Judicial Crosses to Bare

As I was reading the paper today, I very well could have been reading the same headlines that were splashed across the front page in 1865:

"Court Ruling May Spur Cross-Burning Bans"

Why is it that after some 138 years later, we are still debating whether or not it is okay to have a cross burning? Is it possible that somewhere along the way that there was something, either for or against this issue, that has not already been argued? Whatever the reason, here we are in 2003 trying to get a final ruling about burning crosses. With everything that is going on in our world today with war, famine, religious extremism, terrorism, and now SARS, we are still stuck in the old cross burning argument. Will it ever end?

Do we really need our nation's highest court to tell us why this behavior cannot be allowed? One would think not, but after a quick review of the facts; maybe it is necessary. Whether all of us will admit it or not, acts of cross burning are typically associated with acts of racially motivated hate crimes. In the latest statistics available through the Department of Justice, nine thousand seven hundred and twenty six incidents of hate crimes were reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2001 involving eleven thousand four hundred and forty seven separate offenses, twelve thousand and sixteen victims, and nine thousand two hundred and thirty one known offenders. Of those cases reported, 44.9 percent were racially motivated cases. If numbers do not lie, then we must be concerned that there is still an element of our society that is not focused on racial harmony.

Those who support these type of acts defend it vehemently with freedom of speech issues. In the ruling, which is based on a Virginia case, Justice Sandra Day O'Conner wrote that protections afforded by the First Amendment "are not absolute" and do not necessarily shield cross burners. She went on to say "while a cross burning does not inevitably convey a message of intimidation, often the cross burner intends that the recipient of the message fear for their lives." However, as strong as the decision may be, at least 3 of the justices dissented on free-speech issues.

The ruling was somewhat surprising based on previous rulings of the court that protected the constitutional speech rights of unpopular groups. Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the court should not allow states to single out cross burning as an act of expression that is not allowed. Other than Virginia, twelve other states have anti-cross-burning laws currently on the books. While most people think of the "old south" as the prime location for such events, only five of those states fall into that region.

Wherever you might stand on this issue, hopefully we have argued it enough. It appears that this ruling by the Supreme Court will be a catalyst for many other states who have similar cross burning laws in the hopper. Surely, we are ready to move on to a new topic. There are so many important issues
that need to be debated. Of course all of those issues will have to stand by while we argue something that will stand in history as the mother of all debates; a decision that will affect mankind as we know it, the Georgia State flag. You gotta love it!

Stan Hall is the Director of the Victim Witness Program for the Gwinnett County District Attorney's Office. He is also the host of the Gwinnett County Communication Network's television show "Behind the Badge."