Dear George,

You have asked your readers to comment on cross-burning, free speech and intimidation. In particular, how would we respond to the question put to candidates at the November 8th forum: "In Virginia, there was a recent case involving someone burning a cross on their own property. Do you believe this was a matter of intimidation or free speech? Where does the line run for you between intimidation and free speech?"

The problem is that the question referred to a particular court case, and the facts of that case were not properly stated in the question. The case ruled on two separate and very different incidents. According to The Daily Progress (Nov. 3, p. B5): "One involved the burning of a cross at a Ku Klux Klan rally; the other involved an attempted burning in the back yard of a black person".

The State Supreme Court, in my view, made an egregious error in not ruling on each of these incidents separately. The United States Supreme Court has always paid very careful attention to the circumstances involved in free speech cases. The State Supreme Court seems to have overlooked those precedents.

As it now stands, the Virginia State law banning cross burning has been struck down, and we have retrogressed 50 years. African-American families are no longer protected from cross burning in their yards. This is an outrageous situation and should be remedied immediately. The Democratic party, including all candidates and elected officials of the party, should immediately take a clear stand on this issue. Cross burning that is directed against individuals has nothing to do with free speech. It is a fearsome form of intimidation that is intended to inflict psychological pain.

Democratic leaders must support an appeal of this egregiously faulty State Supreme Court decision. If that fails, they should immediately introduce new legislation that clearly defines the circumstances when cross burning may be permissible (at a KKK rally on a Klansman's property, for example) and when it is not to be allowed (when it is used to intimidate individuals and families on their properties).

David RePass (electronic mail, November 11, 2001).