contents
site related
special features
RSS Feed
about 8bm
favorite sites
Search 8BM.com
for old stories.

RAW DOGMA                                                                       written by Nkrumah Steward
Supreme Court Upholds Cross-Burning Ban reasoning in Laughable.
The Supreme Court will never be an institution that can pride itself to adhering to the principles of the US constitution.
More often than not they are all over the place.
You don't want your case to go to the Supreme Court. You don't know what you might get.
As much as I would like to say that cross burning shouldn't be protected under the first amendment, I believe it is.
However the Supreme Court of the United States, this time around, disagrees with me.
Virginia Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore predicted the decision would prompt more states to outlaw cross burning. "A burning cross is a symbol like no other. It doesn't just say we don't like you. The message is we are going to do you harm," Kilgore said.
I agree with Kilgore, burning a cross in someone's front yard does say, "get ready, we are bringing the pain" like no other, but until you actually "bring the pain", I am afraid that you haven't done anything outside of your right to express that you are a pissed off, scapegoat seeking, no taking responsibility for yourself redneck bastard.
I mean, why not ban wearing a white hood over your head? That says "get ready we are bringing the pain too" just as much as a burning cross. Trust me.
A bunch of Billys and Necks in hooded sheets standing in my front lawn is just as fucked up in-an-of itself.
Lighting up a cross is just overkill.
And the majority on the court found support for their decision from the most unlikely of judges. The always disappointing, borderline incompetent Clarence Thomas who has never voted in favor of a civil rights case presented before him since he has been sitting on the supreme court, decided to break his streak and vote in favor of saying that "burning a cross" isn't protected speech under the first amendment.
And what is his reasoning? Remember that is the question I have been asking you to ask people, "so how did you arrive at your conclusion"?
This is how he did it.
"Just as one cannot burn down someone's house to make a political point and then seek refuge in the First Amendment, those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point," he wrote.
Now I know why Clarence Thomas doesn't vote in favor of civil rights. Clarence Thomas is woefully out of practice when it comes to being black.
That analogy makes no sense.
First of all, burning someone else's property down and burning something you bought and paid for down to the ground are two entirely different things.
This Virginia law that was being challenged in the hollowed halls of the unprincipled and self-important makes cross burning a crime even if the KKK were burning it in their own backyard or at their own rally without a Negro within 40 miles.
Even Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is normally my favorite judge, writing for the majority, said the protections afforded by the First Amendment are "not absolute" and do not necessarily protect cross burners.
Why not? The first amendment was good enough to shield flag burners and Neo-Nazi that march through Jewish neighborhoods holding signs with Swastikas on them?
Their point was that burning a flag was an "act of intimidation" which until this moment I had no idea was against the law either.
But since that is their criteria, being an "act of intimidation" a how the fuck did Swastikas slip under the radar?
I mean, I am not pro-cross burning by any means, and I know what many of you are saying to yourselves is, "well if you don't want cross burning to be legal either then why don't you just shut up?" Yes, I would prefer it if no one ever burned a cross anywhere in America but dammit, I think it is bullshit to say it isn't within their first amendment rights. Besides, if they came to my house and burned a cross in my front yard I am sure they would be guilty of something.
Its not like I invited them son-of-a-bitches.
Why can't the district attorney get them for "criminal trespassing" or breaking some sort of "fire code"?
Why can't you be satisfied for getting them on that? I know they didn't get a permit to do that shit.
I mean no one wants cross burning to be against the first amendment more than me but if I could just make the law up as I went along because I "felt like it" the judicial system would be more fucked up than it is already.
To argue that cross burning isn't protected under the first amendment because it is an "instrument of racial terror that is so threatening that it overshadows free speech concerns" is disturbing. Burning a cross doesn't beat your ass; it's the people that set the cross of fire that come beat your ass. Burning the cross in someone's front yard is like sending out the Bat signal. Although admittedly intimidating, 9 times out of 10 that alone isn't going to stop the Joker.
Now that I have heard their reasoning on this case I have all kinds of questions running through my head that I need answers to. So following this courts logic why is flying the fucking confederate flag protected but a burning cross not? Hell, the confederate flag was an instrument of racial terror way before cross burning. That flag represents the intentions of a whole nation of white supremacist masked behind a love for southern culture. It represents a southern culture all right; a southern culture that was built upon the slave labor and the belief in the inherent inhumanity of the African slave and was willing to die to keep it that way.
And I will be damn if you can find a white sheet or a burning cross anywhere in America and not find one of those confederate flags somewhere in the vicinity.
When it doubt always try looking under the O' Reilly Factor Black Chamois Fleece.
Shit, if you just want to ban shit that historically scares the shit out of black folks why don't you ban the whole library of essential redneck ass backwards fascist accoutrements.
Ban the gun rack, ban household appliances rusting on the front porch, ban screen doors that don't have screens in them, ban more than 8 dogs running loose in a yard, ban vehicles resting on blocks in the front yard.
Thomas who normally doesn't open his mouth was at no loss for words as he talked about growing up in a segregated Georgia and how he grew up under the threat of violence and terror at the hands of the Klan and other white supremacy groups and how the burning cross was a symbol of that reign of terror.
Ok, so?
Since he is black, cross burning isn't protected by the first amendment. Since he isn't Jewish, walking around with a Swastika is?
This is what I am talking about when I say that the Supreme Court justices are unprincipled. Being a person of principal means that sometimes the principles you defend puts you on the same side of people or things that you don't like. Being a person of principle means that you have to deal with an awful lot of shit you don't like because if you don't, people won't have to put up with the shit that they don't like about you.
I might not like my neighbor across the street hoisting a confederate flag above their front porch but I don't say shit because I don't want him saying shit to me when I stand my life size standup cutout of Louis Farrakhan on my front porch. We have an understanding.

FAQ | terms | privacy | copyright | jobs | CONTACT © 2005 8BM.COM LLC.

Source: Associated Press
same difference

MSNBC Apologizes For Nigger Innis Misspelling
"Oh, God, I thought you guys thought I was a rapper or something," Uncle Tom Innis told Jarrett with a perfect impersonation of Willie Best, the buck-eyed, forever-terrified 'Coon' made famous in so many Bob Hope comedies.

10% of the Black Population Of An Entire Town Was Sent To Jail On The Word Of One Cop
Among these alleged "drug traffickers" was a fucking a pig farmer and a forklift operator.