Kkk why burn cross

Members of the Klan burned crosses on the lawns of those associated with the civil rights movement, assaulted the Freedom Riders, bombed churches, and murdered blacks as well as whites whom the Klan viewed as sympathetic toward the civil rights movement. Throughout the history of the Klan, cross burnings have also remained potent symbols of shared group identity and ideology.

The burning cross became a symbol of the Klan itself and a central feature of Klan gatherings. G ; see also Wade And the Klan has often published its newsletters and magazines under the name The Fiery Cross. See Wade , At Klan gatherings across the country, cross burning became the climax of the rally or the initiation. Posters advertising an upcoming Klan rally often featured a Klan member holding a cross.

See N. The Klan would then light the cross on fire, as the members raised their left arm toward the burning cross and sang The Old Rugged Cross. For its own members, the cross was a sign of celebration and ceremony. In response to antimasking bills introduced in state legislatures after World War II, the Klan burned crosses in protest. See Chalmers On March 26, , the Klan engaged in rallies and cross burnings throughout the South in an attempt to recruit 10 million members.

See Wade Later in , the Klan became an issue in the third debate between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy, with both candidates renouncing the Klan. After this debate, the Klan reiterated its support for Nixon by burning crosses. See id. And cross burnings featured prominently in Klan rallies when the Klan attempted to move toward more nonviolent tactics to stop integration.

In short, a burning cross has remained a symbol of Klan ideology and of Klan unity. And while cross burning sometimes carries no intimidating message, at other times the intimidating message is the only message conveyed. For example, when a cross burning is directed at a particular person not affiliated with the Klan, the burning cross often serves as a message of intimidation, designed to inspire in the victim a fear of bodily harm.

Moreover, the history of violence associated with the Klan shows that the possibility of injury or death is not just hypothetical. In sum, while a burning cross does not inevitably convey a message of intimidation, often the cross burner intends that the recipients of the message fear for their lives. And when a cross burning is used to intimidate, few if any messages are more powerful. Abrams v. United States, U. Johnson, U. California, U. The First Amendment affords protection to symbolic or expressive conduct as well as to actual speech.

City of St. Paul , U. The protections afforded by the First Amendment , however, are not absolute, and we have long recognized that the government may regulate certain categories of expression consistent with the Constitution. New Hampshire, U. New Hampshire , supra , at New Hampshire , supra , at ; see also R. Paul , supra , at listing limited areas where the First Amendment permits restrictions on the content of speech.

Cohen v. Ohio, U. Pro-Choice Network of Western N. See Watts v. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death. Respondents do not contest that some cross burnings fit within this meaning of intimidating speech, and rightly so.

As noted in Part II, supra , the history of cross burning in this country shows that cross burning is often intimidating, intended to create a pervasive fear in victims that they are a target of violence. The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that in light of R. Paul , supra , even if it is constitutional to ban cross burning in a content-neutral manner, the Virginia cross-burning statute is unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of content and viewpoint.

It is true, as the Supreme Court of Virginia held, that the burning of a cross is symbolic expression. Individuals burn crosses as opposed to other means of communication because cross burning carries a message in an effective and dramatic manner.

The fact that cross burning is symbolic expression, however, does not resolve the constitutional question. The Supreme Court of Virginia relied upon R. Paul , supra, to conclude that once a statute discriminates on the basis of this type of content, the law is unconstitutional. We disagree. Paul, Minn. We did not hold in R. Rather, we specifically stated that some types of content discrimination did not violate the First Amendment :.

The First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation. Thus, just as a State may regulate only that obscenity which is the most obscene due to its prurient content, so too may a State choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm.

A ban on cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate is fully consistent with our holding in R. IV The prima facie evidence provision, as interpreted by the jury instruction, renders the statute unconstitutional As construed by the jury instruction, the prima facie provision strips away the very reason why a State may ban cross burning with the intent to intimidate.

The prima facie evidence provision permits a jury to convict in every cross-burning case in which defendants exercise their constitutional right not to put on a defense.

And even where a defendant like Black presents a defense, the prima facie evidence provision makes it more likely that the jury will find an intent to intimidate regardless of the particular facts of the case.

The provision permits the Commonwealth to arrest, prosecute, and convict a person based solely on the fact of cross burning itself. But that same act may mean only that the person is engaged in core political speech. The prima facie evidence provision in this statute blurs the line between these two meanings of a burning cross. As interpreted by the jury instruction, the provision chills constitutionally protected political speech because of the possibility that a State will prosecute—and potentially convict—somebody engaging only in lawful political speech at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.

As the history of cross burning indicates, a burning cross is not always intended to intimidate. Rather, sometimes the cross burning is a statement of ideology, a symbol of group solidarity. It is a ritual used at Klan gatherings, and it is used to represent the Klan itself.

Cross burnings have appeared in movies such as Mississippi Burning The prima facie provision makes no effort to distinguish among these different types of cross burnings. It does not distinguish between a cross burning done with the purpose of creating anger or resentment and a cross burning done with the purpose of threatening or intimidating a victim.

It does not treat the cross burning directed at an individual differently from the cross burning directed at a group of like-minded believers. It may be true that a cross burning, even at a political rally, arouses a sense of anger or hatred among the vast majority of citizens who see a burning cross. But this sense of anger or hatred is not sufficient to ban all cross burnings. The First Amendment does not permit such a shortcut With respect to Barry Black, we agree with the Supreme Court of Virginia that his conviction cannot stand Thomas, J.

That goes for both the sacred, see Texas v. Johnson, U. I believe that cross burning is the paradigmatic example of the latter. In my view, whatever expressive value cross burning has, the legislature simply wrote it out by banning only intimidating conduct undertaken by a particular means.

A conclusion that the statute prohibiting cross burning with intent to intimidate sweeps beyond a prohibition on certain conduct into the zone of expression overlooks not only the words of the statute but also reality.

In this Jan. Cross burning, which has been used as a form of intimidation against African Americans and Jews , has been defended in the courts on free speech grounds. The practice dates back to 14th century Scotland, where tribes burned crosses as signaling devices. The modern use of cross burning is directly linked to a revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the early 20th century.

An earlier version of the Klan, which was created by former Confederate officers to impede Reconstruction in the South and to terrorize newly freed slaves, did not burn crosses. In the film, Klan members chase and catch an African American man who had pursued a white woman, and ultimately lynch him in front of a burning cross. Shortly thereafter, a cross was burned in nearby Marietta, Georgia, to celebrate the lynching of Leo Frank, a Jewish factory manager who had been accused of raping and killing a white Christian girl.

As the Klan grew in numbers and influence, cross burning became an important ritual of group solidarity. Crosses were burned not only at lynchings but also more generally to terrorize African Americans, Roman Catholics , Jews, and others hated by the Klan.

As the Klan declined in the late s and s, intimidation became the primary but not exclusive use of the cross. During the civil rights era beginning in the s, white supremacists burned crosses to express opposition to desegregated schools, to frighten civil rights workers, and to show support in for the Republican presidential candidate, Richard M.

Nixon who declined the support. In addition, people with no Klan affiliation have burned crosses on the lawns of African Americans moving into all white neighborhoods. Since the s, a number of states, including Virginia, have passed laws banning cross burnings.