I agree with the Supreme Court's cross burning case. I'll leave it to the law professors to parse the decision, but it is a good thing, in all of the fervor for freedom of speech, that we remember that the stated purpose of the Constitution is, among other things, "to insure domestic Tranquility, . . . promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, . . ." The Fourth Amendment speaks of "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, . . . shall not be violated, . . ." but it then modifies it to apply only to unreasonable searches and seizures. I assume that a general right to be secure in one's person and house is already in the preamble, or was so obvious that nobody could imagine anyone raising the Freedom of Speech clause being raised as a protection for threats of violence. What really saddens me is that three Supreme Court Justice believe just such an argument.