Cross burning originated in Scotland, as a call to arms of sorts, where many Klan traditions originated (it ain't called the "Klan" for nothing.) Obviously, the meaning is now different.

Flag burning and cross-burning is not the easy call some people think it is. Burning a flag should not be illegal*, unless it would be illegal for other reasons (burning someone else's flag, or burning it on someone else's property.) If something simply being offensive was enough to get speech banned, there WOULD be no political speech. Certainly it should not be a Federal, or Constitutional issue.

As for cross-burning, is it just offensive speech, or a threat? Tricky question. A lot depends on circumstances. Display of a swastika is offensive to be sure, but it makes a difference whether you are wearing one on your biker jacket, or waving a flag with one in front of a synagogue. Painting it on a synagogue, or on a phone booth for that matter, is a crime.

First, we can assume we are talking about cross burning in a neutral location. Sticking a burning cross on someone's property without permission is a crime.

There is no doubt that as Thomas says, not too many years back the threat of such a display was blatant. A black person seeing a burning cross in the 1950s could bet his bottom dollar that worse things were going to happen to him shortly. The Klan did not burn a cross in your vicinity, and once having expressed an opinion, go home to leave you alone for the rest of the year.

What about now? Black people are much better defended than they used to be. I can think of few, if any, localities today where a group of men could dress up in sheets, hang a black guy, and waltz off scott-free like they used to. In other words, once the Klan burns a cross today, they really do have to go home and leave everyone alone.

So can a black person seeing a burning cross on a hill, not directed at him personally like a cross on his lawn might be, really make a case that he feels physically threatened? Not just offended? Does a Klan march down a city street give any different message than a burning cross? How? Is that protected?

What if the black guy lives in California? Is that different than if he lives in Mississippi? Is it more of a threat in one place than another?

What about other such displays? Is marching down the street with a black dummy hanging from a noose a threat? If so, a lot of protestors who have marched down the street with dummies of Bush hanging from a noose would be in trouble.

Easiest call would be to wash their hands of the whole issue, and say it's for locals to decide. I don't have any easy answers on this one.

But it's not exactly the same issue as flag-burning. Flag burning never had a history of personal menace behind it, and we shouldn't draw snap conclusions based on that equivalence.

*Wouldn't be smart to do it in front of me, though.