Another not illegal, but

      A guy in western New York State gets even with his neighbor -- a recently opened mosque, which he says is too close and too brightly lit -- with an offensive sign and, yes, it's not illegal because it's on his property.  However, it's not a stretch to imagine, as a member of the mosque's board suggests, that the very large sign will be fodder for the local hatemongers, who will try to drag the law behind them.
      In the ever-thus vein, I'm reminded of a lawsuit over someone's right to burn a cross, albeit on someone else's property that time.  The case, R.A.V. v St. Paul, Minnesota, began in 1990 and went all the way up to the Supremes, who weren't asked to determine if the 17-year-old thug in the case had the right to burn a cross on the front lawn of the black family who lived across the street.  There were widely accepted laws in place to punish that.  What made it interesting was the Supremes' 6 to 3 ruling in 1992 that the city ordinance banning cross-burning as "hate speech" was overly broad and not content neutral and, therefore, unconstitutional.  That dealt a significant blow to hate speech laws, which had been popping up in cities and school across the country and, in one of those being-right-by-being-on-the-wrong-side victories which civil libertarians seem destined to seek, First Amendment advocates were pleased with the outcome.
      So maybe, rather than coming up with more unenforceable and counterproductive laws, the mosque could dim its lights and the sign maker could get a life and we could take the matches away from hooligans.  Unless -- could it be? -- getting along isn't really the point.