U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge by KKK

[IanHarrop 37]

I suppose at times I am a little sheltered from reality, but who would have expected that the KKK had the right to wear hoods?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041206/ts_nm/court_klan_dc&e=6&ncid=

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

I suppose at times I am a little sheltered from reality, but who would have expected that the KKK had the right to wear hoods?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041206/ts_nm/court_klan_dc&e=6&ncid=

I don't see why anyone should be prohibited from wearing what they please, as long as they are not otherwise doing anything unlawful. Fancy outlawing The Lone Ranger!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 3]

The cowards want free speech but to not be held accountable.

The purpose of the hood has always been to offer the cowards an amount of personal anonymity while also offering them a symbolic terrorism tool.

If the fuckers want to spew hate speech that's their right, but they should also have to to be held accountable for their public actions.

Removing the hoods makes that possible.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[IanHarrop 37]

Quote

Fancy outlawing The Lone Ranger!

In 1979 they did... or at least they stopped him from wearing the mask! Fortunately Clayton Moore got to wear the mask again starting in 1984.

http://www.mishalov.com/Moore.html

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[lawrocket 3]

I find it a shame that people are not allowed to peaceably protest by whatever way they desire. "Wearing a hood? Uh oh. Can't do that." Give men a break.

I also think this section is chilling - "Since the robe and the hood alone clearly serve to identify the American Knights with the Klan, we conclude that the mask does not communicate any message that the robe and hood do not," This holding seems to allow a state to prohibit vocal speech from people who's garb makes them easy to "identify."

"So, ya want a puhmit to hold a ralluh? Okay. Y'are paht of the KKK. No hoods, but ya can wear yaw robes and hoods. And since that's enough to identify what you stand for, there is no need for us to allow you actually say anything."

This is dowright dangerous, in my opinion.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[IanHarrop 37]

Quote

"Wearing a hood? Uh oh. Can't do that." Give men a break.

Be sure to read the decision carefully.

The "hood" is OKAY, the "mask" is not.

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[Ron 7]

Quote

The cowards want free speech but to not be held accountable.

So you don't respect the right to free speach if it bothers you?

Quote

The purpose of the hood has always been to offer the cowards an amount of personal anonymity while also offering them a symbolic terrorism tool.

And the black panthers did the same thing.

Quote

If the fuckers want to spew hate speech that's their right, but they should also have to to be held accountable for their public actions.

Held accountable to a peaceful protest?

So they are not allowed to assemble and wear what they want?

I find it funny that you support the ist amendment in every other case, but you are against it here. As long as they are being peaceful, they should be allowed to do as they please. If they break the law then they should be held accountable as anyone else would be.

Your hatred for the group is the only reason you are against their right. That is censorship or their rights...If this was a different group you would support them.

Quote

Removing the hoods makes that possible.

No, arresting them for breaking the law if they do makes it possible. Your hatred for them and denying them their right to free speach is sad.

At least the ACLU is keeping the same line and defending them...To bad you are letting your bias judge them, and you are allowing that to make it OK for you to not respet their right under the 1st amendment.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[quade 3]

I completely agree with their right to speak freely.

I do NOT agree that they should be allowed to assemble, en mass, wearing hoods and the Supreme Court also holds this position.

The reason is, I would think, obvious.

Your line about the Black Panthers is spurious . . . when was the last time they did this and are they petitioning to do it now? No. It's irrelevant.

Quote

As long as they are being peaceful, they should be allowed to do as they please. If they break the law then they should be held accountable as anyone else would be.

That's -exactly- the issue. How do you hold someone accountable for say, inciting a riot, if you can't identify the individual because he was wearing the same hooded costume another 100 or so "peaceful" protesters were? In fact, you can't even tell for sure which ass-monkey incited the riot because you can't even see which lips were speaking the words.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ron 7]

Quote

I completely agree with their right to speak freely.

You clearly don't

Quote

I do NOT agree that they should be allowed to assemble, en mass, wearing hoods and the Supreme Court also holds this position.

So, everything the SC does is right?

Quote

That's -exactly- the issue. How do you hold someone accountable for say, inciting a riot, if you can't identify the individual because he was wearing the same hooded costume another 100 or so "peaceful" protesters were? In fact, you can't even tell for sure which ass-monkey incited the riot because you can't even see which lips were speaking the words.

That right there shows your stance. You hate them so they can't do what they should be allowed.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Jib 0]

Quote

How do you hold someone accountable for say, inciting a riot, if you can't identify the individual because he was wearing the same hooded costume another 100 or so "peaceful" protesters were? In fact, you can't even tell for sure which ass-monkey incited the riot because you can't even see which lips were speaking the words.

Without touching the KKK with a 10 foot pole, I'm not certain I've ever heard you suggest that the potential for certain conduct should be grounds for prior restraint. Do you also suggest that Halloween costume or religious headwear be banned in case because someone might hold up a liquor store?

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[wmw999 2,122]

Quote

Halloween costume or religious headwear

Or, and far more likely, how do you feel about protesters in legal, calm protests (e.g. anti-war) who wear masks?

I think it's a pity that groups like the KKK exist, and that they want to exploit the letter of the law so that they can sow hatred. But that brush will also be used to arrest anti-war protesters who wear masks.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[quade 3]

Ya got me there Ron.

I must be a real asshole for thinking the KKK is a bad thing.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I must be a real asshole for thinking the KKK is a bad thing.

Hell, I think they're full of shit and some seriously mislead people, BUT I still believe its their right to have their rights applied just as they're applied to everyone else. If you start restricting their rights, where does it stop?

I don't agree with the Black Panthers either, but I still hold firm to their right to their rights...

The list could go on.

You can't let your individual hatred of a group cloud your judgement on their rights, otherwise whats different between you hating them and their group hating minorities? Absolutely nothing, that's called sinking to their level.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[quade 3]

How are we feeling about burkas being worn for driver's license photos these day?

This isn't an issue of free speech. It's simply a matter of identification.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AggieDave 6]

Nice transition to something that's not a right, but a privlage. Do not confuse the two.

Driving is a privlage, NOT a right (contrary to my soon to be sister-in-law that's 15 belief).

Inciting a riot is illegal, so if you can see faces you would know exactly who started it? Doubtful, nearly impossible.

Tell you what, why don't you suggest having them have some sort of symbol sewn to the jacket/shirt of everything they own so we can identify them. That would make it easier, right?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Jib 0]

Quote

Tell you what, why don't you suggest having them have some sort of symbol sewn to the jacket/shirt of everything they own so we can identify them. That would make it easier, right?

You mean like a big red "A"?

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Hell, I think they're full of shit and some seriously mislead people, BUT I still believe its their right to have their rights applied just as they're applied to everyone else. If you start restricting their rights, where does it stop?

It's the KKK though. A group with a long history of violence and supporting violent, white-supremacist groups throughout the nation. Even today ties exist between the KKK and other radical groups and individuals: Church of the Creator, Aryan Nation, Tom Metzger, Alex Curtis, etc.

I too dont agree with the Black Panthers, but that group is long dead. They KKK isn't.

[lawrocket 3]

Note - thanks, Ian. I wrote the wrong thing and meant "mask"

First - the Supreme Court does not hold that belief. They just stayed out of it by denying cert.

Second, it matters not when the Black Panthers did it. Ron's point is that if they did it now, they'd be charged. And that says A LOT about the ways that this law can be used. Sure, it's purpose is related to the KKK, but what if a motorcyclist joins a protest and keeps his helmet on?

I believe the term for this is called, "Slippery slope" and there is that saying about "The Nazis took the JEws' rights and nobody protested, and then the gypsies...and then mine..."

Quote

How do you hold someone accountable for say, inciting a riot, if you can't identify the individual because he was wearing the same hooded costume another 100 or so "peaceful" protesters were?

Not hard, Paul. First, you see the guy is 6 foot tall. That eliminates half of them. Next, the guy was skinny. Okay, now you've got 20 left. Gradual elimination, etc.

Plus, there are penalties for group crimes.

Or, you simply put police out there with them so that one of them cannot get away if he/she goes too far.

What you DON'T do is make any form of clothing illegal.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[AggieDave 6]

Like I said, I don't agree with them, if they cross the line to illegality, then fry'em, if they want to rally and hold marches...well, that's their right. Restricting the rights within the a rightful protest, where does it stop. I worry about slippery slops.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It's the KKK though. A group with a long history of violence and supporting violent, white-supremacist groups throughout the nation. Even today ties exist between the KKK and other radical groups and individuals: Church of the Creator, Aryan Nation, Tom Metzger, Alex Curtis, etc.

I too dont agree with the Black Panthers, but that group is long dead. They KKK isn't.

EXACTLY why the First Amendment was created - to protect content driven speech. You know, they used to punish speech against the church as heresy and torture you to death. "But he spoketh badly of the Church! He sayeth the words of a heretic"

So, now you're saying, "But it's the KKK, and shouldn't have First Amendment protection." GOOD GOD!!!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

Quote

What you DON'T do is make any form of clothing illegal.

Really? What about spandex on the morbidly obese?

But I digress . . .

This isn't about clothing and it's not about freedom of speech. They can say whatever they want, no matter how heinous. What they can't do is abrogate their responsibilty to suffer the consequences of what they say by hiding behind a hood.

Now, I will admit that there are legitimate reasons for people to have anonymity when it comes to certain instances of free speech, but this isn't one of them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Now, I will admit that there are legitimate reasons for people to have anonymity when it comes to certain instances of free speech, but this isn't one of them.

So who gets to choose who wears a mask and what are the criteria?

Where does it end?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Now, I will admit that there are legitimate reasons for people to have anonymity when it comes to certain instances of free speech, but this isn't one of them.

In which case, the law eliminates legitimate use. This is bad, and that is the slippery slope I wrote about.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

I said anonymity and specifically that of an individual . . . I didn't say a group of people, acting as a group, should be allowed to "wear a mask".

For instance, if someone has information about the government or some corporation doing something illegal, their identity should be protected under the "whistleblower" statutes.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

So, now you're saying, "But it's the KKK, and shouldn't have First Amendment protection." GOOD GOD!!!

I'm all for First Amendment protection, but should it apply to group which incites hatered and promotes violence time and time again. Would you still apply it to protect a group of lets say men marching with green or white hoods, black pants and headband bearing the inscription “ Jerusalem Battalions” in Arabic. Yeah they're marching expressing their first amendment rights, but the 'Jeruslaem Battalions' are very closely linked violent groups in the mid east.