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 |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_text_source=Quimbee video summary" to "|source_type=Video summary |case_text_source=Quimbee") |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/virginia-v-black | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/virginia-v-black | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |source_type=Video summary | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 02:50, July 14, 2023
| Virginia v. Black | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | April 7, 2003 |
| Appealed from | Supreme Court of Virginia |
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.
The Supreme Court of Virginia overturned Black's conviction.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?
Holding
Cross burning isn't itself evidence of intent to intimidate.
Nevertheless, a state may enact a statute to prohibit cross burning if the act is carried out with the intent to intimidate.Rule
Cross burning as an exercise of political speech is okay.
Cross burning as a true threat intended to cause physical harm isn't allowed.
