned cross burning carried out "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."

State Supreme Courts in Maryland, New Jersey and South Carolina have also struck down laws banning cross burning, saying they limit speech on the basis of its content, which violates the free-speech clause in the First Amendment. But other laws banning speech that intimidates, terrorizes or causes other harm have been upheld. Virginia's lawyers argue that since the state's ban doesn't make specific reference to religion or race, the 1992 ruling doesn't apply.

Three men were convicted in two separate 1998 incidents under the Virginia law. In one, Pennsylvania Ku Klux Klansman Barry Elton Black presided over the burning of a 30-foot cross in a field -- visible to neighbors and a state highway -- in Carroll County, Va. In the other case, Richard Elliott and Jonathan O'Mara burned a cross on a part of Elliott's Virginia Beach property located 20 feet from the home of an African-American neighbor.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia supported the men who were convicted under the cross-burning law. An ACLU representative told the Washington Post that he considered the burning of a cross "an act with a message, and because it has a message it is protected under the First Amendment." A decision in the case, Virginia vs. Black, isn't expected before next year. In the event that the Supreme Court rules against Virginia, the state's legislature and governor have already passed and signed into law a back-up provision that bans the burning of any object with the intent to intimidate or threaten. The ACLU has said it probably wouldn't oppose that law.

-------------

Religion Today News Summaries are a compilation of articles from various media sources. We do not necessarily endorse nor personally adhere to the views represented within them. We simply want our audience to have an understanding of and be alert to what others are saying about matters of religion and faith.