Boston Globe Berates Clarence Thomas and is Shown to be in Conflict with NY Times

How Long Must We Endure Travesty at Globe?

MassNews Staff
December 17, 2002

The lead Editorial in the Boston Globe yesterday berated Justice Clarence Thomas because he got emotional when discussing a case involving cross burnings.

But the Globe doesn't have even the support of its owner, the NY Times on this one. Justice Thomas thought that burning a cross was like a "fighting word" that would incite violence and, therefore, should not be included in the right to Free Speech.

Here's what incompetents at the Globe wrote in their lead paragraph under a headline, "Justice Thomas's Speech."

"Justice Clarence Thomas's uncharacteristic outburst in Supreme Court arguments on the constitutionality of cross burnings last week unnerved many supporters of free speech, including his colleagues on the bench."

Here's how the NY Times reported what happened at the U.S. Supreme Court. Would you recognize it as the same thing that the Globe wrote?

"The case, concerning a 50-year-old Virginia law, raised tricky questions of First Amendment doctrine, and it was not clear how the court was inclined to decide it - until Justice Clarence Thomas spoke. A burning cross is indeed highly symbolic, Justice Thomas said, but only of something that deserves no constitutional protection: the 'reign of terror' visited on black communities by the Ku Klux Klan for nearly 100 years before Virginia passed the law, which the Virginia Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a year ago.

"'A burning cross is 'unlike any symbol in our society,' Justice Thomas said.

"'There's no other purpose to the cross, no communication, no particular message,' he continued. ' It was intended to cause fear and to terrorize a population.'

"During the brief minute or two that Justice Thomas spoke, about halfway through the hour long argument session, the other justices gave him rapt attention. Afterward, the court's mood appeared to have changed. While the justices had earlier appeared somewhat doubtful of the Virginia statute's constitutionality, they now seemed quite convinced that they could uphold it as consistent with the First Amendment.

"Justice Thomas addressed his comments to Michael R. Dreeben, a deputy federal solicitor general who was arguing in support of Virginia's defense of its statute. But he did not have questions for Mr. Dreeben, who in any event agreed with him in nearly all respects. The threat of violence inherent in a burning cross 'is not protected by the First Amendment' but instead is 'prohibited conduct,' Mr. Dreeben had just finished arguing.

"Rather, Justice Thomas appeared driven to make the basis for his own position unmistakably clear.

"'My fear is you are actually understating the symbolism of and effect of the burning cross," he said, adding, 'I think what you're attempting to do is fit this into our jurisprudence rather than stating more clearly what the cross was intended to accomplish.'

"It was a gripping made-for-television moment - except, of course, for the fact that television cameras are not permitted inside the courtroom. Justice Thomas speaks in a rich baritone that is all the more striking for being heard only rarely during the court's argument sessions. His intervention, consequently, was as unexpected as the passion with which he expressed his view."

It's not difficult to understand why Thomas would feel emotional over the issue. If it were any other black judge, the Globe would be all-aquiver with sympathy for his feelings. But this newspaper shows no empathy with anyone who not in line with their strange view of the world.

How the New York Times's description of Justice Thomas compares with the sad, motley group at the Globe. How long must Massachusetts put up with this strange conglomeration of people?