USA founding fathers 200 years ago, formulated the "bill of rights", to protect the rights of citizens against government involvement. Here are a few examples America Federal Supreme Court, can understand how Americans use the constitution to give their rights, to protect their freedom of speech and the press.

   * the "bill of rights". *

   In 1787, just get rid of British colonial rule of the North American states represent a constitutional convention in Philadelphia, through the draft constitution, establishes the relationship between the power of the government allocation and federal and state. In 1789, the first Congress declared the constitution went into effect, at the same time added about the civil rights of the 10 amendment, also known as the "bill of rights" (Bill of Rights), came into effect in 1791.

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law limiting citizens freedom of speech, press and freedom of religion, or to deprive citizens of peaceful assembly and the right to petition. Over the past two hundred years, Americans have given their rights to the constitution as supreme right. Whether as a legislature or Congress, or enforcement of the administrative institutions or, can't infringe their rights.

1\* New York Time Co v. United States *

  In 1971, a Nixon administration official said The Pentagon files to New York Times, is USA defense ministry on American in Vietnam military activities are increasingly secret research documents. In June 13th, New York Times started according to the document published a series of reports. In June 14th, the justice minister Mitchell called to warn New York Times do not continue to publish the report. In June 15th, the Nixon administration by the court to New York Times temporary injunction.

  Says the government in court in a complaint, it is the only American, represent the interests of national security, and should therefore be court orders to realize this objective. However, New York Times retorted, do so in violation of the provisions of the first amendment to the constitution American about freedom of speech and of the press. New York Times pointed out, the real motives for publishing content of government is the political censorship, not to protect the national security. In June 30th, the case to the Federal Supreme Court of appeal America.

Against the government of * *

   Frodi. Abrams (Floyd Abrams) was the legal adviser New York Times, he recalled the Supreme Court said: "the Supreme Court finally decided in favour of New York Times judgment. The court said, although the country is in the period of the war, and New York Times disclosed materials should belong to the secret files, but America law and the first amendment to the constitution of the orientation is very clear, it is the protection of people's right to freedom of speech, so the government against a party."

   USA Federal Supreme Court ruled that, the government requirements for New York Times report beforehand limited reason not sufficient. Located in Chicago's chief legal advisor America First Amendment lawyer Wayne Peter Rowe Zhan (Wayne Giampietro) analysis of the importance of The Pentagon papers case. He said: "a little The Pentagon papers case is the most important prior restraint, it established the government can not prevent any person, whether the media or individual, spreading the information obtained. If there is anyone who abuse this right, you can punish them afterwards, but you can't begin to stop their speech."

  Served as a legal adviser New York Times Abrams lawyer thinks, USA political system to ensure that the dispute was finally able to be solved through legal means. He pointed out, especially for the foreign people, this case is interesting, American government did not send the police or troops to stop publication, but the New York report on the court. America Supreme Court also maintained its independence. It to the government administrative agency said: we understand the importance of what you said is not open these files, but USA First Amendment height safeguarding the citizen's freedom of speech, so we do not allow the government to stop the newspaper published the relevant documents.

2\* Tinker v. Des Moines school dist *

   Citizens in addition to freedom of speech and publication rights, and to express their views through the symbolic acts of the right.
   In 1965, the Vietnam War continues, American domestic anti war movement. In December of that year, the capital of Des Moines, Iowa, a group of adults and students gathered in the Eck home in Hart, to discuss how to express their opposition to the Vietnam War and appeal for a ceasefire, the meeting decided the christmas wear black protest of the Vietnam war. John was 15 years old. The tinker and his 13 year old sister Marie Beth tinker, and 16 year old Christopher Hart. He decided to join wear black armbands and their parents' activities.

Their school principals in the matter, students who joined the protests will be asked to pick a, if there's anyone who in violation of rules, will be temporarily suspended. However, the 3 students will wear black armbands to go to school. The school requires them to pluck crepe, they refused, the president ordered them to go home, and told them to take only in black. The 3 students until after the new year, also is in them to determine protests after the date, to return to their school.

   3 parents of the students and to appeal to the Federal District Court, requests the school principals and the board of directors to discipline their children, and nominal damages. However, the court rejected the appeal, and pointed out that the school authorities to take policy is based on the consideration of maintaining the school discipline. After that, they appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court, but the court two judges votes, equal to maintain the Federal District Court verdict.

   In 1968, the case of final appeal to the Supreme court. In February 24, 1969, the Federal Supreme Court USA said, students wear black armbands is silent negative behavior, and did not infringe the rights of others, and pure speech is very close, so their behavior is protected by the first amendment of the constitution. Judgment also said, the school does not offer enough evidence that wear black armbands to seriously affect the school discipline.

   John Tinker (John Tinker) recalls, the verdict, the Supreme Court, he has graduated from high school, but when the news came, he felt the dance for joy. He said: "I am very happy, we always think they are right. Freedom of speech is the most basic principles of democracy, the exercise of free speech rights have been infringed, so it is necessary to appeal to the Federal Supreme Court seeking to solve. Although the federal district court dismissed the appeal, but the Supreme Court agreed with our views. Therefore, we are very happy."

   Tink about this case on his life. He said: "it makes me realize that if people work, can have an impact on the society. In this case, that I have the opportunity to meet many people care about students right, sometimes I was invited to go to law school and the high school speech, provides a good chance for me."

  Several children did wear black armbands were now has over 50 years of age. John tinker at present is engaged in the computer design of the individual work, his sister Marie Beth Tinker is a California Losangeles hospital nurse, Christopher. Ike Hart engaged in children working in florida.

   America Civil Liberties Union was Tinker a appeal provided funding and legal adviser. The organization of the legislative consultant Marvin Johnson (Marvin Johnson,) said, has an important significance to tinker v.. He said, before this, adults of the right of free speech is very clear. However, whether minors enjoy the right of free speech and should enjoy many rights are uncertain. The importance is that it establishes a tinker case of minors the right of free speech.

3\* Ruth v. United States *

   Although America First Amendment to the Constitution stipulates that citizens have freedom of speech and of the press. However, not all speech is protected by the constitution. USA civil liberties union legislative consultant Marvin Johnson pointed out, the court ruled, obscene speech, child pornography of the speech and provoke or immediate violence words not in the constitution protected. Below we look together involves obscene remarks: case rouse v. United states.

   In 1957, New York City bookseller Ruth using commercial leaflets and advertising to attract business, he was accused of sending obscene leaflets, advertising and yellow books, therefore a violation of federal law on the prohibition of pornography. The New York District Court for the Southern District of a jury convicted him on 26 charges, 4 charges, the second circuit court of Appeals upheld the verdict. Roth in 1957 April will appeal the case to the Supreme Court of the America.

   In 1957 June, the Federal Supreme Court by a majority of 6 than 3 again rejected his appeal. Decision points, and not every form of expression can be protected first amendment of the constitution. The court said, if a man by contemporary standards, find a theme to the people of pornographic interest from the whole, the work can be regarded as obscene.

   The Federal Supreme Court later in several rulings in 1973 and in 1974 put forward, social standard is not necessarily the nationwide, a state if there is a clear explanation, then the state can also establish its own standards, there is a kind of not protected by the constitution is slander speech. Libel refers to a person's reputation, if someone through language or other means, to convey to the third party information slander the reputation of others, you can sue for libel.

4\* Geertz v. Robert Welch case *

In American, court of private filed defamation lawsuits and put forward to the government officials and public figures defamation lawsuits are differentiated. Here we have to introduce a related case: Geertz v. Robert Welch case.

In 1974, a Chicago police officer convicted of murder, the families of the victims to hire Geertz lawyers to represent them bring a civil lawsuit to the officer. Robert. A magazine company accused Geertz Welch wrote a daring vanguard Lenin activists and GCD, because he represents the party prosecution law enforcement officials. The magazine also refer to the trial, the officer's trial is GCD against the local police conspiracy of. A federal district court, established in 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case principles applicable to the case. So, what is this principle?

In 1960, New York Times published an advertisement, referring to the black civil rights leader Martin Luther King in Alabama accused of perjury was arrested, because people want to destroy him clear segregation and for blacks the right to vote to. Four black pastor at the Alabama city state capital of Montgomerie City Commissioner Sullivan to New York Times and published the advertisement to sue for libel. Sullivan said, to Montgomerie city police allegations against ruined his reputation.

* the burden of government officials and common people of different *

   The case then appealed to the Supreme court. The Supreme Court ruled that all speech, First Amendment protects citizens published on the behavior of government officials, and even the wrong words, unless these remarks people knowing it is wrong, or disregarding the facts. In short, the case of Sullivan's principle is, the government officials or public figure's libel action than individuals filed defamation lawsuits more stringent requirements.

   Therefore, in Geertz v. Robert. Welch's case, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that the proposed a libel suit, Geertz is not a government official, is not a public figure, Sullivan one case does not apply in the case of Robert, Geertz Welch and company filed defamation lawsuits thus established.

Located in Chicago's chief legal advisor American First Amendment lawyer Wayne Peter Rowe Zhan has served as Geertz's lawyer. He pointed out that, in a libel suit, ordinary citizens than the government official or public figure to enjoy more protection. He said: "I like your non public figures that put forward than government officials easier to libel, because government officials not only to prove to his libel is not real, but also to prove that the defendant is said in the already know is not true of slander, but ordinary people do not have to prove after a bit of."

* the freedom of speech is facing new challenges

Enter after twenty-first Century, the popularity of the Internet and information technology constantly updated, and new challenges for how to protect citizens online freedom of speech. For example: American Congress proposes some comments, for example relates to child pornography rhetoric, not in the protection of the first amendment to the constitution of the column, thus making the children's Internet protection act. However, with the power of judicial review American Federal Supreme Court that Congress unconstitutional, so this part of the legislation will be deleted.

As New York Times law consultant in The Pentagon papers case of Abrams lawyers pointed out, the constitutional amendment established over the past two hundred years has been trying to adapt to the change of the new situation. He said: "the first amendment to the Constitution in two hundred years, changes have taken place in the country, our problems and needs to be changed, so the First Amendment right to free speech should be applied to different fields of new. More than 200 years ago, we didn't have television, radio and the Internet, we need to protect these areas of freedom now. However, the general principles of freedom of speech has not changed, that is, the government can not tell the media should say what, also not comments in the media and the public after put them into prison, but can not force someone he doesn't believe in remarks published."

5/ in the USA flag burning legitimate?

  As we know, the national flag is not only a symbol of the state, but also affects people's national sentiment. However, we from the TV news often see people through the burning of the flag to express dissatisfaction to their emotions. In American, flag burning situation occur occasionally. So, this behavior whether legal permission? Here America court in this issue is how to award.

* * American flag

   In July 14, 1777, America Congress passed a resolution, determine the America flag. American flag consists of 13 red and white stripes and 13 white five pointed star with blue substrate composition, because America founded only 13 states, later will have more states joined the union. Now USA flag has 13 stars from the original increased to 50, representing a total of 50 states USA. 2007 is the 230 anniversary of American flag. Many Americans take pride in their national flag, national flag on various occasions and places to show, to express their patriotism. When you walk in the American the high streets and back lanes, you will see, many government offices, public schools, private enterprises and companies, as well as the people of the house were flying a America flag.

Protecting the flag controversy * *

  Nevertheless, problems concerning the protection of the flag has always been controversial in America. Momoka, Tennessee State University's constitutional law expert John Villers (John Vile) said, the flag value for the Americans, so when the flag desecration of the situation, they will take measures to stop, therefore, related litigation also emerge as the times require. John Villers says: "early litigation involving problems include the individual can be attached to a flag, whether the flag as a decoration dressed in clothes, wearing clothes and whether the flag. In 1907, someone because part of the flag on a beer bottle as advertising was charged and convicted. The accused man, in this way, a symbol of a nation is not appropriate. I think, this behavior might It is quite common for today, but at that time it was not allowed."

   A lawyer American Washington Robert. Cohen Revere (Robert Corn-Revere) points out, America court ruling against this kind of litigation is, first amendment free speech including symbolic expression. He said: " American court take freedom of speech for speech to explain the various forms of expression, including 'symbolic expression. USA Federal Supreme Court in the 1930's for the first time according to the right of free speech clause of the first amendment to the constitution, safeguard people waving the national flag for the right to protest. Since then, USA Federal Supreme Court of freedom of symbolic speech and behaviour of protected."

* protect flag federal law *

The flag protection law has experienced a gradual evolution process in American. The end of the nineteenth Century, Americans try to through legal means to protect the flag is not abused and the profane, the beginning of the first World War, relevant laws and see a little light, the Vietnam War, protects the flag has become a very important issue. but, until 1968, America Congress through the federal law prohibits blasphemy. However, there are still some Americans ignored the laws of Congress, to burn the flag to vent their dissatisfaction. At the beginning of twentieth Century at the end of 80's and 90's, two lawsuits related to USA Federal Supreme Court, put forward a challenge to the federal law banning flag burning.

* challenge two lawsuits in federal law

In 1984, the Republicans held their national convention in Texas, some opponents to protest, during which a man named Johnson fire burned and suspension for the Republican Congress to celebrate the national flag. Johnson was found guilty.
However, the Texas state court of criminal appeal overturned his conviction, that Johnson flag burning behavior belongs to the "symbolic speech", protected by the first amendment to the constitution of American free speech clause. The provisions American First Amendment: USA Congress shall make no law restriction of citizens' freedom of speech. According to this provision, any government agencies are not restricted to the freedom of speech.

* constitutional flag burning maintained *

In 1989, the Federal Supreme Court of America narrowly 5 than 4 on the Johnson case, maintaining the Texas state court of criminal appeal verdict. However, America Congress in the promotion of some interest groups, the "flag Protection Act" immediately, to prohibit any form of flag desecration. is in the law will take effect on the same day, a man named Eichmann to the front of the Congress incineration. In 1990, the Federal Supreme Court again in most of the 5 - 4 decision, reaffirmed the scope of protection flag burning practices belong to the first amendment free speech clause.

* the burning of the flag is seen as a protected symbolic speech *

   Momoka, Tennessee State University of constitutional law expert John Ville analysis of the Supreme Court in the two case verdict. He said: "the majority of judge pointed out, the first amendment to the constitution allows people to have freedom of speech, including symbolic expression. And they said, these two cases involved is the symbolic speech, in some ways, symbolic speech is an effective method to catch the attention of the people. However, the judge said, the national flag is the symbol of the representative of a country, the first amendment to the Constitution did not say the government is unable to take measures to maintain the flag as a symbol of national unity."
  
   Villers professor pointed out that, although the decision by the Federal Supreme Court, maintenance flag burning right, but it does not encourage people to follow, to burn the flag. The Federal Supreme Court ruling saying, this country very much cherishes the people's right to freedom of speech, so that it can allow those who criticize the government's policy to flag burning way to express their point of view.
 
   America Washington lawyer Cohen Revere also agreed with this analysis. He pointed out that, the Federal Supreme Court ruling that said, even if the expression of some token, such as flag burning practices, offended many patriotic feelings, this behavior is still protected by the first amendment to the constitution of the America. Cohen Revere lawyers said: "you around the world will find, in the anti American protests place, often have USA flag burning occurs, the protesters to express them to America name. During the protest, not just USA flags were burned, various other flags were burned or symbol. Such protests occurred in the freedom of speech is not protected by the constitution of the state, the general will be banned.

"But, in America, although most people think that flag burning is a very shameful thing, however, the legal system in USA lower, even offensive speech can still be protected by the constitution."

* burning the flag is seen as blasphemous patriotic *

    However, "director Marty America corps" patriotic education and Youth Division. Justis (Marty Justis) points out, flag burning practices and the first amendment free speech no relationship. He said: "we the flag burning, more properly is the flag desecration approach, as an action or behavior, it can be viewed as the crowd emitted a cry or scream, rather than people with normal communication between the. We think, the first amendment to the constitution are not designed to protect freedom of action, but to protect the freedom of speech, the flag should not be regarded as a kind of expression."
   Justis pointed out, the flag to express those loyal to the state, die for one's country people. The Patriots made a great sacrifice for the country. Flag desecration, also have violated these patriots dignity and their nostalgia.
   Michigan conservative legal organization "Thomas Moore Law Center" lawyer and spokesman Blaine Rooney (Brian Rooney) is a veteran. He pointed out that, American is a free country, is also a country under the rule of law. The national flag is the symbol of the nation, represents hope, truth and justice. Blaine. Rooney lawyers said: "allow people to burn the flag, and the behavior of some are regarded as protected speech, this is the 'Thomas Moore Law Center' and many veterans do not accept. We think, the flag should never be defiled. It is not only a symbol of a nation, is the national tradition, hopes and dreams came to symbolize the people on this land. There are many other ways to express their point of view. The best way is to debate, instead of burning of the flag."

* "USA flag code" shall properly handle flag *

   USA Federal Supreme Court ruling in 1989 and two for 1990, the burning of the flag as "symbolic speech" by the constitutional protection of freedom of speech in the category of. Needs to be pointed out is, in America, even burning of the flag has a fixed pattern. "American flag code" clear requirement to properly use and handling of the flag. "USA Corps division" patriotic education and youth director Justice explained, "America flag code" is a film from 1920 time begin to come into the public. It presents the citizens should some rules how to properly manage and display the national flag. Justice said: " " America flag code "specifically about how should properly deal with the old, cannot use. Flag code clear, be destroyed in a dignified way can no longer use the flag, usually by patriotic veterans organizations or scout representatives, burning in a solemn ceremony flag burning. Any flag desecration behavior, such as the national flag will be thrown on the ground, step on the foot or spit slobber in the above practices are not allowed."

  USA Washington lawyer Cohen Revere points out, the flag can be seen as the blasphemy, can also be seen as a sacred act, needs the law clearly defined. He said: "in fact," USA flag code "provisions of the people should flag indicates how to respect, but also the provisions, if the flag shabby, dirty, or unable to repair processing, is the proper method. Therefore, the flag can also be regarded as a sacred thing. However, whether a certain behavior Is it right? In flag desecration, fully care about personal views and the burning of the flag's motive."

* protect flag amendment *

   After the Supreme Court ruling maintenance flag burning constitutional rights, patriotic organizations and interest groups including the veterans, and actively promote the America Congress flag amendment, completely change the Federal Supreme Court decision consequences. America Congress tried several times to pass the amendment to the national flag, flag desecration of incineration to act as illegal.

  Constitutional law expert Ville Momoka Tennessee State University introduces the main content of flag amendment proposal. He said: "the flag amendment provisions, Congress has the power to ban flag desecration USA actions desecrate this, word range is very wide, it includes not only the burning of the flag, but also including the trampling flag spit and other contempt, in the national flag. However, people have been controversial on how to explain this amendment. A person is contemptuous flag burning, or because the flag can no longer use before their destruction, between the two is what kind of situation it is difficult to distinguish."

* through the amendment is difficult *

  However, the flag of each amendment passed in the house of Representatives, the Senate voted by arresting. It has not been put forward. in USA, to the insertion of an amendment is. USA constitutional provisions of article fifth, in the Senate and the house of representatives each have 2/3 members considered necessary in the circumstances, the Congress may propose amendments to the constitution, or if the legislatures of 2/3 of the request, can also call the meeting proposed amendment, either proposed amendments, must be 3/4 of the State Council or the 3/4 state constitutional convention approved, amendment to become part of the Constitution and the effectiveness of. the framers of the constitution intended to constitutional process is slow and difficult, because they don't want to see someone want to amend the constitution, the constitution as the supreme law of the land of the lost.
  Even so, some patriotic organizations and interest groups including the veterans, still did not give up the efforts of the constitution. In their view, America flag so sacred, any damage to the image of the flag action should be stopped through legal means.

6/ cross burnings and freedom of speech and the three party K

   In daily life, often see people wearing a cross necklace, bracelet, earrings and brooches etc.. The cross has different meanings for different people. For some people, the cross is nice decoration, for Christians, it is a symbol of Christ the crucified Jesus. However, there are also some people put the cross fire burning, as a way to vent their hatred and express their ideas. They think, do so protected by the first amendment to the constitution of American free speech clause.

   In USA, people usually put burning crosses and the 3K Party (KKK) link. The 3K party was an advocate of white supremacist organization, this organization uses violence and intimidation that dominant white in America, they targeted mostly black, Jews, Catholics, foreign immigrants and other minorities. 3K members are often dressed in white robes, with the mask, the party cross burning fire. There are two main branches of 3K party history, one of the branch was established in 1865, when several veterans of the Confederate gathered in the Tennessee Buter Lars Kay, made a similar social club. Soon after, the organization began in night attacks and intimidation of black family. This branch finally because of internal strife, financial difficulties and the Congress and the court investigation, crumble in nineteenth Century 70 in. However, the 3K Party's root is not so. In 1915, 3K party and another branch, make the organization in disappear after decades of stage a comeback. The branch called "stealth Empire", by Colonel Simmons in Georgia, near Atlanta founded. The number of members in twentieth Century 20 time metaphase once reached 4000000 to 5000000. In twentieth Century 50 time, because the re emergence of infighting and economic problems, the number of members is greatly reduced. However, due to the apartheid and driven to the black civil rights movement hatred, 3K party later picked up momentum. Members of the organization with burning crosses, bombs, beating, death threats, intimidation and even murder and other means, white and black civil rights activists.

  However, after the twentieth Century 80's, with the further strengthening of law enforcement, civil rights organizations filed the lawsuit, coupled with internal strife and cannot be raised to the new extremists and other factors, the 3K Party's morale began to weaken, and be split, and some other organization with extremist. Historians say, 3K party burning crosses emulated in Fourteenth Century Scotland practice, because people in Scotland before the war to burn the cross as a symbol of the troops, they lit the cross on the top of the hill, the hazard warning people of enemies coming.

* * cross burning cause

In Alabama, Montgomerie civil rights organization "the Southern Poverty Law Center" Mark Potok (Mark Potok) introduces cross burning as intimidation symbol 3K party is how to produce. He said, Americans Thomas. In 1905 Dixon wrote a book called "the clan alliance" of the novel, this book to 3K party LuoManDi grams, and for the first time put a cross burning as 3K party intimidate symbolic idea.

In 1915, second branches of the 3K party was established in Georgia, cross burning practice officially started. Since then, the 3K party burning crosses are usually in order to threaten their enemies, such as blacks, Jews, Catholics and homosexuality. Therefore, when someone in the lawn people burning crosses, people's reactions are generally very fear, because when the most popular 3K party, members of the group can be said to be burning and killing, rape were.

3K party in the cross burning before the general to deliver a speech full of white separatist speech, and then use the torch height of 4 meters to 12 meters from the bottom of the cross fire, ignited the cross also play the bagpipes, foil and foreshadowed the coming stormin the nervous atmosphere.

"The Southern Poverty Law Center" Mark Potok said, 3K Party A with burning crosses threatened by what they see as the enemies of the people, such as in just moved to the white community black lawn burning crosses, two is a cross burning as a religious ceremony, around 50 to 100 members around lit the cross, in order that they claim to be the Party of Christian origin 3K.

Potok think, now 3K party in the American declined, no political rights, and the number of members rarely, many of which are criminals, become by people disgustful organization. However, cross burning practices still give blacks and people hate 3K party caused by fear, so have a lot of action.

* for 3K party cross burning jail *

Tom Metzger (Tom Metzger) is a leading California 3K party, later withdrew from the party, joined another implementation of white supremacist organization. In this case, he is the representative of the defendant.

One day in 1985, 15 3K members held a rally in a private residence, Metzger was also invited to the. According to representatives of the government of California said the lawyer, at that time, the 3K members, one hand holding the stick and the axe, and holding a rifle and pistol. They hand the torch around the 3 poured full of gasoline around the cross, cross 4 meters in height and half to 6 metres, they first published full of hostility and hatred of Africa American community of speech, the cross fire burning.

The police had warned them not to cross burning, but the 3K party people ignore the warning, still do, because they think, protect their approach by the American First Amendment free speech clause.

However, the California police and fire brigade surrounded and arrested at the party. The government of California finally get these people to court. The case for many years, finally reached the Losangeles High Court and the court of appeal in California. Composed of 9 white, 2 black and 1 Asian American jury found Metzger guilty of crime of unlawful assembly, because when the presence of the 3K members have obvious threats people's motives. Metzger was sentenced to 6 months in prison. But, because his wife is critically ill with cancer, he needs to go home to take care of, so he just sat for 45 days and was released.

However, Metzger told the court judgment said don't understand. He said:

"I still don't understand, why we get the permission of the owner, can ignite the cross in his private residence, will also be prosecuted and convicted of the crime of unlawful assembly? The reality is, the Federal Supreme Court ruling said in the other, in a private residence in light cross ritual is perfectly legal. The court simply reiterated that cannot ignite cross intimidation laws. In someone's yard. I never remember, during my 3K members, 3K party has what people did this kind of thing."

However, the government of California prosecuting attorney John Phillips (John Phillips) said, because of California against cross burning law prohibits burning crosses in other people's private residence, in order to achieve the purpose of intimidation, so the 3K party came up with other measures, the party members or their sympathizers private residence burning crosses, to evade the law.

But, Mr. Phillips said, the government side finally prove that this practice constitutes unlawful assembly. He said that, in accordance with the laws of California, illegal assembly that is, more than two people together, is engaged in an activity to violence and riots way. Even if this activity seem legitimate, but the actual is an illegal assembly. Phillips also said, the riot is defined, to engage in the activities of itself may cause fear of others.

In addition, apart from California, Virginia, Cone Dick, Delaware, Florida and more than a dozen states and USA Washington has banned the burning of the law of the cross.

* Virginia 3K members cross burning case *

In 1998 May a day, Africa Americans Jubili in Virginia home's front yard found a 1 meter high charred cross. He knows this is someone in warning symbols 3K party, want to put them out of the community. This is their home neighbor white man Elliot. So, why does Elliot want to do? The original Jubili once complained to Elliot, Elliot's backyard often practice shooting guns, Elliot disaffected, so he and his other friend OMara at Zhu Bili's front lawn light cross. The Jubili family worried, finally moved out of the original community. Then Elliot was found guilty, his friend OMara has pleaded guilty, that is to say, he admitted that he broke the law, but to retain the challenge Virginia cross burning constitutional rights. However, in the case of the trial, the jury was not instructed, burning crosses itself can be used as a threatening motivation evidence, the appeals court upheld.

   Another case occurred in 1998 August, 3K party leader Black et al 3K Party rally held in a private outdoor space, set fire to a nearly 9 meters high cross. And the above case is different, the cross burning is a kind of public demonstrations, but not to someone. However, the pedestrian it to the surrounding neighbors and the road can see creates fear. Black was convicted of violating the Virginia banned the burning crosses of law in the trial court. Virginia state law, any person or persons interested in another person's private property, roads or other public places, with burning crosses or cause cross burned to intimidate any person or a group of people, will be regarded as illegal, and in violation of the provisions of 6 degree felony. The law also provides, the burning crosses will act as case evidence to scare someone or a group of people. Black finally found guilty. However, in the case of the trial, the jury was told that, burning crosses itself is enough to constitute his intention to intimidate others evidence.

* the Federal Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision *

   However, these two cases appealed to Virginia, the Supreme Court, the court by a majority of 4 than 3 overturned the judgment of the court of appeals. It thinks, burning crosses of symbolic speech, protection should be American First Amendment free speech clause, it is 3 people convicted of burning crosses. Virginia refuses the state, so the appeal, the two case finally to appeal to the Supreme Court to solve American. In December 11, 2002, America Federal Supreme Court to make an oral presentation on Virginia v. Black. In this case, the state of Virginia is the prosecution, Black is the representative of prosecution. In April 7, 2003, the federal supreme court affirmed the legality, Virginia banned the threatening cross burning method.
   O'Connor justice on behalf of the majority opinion statement points out, by the 3K Party organizations such as the manufacture of racial hatred burning crosses practices in USA origin for long, although some are not threatening information conveyed by burning burning crosses, but ten words out of motives are often let people receive information to worry about their own safety. OConnor said, the cross is a powerful means of intimidation, America First Amendment to the constitution to give people the right to free speech is not absolute.

   The only black justices to the Supreme Court Thomas also pointed out, the court did not even have to consider what is the meaning of the first amendment, because each state has the right to ban it as "a particularly vicious" behavior. He said, people do not like to express their political views and to seek protection of the first amendment as burned houses of others, those who hate others not to fear or intimidation to show their own point of view.

*3K party people face different verdicts *

For Elliot and OMara cross burning case, USA Federal Supreme Court instructed Virginia to the state Supreme Court decision according to the spirit of the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision on its original. However, the Supreme Court said no prohibited cross burning practices will be acceptable, such as Virginia, the Supreme Court overturned the guilty verdict 3K party leader Black, has been the Federal Supreme Court, reason is in the first trial of Black, the court of first instance had according to relevant laws Virginia instructed the jury said, burning crosses itself can be used as evidence to intimidate others case, the Federal Supreme Court think, this approach has the constitutional issues.

The most important motivation * * cross burning

George Tom professor of University of Washington law school. Diye Nash (Tom Dienes) analysis, the Federal Supreme Court said, although the first amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but when burning crosses the motive is to intimidate others, then states to ban burning crosses is constitutional.

But at the same time, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision, cross burning likely to intimidate others, or may not, therefore the burning crosses itself as the case evidence is inconsistent with the constitution. Therefore, people must prove that the cross burning people really intimidating motivation. Of course, how to determine how the real motive to someone burning crosses is not an easy thing, this is also the jurors are often encountered in the interrogation process problems. However, legal director of Kent American criminal law fund. Xie de (Kent Scheidegger) think, Virginia v. Black case shows that, the government can protect people against the threat of. He says, the case that the government can protect people against terrorist threats, but is not bound by the first amendment of restrictive interpretation. In this way, the criminal is not only claimed that he has the right to freedom of expression can escape legal sanctions.

* the Federal Supreme Court decision is very important

California lawyer Phillips further analysis of the importance of this case. He said: "we very much respect for freedom of speech, try not to make this right has been infringed. We think, if you violate a person the right to speak, could lead to violence. Therefore, we as far as possible tolerance. Only a constitutional right to free speech violations to the more important constitutional rights, such as people from fear and oppression of the constitutional rights are violated, the freedom of speech will be limited. Sue Black in the Virginia case, the Supreme Court has as little as possible on the freedom of speech, here is the symbol of freedom of speech restrictions, on the other hand, strive to be protected from fear and oppression of the constitutional rights of other people."