Why Is The KKK Currently Legal?

[PratchettFan]

Post FACTUAL links to prove what I said is not true.

You won't because you can't.

I don't have to go link running for you, you can find it yourself. Any time a company drops a person before any actual boycott, when a person is fired immediately for something outside work, any time SJW's go on a ruin a person binge for an opinion, that's an end run around the concept of the 1st amendment.

No, it isn't. Not even vaguely close. The first amendment prohibits Congress (and via hierarchy all other governments) from abridging free speech. It doesn't stop a private company or person from doing anything.

Back then the government was a threat to speech, really the biggest one. Today people who want to ban speech have found another mechanism to do it, one just as insidious as government censorship.

Then you will need to amend the Constitution. Right now the first amendment protects what you seem to want to prohibit. I would be against that.

An amendment is not needed. what is needed is companies to grow a spine, and realize that "the people" are not calling for other's heads, its a small minority of agitating assholes.

Calling people out does not automatically mean gunning for an amendment.

That would be up to the companies, and it would have to assume the companies agree with you.

 

[PratchettFan]

If only every terrorist and hate group would set their level of violence and hatred to the level of the NAACP, there would be a lot more people living today.

Oh, did I post that?

Yes, you posted nonsense. How many people have the KKK killed lately? and measuring hate? That's a bit difficult if you are not GOD, but there are a LOT of hate filled racist black folks out there that far outnumber the clan.

How many have the NAACP killed.... ever?

50 million baby's in their womb and counting

Ok, you win silliest comment on the thread. And the bar was high. Congratulations.

WTF you talking about dumb ass?

You don't deal in reality now?

I certainly do, but you seem to have trouble with it. I have to ask, do you know what the NAACP is?

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't think so.

The progressives have already made the end run path around the 1st when it comes to punishing speech they don't like. Going after the 1st itself is only a matter of time.

Liberals like free speech, progressives only like speech that furthers their goals, and classic Liberals are mostly extinct in the democratic party.

I can't speak for the democratic party, but pointing a finger at "progressives" as if they are the only group trying to get their position over all others is ridiculous. That can be said for about everyone, including you and me. The courts are not going to support a law which bans a group, no matter how moronic that group might be. That is prohibited by the first amendment.

The difference is our current crop of progressives want the other positions not to exist at all, or if they exist to be considered evil, (i.e the whole bigot/sexist/racist/etc) think.

It's why you see all the "trigger warnings," the need to ruin anyone who disagrees with them, the endless name calling.

I don't want to silence by political opponents, I want them to spew their idiocy. I can't say that for a lot of people on the other side of most of the topics I debate.

Which makes them just like all the others. No difference at all.

That is naive.

No, just not biased.

 

[martybegan]

I don't have to go link running for you, you can find it yourself. Any time a company drops a person before any actual boycott, when a person is fired immediately for something outside work, any time SJW's go on a ruin a person binge for an opinion, that's an end run around the concept of the 1st amendment.

No, it isn't. Not even vaguely close. The first amendment prohibits Congress (and via hierarchy all other governments) from abridging free speech. It doesn't stop a private company or person from doing anything.

Back then the government was a threat to speech, really the biggest one. Today people who want to ban speech have found another mechanism to do it, one just as insidious as government censorship.

Then you will need to amend the Constitution. Right now the first amendment protects what you seem to want to prohibit. I would be against that.

An amendment is not needed. what is needed is companies to grow a spine, and realize that "the people" are not calling for other's heads, its a small minority of agitating assholes.

Calling people out does not automatically mean gunning for an amendment.

That would be up to the companies, and it would have to assume the companies agree with you.

Some are already starting to. They are not giving in so quickly.

Protein World Beach Body Ad Hits N.Y.C. People.com

"It's a big middle finger to everybody who bothered to sign that stupid petition in the U.K. It’s a fat F-U to them all. You could say that the London protestors helped pay for the New York campaign," the company's marketing head Richard Staveley told Breitbart London.

 

[martybegan]

The progressives have already made the end run path around the 1st when it comes to punishing speech they don't like. Going after the 1st itself is only a matter of time.

Liberals like free speech, progressives only like speech that furthers their goals, and classic Liberals are mostly extinct in the democratic party.

I can't speak for the democratic party, but pointing a finger at "progressives" as if they are the only group trying to get their position over all others is ridiculous. That can be said for about everyone, including you and me. The courts are not going to support a law which bans a group, no matter how moronic that group might be. That is prohibited by the first amendment.

The difference is our current crop of progressives want the other positions not to exist at all, or if they exist to be considered evil, (i.e the whole bigot/sexist/racist/etc) think.

It's why you see all the "trigger warnings," the need to ruin anyone who disagrees with them, the endless name calling.

I don't want to silence by political opponents, I want them to spew their idiocy. I can't say that for a lot of people on the other side of most of the topics I debate.

Which makes them just like all the others. No difference at all.

That is naive.

No, just not biased.

Everyone is biased, the issue becomes when people try to eliminate positions they are biased against, not just argue against them or legislate against them.

 

[Kondor3]

In the US, we tend to allow any ol' trash to organize and commiserate, so long as they do not actually threaten the public or the general safety.

Although we keep a prudent eye on the worst of the worst, like the Communist Party.

 

[defcon4]

Is there any legislation currently in the works regarding this issue, that I may not be aware of? Thanks to all respondents!

Apparently you are not aware of a ******* thing around you wallowing in your ignorance. Freedom of speech, association…
"Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members.[1] It is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11…..[….] More specifically the freedom of assembly is understood in a political context, although depending on the source (constitution, human rights instrument, etc.) the right to freedom of association may be understood to include the right to freedom of assembly."
Freedom of association - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[PratchettFan]

No, it isn't. Not even vaguely close. The first amendment prohibits Congress (and via hierarchy all other governments) from abridging free speech. It doesn't stop a private company or person from doing anything.

Back then the government was a threat to speech, really the biggest one. Today people who want to ban speech have found another mechanism to do it, one just as insidious as government censorship.

Then you will need to amend the Constitution. Right now the first amendment protects what you seem to want to prohibit. I would be against that.

An amendment is not needed. what is needed is companies to grow a spine, and realize that "the people" are not calling for other's heads, its a small minority of agitating assholes.

Calling people out does not automatically mean gunning for an amendment.

That would be up to the companies, and it would have to assume the companies agree with you.

Some are already starting to. They are not giving in so quickly.

Protein World Beach Body Ad Hits N.Y.C. People.com

"It's a big middle finger to everybody who bothered to sign that stupid petition in the U.K. It’s a fat F-U to them all. You could say that the London protestors helped pay for the New York campaign," the company's marketing head Richard Staveley told Breitbart London.

Which they are free to do. And others are free to do otherwise. It's their choice.

Free speech means you cannot be prohibited from speaking your mind. It doesn't mean there won't be consequences.

 

[martybegan]

Back then the government was a threat to speech, really the biggest one. Today people who want to ban speech have found another mechanism to do it, one just as insidious as government censorship.

Then you will need to amend the Constitution. Right now the first amendment protects what you seem to want to prohibit. I would be against that.

An amendment is not needed. what is needed is companies to grow a spine, and realize that "the people" are not calling for other's heads, its a small minority of agitating assholes.

Calling people out does not automatically mean gunning for an amendment.

That would be up to the companies, and it would have to assume the companies agree with you.

Some are already starting to. They are not giving in so quickly.

Protein World Beach Body Ad Hits N.Y.C. People.com

"It's a big middle finger to everybody who bothered to sign that stupid petition in the U.K. It’s a fat F-U to them all. You could say that the London protestors helped pay for the New York campaign," the company's marketing head Richard Staveley told Breitbart London.

Which they are free to do. And others are free to do otherwise. It's their choice.

Free speech means you cannot be prohibited from speaking your mind. It doesn't mean there won't be consequences.

Consequences shouldn't involve losing your livelihood, or being threatened for differences of opinion. Only one side of debates is currently taking the position of ruining people who disagree with them.

 

[Iceweasel]

If only every terrorist and hate group would set their level of violence and hatred to the level of the NAACP, there would be a lot more people living today.

Oh, did I post that?

Yes, you posted nonsense. How many people have the KKK killed lately? and measuring hate? That's a bit difficult if you are not GOD, but there are a LOT of hate filled racist black folks out there that far outnumber the clan.

How many have the NAACP killed.... ever?

I have no idea. But no clan member alive today strung anyone up so your point makes no sense.

 

[PratchettFan]

I can't speak for the democratic party, but pointing a finger at "progressives" as if they are the only group trying to get their position over all others is ridiculous. That can be said for about everyone, including you and me. The courts are not going to support a law which bans a group, no matter how moronic that group might be. That is prohibited by the first amendment.

The difference is our current crop of progressives want the other positions not to exist at all, or if they exist to be considered evil, (i.e the whole bigot/sexist/racist/etc) think.

It's why you see all the "trigger warnings," the need to ruin anyone who disagrees with them, the endless name calling.

I don't want to silence by political opponents, I want them to spew their idiocy. I can't say that for a lot of people on the other side of most of the topics I debate.

Which makes them just like all the others. No difference at all.

That is naive.

No, just not biased.

Everyone is biased, the issue becomes when people try to eliminate positions they are biased against, not just argue against them or legislate against them.

And you think only progressives are doing that? Who is being naïve?

 

[Iceweasel]

Which they are free to do. And others are free to do otherwise. It's their choice.

Free speech means you cannot be prohibited from speaking your mind. It doesn't mean there won't be consequences.

Huh? That's exactly what a right is. We are not supposed to be punished for exercising a right. The left is changing that though.

 

[martybegan]

The difference is our current crop of progressives want the other positions not to exist at all, or if they exist to be considered evil, (i.e the whole bigot/sexist/racist/etc) think.

It's why you see all the "trigger warnings," the need to ruin anyone who disagrees with them, the endless name calling.

I don't want to silence by political opponents, I want them to spew their idiocy. I can't say that for a lot of people on the other side of most of the topics I debate.

Which makes them just like all the others. No difference at all.

That is naive.

No, just not biased.

Everyone is biased, the issue becomes when people try to eliminate positions they are biased against, not just argue against them or legislate against them.

And you think only progressives are doing that? Who is being naïve?

Can you find a progressive that's been put out of business or fired within hours/days of something happening?

 

[amrchaos]

If only every terrorist and hate group would set their level of violence and hatred to the level of the NAACP, there would be a lot more people living today.

Oh, did I post that?

Yes, you posted nonsense. How many people have the KKK killed lately? and measuring hate? That's a bit difficult if you are not GOD, but there are a LOT of hate filled racist black folks out there that far outnumber the clan.

Don't you mean how many have they attacked? "Killed Lately" makes it sound like they reformed or something? Well, here are some famous recent cases by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Let see, there is the kkk group,Church of the National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan

"Despite its sometimes comical stumbles, the National Knights remains a potentially violent and dangerous group. This fact became obvious on Jan. 1, 2003, when Glen Gautier, a member of the National Knights, confessed to authorities his role in the brutal murder of another Klan member. By his own account, Gautier, who was 50 at the time, had carried out the killing with three other members of two separate but allied Klan chapters, or "klaverns," that roamed the backwoods of semi-rural central North Carolina in 2001, stealing guns, making bombs, plotting murders, and carrying out at least one. His confession triggered parallel state murder and federal gunrunning cases, which have since dragged on for years. In the end, two members of the National Knights pleaded guilty in 2006 to charges in connection with a plot to blow up the Johnston County, N.C., courthouse and kill Sheriff Steve Bizzell, and were sentenced to a year in federal prison after cooperating with authorities. Two months later, in December, a judge found Klan boss and alleged ringleader Charles Barefoot incompetent to stand trial for orchestrating the murder of a fellow Klansman suspected of informing to police. "

Then there is Imperial Klans of America,

"Like other white supremacist groups, the IKA has in recent years focused its propaganda on illegal immigration. Though their website clearly states that the group does not condone violence, and that "ANY MEMBER COMMITTING ANY ILLEGAL ACT DOES SO ON THEIR OWN," IKA members have been party to brutal and unprovoked violence. Given the harsh anti-immigrant stance of IKA, it was not surprising when on July 30, 2006, two IKA members, Jarred R. Hensley, 24, of Cincinnati and Andrew R. Watkins, 26, of Louisville, attacked Jordan Gruver while the 16-year-old was enjoying the Meade County Fair in Brandenburg, Ky., because they thought he was Latino (they used racial slurs, including "****," during the attack). Gruver was beaten to the ground and kicked with steel-toed boots by his attackers, one of whom was 6 foot 5 inches and 330 pounds; Gruver weighed 150 pounds. The Klansmen cracked Gruver's ribs, broke his arm and broke his jaw. Hensley and Watkins were later sentenced to three-year prison terms for the attack. "

Source Southern Poverty Law Center

I'll check the FBI since you don't want to.

 

[PratchettFan]

If only every terrorist and hate group would set their level of violence and hatred to the level of the NAACP, there would be a lot more people living today.

Oh, did I post that?

Yes, you posted nonsense. How many people have the KKK killed lately? and measuring hate? That's a bit difficult if you are not GOD, but there are a LOT of hate filled racist black folks out there that far outnumber the clan.

How many have the NAACP killed.... ever?

I have no idea. But no clan member alive today strung anyone up so your point makes no sense.

There is no record of the NAACP killing anyone. The KKK, on the other hand, has a long history of it. And you are, not surprising, wrong about your last statement. The last known KKK lynching (not counting other murders) was in 1981. Michael Donald - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The KKK is a collection of ignorant, cowardly, hate driven twits who bring absolutely no value to this planet and certainly none to this country. They are beneath contempt. If they were to disappear today it would result in a net increase in the average IQ and moral integrity of the country. But they are protected under the first amendment and I would oppose any attempt to change that. Because if it doesn't protect malodorous garbage like them, then it doesn't protect anyone.

 

[PratchettFan]

Which makes them just like all the others. No difference at all.

That is naive.

No, just not biased.

Everyone is biased, the issue becomes when people try to eliminate positions they are biased against, not just argue against them or legislate against them.

And you think only progressives are doing that? Who is being naïve?

Can you find a progressive that's been put out of business or fired within hours/days of something happening?

Would that matter to you?

 

[martybegan]

That is naive.

No, just not biased.

Everyone is biased, the issue becomes when people try to eliminate positions they are biased against, not just argue against them or legislate against them.

And you think only progressives are doing that? Who is being naïve?

Can you find a progressive that's been put out of business or fired within hours/days of something happening?

Would that matter to you?

It would show both sides do it. Right now its really progressives call for blood over differing opinions.

 

[g5000]

it was founded by the Democrat party. If the Republicans had founded it they wouldn't exist anymore

Jroc is clearly a retard.

 

[Iceweasel]

If only every terrorist and hate group would set their level of violence and hatred to the level of the NAACP, there would be a lot more people living today.

Oh, did I post that?

Yes, you posted nonsense. How many people have the KKK killed lately? and measuring hate? That's a bit difficult if you are not GOD, but there are a LOT of hate filled racist black folks out there that far outnumber the clan.

Don't you mean how many have they attacked? "Killed Lately" makes it sound like they reformed or something? Well, here are some famous recent cases by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Let see, there is the kkk group,Church of the National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan

"Despite its sometimes comical stumbles, the National Knights remains a potentially violent and dangerous group. This fact became obvious on Jan. 1, 2003, when Glen Gautier, a member of the National Knights, confessed to authorities his role in the brutal murder of another Klan member. By his own account, Gautier, who was 50 at the time, had carried out the killing with three other members of two separate but allied Klan chapters, or "klaverns," that roamed the backwoods of semi-rural central North Carolina in 2001, stealing guns, making bombs, plotting murders, and carrying out at least one. His confession triggered parallel state murder and federal gunrunning cases, which have since dragged on for years. In the end, two members of the National Knights pleaded guilty in 2006 to charges in connection with a plot to blow up the Johnston County, N.C., courthouse and kill Sheriff Steve Bizzell, and were sentenced to a year in federal prison after cooperating with authorities. Two months later, in December, a judge found Klan boss and alleged ringleader Charles Barefoot incompetent to stand trial for orchestrating the murder of a fellow Klansman suspected of informing to police. "

Then there is Imperial Klans of America,

"Like other white supremacist groups, the IKA has in recent years focused its propaganda on illegal immigration. Though their website clearly states that the group does not condone violence, and that "ANY MEMBER COMMITTING ANY ILLEGAL ACT DOES SO ON THEIR OWN," IKA members have been party to brutal and unprovoked violence. Given the harsh anti-immigrant stance of IKA, it was not surprising when on July 30, 2006, two IKA members, Jarred R. Hensley, 24, of Cincinnati and Andrew R. Watkins, 26, of Louisville, attacked Jordan Gruver while the 16-year-old was enjoying the Meade County Fair in Brandenburg, Ky., because they thought he was Latino (they used racial slurs, including "****," during the attack). Gruver was beaten to the ground and kicked with steel-toed boots by his attackers, one of whom was 6 foot 5 inches and 330 pounds; Gruver weighed 150 pounds. The Klansmen cracked Gruver's ribs, broke his arm and broke his jaw. Hensley and Watkins were later sentenced to three-year prison terms for the attack. "

Source Southern Poverty Law Center

I'll check the FBI since you don't want to.

I'm all for law enforcement but you went off on a tangent there. If they incite or do violence they need to pay the price. Punishing them for history isn't something we need to be doing though.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What's amusing to me, I have been down in South Carolina for almost 11 years now I have never seen the dumb ass KKK where are they? Its like when I moved to Arizona for a year, looked up in the night sky and wondered where the **** are these UFOs ?

But I know Chicago and the racism and segetation to this day that goes on there.