This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Virginia v. Black: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Black (a Ku Klux Klan member) burned a cross on private property with the consent of the owner in Virginia. | Black (a Ku Klux Klan member) burned a cross on private property with the consent of the owner in Virginia. | ||
|procedural_history=Black was criminally convicted of intent to intimidate because the jury instruction was that cross-burning itself established the intent to intimidate. | |||
|issues=Is cross-burning constitutionally protected under the [[First Amendment]] despite being a KKK practice or is cross-burning a true threat that may be legally restricted? | |issues=Is cross-burning constitutionally protected under the [[First Amendment]] despite being a KKK practice or is cross-burning a true threat that may be legally restricted? | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
Revision as of 15:44, January 7, 2023
| Virginia v. Black | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | April 7, 2003 |
Facts
A Virginia statute made cross-burning a prima facie evidence of the intent to intimidate with a racial bias.
Black (a Ku Klux Klan member) burned a cross on private property with the consent of the owner in Virginia.Procedural History
Black was criminally convicted of intent to intimidate because the jury instruction was that cross-burning itself established the intent to intimidate.
Issues
Is cross-burning constitutionally protected under the First Amendment despite being a KKK practice or is cross-burning a true threat that may be legally restricted?
