Question

In Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment allows states to punish cross burning done with an intent to intimidate because such acts amount to:

a) Protected free speech
b) Symbolic expression
c) Incitement of violence
d) True threats

Answer 1

The Supreme Court's decision in Virginia v. Black allows states to penalize cross burning intended to intimidate, as it is classified as a 'true threat,' which is not protected by the First Amendment.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the Supreme Court case Virginia v. Black, the court ruled that the First Amendment allows states to punish cross burning done with an intent to intimidate because such acts amount to true threats. This decision acknowledges that while the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, it does not extend to actions that are intended to threaten or intimidate others. Cross burning, especially with the historical background related to the actions of the Ku Klux Klan, has been seen as an act of intimidation and thus, when done with the intent to intimidate, is not protected under the First Amendment.

The right to freedom of expression has limitations, and the Supreme Court has held that some forms of symbolic speech can be legislatively banned if they are threatening. While symbolic speech like flag burning may be protected, especially if it's political in nature, cross burning intended to intimidate is distinctly categorized among 'true threats,' which are not safeguarded by the First Amendment.