Talk:Virginia v. Black

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Freedom of speech Mid‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

True threat[edit]

I believe the proscribable category of the "true threat" existed prior to this case, and the language of the opinion of the court seems to bear me out on that. As I understand it, the crux of this case was not true threats, per se, but rather about the jury instructions indicating that the burning of a cross was prima facie evidence of "intent to intimidate" (which would constitute a true threat).

The ruling was that these jury instructions took the burden off the prosecution to prove "intent to intimidate", and that they were therefore unconstitutional. Juansmith 01:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the case for awhile, but I'm pretty sure you're correct. Feel free to make the proper corrections to the article. Postdlf 02:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will eventually; I just figured I'd mention it in case someone else didn't want to wait. I discovered this because I used Wikipedia to help me study for a constitutional law exam (making case flash cards and so forth), and the incorrect info about true threats caused me to get severely marked down on one of the short essay questions. Now that I (kinda) know the facts, I figure I should fix it, lest others suffer the same fate.Juansmith 07:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteenth amendment[edit]

At § Majority the discussion focuses on the Fourteenth Amendment, yet that term is only mentioned once in the case opinions (other than the title of the act that became 42 U.S.C. § 1983):

The First Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."

I also see that it references itself in the last sentence of the second-to-last paragraph. Is the section an accurate representation of the decision? If so, should "U.S. Const. amend. XIV" be added to the infobox LawsApplied param and Category:United States Fourteenth Amendment case law added? Also, move from Category:United States Free Speech Clause case law to the more specific sub-category Category:Overbreadth case law? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC) ed. 08:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]