| dbo:abstract
|
- Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that any state statute banning cross burning on the basis that it constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate is a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. 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". In the case, three defendants were convicted in two separate cases of violating a Virginia statute against cross burning. However, cross-burning can be a criminal offense if the intent to intimidate is proven. It was argued by former Solicitor General of Virginia, William Hurd. (en)
|
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 9124 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedate
|
- 0001-12-11 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:case
| |
| dbp:concurrence
|
- Stevens (en)
- O'Connor (en)
|
| dbp:concurrence/dissent
| |
| dbp:cornell
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-04-07 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:dissent
| |
| dbp:docket
| |
| dbp:findlaw
| |
| dbp:fullname
|
- Virginia v. Barry Elton Black, Richard J. Elliott, and Jonathan S. O'Mara (en)
|
| dbp:holding
|
- Virginia's statute against cross burning is unconstitutional because it places the burden of proof on the defendant to demonstrate that he has not intended the cross burning as intimidation. (en)
|
| dbp:joinconcurrence
|
- Rehnquist, Stevens, Breyer (en)
|
| dbp:joinconcurrence/dissent
|
- Thomas (en)
- Kennedy, Ginsburg (en)
|
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Breyer (en)
|
| dbp:justia
| |
| dbp:lawsapplied
| |
| dbp:litigants
| |
| dbp:loc
| |
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:opinionannouncement
| |
| dbp:oralargument
| |
| dbp:oyez
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:prior
| |
| dbp:subsequent
| |
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that any state statute banning cross burning on the basis that it constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate is a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. 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". In the case, three defendants were convicted in two separate cases of violating a Virginia statute against cross burning. However, cross-burning can be a criminal offense if the intent to intimidate is proven. It was argued by former Solicitor General of Virginia, William Hurd. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
| |
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- Virginia v. Barry Elton Black, Richard J. Elliott, and Jonathan S. O'Mara (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
