World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Virginia v. Black

Article Id: WHEBN0002482881
Reproduction Date:

Title: Virginia v. Black  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: United States free speech exceptions, Freedom of speech in the United States, Morse v. Frederick, Clarence Thomas, Hate crime
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Virginia v. Black

Virginia v. Black
Argued December 11, 2002
Decided April 7, 2003
Full case name Virginia v. Barry Elton Black, Richard J. Elliott, and Jonathan Oímara
Citations 538 U.S. 343 (more)
123 S.Ct. 1536, 155 L. Ed. 2d 535 (2003)
Prior history On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia. Black v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 764, 553 S.E.2d 738 (2001)
Subsequent history Appeal after remand at Elliott v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 464, 593 S.E.2d 263 (2004)
Argument Oral argument
Holding
Virginia's statute against cross burning is unconstitutional because it places the burden of proof on the defendant to demonstrate that he or she did not intend the cross burning as intimidation.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority O'Connor (parts I, II, III), joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Breyer
Concurrence O'Connor (parts IV, V), joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, Breyer
Concurrence Stevens
Concur/dissent Scalia, joined by Thomas (parts I, II)
Concur/dissent Souter, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg
Dissent Thomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend I

Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), was a First Amendment case decided in the Supreme Court of the United States. Three defendants were convicted in two separate cases of violating a Virginia statute against cross burning. In this case, the Court struck down that statute to the extent that it considered cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate. Such a provision, the Court argued, blurs the distinction between proscribable "threats of intimidation" and the Ku Klux Klan's protected "messages of shared ideology." However, cross-burning can be a criminal offense if the intent to intimidate is proven.

Contents

  • Background 1
  • Majority 2
  • Dissents 3
  • See also 4
  • External links 5

Background

In cases such as Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) and others, the Supreme Court has addressed various areas of controversial speech. The Court has frequently sided with the speakers, but occasionally the Court has sided with the government and acknowledged its (limited) power to pass laws protecting citizens from specific types of harmful speech.

Majority

In Virginia v. Black the Court found that Virginia's statute against cross burning is unconstitutional, but cross burning done with an intent to intimidate can be limited because such expression has a long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the opinion stating, "a state, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate." In so doing, the Court considered the speech to be constitutionally unprotected "true threats." Under that carve-out, "a State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm."

The Court did, however, strike down the provision in Virginia's statute which stated "Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons," holding that the provision was facially unconstitutional because of its "indiscriminate coverage." The state, therefore, must prove intent to intimidate.

Dissents

Justice Clarence Thomas argued that cross-burning itself should be a First Amendment exception, as others have argued regarding flag-burning (see Justice William Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion in Texas v. Johnson), due to the historical association of cross-burning with terrorism. "[T]his statute," Thomas wrote, "prohibits only conduct, not expression. And, 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."

Justice David Souter argued that cross-burning, even with the proven intent to intimidate, should not be a crime under the R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul precedent because of "the statute’s content-based distinction."

See also

External links

  • Full text of the Court's decision on FindLaw
  • Audio of oral arguments & the court's opinion announcement on Oyez (a service of the Chicago–Kent College of Law)
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.