Zone1 The KKK and the First Amendment

Yes, they do. And no, I don't think we should amend the 1st amendment.

The kkk is a detestable group. I think they are cowards and idiots. But freedom is not dependent on being popular or even civil. I know plenty of asshole who still have their rights.
There are some state laws concerning the wearing of hoods and other similar things while protesting.
 
Does the Ku Klux Klan have the constitutional freedom to peaceably assembly? If so, shouldn’t we change that constitutional amendment?
If you give the government, the power to decide who gets to assemble, and who doesn't, then someone like Hitler will end up in control of the government. Someone will Hitler will then have to power to decide who gets to assemble. Hitler never did anything the government didn't do. Hitler was the government.
 
Does the Ku Klux Klan have the constitutional freedom to peaceably assembly? If so, shouldn’t we change that constitutional amendment?
.

As someone has already mentioned ...
The Freedom of Speech and the ability to Peaceably Assemble is a protection of those Rights.

In context ... There is no regard as to the specific nature or need to protect what would generally be recognized as acceptable speech.
It is there to protect one's right to say something someone else might strongly disagree with or possibly be offended by.

With Freedom and Liberty Comes Personal Responsibility
Embrace the Challenges
Lead by Example

.
 
Does the Ku Klux Klan have the constitutional freedom to peaceably assembly? If so, shouldn’t we change that constitutional amendment?
The Supreme Court ruled that the Klan has the constitutional right to freedom of expression and peaceable assembly. knowing the distress their presence and these cross burnings causes to Black people.

Just like today, there are still those who will always side with anyone else over Black people when it comes to us having the same rights as everyone else. We are only just getting to the point where society has seen for itself the animus, threats and hostility that Black people often face in spite of the laws that have been passed prohibiting discrimination based on race.
 
Then why are so many people against racism if it is legal?
Racism is not legal. If you read the SCOTUS ruling they found that intimidation is not the only reason for burning crosses.

Burning crosses to intimidate Black people or to threaten them is not of concern to SCOTUS. Just read some of their other rulings made regarding the rights and well being of Black people.
 
The Supreme Court ruled that the Klan has the constitutional right to freedom of expression and peaceable assembly. knowing the distress their presence and these cross burnings causes to Black people.

Just like today, there are still those who will always side with anyone else over Black people when it comes to us having the same rights as everyone else. We are only just getting to the point where society has seen for itself the animus, threats and hostility that Black people often face in spite of the laws that have been passed prohibiting discrimination based on race.
The American Nazi Party sued and won the legal right to make a uniformed march right through Skokie Illinois which was almost completely Jewish at the time and home to many concentration camp survivors. Free speech rights trump the right to not be offended by speech. Your post is a perfect example of my position that many blacks, and you and IM2 are included in that group, see everything through a prism of racism.
 
The American Nazi Party sued and won the legal right to make a uniformed march right through Skokie Illinois which was almost completely Jewish at the time and home to many concentration camp survivors. Free speech rights trump the right to not be offended by speech. Your post is a perfect example of my position that many blacks, and you and IM2 are included in that group, see everything through a prism of racism.
The American NAZI party was targeting the JEWISH COMMUNITY. Not everything is about the Black Community
 
Racism is not legal. If you read the SCOTUS ruling they found that intimidation is not the only reason for burning crosses.

Burning crosses to intimidate Black people or to threaten them is not of concern to SCOTUS. Just read some of their other rulings made regarding the rights and well being of Black people.
I don't believe racism per se, is illegal. Certain actions motivated by racism like battery or prejudicial treatment ARE illegal. As far as I know, no thought can be illegal, only actions.
 
The American Nazi Party sued and won the legal right to make a uniformed march right through Skokie Illinois which was almost completely Jewish at the time and home to many concentration camp survivors. Free speech rights trump the right to not be offended by speech. Your post is a perfect example of my position that many blacks, and you and IM2 are included in that group, see everything through a prism of racism.
So you agree with the American Nazi Party ruling? That while they could have marched in other places, it would have been an infringement on their right to march if they were not allowed to march through a Jewish neighborhood where many holocaust survivors make their homes? Same thing with the Klan being able to burn a cross in places away from Black people or Black neighborhoods but got to cry an unconstitutional infringement of their rights if they couldn't do it where Black people would be terrorized by it, because that's their intent, it always has been, hell they've gone record as to why the burn crosses.

And what you and others seem unable to understand is that racism was the law of the land until roughly 58 years ago. And while it's no longer lawful, the change in laws did not wipe out racism as you and others seem to believe.

The reason IM2, and others see the world through a prism of racism is because racism past & present still colors our world simply because it still exists. You, not being Black, would never experience any of the things that we do. We don't go looking for it, it's just there, a part of society that we encounter from time to time as we go about our lives.

The other thing you all don't seem to realize is all that we've accomplished and still do, is IN SPITE OF those in society who still engage in racist activities and single out Black people for abuse and mistreatment, IN VIOLATION OF CURRENT law.
 
I don't believe racism per se, is illegal. Certain actions motivated by racism like battery or prejudicial treatment ARE illegal. As far as I know, no thought can be illegal, only actions.
Well then you're part of the problem then because people who don't believe specific laws apply to them are more likely to violate them.

Racism is unlawful in the state where I live. RCW is the Revised Code of Washington. This is just the criminal code, there are other civil codes for holding people accountable for harming them in other ways such as financially, subjecting them to harassment, stalking, online targeting, etc.:

RCW 9A.36.080

Hate crime offense—Definition and criminal penalty.​

(1) A person is guilty of a hate crime offense if he or she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, or sensory disability:​
(a) Causes physical injury to the victim or another person;​
(b) Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or​
(c) Threatens a specific person or group of persons and places that person, or members of the specific group of persons, in reasonable fear of harm to person or property. The fear must be a fear that a reasonable person would have under all the circumstances. For purposes of this section, a "reasonable person" is a reasonable person who is a member of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, or who has the same gender expression or identity, or the same mental, physical, or sensory disability as the victim. Words alone do not constitute a hate crime offense unless the context or circumstances surrounding the words indicate the words are a threat. Threatening words do not constitute a hate crime offense if it is apparent to the victim that the person does not have the ability to carry out the threat.​

(2) In any prosecution for a hate crime offense, unless evidence exists which explains to the trier of fact's satisfaction that the person did not intend to threaten the victim or victims, the trier of fact may infer that the person intended to threaten a specific victim or group of victims because of the person's perception of the victim's or victims' race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, or sensory disability if the person commits one of the following acts:​
(a) Burns a cross on property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of African American heritage;​
(b) Defaces property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of Jewish heritage by defacing the property with a swastika;​
(c) Defaces religious real property with words, symbols, or items that are derogatory to persons of the faith associated with the property;​
(d) Places a vandalized or defaced religious item or scripture on the property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of the faith with which that item or scripture is associated;​
(e) Damages, destroys, or defaces religious garb or other faith-based attire belonging to the victim or attempts to or successfully removes religious garb or other faith-based attire from the victim's person without the victim's authorization; or​
(f) Places a noose on the property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of a racial or ethnic minority group.​
This subsection only applies to the creation of a reasonable inference for evidentiary purposes. This subsection does not restrict the state's ability to prosecute a person under subsection (1) of this section when the facts of a particular case do not fall within (a) through (f) of this subsection.​

(3) It is not a defense that the accused was mistaken that the victim was a member of a certain race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, had a particular gender expression or identity, or had a mental, physical, or sensory disability.​

(4) Evidence of expressions or associations of the accused may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial unless the evidence specifically relates to the crime charged. Nothing in this chapter shall affect the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.​

(5) Every person who commits another crime during the commission of a crime under this section may be punished and prosecuted for the other crime separately.​

(6) For the purposes of this section:​
(a) "Gender expression or identity" means having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth.​
(b) "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.​
(c) "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent to:​
(i) Cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or​
(ii) Cause physical damage immediately or in the future to the property of a person threatened or that of any other person.
(7) Commission of a hate crime offense is a class C felony.​

(8) The penalties provided in this section for hate crime offenses do not preclude the victims from seeking any other remedies otherwise available under law.​

(9) Nothing in this section confers or expands any civil rights or protections to any group or class identified under this section, beyond those rights or protections that exist under the federal or state Constitution or the civil laws of the state of Washington.​
 
There are some state laws concerning the wearing of hoods and other similar things while protesting.
One of the oldest civil rights laws is called the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 and it prohibited two or more people from traveling together upon the highway in disguise (referring to the Klan's habit of wearing robes & hoods to disguise their identity) or otherwise conspiring to deprive a person or class of people of equal protection of the law or other legal rights.[32] In addition, Section 1985(3) contains the "support-or-advocacy clauses", which cover conspiracies to harm citizens because of their support or advocacy for a federal candidate for public office.

The Enforcement Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13), also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, Third Enforcement Act,[1] Third Ku Klux Klan Act,[2] Civil Rights Act of 1871, or Force Act of 1871,[3] is an Act of the United States Congress which empowered the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to combat the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and other terrorist organizations. The act was passed by the 42nd United States Congress and signed into law by United States President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871. The act was the last of three Enforcement Acts passed by the United States Congress from 1870 to 1871 during the Reconstruction Era to combat attacks upon the suffrage rights of African Americans. The statute has been subject to only minor changes since then, but has been the subject of voluminous interpretation by courts
Ku Klux Klan Act - Wikipedia
 
Does the Ku Klux Klan have the constitutional freedom to peaceably assembly? If so, shouldn’t we change that constitutional amendment?
Of course they should. So long as people do not break the law, they have every right to be as white supremacist and/or racist as they are just as much as we have the right to think white supremacy and racism is wrong and is evil if acted out. They (or anybody else) should be given no power to require anybody else to be like them and we should not be required to give them (or anybody else) deference or participate in any way in their activities.

There is no liberty if everybody is required to think a certain way, believe a certain way, speak a certain way, act a certain way. So long as laws are enforced to keep civil order and prevent people from doing physical or economic violence to each other, the Constitution gives us the right to be whatever we choose to be even if that is offensive or repugnant to others.
 
Racism is not legal. If you read the SCOTUS ruling they found that intimidation is not the only reason for burning crosses.

Burning crosses to intimidate Black people or to threaten them is not of concern to SCOTUS. Just read some of their other rulings made regarding the rights and well being of Black people.
Racist ACTIONS are not legal. But you cannot legislate thoughts.

For example, Harvard can THINK it would be better to have more blacks and fewer Asians in their university. Fine. What they cannot do is purposely design a subjective test that they can score blacks high in and Asians low in order to achieve a specific racial outcome in their entering class. And the SCOTUS will so rule.
 
There is no liberty if everybody is required to think a certain way, believe a certain way, speak a certain way, act a certain way.
.

Think about how often the people that oppose the idea you just expressed above have a tendency to call others a Nazi or Fascist.
It's like they don't even know what they are saying or thinking really amounts to ... :auiqs.jpg:

It's because they don't know that what they actually want ...
Is exactly what Tyrants and Dictators do to gain the power they get.

Create an enemy and unify the people through hatred against a common foe ...
How to Become a Tyrant and Gain Power ...
And is exactly how a failing artist became the Supreme Leader of the Third Riech.

.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top