Dear George -

Regarding "Virginia Supreme Court Strikes Down Cross Burning Law" what purpose is there in setting aflame a cross other than intimidation? Comparing flag burning and cross burning (dissent against the government as opposed to racism) is like comparing apples and oranges. Who is being intimidated by the burning of the flag...? Against what are cross burners dissenting ... being born into a race of colour?

As I understand it, the law which was struck down contained language prohibiting the burning of a cross on another person¹s lawn. Does this mean that families do not retain the rights of private property? Presently, there is a case before the courts I believe in Connecticut where a woman is suing a group of teenagers for wrapping toilet tissue around her house. Horrors! Toilet tissue.

Burning a cross on another¹s lawn is tantamount to scribbling swastikas on the walls of a synagogue. Both are crimes of hate and bigotry, and have nothing to do with freedom of expression. At the least, these acts constitute vandalism and harassment.

I am shocked, saddened and angered that our Virginia Supreme Court would effectively rescind the progress we have made as a civilized society and I believe our Framers would have the same reaction to this insult to our Constitution and travesty of justice.

Sincerely,

Virginia Valentine Coles (electronic mail, November 10, 2001).

Editor's Note: According to my understanding of the law, families still retain the rights of private property. Assuming that someone burns a cross on someone else's property, one presumes that, at the very least, the offender will be charged with trespass.