oh no! a political post!

[rone]

Clarence Thomas has managed to shake himself out of his typical torpor to not only speak for the majority in the "no guns for felons" case, but also to speak up in the Virginia anti-cross burning law case. Why can't these KKKlowns be convicted on trespassing or public mischief? Why doesn't the black homeowner come running out of the house with a shotgun and fire and scream, "My Second Amendment rights trump your First Amendment rights, bitches!"? Do we need more laws that protect people's feelings from getting hurt? If a burning cross is "a threat of bodily harm", what the hell is an extended middle finger, a threat of sodomy? More importantly, why are Scalia and Thomas in favor of this law? I'll admit this is probably paranoid, but it seems like a prime opportunity to weaken the First Amendment. It's been a cliché that anything they're for, i'm against, and yet i would not have expected them to support this law.

Comments

a salient distinction

[vardissakheli.livejournal.com]

Digitus impudens is rarely followed up with actual sodomy. Burning crosses have historically been frequently followed up with actual bodily harm. I think the majority ruled correctly in both this case and the Minnesota case. A law prohibiting a threat of violence is fundamentally different from one prohibiting incitement of anger or resentment.

That gun case, on the other hand, I just don't get (especially when the felony conviction in question was in a foreign country). But I doubt there was anything special about it to Thomas. He probably just drew the short straw.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

I understand that, but one still does not cause the other. I suppose that it could be considered consistent with other abridgements of speech, but i'm not convinced.

As for Thomas drawing the short straw... hmm, i'm trying to come up with a punchline. Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!