Does the KKK have a right to Free Speech?

the klan used to hand out anti facist pamphlets back in the day. so where you get the idea they found or find mussolini's politics appealing is beyond me.

 

I think the easiest way to look at it is while everyone would like to put a giant rag into the mouths of KKK members, or even other right wing nutjobs like teabaggers, the opposite can happen too. We don't want a repeat of McCarthyism.

 

Sounds can be deceiving.

That's correct, as long as the state court remains within the constraints of the constitution in it's final ruling.

Yes, I do. Political parties create platforms (agendas) which their members promote in return for campaign support and funding by the party. Their agendas are much broader than what is orated in campaigning. Only the items contained in their agenda that are found to create the most support are used, and even those items are carefully worded to sound most appealing to a majority. Both parties tend to rally around and campaign on the items that poll with the highest support. For nearly the last 100 years votes have been bought, and laws created that have benefited both businesses and voting blocks, essentially redistributing wealth to some taken from others. Both parties are guilty of this. Parties also tend to make ALL elections national as the primary agenda of each party is to infiltrate government at all levels national state and local. Voters tend to gravitate toward the party that take the least from them while giving the most to them. National politicians tend to be reelected based on how much they bring into their state from the other states, which in turn tends to require the Federal government paying out much more than it takes in, continually increasing the national debt.

Again, sounds can be deceiving.

What about the E.U.? Greece, Spain, pensions, health care, the Euro? No problems there? Nearly all my friends here have come from Germany, Sweden, Belgium, or England, and don't seem to have rosy stories to tell.

Have you not studied how Democracies fail, or read WHY the U.S. when founded, firmly decided against Democracy as a form of national government, and wrote the constitution clearly limiting the power to be allowed the Federal government, specifically stating the states and the people to be sovereign and the source of power.

Looks also can be deceiving.

Do you really feel the E.U. to be a model of great success?

Is it really? The Federal government doesn't initiate any laws except those first initiated by the states? Or mandate states to abide by Federal directives to retain Federal funding?

None the less, it is possible.

I can't really speak on what got Obama elected as the news I saw related to the campaign focused mostly on "Change", "Getting out of Iraq", and "Closing Gitmo", but never provided any questions that would have produced more elaborate answers on what each of these phrases meant.

How would you propose economic equality be accomplished?
Can you elaborate a way that education can be accomplished in a way that the results are applied equally? I've worked for persons who had much less education than me, but were much wealthier than me. I've learned from persons who had much less education, (schooling) than me, while at the same time I've been able to educate others who had several more degrees than I could ever acquire. One person in particular came from a very wealthy family, who sent him to the best Universities, and he was a student until into his 30's, with degrees in many fields.

Can you equate a free people with a government that feels a responsibility to equalize the people, without using any form of oppression?

 

When I was a child in the 50s and early 60s my best friend's father was the leader of the local KKK. I went to a couple of their "rallies." I lived in Stone Mountain, Ga. for 2 years, the birthplace of the 2nd Klan in 1915. I worked evenings for several years just up the road from their meeting place here in West Georgia and could hear their loud speakers when they held their meetings.

So, don't hand me that white-washed shit about the Klan. I've spent a total of 52 years in Georgia and I have first hand knowledge of their activities that would make any rational person puke.

As far as censoring their speech, I wouldn't do it for the world, the more they talk, the sicker they look.

.

 

Dude, the Weather Underground died several decades ago. Even when they were operational liberals hated them as much as the conservatives. The only home grown groups terrorizing in the U.S. now are the conservatives, ie the anti-abortionists, and the Tea Baggers.

If you really want to debate the social value of the Klan, bring it on. Start with how many "food baskets" they delivered to starving black families.

.

 

I agree totally with your previous post in relation to the KKK. Some friends and I attended one of their rallies in Brunswick, GA years ago, watched them burn a cross, and spent several minutes listening to their nearly unintelligible rhetoric before leaving while thinking how stupid they were. Discussing the social value of the Klan would be the equivalent of discussing the social value of a Columbian drug lord.
But, while the "Weather Underground" and similar groups may have died some decades ago, many of those who comprised them have not, and like past or even present Klan members remain a force to contend with.
While I don't feel the choice between right and wrong is limited to choosing between radical left or radical right, nor do I see any evidence that conservatives, anti-abortionists, or the Tea party movement to be terrorizing anyone, making such a claim really needs to be supported by evidence. I question why the term tea-bagger would be used when it most often brings Barney Frank to mind, and as far as I can tell he is not a member of any of the groups you've equated to be terrorists. I'm surprised the term has not drawn anger from the gay rights movement, who I believe are more closely related to the democrat party.
Little is accomplished when the differences that exist between political ideologies continues to be primarily a function of who can better denigrate the other. If you've ever worked in a job that was primarily one of problem solving involving a number of contributors resulting in the production of a final product, you would likely understand what I'm saying, relating to how problems are best identified, and solved. What I'm saying is that you first try to identify correctly the primary source and make the repair there, and not just identify the negative effects patching each one of them, hoping the patches don't create additional problems and that the primary cause doesn't later show up in other areas. I've never found anger, or name calling to be productive, and most often found that should such occur, it is better to end discussion temporarily to allow for tempers to cool, allowing rational reasoning and intelligent thought to once again proceed.

 

Members of the "Weather Underground" spent many years in prison, are retired and some have even become productive citizens. It was a small group of passionate youngsters who have grown up. While I doubt that there is anything to monitor, who's to say that they are not? The FBI rarely publishes their activities.

The Klan today is little more than a social group, not much to worry about.

Doctor Tiller and some of his associates would passionately disagree with you about the anti-abortion movement. Try reading Randall Terry's web site and google a man named "Neal Horsley" from my neck of the woods as well as dozens of other web sites calling for killing abortion providers. Then, there are the threats against women and their companions entering and leaving clinics. This is very well organized terrorism.

As for the "Tea Baggers," a term I prefer for pseudo-patriots, review the news for the past week and you will find stories about bricks through Congress member's windows, threats, Tweets calling for the assassination of President Obama and even a group of them taunting a man with Parkinson's disease. Emails and web sites have been reported giving instructions on how to "shout down' the opposition and intimidate those with opposing viewpoints. Just read the news.

I have no problem supporting my "claims," but since these are all in the bank of "common knowledge," I didn't see the necessity.

I'm not going to necessarily disagree with any of this, but this is an informal discussion board for the expression of opinions and ideas and no one should take anything here too seriously.

I can, however, do a formal debate.

.

 

Those who you feel have become "productive" citizens, would you say they have become less radical, or that they acquired positions that allow them to promote their agenda more easily? I wouldn't argue that their methods have changed, but has their pro-Marxist, pro-Communist, radical left wing philosophy?

Absolutely correct.

Admittedly there are radical extremists on the right, as there are on the left. If it is proper to brand all those who lean "right" as terrorists based upon the extremists who are on the "right", then it should be no less proper to do the same for those who lean "left", based on the fact that it also has it's extremist members. What you refer to as terrorism is very well organized both on the left as well as the right.

I'm hoping you don't practice law. Although I've seen a few stories relating to acts of vandalism, I've not seen the facts that would determine responsibility. In fact I've noticed several examples in the past where the media immediately placed blame on Republicans/Conservatives/Right Wingers that they quickly lost interest in once it was determined that the perpetrator was instead someone from the Left. Not that I supported Bush, but never any calls for his assassination? Obama "get in their faces", oh that's okay? Who was it? "They bring a knife, we bring a gun."

I just find it easier to respond to a specific claim, rather than try to respond in general. Doing so just complicates discussion.

While we may disagree on many things, we do occasionally appear to also agree. That's a positive, and most of all I enjoy discovering others opinions, especially when they elaborate what they are based upon, and even more important when they express how they would bring about the changes they feel necessary.
Few openly commit themselves to what form of government would best produce the changes they desire, which leads me to wonder if it might be socialism.

I don't have time to get involved in a formal debate, although I try to find time to respond whenever one of my posts is addressed.

What would be very interesting would be to see a thread discussing how the Constitution should be interpreted, both as it is written, as well as where changes should be made. Perhaps someone would begin one?

 

You stumped me. How do you determine the personal philosophy of any individual if not by their actions. And, what is your definition of "radical left wing philosophy?" That term has become a propaganda rallying cry for Neo-Cons.

Please enlighten me as to what home grown leftist groups are actively involved in terrorism in the U.S. Every Sunday I watch "Meet the Press" and "This week." Almost always, they have representatives from both parties discussing the issues. In the vast majority of these exchanges it is the Republican who is rude and insulting. Even on the McLaughlin Report on PBS, poor Eleanor is constantly shouted down by the conservatives.

These are the leaders who are setting the example for the people on the street who are throwing rocks through windows and terrorizing Parkinson patients. Have you seen Sarah Palin's web site with the "cross hairs" imposed over the pictures of Democratic leaders? What about their behavior in the halls of Congress. Shouting "baby killer" during legislative voting, yelling during the President's address to Congress calling him a liar. Standing on the balcony Cheering on the crowd below that went on to spit on a black Congressman and calling him and another "niggers" and Barney Franks a "fagot." These are experienced leaders, who know very well the expected results of their actions.

There is legal responsibility and moral responsibility, and by law we are all responsibility for our own actions.

Another agreement.

Wouldn't that fit the definition of "bias."

Perhaps, or you could start one.

.

 

I wasn't trying to stump you, but you brought up the Weather Underground, now extinct, but was closely related to the SDS, which has more recently been revived, both of which were admittedly extreme left wing radical and wished to overthrow the U.S. government and establish a dictatorship in it's place.

My definition of "radical left wing philosophy" is one which basically promotes government imposed socialism, is pro-Marxist, and pro-Communist.

What's your definition of a neo-con?

I might ask the same about right wing groups. I don't have access to U.S. TV living on the other side of the Earth, but are you claiming that only the Republicans are rude, and the Democrats are always very polite? Even if that was the case, where do you place the Independents? Would it depend on who they are in opposition to, a Republican or a Democrat? Am I to take it that you would define Democrat, Liberal, or Progressive as good, and Republican, Conservative, and Libertarian as bad? I consider Evil to be a religious term, therefore try to avoid using it as I am an atheist.

Exactly WHO has thrown rocks through windows? Was it a Conservative offshoot of SEIU who beat the black man and called him a "******"? Was it a Conservative that bit the Conservative demonstrators finger off? I remember seeing "cross hairs" applied to Bush, as well as him being burned in effigy. So Conservatives even go after their own? The "cross hairs" you mention in relation to Sara Palin's web site, I looked for but didn't find, but found a story related to them, and I think a rational person would take them for what they were intended, a means of targeting a political candidate who needs to be voted out of office next round of elections. Of course you might direct me to where I can see that Palin was asking that they were intended to be seen as execution or assassination orders. What's wrong with calling a liar a liar? I'm not saying that I agree with what takes place on the Conservative side always, but it does appear to create a much larger issue in the new than when similar or even worse occurs from the left. The spitting I think you refer to has been found to be somewhat less an intentional act of spitting and now claimed to be a result of having to yell to be heard and some spittle existing the speakers mouth unintentionally. The use of the term "******" appears to be unverifiable, while in Barney Franks case, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, what would you call it? I agree it is an offensive term, but not violent, or terroristic.

I agree somewhat on this. We have legal responsibilities, some of which have moral underpinnings, and by law we are, and should be held responsible for our actions. But, would you also infer that we have a legal responsibility and a moral responsibility which should be enforced by law imposing responsibility for the inaction or inabilities of all others? If there are homeless persons in your immediate area, would it not be a moral act to bring one in if you had a spare bedroom? Should government be given the power to decide what is moral, and then by law mandate the responsibilities individuals must assume?

It's always nice to reach agreement on something. I sure wish it could be more.

Not according to the dictionary, I'm just saying that most of the posts I read or the responses to my own tend to be more supportive of what a socialist form of government would provide. Have you found the opposite to be true?

If I did I would feel a responsibility to track it more closely than I have time to do so. I thought retirement would alleviate some responsibilities allowing me to have more free time, but it seems new responsibilities seem to have a way of replacing old ones. The longer one lives, the longer the "To Do" list becomes.

 

You guys just keep re-stating the fact that the KKK do have a right to free speech, instead of actually giving a reason why they should. free speech isn't a right, there's no such thing as a 'right', there's only privileges, and they can (and have been historically, and recently) been changed, amended and taken away. So to say they have a right, like it's some sought of infallible gift from God is false, it's a privilege that they have, and they haven't earned that privilege.

 

It's not a right of theirs, no, because you could say a man stabbed someone because he had the rights by the same standard.

Though each person is entitled to liberty of his or her own actions, whether there are consequences or not. Whether they get listened to, boycotted for their opinions or whatever is beside the point- no one should stop them saying it in the first place.

So yeah, free speech in regards to whatever subject is justified. They might speak a load of crap, but if that's how they feel then that's just how they feel.

 

Yeah, it's a free country. Say whatever you want. Unfortunately, not everyone has smart things to say.

 

Actually no, there are such things as rights, in fact our entire legal system and the birth of our country is founded on such basis. Saying free speech is a privilege and not a right is not only asinine but dangerous. Free speech is never a "privilege"

 

*our* country, not his.

 

In America the premise is that all men are created equal. If you have the right to silence them, they have the right to silence you, then nobody has rights.

A famous Jewish attorney once represented the Klan in order for them to obtain a permit to march. His reasoning was, if they do not have a right to speak, then nobody does. He won the case, they marched, and the whole country laughed at them.

.

 

That's laughable, you act like America is special in that way or something, every western country acts under the premise that all men are created equal, America was the last country to actually realise that, segregation only 60 years ago, how quick we forget. And then you turn around and spout about how free and fair america is, it's just plain ignorance of the outside world, and it's arrogance, mixed in with a little bit of propaganda.

Rights are just an idea. It use to be the right for an American to own a slave. Germany has 29 'rights', does that make them more free than America, or Sweden, which only 7, does that make them less free than America? But if you really do think you have 'rights', go to wikipedia and type in 'japanese americans 1942", and you'll find out all about your precious rights.

 

Nicely put, and an excellent example.

 

I'm not speaking for Germany, Sweden, Japan or any other country, and don't pretend to. I was responding to your immature statement that free speech rights should be denied to one particular group. Evidently you haven't thought far enough ahead to figure out that if the next group in power doesn't like your group you could loose your rights also.

.

 

Thanks. Jimmy Carter would say, "we can build on that."

.