What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Zone1 The KKK and the First Amendment

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
68,210
Reaction score
22,834
Points
2,260
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.

Plus suppressing them gives them martyr status, which can only help them reach out to the discontented.
 

BlackSand

Nobody
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
20,841
Reaction score
10,340
Points
970
Plus suppressing them gives them martyr status, which can only help them reach out to the discontented.
.

Suppressing them would also decrease their opportunity to self-identify in public.
If you are wondering what someone thinks or what they want ... Let them tell you.

Driving groups underground doesn't necessarily make them less dangerous.

.
 

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
59,751
Reaction score
24,138
Points
2,330
Location
Desert Southwest USA
.

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.

.
Yes. Free speech for me but not for thee has become the founding principle behind a dangerous cancel culture that has developed in this country. We have pretty much shelved the idea of live and let live, to allow people to be who and what they are so long as they do not act out illegally in ways that violate the rights of others or require us to agree with them, be like them, or require us to contribute or participate in any way.

A KKK that is burning crosses on people's lawns, threatening, terrorizing, vandalizing, committing arson, murdering or inciting others to do that should be dealt with swiftly, harshly, and removed from free society.

A KKK that exists in its own narrow minded, hateful, bigoted world but does not act out in ways that harm others is powerless and held in contempt by most, and it must have all the constitutional rights as anybody else or nobody has constitutional rights.
 
Last edited:

JoeMoma

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
21,683
Reaction score
9,303
Points
950
Most of the people in the Trip K's nowadays are law-enforcement from various levels of government, reporters embedded to get a "scoop" on "white nationalism" that the libs say is a threat as well as activists from groups like the Anti Defamation League and Jewish Defense League keeping tabs on it. If it wasn't for all the dues the 3 K's gets from those being paid to keep an eye on them, they'd probably be out of business by now.
Interesting theory. Probably a lot of truth to it.
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
7,146
Reaction score
5,416
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
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.

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.
As a matter of fact, I DO agree with the ruling. I abhor the actions of both the KKK and the American Nazi Party but putting governmental restrictions on their speech opens the door to far worse abuses. If it were allowed, both you and IM2 would use the governmental power to forbid speech to muzzle those of us who disagree with you and you have labelled racists.
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
7,146
Reaction score
5,416
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
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.​
Nowhere in that law doe it mention racism, attitude, thought or private belief. It's all about ACTIONS. Actions can be regulated, thought can't and generally speech alone can't.
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
7,146
Reaction score
5,416
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
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
Again, the Act regulates ACTIONS.
 

José

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
4,404
Reaction score
720
Points
180
Are these people participating in this debate for real?

Since the end of WWII the US government and the american mass media are imposing a genocidal policy on the american population allowing hundreds of thousands of non-whites to flood the country each year both legally and illegally and portraying race mixing as a model to be followed by the american youth, all the while trying to camouflage this ouvert, blatant monstrosity under a "benevolent", "harmless" label ("diversity").

But why would the brainwashed members of this Board waste their precious time debating such a "non-issue"?

No sir!!

According to them, the gravest national issue of our times, in the middle of a crime against humanity that's happening in their own nation and targeting THEM, is a white supremacist organization that doesn't even exist anymore as well as similar groups each one with about 3 or 4.000 members.

Talk about complete detachment, total alienation, absolute divorce from reality!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 

ninja007

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
7,978
Reaction score
2,160
Points
255
Location
Living rent free in libs heads
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.
blacks have had the same rights as everyone else for 50 years.
 

ninja007

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
7,978
Reaction score
2,160
Points
255
Location
Living rent free in libs heads
Are these people participating in this debate for real?

Since the end of WWII the US government and the american mass media are imposing a genocidal policy on the american population allowing hundreds of thousands of non-whites to flood the country each year both legally and illegally and portraying race mixing as a model to be followed by the american youth, all the while trying to camouflage this ouvert, blatant monstrosity under a "benevolent", "harmless" label ("diversity").

But why would the brainwashed members of this Board waste their precious time debating such a "non-issue"?

No sir!!

According to them, the gravest national issue of our times, in the middle of a crime against humanity that's happening in their own nation and targeting THEM, is a white supremacist organization that doesn't even exist anymore as well as similar groups each one with about 3 or 4.000 members.

Talk about complete detachment, total alienation, absolute divorce from reality!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
or the clot shot killing millions brought to you by white far left loons like bill, klaus etc.
 

đź’˛ Amazon Deals đź’˛

Forum List

Top