Reply #118: I have not come to a conclusion [View All]

[plasticsundance]

The very fact that the law might be vague, may open it to interpretation for a future hearing/trial.

"Rather, a prohibition on true threats protects individuals from the fear of violence and the disruption that fear engenders, as well as from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur. R. A. V., supra, at 388. Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death. Respondents do not contest that some cross burnings fit within this meaning of intimidating speech, and rightly so. As the history of cross burning in this country shows, that act is often intimidating, intended to create a pervasive fear in victims that they are a target of violence. Pp. 11-14."


I would think a swastika is more likely to bring about the disruption of fear for a Holocaust survivor, as opposed to the word fuck. Just because the Court ruled on burning crosses, does not mean the law will not set precedent for future cases.

Neither you or I will know until it is tested in the court of law.