Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live At Daybreak
Legal Grounds: Morning Coffey
Aired December 11, 2002 - 06:40 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Let's talk about a case, a case that challenges what's in the Bill of Rights. Does the Constitution protect the right to burn a cross? The Supreme Court is hearing arguments this morning.
And we're going to talk about that right now with DAYBREAK legal analyst Kendall Coffey who joins us on the phone from Miami.
Good morning -- Kendall.
KENDALL COFFEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hey, good morning -- Carol.
COSTELLO: This is a tough issue.
COFFEY: Well, but the ugly history of cross burning has been marked by violence and intimidation going back to the first reported incidents in connection with a 1915 lynching. And so when the Supreme Court draws a line, or attempts to draw a line, between free speech and hate crimes, I think we can expect them to emphasize if people can use symbols to communicate ideas, even repugnant ones, but that the First Amendment will not protect tools of bigotry calculated to inflict threats and intimidation.
COSTELLO: Got you. You know I hate to even bring this up, but didn't the U.S. Supreme Court rule that you could burn the American flag?
COFFEY: Very controversial, very emotional case, even within the Supreme Court itself, a five to four decision in which the "Spar Spangled Banner" was quoted. But what is being said now is that cross burning in this case may be different from flag burning in the 1989 case because here the emphasis is that the action, the burning of the cross was intended to calculated, to intimate, to threaten, to basically create a fear of bodily injury in the part of innocent people.
COSTELLO: Which burning the flag does not. Intimidation is the key here. Now we do hear the Ku Klux Klan leader is going to testify. What do you think that he will say?
COFFEY: Well the Ku Klux Klan has been to the courts a bunch of times. What's happening today is actually an argument before the United States Supreme Court. It will be just lawyers talking in the courtroom and perhaps the KKK talking in a lot of places. They may see this as an attack on their political expression, which, repugnant as it is, is entitled to some protection. But I think it's a very clear issue of intimidation of threats. Cross burning has never stood for anything other than terror, intimidation and violence in this country.
COSTELLO: That's right, I did know that. So attorneys from both sides will argue before the judges, and they will render their decision hopefully soon so we know what the outcome will be -- Kendall.
COFFEY: Because it does impact on hate crimes throughout the country.
COSTELLO: That's right.
Kendall Coffey, thanks for your input this morning. We appreciate it.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired December 11, 2002 - 06:40 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Let's talk about a case, a case that challenges what's in the Bill of Rights. Does the Constitution protect the right to burn a cross? The Supreme Court is hearing arguments this morning.
And we're going to talk about that right now with DAYBREAK legal analyst Kendall Coffey who joins us on the phone from Miami.
Good morning -- Kendall.
KENDALL COFFEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hey, good morning -- Carol.
COSTELLO: This is a tough issue.
COFFEY: Well, but the ugly history of cross burning has been marked by violence and intimidation going back to the first reported incidents in connection with a 1915 lynching. And so when the Supreme Court draws a line, or attempts to draw a line, between free speech and hate crimes, I think we can expect them to emphasize if people can use symbols to communicate ideas, even repugnant ones, but that the First Amendment will not protect tools of bigotry calculated to inflict threats and intimidation.
COSTELLO: Got you. You know I hate to even bring this up, but didn't the U.S. Supreme Court rule that you could burn the American flag?
COFFEY: Very controversial, very emotional case, even within the Supreme Court itself, a five to four decision in which the "Spar Spangled Banner" was quoted. But what is being said now is that cross burning in this case may be different from flag burning in the 1989 case because here the emphasis is that the action, the burning of the cross was intended to calculated, to intimate, to threaten, to basically create a fear of bodily injury in the part of innocent people.
COSTELLO: Which burning the flag does not. Intimidation is the key here. Now we do hear the Ku Klux Klan leader is going to testify. What do you think that he will say?
COFFEY: Well the Ku Klux Klan has been to the courts a bunch of times. What's happening today is actually an argument before the United States Supreme Court. It will be just lawyers talking in the courtroom and perhaps the KKK talking in a lot of places. They may see this as an attack on their political expression, which, repugnant as it is, is entitled to some protection. But I think it's a very clear issue of intimidation of threats. Cross burning has never stood for anything other than terror, intimidation and violence in this country.
COSTELLO: That's right, I did know that. So attorneys from both sides will argue before the judges, and they will render their decision hopefully soon so we know what the outcome will be -- Kendall.
COFFEY: Because it does impact on hate crimes throughout the country.
COSTELLO: That's right.
Kendall Coffey, thanks for your input this morning. We appreciate it.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
