Case Analysis Essay on Virginia v. Black: Cross Burning Illegality and Accountability

The case, Virginia v. Black (2003), is based on a decision by the court to hold the respondents guilty of violating the statute provision in Virginia. The rule termed the act of cross burring illegal, based on prima facie evidence. Whenever an individual burned a cross, it was seen as an act of sending a message of intimidation to other parties. That was against the law, and the individual would be held accountable, regardless of the motive of carrying out the activity (Schauer, 2003). To intimidate another person or group, a person engaging in cross-burning will be termed guilty for intimidation by the statute. However, the respondents disputed the court's decision and appealed. As a result, the law was termed as being in violation of the first amendment, which is based on free expression. However, the section terming it illegal to engage in cross burning was upheld. That was because it was because the cross-burning amounted to intimidation of other parties. After all, it implied the possibility of possible bodily harm. Prima facie evidence was the undoing of the statute because it contradicted the first amendment, whereby one was free to express themselves.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Various facts are highlighted in the case, which contributed to the decision by the court. First was the fact concerning the first amendment. It provided individuals with the freedom to express themselves as they liked. Moreover, the other point was about the provision of the Virginia statute, whereby one would be prosecuted based on prima facie evidence. That was violating the first amendment's clause of freedom of expression by individuals (Hartley, 2004). Thus, the fact that one would be held guilty for cross-burning based on prima facie evidence was termed as invalid. Moreover, there was a fact about intimidation, which was directed by one party to another. In the case, the act of cross burning amounted to intimidation; because it implied the intent of causing bodily harm to another individual. Those were the significant facts of the case, which determined the final ruling about it.

The questions brought before the court was about the validity of the Virginia statute that made it possible to prosecute an individual based on prima facie evidence. That had the effect of violating the right of an individual to express them. There was a possibility of an individual engaging in cross burning but without the intention of causing bodily harm to another person. The other fact was the intimidation associated with cross-burning, which was the basis of the Virginia statute. That was because cross burning had a long history of violence amongst people. It related to the Ku Klux Klan, which is associated with abuse of people towards others. Thus, the statute was meant to prevent the intimidation of an individual, which is based on reference to a cross burning, which is symbolic.

As a result of the petition by the respondent, there was a set of decisions by the court. First, was upholding the illegality of cross burning. That was because it was directly associated with intimidation. It caused anxiety and worry to other parties because of the likelihood of violence being directed to the other party. Thus, that was a violation of the rules and regulations as detailed in the statute. The other decision was terming the prima facie aspect of the law as invalid. That was because it violated the first amendment. One could have engaged in cross burning but without the primary aim of intimidating another individual. Thus, the prima facie aspect of the statute was invalidated by the court. The court's decision was meant to protect the welfare of the people, and also enhance freedom of expression. That was the reason why the statute was invalidated just partially.

The ruling by the court had various impacts on the issue of burning crosses and the freedom of expression by people. The significant impact the decision had was the protection of the freedom of expression among the people. That was detailed in the first amendment, where an individual was free to air their views. That was based on a strict regulation that their expression should not lead to the violation of any other law (Kahn, 2006). For example, one was free to engage in an activity such as burning bridges, provided there was an absence of intimidation by the person undertaking the action. The principal aim of the provision to prevent intimidation was to deter people from violating the rights of others. For example, an individual cannot engage in cross-burning so that they intimidate another party. When one engaged in such an activity in public, it was wrong, because it sent a negative message to other people. The role of the law is to protect the welfare of people and guarantee them the freedom to engage in essential activities such as free communication. Thus, by ruling the burning of crosses in public a violation of the law, it was meant to enhance the better welfare of people, free from intimidation.

The other perspective of the ruling was based on terming one as being guilty, based on prima facie evidence of cross burning. That was wrong, as it lacked the aspect of intent. The main reason why someone would be violating the law was because of infringing on the rights of another individual. One could be engaging in cross-burning without any harmful intentions but might end up being guilty of the offense. That was based on the first amendment, although it was not absolute. When engaging in any activity, its intention would be called into question. Free communication is essential for any community, but it should be carried out in a way that protects the welfare of others. The government, through statutes, is capable of regulating some communication that is inconsistent with the constitution. The statute's aspect of prima facie evidence was termed as a violation of the law because of the issue of intent. For an individual to be guilty of cross burning, it should be in public, or on the property of another person. Thus, that has the aspect of intimidation; and violates the constitution, as it implies the possibility of harming another individual in the long run.

However, although the ruling validated just part of the Virginia statute, it has a bit of controversy. That was because it confirmed just part of the statute, which created some bit of misunderstanding. That was about what constituted intimidation. An individual might engage in cross-burning without there being any target in mind. For example, they might be burning the cross for all reasons, but intimidation. However, that, based on this case, would be termed as illegal. That is because the cross burning in public is a sign of intimidation that is directed towards an individual (Gey, 2004). Moreover, there was a grey area in the aspect of free communication. Free communication, under the first amendment, was meant to enable people to express themselves freely. However, that was restricted to communication that is within the acceptable boundaries of the constitution. Some individuals might not feel intimidated by the cross-burning, while some might be. Differentiating the effect of cross burning among the two parties might be impossible. However, that possibility was not incorporated in the ruling.

Prima facie evidence and intimidation are the significant points that affect the verdict in this case. That was because the prima facie aspect of the statute made it be in violation of the first amendment. The first amendment, being superior to the statute, had the effect of invalidating that aspect and considering the element of intimidation, that made the act of cross burning illegal. That is because it created the impression of the likelihood of bodily harm to an individual. That violated the fundamental rights of an individual, thus making the court term cross burning in public, or on an individual's property illegal. Therefore, the statute was partially upheld, which was to protect the fundamental rights of people, through preventing their intimidation.

References

Gey, S. G. (2004). A few questions about cross burning, intimidation, and free speech. Notre Dame L. Rev., 80, 1287. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/tndl80&div=49&id=&page

Hartley, R. C. (2004). Cross Burning-Hate Speech as Free Speech: A Comment on Virginia v. Black. Cath. UL Rev., 54, 1. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cathu54&div=8&id=&page=

Kahn, R. A. (2006). Did the Burning Cross Speak? Virginia v. Black and the Debate between Justices O'Connor and Thomas over the History of Cross Burning. STUD. L. POL. & SOC'Y, 39, 75. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/271/virginia-v-black

Schauer, F. (2003). Intentions, conventions, and the first amendment: The case of cross-burning. The Supreme Court Review, 2003, 197-230. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/scr.2003.3536953?journalCode=scr