After the Southern Poverty Law Center scandal of actually funding and encouraging racist protests, it appears that at least one individual has created his own orchestrated racist incident. In Chicago (where Jussie Smollett committed his infamous racist hoax), a burning cross was denounced by Mayor Brandon Johnson as a sign of the racism in society. Johnson, however, refused to address the fact that the cross burning was actually the work of an anti-Trump liberal student. University of Illinois senior Merlin Lu said it was never intended as a racist symbol, but the question is whether it could still be charged as a hate crime.
In posting a reward for the culprit soon after the incident, Rev. Michael Pfleger declared that “this bold rise of racism must be condemned by every race, faith community, and Chicagoan as was done with the swastika and treated as a hate crime.”
It turns out that this was not evidence of the rise of racism but another possible hoax. Lu bizarrely claimed that he was unaware that a burning cross had racist connotations and insisted that there was no racist message intended.
Others suspected that this was a type of false-flag effort to outrage the left.
Johnson later denounced the incident as a “symbol of hatred is one that we must continue to reject, and I wholeheartedly reject it. I can’t speak to anyone’s motives; I can only speak to the impact, and the impact was devastating.”
It seems curious that Johnson would not “speak to motives” when he knows that this was set by a leftist radical.
The question is whether it is still a hate crime under Illinois law. Under Section 12-7.1, the law states:
(a) A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, citizenship, immigration status, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he or she commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, intimidation, stalking, cyberstalking, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action, disorderly conduct, transmission of obscene messages, harassment by telephone, or harassment through electronic communications as these crimes are defined in Sections 12-1, 12-2, 12-3(a), 12-7.3, 12-7.5, 16-1, 19-4, 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 25-1, 26-1, 26.5-1, 26.5-2, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of Section 12-6, and paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(5) of Section 26.5-3 of this Code, respectively.
The notable language is “regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors.” The inclusion of property damage could allow a charge to be brought.
The case could rekindle the debate over intent for threats. Many professors and pundits on the left have long argued that the standard should be how a message is received rather than how it is intended. That issue arose in the decision in Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), concerning the standard for the “true threats” exception to the First Amendment. In an opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court reversed the conviction. While rejecting an “objective” standard, the Court declared that such cases had to be based on evidence of the defendant’s state of mind under a “subjective standard.” Accordingly, the government must prove recklessness, but not necessarily intent: “The State must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.”
Recklessness would be a dangerous standard for the defense of Merlin Liu. He insists that he was entirely clueless about what a burning cross represents in our culture. Yet, if Chicago does not bring a hate crime charge, it could be cited in future cases in suggesting that intent or “motivating factors” do matter in such cases.
I have favored stronger scienter or intent standards in true threat cases. It seems like a hate crime should, at a minimum, also be based on an intent to cause such alarm or fear. That does not mean that Liu’s defense of ignorance will work. However, in my view, prosecutors should have to show more than how others perceive a protest.
Unlike Johnson, the prosecutors and the Court will have to “speak to motivations” before this case is concluded.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
It all depends on who you hate.
The Chicago cross-burner apparently hates Christians.
Is that Jussie prosecutor still in charge there? Kim what’s-her-name?
No matter. A new Jussie prosecutor may be in place, but meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
In Chicago, terrorizing Christians will be treated as hate speech. In Chicago, the cross-burner won’t be charged with anything at all.
That’s the Chicago way.
Forget democracy, Dumocrats support anarchy.
Well, reading this, https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/person-of-interest-in-grant-park-cross-burning-incident-in-custody-police-say/3949302/
seems the kid knew what it meant but in his . . . hate of Trump, Christian nationalist supporters whoever they are, he thought burning a cross with a red MAGA hat on it, everyone would see it as an insult to Trump and . . . Christian nationalist supporters.
The way Johnson is framing it, is not reflecting what the kid said.
I would question the kid’s mental stability.
Right, the Mayor’s perception is enough for prosecution for state law? Can 1A be used as a defense, Justice Kagan?
He set the tree on fire.
senseless
senseless act
senseless artifact of days past long-ago
senseless association to Chicago’s civil rights traditions
Just plain senseless
Possibly senseless, possibly not. As PT points out, it could be a false flag operation – a hoax à la Jussie Smollet.
Yes. @oldmanfromkansas. Simply another message strategy. It would be surprising to discover this incident was anonymously reported by unverifiable source (or through a “respected journalist’s source”) and submitted to the FBI as an Epstein complaint as the act was actually committed by POTUS and therefore POTUS should be impeached and hung on a cross. You get to guess whether it was envisioned by Pritzker or Jeffries. To sophisticated for my humble intelligence just not to accept the message “hate everyone I tell you to”.
“the Southern Poverty Law Center scandal of actually funding and encouraging racist protests”
I’m sure the Professor will provide evidence of this and not suggest that funding infiltrators into an organization is being supportive. That idea would indicate the CIA was a communist agency.
Read more and stop watching MSDNC
It’s been in the news for two months. SPLC gave $4,000,000 to hate groups, so they could raise money from donors by portraying those groups as a danger. Also, at least one SPLC staffer involved in this fraudulent scheme was in a romantic relationship with one of the hate group recipients – yuck!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-expands-indictment-splc-alleging-4m-secretly-funneled-kkk-extremist-groups
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyrkd022ejo
So SPLC, and its staff, can be charged with hate crimes.
I think all hate crime laws should be expunged [see what’s happening in the UK] but as long as they are on the books I enjoy seeing the people who clamored for their adoption being broken on that particular wheel.
Allegation? From Rupert Murdoch?
“secretly paying informants” seems to be the totality of the payments. Hardly supporting the hate groups when infiltrating them to get damaging information. As I said, the CIA does the same thing, but no one accuses them of supporting Putin.
This is weaponization of the Justice Department to get the SPLC to pull back from exposing the hate-groups which support the Republicans in general and Trump in particular.
What an indictment to have romantic feelings for someone risking being killed in order to get damaging intel on terrorists. Certainly nothing a Republican or Libertarian would ever risk.
I didn’t realize the BBC was controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Moron.
Burn Sites In The News
Black smoke from a burning oil refinery filled the Moscow sky. The city’s four airports were urgently closed. And part of the busy highway that rings the Russian capital, a metropolis of 13 million people, was shut down.
As Ukraine escalated its effort to bring the war home for Russians, the strikes on Thursday appeared to be the largest drone attack on the Russian capital since President Vladimir V. Putin launched the war more than four years ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/18/world/europe/moscow-ukraine-drone-attack-fire.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
………………………………………….
More than a year ago, Trump told Zelensky that the latter ‘had no cards to play’. Trump, working on Putin’s behalf, was demanding Ukraine’s surrender. Thank God Zelensky had the fortitude to soldier on without Trump. If only the U.S. had a leader of Zelensky’s stature!
is the gerbil with you now?
That’s Estovir above reminding us that he’s gay. But Estovir posted this on the wrong thread. Estovir meant to post this on the California column about gays and renewable energies. Oh well– One has to admire Estovir’s passion for promoting gay myths.
^ The moron who thinks everyone else is named Estovir ^
Estovir employs many unpronounceable names. But his signature is the stifling banality that builds, like layers of soot, from the dozens of comments he posts each day.
Trump was correct a year ago – Zelensky grasped what Trump said – and with significant help from Trump – and less from the EU – Zelensky now has more cards to play.
Zelensky could have had peace a year ago – it would have been a costly peace – but peace nonetheless. And even the cost – Russia’s decline is inevitable. Whatever Zelensky had to give up for peace a year ago – Ukraine would have gotten back eventually Russia is in significant decline – Ukraine is not.
Regardless in the past year – Zelensky has improved Ukraine Drone capability, reduce costs extended range and boosted production.
He has targeted Russian oil and brought the cost of the war home to the russian people.
Trump has targeted Russia’s shadow fleet, isolated Russia’s allies – Venezuella, Cuba, Iran, China.
Eliminated Iran as a munitions supplier for Russia – Iran produced 40% of Russia’s munitions – Drones and artillery shells.
Russia increasingly has a shortage of men, shells, drones, tanks, while increasingly Ukraine has more of all of the above.
Ukraine is in a far better poosition today than it was last year – partly because of Zelensky – partly because of Trump
80% of Irans military industrial complex has been destroyed. It is going to be years before Iran has weapons to sell to anyone.
This is Trump’s doing you idiot.
While China is not a major supplier to Russia – nor a major consumer of Russian oil – even China is more distanced from the Ukraine conflict than it was last year.
Russia more than ever is alone in the world – its economy is slowly coming apart and its people appear to be getting restive.
The Ukraine War was always a war of attrition with the odds favoring Russia in the long run.
In the past year Trump Zelensky and the west have worked to shift those odds in Zelensky’s favor – it is now a war of attrition that Russia will likely lose.
But all this came at a cost – between 300-450,000 Ukrainians have been killed in the past year.
You tell me – how many million Ukrainians is an immediate victory against Putin worth – when Ukraine wins in the long run as Russia slowly fails ?
You left wing nuts can not see the nose in front of your face.
It was OBVIOUS to most of us as Trump ramped up conflict with Venezuela that Russia and the Ukraine war was a significant side benefit.
It was even MORE obvious as Trump isolated Cuba and went after Iran – that this was NOT just about Iran – it was about Russia, and peace int he WHOLE Mideast and it was also about China.
You want to debate whether the conflict with Iran was a good idea – we can have that debate. But if you are ignoring its impact OUTSIDE of Iran – you are a moron.
Left wing MSM is ranting that whatever this current deal is – it is no better than the JCPOA. Missing the entire point – the “deal” does not matter.
What matters is that Iran – and the world, knows that if Iran does not play nice in the world – WE WILL BE BACK.
The core problem with the JCPOA was that Iran violated the crap out of it and there were no consequences – they got all the benefits and complied with none of the restrictions.
Whatever the deal that has been signed – will be signed, DOES NOT MATTER.
What matters is that for as Long as Trump or someone like him is president – Iran is going to behave – or WE WILL BE BACK.
The Iran conflict was extremely SUCCESSFUL – even if there was no deal.
The US did $1T in damage to Iran – primarily to the IRGC, their leadership and their ability to use force to influence their neighbors.
For years Irans ability to produce and export arms has been severly dimminished.
And US casualties were very Low.,
Contra the left Trump did NOT promise no new wars. He promised no forever wars, he promised no wars that were not in US interests and he promised to value the lives of US military very highly.
Trump has been excercising US HARD POWER in Venezuella, in Iran to a lessor extent in Cuba. He has done so very effectively – inflicting significant damage on our enemies at Negligable cost in US lives. These conflicts have REAL fiscal costs – but they also have real long term fiscal benefits for the US.
The gulf nations are unified as never before. They are also unified WITH ISRAEL as never before – while the US MIGHT have to return if Iran misbehaves.
More likely it will be Irans neighbors – the Gulf States and Israel that keep Iran in line in the future.
With absolute certainty within 18 months the Straights of Hormuz will no longer be a global economic choke point.
The Saudis and the UAE were able to export 50% of wehat normally flows through the gulf during this conflict in the pipelines that cross the arabian peninsula.
They are actively working on more pipelines – more accross the penensula – and now they are talking about Pipelines to the mediterainian – through Israel.
Oman is talking about a Canal bypassing the straits of Hormuz. Many many many solutions to the problems this war exposed are already in the works.
Further – through this the Gaza Cease file HELD. That is huge.
Israel is in the process of destroying Hezbolla as a threat to the peace and stability of Lebanon and the region. Syria is a MESS – but it is no longer a conduit for Iran to supplyu Hezbolla – and frankly Iran is not going to be supplying anyone for a very long time.
It is hard for you left wing nuts to grasp that – but there is the greatest possibility of a stable lasting peace in the mideast – than there has ever been.
The govenrment in Lebanon is working with Israel to take out Hezbolla.
The purpose of wars is to bring about Peace – not peace deals – actual peace.
John Say, you’re all over the map. No one can offer a rebuttal to someone who keeps whirling like runaway merry-go-round.
What about the “dual loyalty” folks (only when it comes to Israel) but “whatever it takes” for Ukraine is just…what, okay, or a our rights to have normal preferences for one culture or system of governance over another?
John Say, is wrong as usual. Good grief. So much chaff to deal with.
He is completely disconnected from real-world logistics, intelligence data, and basic geography, relying instead on political hyperbole and invented statistics to fabricate a narrative of absolute victory. The most glaring error is your claim that “Oman is talking about a canal bypassing the straits of Hormuz.” Geographically, the Strait of Hormuz is formed by Iran on one side and Oman on the other; you cannot build a canal through Oman to bypass the Strait because Oman is the southern choke point. Any vessel exiting the Persian Gulf would still lead directly into the exact same waters.
Furthermore, your military and economic metrics are flatly contradicted by declassified data and intelligence reports. While targeted strikes did damage specific Iranian drone and air-defense facilities, CIA and independent audits confirm that Iran preserved over 70% of its prewar missile arsenal in fortified underground networks. Similarly, your claim that regional pipelines will completely replace the Strait of Hormuz in “18 months” is a logistical impossibility. Expanding cross-peninsula energy corridors to absorb the Gulf’s massive daily crude capacity requires decades and trillions of dollars, not a year and a half.
Finally, your assertion that 300,000 to 450,000 Ukrainians were killed in the past year is completely fabricated. Independent wartime tracking organizations estimate total Ukrainian combat fatalities across the entire multi-year war to be between 100,000 and 140,000; your inflated number actually mirrors total Russian casualties. Real hard power and international diplomacy require navigating actual topography and verified intelligence, not stringing together geographic myths and inflated battlefield numbers to score cheap partisan points online.
Trump made things worse when he stupidly chose to attack iran on behalf of Israel. Now he wants to get out of it as fast as possible because it’s hurting him at home more than the Iranians are dealing with the war. He’s proved to be a total moron and an incompetent “negotiator in chief”. It’s an embarrassment. Republicans will no doubt be looking for excuses for all those billions of dollars and wasted resources for getting absolutely nothing out of it.
“John Say, is wrong as usual. “
Dealing with one point, John Say is correct, as he almost always is while George Svelaz X is almost always wrong. The point where ships are most vulnerable is at that tiny part of Oman that sticks into the straits. Bypassing that jutout gets ships past the chokehold.
George Svelaz X is almost always wrong, but sometimes a portion of his data is correct. Everyone stay away from grabbing onto anything he says.
If one thinks a ship is endangered by Iran in the Strait, wait until a very long and narrow pipeline is built as a giant target, not to mention the port where the oil is transferred to ships.
John Say suffers from the poor quality of education he got in Moscow schools before being hired to the group that uses that identifier to publish their propaganda.
John Say – stop taking psychedilic drugs before writing revisionist history. There are hundreds of videos of Trump saying “no wars” and they don’t include any qualifiers that would change that. He could have said the US will go to war for US interests, but “No Wars” has no exceptions.
The US extended war in Vietnam, far past the point when winning or a draw was possible; lasting peace happened when the US quit.
Peace in the Middle East will happen when Israel stops attacking neighbors and holding millions of Arabs as hostages to be tortured.
Trump is as ridiculous there as he is turning $300B over to Iran in order to escape from the trap that Netanyahu built for the US.
This is what happens when White Supremacist Nationalist organization is running the White House.
It’s time to play guess who the Jew is
Recklessness would be a dangerous standard for the defense of Merlin Liu. He insists that he was entirely clueless about what a burning cross represents in our culture.
That doesn’t make sense to me. If Liu was clueless about the meaning of a burning cross, then he didn’t consciously disregard a substantial risk that his communication would be viewed as threatening. It would be on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did have a conscious understanding of the threatening nature, and chose to disregard it. So it’s not a “dangerous” standard but a favorable standard for the defense.
OMFK – this is bad conduct. But the law Turley cites is inapplicable – because it would be unconstitutional if it was.
The Speech part of these bad acts is PROTECTED SPEECH – absolutely it is BAD SPEECH but even bad speech is protected.
Whatever the alleged “threat” of burning a cross – it does NOT meet the Brandengberg standard – it is not a clear and immediate incitement to near certain violence.
Vague threats are BAD speech – they are not criminal speech.
Prosecute the guy for illegally setting a fire. If you can prove that fire risked serious damage to life or property – you can charge arson.
Otherwise – the right response to bad speech is more speech.
This was a huge mistake by those on the left.
It is another instance of crying wolf when their is no wolf.
It is an “own goal”
Settle for the fact that the left stabbed themselves in the back.
JS – in Virginia v. Black (2003), the Supreme Court dealt with a state law making it a crime to burn a cross in public or on another’s property. The problem with that law was that it flipped the presumption: it gave the defendant the burden to prove lack of intent to indimidate. The court invalidated the law on that basis. It did not suggest that any and all laws punishing the act of cross burning intended as a threat were invalid. In Counterman v. Colorado (2003), the court held that the state must prove at least a reckless mens rea to sustain a threat conviction; anything lower would violate 1A.
From these two decisions, it’s clear that a law that punishes cross burning specifically intended as a threat of violence – or perpetrated with a reckless mens rea as to the threatening nature of the communication – would pass 1A scrutiny.
As a general matter I agree with you: the government may not restrict speech based on its message or ideas. But it is hornbook law that expressive rights are not absolute, and so 1A has been held not to protect such things as true threats, fighting words, incitements to imminent lawlessness, obscenity, child pornography, fraud, conspiracy, copyright violations, defamation, and the like. The limitation on 1A that is most relevant to today’s topic is true threats. I’m not saying anything about hate speech. If you have information about Scotus decisions on that topic, I’m all ears.
Others suspected that this was a type of false-flag effort to outrage the left.
No, couldn’t be! /sarc
The Left is one giant hate factory. To keep manufacturing the hate, they need a steady supply of racism. The aquifers have run dry, and thus, the demand for racism exceeds its supply. So they now have to manufacture that too.
Come On Man – it was still a WHITE GUY, right? They are all the same – liberal, conservative, lover, hater, wokie, MAGA. They are all bad folk, right? Gotta come out swinging first and hit anything you feel like before the facts – don’t need no stinking facts when the TRIGGER is right there and the DEVIL MADE US DO IT, right? Bah haha – welcome to the culture of violence in CHI-TOWN Baby!@!!!
This kid is supposed to be an excellent student in both high school and college and did not think for a moment burning a cross in Chicago might be a bad idea?
Really got to question public education and higher education.
he’s fully qualified to be hired by some Chicago NGO, if not the Johnson regime itself
Chicago breeds these types and rewards them
As Nassem Talib says IYI – intellectual yet idiot.
Once again Mayor Brandon Johnson proves he is a moron with a capital M.
Kudos to Mr. Freeman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRzd7SknVrQ
FACT: America is the least racist country in the world. We have so little racism that in order to race-bait-for-votes these loonies have to make their own racism so they have anything at all to point to. And these clowns imagine it will surely work and not backfire and double down when exposed. Talk about the barbara streisand effect. And they need an autopsy to tell them where they went wrong??
Good obervations.
“Johnson, however, refused to address the fact that the cross burning was actually the work of an anti-Trump liberal student.”
It does not matter what the political status of the student is. The law does not care whether you’re a right-wing bigot or a leftist with misguided intentions. The law only focuses on the actions, not the political leanings of the individual. Professor Turley gripes about Johnson not acknowledging this was the work of an anti-Trump liberal only because he wants to lay blame on the ‘leftists’. It’s not about the crime which is the real issue.
A hate crime is defined by the objective nature of the act and its intent to intimidate a specific demographic. It’s the conduct and accompanying intent the law requires for a charge. It literally doesn’t care whether the accused is a liberal or a conservative nut-job.
It was a stupid idea by this student and clearly he’s being prosecuted accordingly. The only reason this is being brought up is because it gives Turley an excuse to lay blame on the ‘left’ to fan some rage and mindless accusations for MAGA to consume. It’s pretty obvious.
Johnson is not discussing the law here, he’s playing politics to avoid the fact that the alleged is a left wing loon. What’s actually obvious is your own hatred for the right in commenting as you have.
What hatred? What have I said that is hateful towards the right in this comment?
Pointing out the mayor just stated it was a racist act. Which is correct since burning crosses are synonymous with racism from the south. Right? It doesn’t matter what the political leaning of the accused is. The act is the crime. Seems like the need to bash the left by laying blame on the act is more important than the fact that the accused is being prosecuted for the crime as he should.
Npo X it is NOT a racist act – you and the mayor are lying. Pointing out that KKK cross burning in the south is racist – is fine.
But a cross burning is only actually racist – if those burning the cross are racially motivated. Motivation does not matter with respect to whether something is a crime. – but racism is NOT a crime. But it is immoral. This is a form of fraud – not criminal fraud – but fraud nonetheless – it is a hoax.
I do not think this act is a crime – atleast not the crime Turely cites. because if this act meets the requirements of that law – then the law is unconstitutional.
This act is an act of free expression – it is without any doubt BAD SPEECH, it is a LIE, A HOAX, but it is not a crime – or atleast not the specific crime Turley cites.
It may be disorderly conduct, it may be property damage, it may be risking a catastrophe, it may be arson – note each of those have no Ideological component.
That does NOT mean a crime can not be committed for ideological reasons – just that ideology does not make an otherwise bad but legal act into a crime.
Why is racism immoral, JS?
Turley did not “gripe” about anything. Turley correctly observed that Johnson dishonestly linked the cross burning to anti-black racism. There is NOTHING in this particular case to support that.
Johnson has proven he is a dishonest left wing politician trying to exploit the cross burning for his own political gain. He sacrificed whatever credibility he had. No person should trust anything he says. Ever.
That’s worth knowing. Good on Turley for acknowledging it.
He did gripe. He was griping about the lack of acknowledgment that the perpetrator was a left-wing nut. Johnson only mentioned the cross burning as racism. Because historically and accurately burning crosses are directly linked to the KKK’s form of intimidation on black folks. You know…being anti-black.
Johnson correctly pointed out the racist tone of the conduct. Is that not what we want him to acknowledge. To you is it a racist symbol to burn a cross given the clear history of the practice? Because a burning cross is universally synonymous with the south and its ugly racist past. No?
Are you griping about the way Turley writes his columns?
Are you griping about your idea that Turley is trying to “lay blame on the ‘left’ to fan some rage and mindless accusations for MAGA to consume?”
Or are you REALLY just griping because we perceive you to be an ignorant, vengeful phony legal know-it all that you are, and call you out for it?
Nope, I’m critical of his misleading claims which is fair game.
You can rebut my comments anytime, but it seems when you can’t you resort to insults. Thereby making my comments correctly critical of his claims.
Turley is not misleading.
Every day posters rebut your comments AND insult them – sometimes in the same phrase. Thjat would be because your comments are shallow, and poorly thoguht out
As an example you repeatedly use history to generalize that all burning crosses are racist.
That is false – because the first burning cross was racist but had no history,
and because the burning cross is the official symbol of the united methodist church and has been likely longer than the KKK existed.
The combination of flames and other christian symbols is COMMON religious iconography – flames are one of the symbols of the holy spirit and the cross is a christian symbol of the suffering and redemption of christ.
While it is unlikely that Lu was seeking to draw on United Methodist immagery – my POINT is that YOU spew false generalization all the time.
The history of burning crosses in the south does not AUTOMATICALLY make all burning crosses racist. More is needed.
John say, wrong on the symbolism and history.
“ As an example you repeatedly use history to generalize that all burning crosses are racist.
That is false – because the first burning cross was racist but had no history,
and because the burning cross is the official symbol of the united methodist church and has been likely longer than the KKK existed.
The combination of flames and other christian symbols is COMMON religious iconography – flames are one of the symbols of the holy spirit and the cross is a christian symbol of the suffering and redemption of christ.”
The Second Ku Klux Klan officially adopted the practice of burning crosses on November 25, 1915, when William J. Simmons lit a wooden cross on fire atop Stone Mountain, Georgia.
Conversely, the official logo of the United Methodist Church (UMC) was created in 1968 following the merger of the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church, and registered as a trademark in 1971. The KKK’s deployment of a burning cross as a weapon of racial terror predates the UMC symbol by 53 years.
Speaking of spewing false generalizations, you take the cake John, you’ve been shown to be constantly wrong.
Lu told NBC 5 in an interview on Monday that his target was not a racial group, but rather supporters of President Trump, whom he described as “MAGA Christian nationalist supporters”.
He placed a red baseball cap atop the cross, the central symbol of christianity, and set it ablaze.
Quote” I don’t want to wait until the term ends. I don’t want to wait until he may or may not get impeached. I want him gone right now”.
Yes Johnson correctly pointed out the racist tone of this fool’s conduct but he conveniently failed to point out that the racist tone was directed at whites.
“Johnson only mentioned the cross burning as racism. Because historically and accurately burning crosses are directly linked to the KKK’s form of intimidation on black folks. You know…being anti-black.”
And Johnson is incorrect – That historically some act is typically associated with something – such as racism – does NOT mean that all of the same act are racism.
That is a false generalization. and a category error.
“Johnson correctly pointed out the racist tone of the conduct. ”
Is Lu a racist ? If not then this act is not racism.
While you can argue that Lu is actually racist – that his intent was to stir up racial animus
I doubt you are prepared to accept that today the primary font of racism is from the left.
“Is that not what we want him to acknowledge. ”
We want him to acknowledge the truth – that this was NOT an act by non-existant white racists, but a hoax by racist left wing nuts.
“To you is it a racist symbol to burn a cross given the clear history of the practice?”
Was the first cross burning racist ? When the KKK burned their first cross – there was no clear history or practice – yet petty sure that the people with the burning cross on their front yard got the message.
“Because a burning cross is universally synonymous with the south and its ugly racist past. No?”
No. there are specifics that are important.
“The insignia of The United Methodist Church is a cross linked with a dual flame, a powerful reminder of who we are in Christ. It relates the United Methodist church to God through Christ—the cross—and the Holy Spirit—the flame, a reminder of Pentecost when witnesses were unified by the power of the Holy Spirit and saw “tongues, as of fire” in Acts 2:3.”
https://toppng.com/uploads/preview/united-methodist-church-vector-logo-free-115740214246zweua63gd.png
As I have said before – and to some extent you choose to repeat today – an act is either a crime or it is not – without regard for intent.
That said an act that is NOT a crime can be a good act or a bad act – based on intent – which we often judge by Context.
“It does not matter what the political status of the student is.”
Correct
“The law does not care whether you’re a right-wing bigot or a leftist with misguided intentions.”
Correct – aparently you have actually been READING my responses to your posts.
Intentions do not matter – a crime is a bad act – the only intention needed to be a crime is the intent to do something bad.
“The law only focuses on the actions, not the political leanings of the individual. ”
Correct.
Why do I feel like I an reading my posts to you ?
“Professor Turley gripes about Johnson not acknowledging this was the work of an anti-Trump liberal only because he wants to lay blame on the ‘leftists’. ”
The the perpitrator is on the left is irrelevant to whether the action was a crime and should be prosecuted
Personaly it appears the Law turley cites is unconstitutional – but there is definitely a disorderly conduct charge here – possibly a destruction of property charge,
this MIGHT meet the elements of an ARSON charge. In my state there is a “risking a catastrophe” crime – while that is often abused – it fits these actions.
The political orrientation fo the bad actor is not relevant to prosecution.
But it is relevant to puiblic debate. The response to bad speech is more speech – and it is necescary to speak out about this fraudulent attempt to false flag racism.
It is also necescary to speak out about public officials who are blind to the political nature of this violence.
Further we can not properly target law enforcement against the likely future perpetrators of ideologically motivated crimes – unless we understand which ideologies are truly violent.
“It’s not about the crime which is the real issue.”
No the crime is AN ISSUE – it is NOT the only issue.
Motivation is not relevant to prosecuting this.
It is relevant to public discourse and to the future allocation of resources to prevent bad acts in the future.
“A hate crime is defined by the objective nature of the act and its intent to intimidate a specific demographic.”
Incorrect – hate is NOT a crime. The intent required to commit a crime – as opposed to an act of negligence is to KNOW that you are doing Bad.
You need not know it is a crime – ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Further Juries like prove of specific intent – because we do not like to beleive people commit crimes for no reason – but specific intent is not required.
The Law Turley cites is inargyuably unconstitutional as applied to this case – it is arguably unconstitutional on its face as are all so called hate crime laws.
Hate it not a crime ACTS are – even YOU said that repeatedly in your post.
The term “hate crimes” is more left wing nut idiotic word play intended to confuse people, so that we end up like the EU and UK where hate actually is a crime – or more accurately specific types of hate that the left does not like.
” It’s the conduct and accompanying intent the law requires for a charge. It literally doesn’t care whether the accused is a liberal or a conservative nut-job.”
Again correct. But it does matter as part of the public discourse. It does matter with respect to targeting resources – both those of govenrment and even our own individually where violence is most likely.
It matters NOT to the prosecution of the crime, but to the future decisions we make – both as a government and as individuals to keep us safe.
The failure of the Mayor to understand the ideological source of the problem means his jhudgement is either poor or biased and that goes to his competence at his job.
“It was a stupid idea by this student and clearly he’s being prosecuted accordingly. The only reason this is being brought up is because it gives Turley an excuse to lay blame on the ‘left’ to fan some rage and mindless accusations for MAGA to consume. It’s pretty obvious.”
Correct – minus the spin. Absolutely Turley is using this as an example of the idiocy and immorality of the left.
A right wing nut burning a cross to terrorize blacks is a bad thing
But a left wing nut conducting a false flag cross burning is WORSE in MANY ways.
It deceives people into beleiving there is a much larger racism problem then their is.
It is a hoax and it is immoral. Falsely casting those you dislike in a bad light – is sometimes a crime, but is ALWAYS immoral.
It misdirects public and private resources.
I’ve never understood racist symbology. It makes no sense to me. I understand it’s meant to be racist intimidation, but a cross is a christian symbol, and the KKK are supposed to be hardcore christian, but wouldn’t burning a christian symbol be an insult to christianity? Just like all the upset when that guy burned a Qu’ran. It’s like “I hate you so much I’m burning my own religious symbol at you!” If there wasn’t so much violence associated with it, it’d almost be a Monty Python sketch.
Then there’s the “fried chicken and watermelon” thing. Fried chicken is a staple food for a good chunk of the country (of all races) and everyone loves watermelon. So how is “You eat delicious food!” an insult? I get that it is designed to be, but I just don’t understand it.
The flaming cross was often set fire to on the front yards of Black Americans to let them know that their house would be next to burn if they didn’t leave. If it was just a stick it would not be so impressive; if it was more complicated it would take more time to jam into the ground.
“Lu bizarrely claimed that he was unaware that a burning cross had racist connotations and insisted that there was no racist message intended.”
He’s a senior at the University of Illinois.
If he didn’t know, it’s an indictment of modern “education.” If he did know, and concocted a hoax, it’s a double-indictment of modern “education.”
BTW, if he didn’t know, why did he put MAGA hats on top of the cross?
False flag operation?
Maybe he didn’t know. Kids these days have a barely any clue about our history and the symbols of racism like burning crosses in the south. Heck most MAGA nuts don’t know how a bill is passed or how many branches of government we have. Gen Z is even worse. Lu likely, genuinely didn’t know burning a cross had deep racist meaning.
X, LU openly admitted that he readily knew that ” burning a cross had deep racist meaning.”
His words, verbatim,”“I did know about this historical relevance beforehand.” https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/chicago-grant-park-cross-burning-student-protest-b2997279.html
He denied his cross was against Blacks. Instead, he said he “was protesting the ‘ruling class’ and Christian nationalists who support Trump. He said he put a red MAGA hat on the cross.” (‘race’ qualified under the statute, but ‘religion’ under the statute did not include “Christian nationalists?”)
Are KKK studies essential to a university education? With a name like Lu, he’s probably an engineering student who knows all about differential equations and quantum chemistry.
He wasn’t creative enough to fashion an orange mop for his Trump effigy, so a red baseball cap was all he came up with. Being Illinois, the scarecrow motif came naturally, rather than an 8647 seashell image as in NY.
As is Typical the left is full of nonsense.
Connecting this to the SPLC fraud is perfect.
No you can not prove rising racism by false flag incidents.
This is actuyally worse/stupider than the SPLC fraud.
Arguably SPLC funding white supremcists groups MAY have increased bad conduct by white supremacists
This is SPLC’s version of the “self licking ice cream cone.
Fund racism, get more racism, and then fund raise off the rising racism.
But this is WORSE. Left wing nuts burning crosses may confuse other left wing nuts into believing racism is increasing – but it does NOT actually increase racism.
“Arguably SPLC funding white supremacists groups MAY have increased bad conduct by white supremacists”
Do you honestly see no difference between funding white supremacist groups and paying informants?
You should ask him if he thinks Project Veritas is funding left-wing extremists to secretly video abortion clinic staff and edit the content to paint them in a bad light.
I’m pretty sure the SPLC issue lands on free speech rights rather than fraud.
PV did not fund left wing extremists at all – it sent its own people in under cover – pretending to be on the left.
Nor did they edit video content to paint those on the left in a bad light – you can download the full unedited version of all PV video – that has ALWAYS been true.
Just like the media PV produces edited versions so that people do not have to view hours of video to understand what was going on.
Project Veritas edited to show the story but did not change the story like the leftist media does. In fact, the full films were available. The Whistleblowers simply caught the crooks on tape. Classic investigative reporting.. By the way, Project Veritas is gone as we knew it; James O’Keefe removed himself from a board that went crazy and will be in court losing. James O’Keefe’s new organization is OMG, O’Keefe Media Group. You should donate.
I do not see what the SPLC did as “paying informants” – Even the police do not pay informants Millions.
Further the SPLC does not claim to be a investigative body. Project Vertias does – and to my knowledge they do not “pay informants” – certainly not millions.
What was the SPLC getting for its money ? Was it some secret that Nazi’s are … Nazis ? That the Aryan Brotherhood is racist ?
I would further note that the SPLC’s actions can be judged based on SPLC’s past actions. SPLC has a long history of trying to overhype racism to boost fundraising – this is NOT the first instance in which they have done so.
You seem to know very little about the SPLC, and their long dark history.
Soemtimes our heros have clay feet. Sometimes bad people accidentally or otherwise do some good. I used to think SPLC was like Jefferson and MLK – great but with problems. But scandal after scandal has proven they are bad actors who sometimes do good.
This is an example of them being bad actors doing bad.
If you are trying to paint them out of culpability – you are delusional.
Sometimes a “paid informant” is just someone bribed to manufacture bad acts – even withing law enforcement that happens – see the Michigan Wolverines.
While those charged were not good people – the bad acts they conspired to commit would not have happened but for FBI funding and encouragement.
And arguably they may not have happened ANYWAY – which is one of the reasons you should never have a conspiracy charge absent the actual commission of the crime that was allegedly conspired.
The SPLC paid informants to give then information to the FBI, which they used to willingly accepted until October 2025, when Kask Patel stopped the process. I guess it would have been a bad look to still be accepting info from an organization they now need to portray as evil. I guess the other problem was that the SPLC was providing info on friends of the administration.
Prof. Turley:
No this is not a “:hate Crime”
Virtually all hate crime statutes will ALWAYS fail as unconstitutional facially or as applied.
This statute CLEARLY fails an as applied test – The speech in question does NOT pass the Brandenburg test.
If you burn a flag and also cause property damage – you can be charged with property damage – but NOT with burtning a flag or ANY enhancement for buring a flag
This statute also fails as FACIALLY unconstitutional – because it intentionally criminalizes speech that is protected by the first amendment.
It is a COMMON left wing nut error to assume that speech that is offensive is criminal. Speech that is offensive is EXACTLY what the first amendment is intended to protect.
@ John Say,
Hate crime statutes are routinely upheld as constitutional, and the analysis fundamentally misapplies First Amendment jurisprudence regarding speech versus conduct.
Merlin Lu was charged with felony arson, criminal damage, and hate crimes because his actions crossed from protected offensive speech into a hazardous, unlawful physical act of terror.
In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that burning a flag you own is a protected form of political expression. However, setting fire to property in a public park without a permit constitutes arson and criminal damage to property, which are underlying criminal acts. Free speech does not protect committing a property felony to make a point.
the Brandenburg v. Ohio “imminent lawless action” standard, which applies strictly to verbal advocacy or abstract speech. It does not apply to physical acts of intimidation. Under Virginia v. Black (2003), the Supreme Court explicitly held that cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate is a “true threat” and is completely unprotected by the First Amendment due to its historical context as a distinct symbol of terror.
You say that states cannot apply criminal enhancements based on the expressive nature of a crime. This was directly debunked by the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993). The Court unanimously held that hate crime penalty enhancements are constitutional because they punish the discriminatory motive and selection of a victim or target, rather than the defendant’s abstract beliefs.
Also, under 720 ILCS 5/12-7.6, a person commits a cross-burning offense only when they act with the specific “intent to intimidate”. Because the statute requires proving an intent to place others in fear of physical injury or property damage, it complies perfectly with First Amendment restrictions on true threats.
Hope that helps clarify a few things.
esquire – I will defer on the non hate crime charges. I do not know enough of the actual details of this event to know it is constitutes arson or any of a number of other crimes based on ACTS.
But you are manufacturing an exception of Brandenburg – that should be obvious because flag burning statues have CONSTANTLY been over turned
With respect to “threats” again – more than a perceived threat is necessary – see Brandenburg and its MANY progeny – such as Elonis v. United States
Just so we are clear I have ZERO problems with charging Lu with Arson, property crimes or anything else that is based purely on the NON Expressive, aspects of his actions.
But a Threat is first and foremost SPEECH and a threat does not lose its protection absent all the elements of the brandenberg test.
In this case the threat is NOT clear, What is it that Lu was threatening ? The threat was NOT immediate – Lu did not burn a cross and start executing blacks.
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)
“The government may not ban cross burning with the intent to intimidate if the act of cross burning itself is considered evidence of the intent to intimidate.”
a threat does not lose its protection absent all the elements of the brandenberg test
That is incorrect. Brandenburg relates to speech advocating illegal activity. The “true threat” doctrine is distinct: it deals with speech that threatens violence against another. It is treated in a distinct line of cases, from Watts v. US (1969), to Virginia v. Black (2003), to Counterman v. Colorado (2023).
Esquire, I think you might be wrong about Brandenburg, which DOES apply to both verbal and SYMBOLIC speech, although the case itself dealt with verbal speech.
Recklessness would be a dangerous standard for the defense of Merlin Liu. He insists that he was entirely clueless about what a burning cross represents in our culture.
He is a white Asian college student who excelled academically in high school and college while also being a tennis pro. It is not that Merlin is clueless about the “severity” of using a burning cross, but rather clueless about impulse control.
Yet, if Chicago does not bring a hate crime charge, it could be cited in future cases in suggesting that intent or “motivating factors” do matter in such cases.
Charges were filed against the impulsive one:
Hate crime charges filed against man who allegedly burned cross in Grant Park
nbcchicago.com/news/local/hate-crime-charges-filed-against-man-who-burned-cross-in-grant-park/3950347/
It is ironic that this kid used a burning cross in a city ripe with black racial unrest and an astonishing rate of black on black violence. Perhaps the timing of his theatrics should be seen as a failure of Barack Obama considering today is the opening of the Obama Presidential Library. Two different takes are provided on this event:
1. How to watch the Obama Presidential Center’s grand opening ceremony live
The Obama Presidential Center will hold a grand opening ceremony this week, with what organizers say will be “legendary performances by global icons and powerful remarks from today’s most prominent voices.”
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/how-to-watch-the-obama-presidential-centers-grand-opening-ceremony-live/3949463/
or a more realistic survey of Obama’s stain on America
2. A tombstone for Obamaism His Chicago shrine showcases his vanity
Yet, what it resembles most, I’d argue, is a mausoleum, the Obamausoleum, if you will. The tower is clad in New Hampshire granite, rises in a faceted, asymmetrical mass with almost no windows, and looms over a grassy public park. It even has words carved near the top, giving the whole thing the unmistakable air of the world’s largest headstone. But what it marks — unintentionally — is the final resting place of Obamaism: a politics after politics, a monument to the fantasy that if enough institutions speak pleasant bromides in a reassuring voice, if politicians act like noble characters from The West Wing, some ineffable thing called “the arc of the moral universe” will bend and everyone wins. Who needs culture war when you can have culture peace?
https://unherd.com/2026/06/a-tombstone-for-obamaism/
Merlin Liu is toast. None of this is helping the breathless talking points of Democrats retaking Congress. Wish casting aside, rots of ruck.
The word is “rife”, not “ripe.”
Speaking of impulse control, look at the billions of dollars Trump has cost America because he cannot get an erection anyway else but bombing people. That’s a wound that will take decades to smooth over.
Speaking of impulse control, look at mentally-ill TDS sufferers who bring Trump into every issue.
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)
The government may not ban cross burning with the intent to intimidate if the act of cross burning itself is considered evidence of the intent to intimidate.
But if the statute places the burden on the state to prove intent, then 1A does allow the state to ban cross burning with the intent to intimidate.
To me this is a due process issue, more than a 1A issue. Under due process, the state must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship (1970). For any offense defined with a particular mens rea, e.g., “with the intent to intimidate,” the mens rea is an element of the offense. Therefore, under due process the state cannot statutorily shift the burden to disprove mens rea onto the defendant.