Does the KKK have a right to Free Speech?

More accurately, "so what, it's not an issue", so why try to make it one?

 

It may not be an issue to you, or the people of your nation, but it is to some people, particularly those who still live in the remnants of that situation.

Blacks and Native Americans in the U.S. still live in a society that has not fully integrated them into all aspects of the culture. In the area of the S. E. U.S. where I live many whites still think "everybody ought to own one." It is an issue for some people.

When I was a child in the 50s many blacks here were still living a pseudo slavery life because they were not given the same educational or economic opportunities as whites. The only way Native Americans could make a decent life was to put on a suit and "pass" for white.

The practice of slavery may be gone, but the ideology still exists.

.

 

Subjectively (imo) - No


Objectively - yes


so yes...

 

Yes, the KKK are entitled to freedom of speech under the Constitution-it would be unfair to them if this was deprived. However, they are not allowed to harass or harm innocent beings, or try to take away thier rights. They are solely allowed thier poinions; the ycan't act of them in any physical way.

 

As much as I don't like to say it, the constitution stands for everyone, including the KKK... But they still shouldn't be so racist against people JUST because of their skin color. It's stupid and it makes no sense.

 

Seems more problems would come from suppressing an expression of opinions than letting them to find their own outlet. Everyone has their own opinions anyway. Seems like a waste of time and resources blocking opinions that don't conform with mainstream ideas.

 

That's correct, it is not an issue to me, but it can be an annoyance when it is used to shift argument away from the relevant facts. The remnants you mention will continue to exist as long as there are those who relentlessly maintain and teach them.

The U.S. is NOT a society, but is only a non-contiguous land mass contained within defined boundaries. While an all powerful central government may try to create a single defined society throughout the land, it does so ignoring the differences that allow for peace and order to exist within the many varying societies that comprise the U.S. often creating dissension where it would otherwise not exist. Small problems are much more easily contained and resolved than are huge problems. A nation, like any large construction is best built from the bottom up, not from the top down. It is the foundation that provides strength. A heavy roof placed on a weak structure can easily allow for the collapse of the structure. This is why the U.S. Constitution was written in the way it was. Problem resolution was intended to be attended to by those directly involved, gravitating upward to broader levels of government only as necessary. In the past when I had subordinates and their work group come to me asking to resolve their disagreement, I often found that by telling them if left to me for a resolution, I would try to find a way to assure both sides would be equally dissatisfied leaving me as the only one satisfied with the resolution. I would leave them the option of giving me their problem to solve or to try and negotiate a solution on their own. More often than not they would find a way to resolve their problem on their own. People live and work together best when their individuality is recognized, motivating them individually to demonstrate their value to the group or community within which they exist. For some this is easy, for others it requires more effort, but I think when government tries to create a single society it does so by diminishing the value of the individuals within the society.

You show to be from Waco, Georgia. I'm a Georgia native by birth, worked most of my life in Atlanta, and lived in several countries as well. So I'm quite aware of what life was like in the 40's and 50's there. I'm also aware of the changes that took place during the 60's going forward to the 90's. Obviously there are, and always will be some who will have a bias against some members of society for various reasons. No laws can stop that, and to promote the fact that such persons exist only provides them a platform making them more relevant than they deserve to be.

Slavery will exist as an ideology to a diminishing number only when it is allowed to be forgotten.

 

I would argue that the U.S. is A society comprised of many different sub-cultures, with each sub-culture maintaining it's individual identity within the society at large.

From Wikipedia:

Slavery occurs when one sub-culture is subjugated by a more powerful sub-culture, or the society at large. Your contention that the ideology of slavery will diminish if "allowed to be forgotten" disregards the fact that the more powerful groups will always tend to dominate the weaker groups if allowed. Sorry, but this is a basic aspect of human nature.

Given 2 groups of unequal power, without your oversight, I guarantee that the stronger group would force it's will on the weaker. Compromise only occurs between groups of equal power or within a structure that demands it, such as a government of laws.

This ideology works well within a structure of law, but even then, you will have individuals and groups who will exercise their dominance over others if allowed.

A single society is necessary in order for people within the sub-cultures to feel connected to the others within the society at large. Without a national identity we would be merely a collection of disconnected groups with no common bonds.

I couldn't disagree more. Oppression is more likely to exist when there is no obvious opposition to it. As you stated, slavery has existed across cultures and races. From my own personal knowledge of my culture, it began to end when enough people in the dominant culture expressed opposition to it.

.

 

What allows for the creation and existence of a society at large is what each small society, or as you identify them each sub-culture, within the boundaries identified as a single nation, state or country can find agreement in ways that are seen as equally beneficial socially as well as economically. Societies are comprised of dissimilar individuals, who each have varying abilities, disabilities, wants, needs, and value to the community in which they live. In a free society, the primary function of a central government is to provide protection of the inhabitants, from both external as well as internal violence. In addition, in the case of the U.S. which is/was? formed by the union of sovereign states, each with it's own state constitution, providing similar protections at the state level allows for the citizens of individual states to demand their state constitution be amended when needed, or state laws to be enacted as necessary through a democratic process having effect within the boundaries of that state alone. As I've stated previously, government works best when applied from the bottom upward. As history has proven time and again that pure democracy leads to failure as it always allows for a simple majority to oppress the minority, democracy applied at the lowest level allows for success and failure to occur, be recognized, diminishing the effects of failures, and permeating the successes throughout the society as a whole in a way more acceptable to all.

I agree that "Slavery occurs when one sub-culture is subjugated by a more powerful sub-culture, or the society at large.", but I fail to see you produce any proof that an all powerful centralized government lessens the possibility of subjugation., or leads to a more moral, fair or just society.

In the case of two groups with unequal power, recourse exists for the weaker by going to a higher authority seeking an equitable resolution, all the way to the Supreme court, if necessary. To try and resolve all problems, or perceived possible problems beginning at the top creates rule of the people, no longer a government by the people. The world today is much too complex to believe that democratic elections can result in representation by an individual who could or would represent their constituents in ways agreeable to all, or even a majority of their supporters on every issue. Of course they can be replaced during the next election cycle, but only after the damage they may have done as the cause.

A single society comes to exist based upon the areas of commonality that exists, while allowing for the local social and economic differences to exist. My national identity exists based on the fact that I was born in one of the 48 states that belonged to the United States at the time of my birth. More accurately, I am a Georgia native which is prominently displayed on my U.S. passport, not to mention being a determination recognizable on all modern social security card numbers, since they began being issued at birth.

Your final disagreement appears to indicate that you believe slavery continues to exist in the U.S. While I agree that much inequality exists not only in the U.S. but within almost every nation, or society in the world, the very few remaining becoming consumed and made extinct rapidly today, equality throughout a society is unachievable, most certainly not by means of any form of government. Supply and demand alone ensure this to be a certainty in a world of increasing population.

 

No disagreement so far.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Would this be like a new political party or King's freedom marches, ie, movements? Or, political power being concentrated at the local level as opposed to the national level?

This sounds a lot like "state's rights." I'm fairly happy with our present distribution of power between the state and federal governments. We have a very mobile population and a certain amount of consistency throughout the nation is necessary for business and personal endeavors. For example, it would be chaos for travelers if every state had different traffic signs and laws.

For proof, I would present U.S. Civil Rights legislation and anti-discrimination laws; or more recently, Legislation in South Africa. I believe that the E.U. might have some equality requirements for their members, also.

To obtain a ruling based on law enacted by a central government.

The only path to the Supreme Court begins in a local Court.

I assume you mean the President. Don't forget the separation of powers and limitations of office and the impeachment procedure, all protections from incompetence and corruption.

Hardly, but I do believe that the potential still exists.

Legal equality is achievable and we, as a nation, are not far from it. Social equality may never exist, although I think it is possible.

.

 

When I speak of government from the bottom upward, I mean it in terms of the individual being free to set the rules relating to the life of that individual as long as they remain within the most basic moral constraints as defined in the U.S. Constitution, which I can only assume not being familiar with each individual states constitution are upheld or at least not perverted by any states constitution. Slavery being a prime example, which no state should be able in the present or future reintroduce. In areas where individuals can be found to have direct affect upon another or others within that community, laws should be passed and applied locally as found necessary. Adjacent or even distant communities may find need to similar or even the same laws within their area based upon need or benefit. Disagreement between adjacent communities should be resolved within the communities disagreeing if possible, and when not the next level of government may have to join in and try to arbitrate some form of agreement acceptable to both sides. If that fails the next higher level of government needs to be called on, but in doing so power is being given to persons who are less directly aware of the facts in their entirety, as well as unaffected by any wrong decision they might produce, perhaps worsening the problem for one side or even both sides, or produce side effects that bring about a new problem to be solved. Passing what may be rather simple problems with simple solutions to be resolved far from the source, or immediately to a central government requires the production of a solution by laws applicable to the nation as a whole when the solution may cause dissimilar results depending upon where it is applied.
Political parties are in themselves a problem as they tend to promote only what appeals to providing them a majority of support, leaving many of the complexities unattended or given cautiously worded lip service which leaves the answer to the listener for individual interpretation thinking that they heard just what they wanted to hear. And yes, I promote power whenever possible to be concentrated at the local level. As always there are some things best handled by a central government, such as national security provided by the military forces, foreign relations and trade with other countries being primary examples, although other things can be added but should only be added with the consent of those affected both financially as well as beneficially. If democracy and a strong central government were indeed the best way to produce a free and equal society, then it would benefit humanity to immediately convert to a one world government selected by a majority vote of all the Earths inhabitants. The problem with Democracy is that when applied to a larger number of persons, everyone tends to see the government as life's equalizer, expecting government to root out all things they feel are disproportionately distributed.

States rights are not where sovereignty should begin, but only one level which should exist between the individual and the Federal government. And yes, chaos would exist if states could not agree on some consistency of traffic signs, although not all laws need be identical state to state. Highway speed limits, for example, might vary between states like Rhode Island and some of the larger and less populated states in the West. But that's an example where I think little difficulty would occur in reaching unanimity. Where I live, crossing the bridge to the adjacent country means changing from driving on the left to driving on the right side of the road. Not to mention how often I've seen U.S. tourists rent cars and motorcycles and have to be warned they are driving on the wrong side of the road.

I agree wholly that laws relating to Civil Rights and anti-discrimination have been and are most appropriately applied by amendment to the U.S. Constitution with effect upon all the states that comprise the republic.

Rulings are not always, nor need to be enacted by a Central government, they can be enacted locally, or by city, county, state, leaving the central government as the last resort only as found to be necessary. Assuming you're married with a family, how do you resolve a family problem? Even when the same problem exists within many families in the neighborhood, should one or all request government to solve the problem? Perhaps each family could better solve their problem without implementation of exactly the same methods?

The path to the Supreme court can begin with the Supreme court when the cause begins with the Federal government.

I meant all the politicians that make up the Federal government, house, senate, executive, and even the judicial who are not elected but instead appointed and not easily removed. The checks and balances are easily evaded when one party of politicians gains control of all the branches of government, which can even lead to their ability to create and pass new or change old laws against the wishes of their supporters who gave support based on their campaign rhetoric which may not have any relation to the laws they become most attentive to.

Should you ever see the potential for slavery begin to emerge as a reality, feel free to alert me as I think we would join together to assure that it not occur.

Legal equality for the most part exists in the laws, however I think it is quite easy to find examples where it is not always practiced. Social equality, I don't think can ever be achieved except on a more or less class by class scale. If you can conceive of a means by which it could be brought about other than through force by a disassociated group of rulers and enforcers, please enlighten me. The African Bushmen are the closest I've found to be socially equal, however they are being forced to adapt to a new environment brought about by so called civilization with little or no attention given their needs or desires.

 

So far this sounds like the U.S.

I think you may have a mis-perception of how the federal court system works. Each state has it's own Supreme Court that hears cases on state law. The U.S. Supreme court will refuse a case based on state law if it is not in violation of U.S. law or a constitutional issue. States are allowed to adjudicate their own disputes to a final conclusion.

And you think this is bad.....

Again, this sounds like the U.S.

I do think this is a good idea. What about the E.U.?

And you see something wrong with this?

Have you ever been to a city council or a county commission meeting? Again, what you are describing is the way life is in America.

Is this a problem in the E.U. where consistency exists across national borders?

And, again this is the system that exists in America.

This is rare. There is a system of district federal courts and appeals courts before reaching the Supreme Court, even for federal law.

Ahhh, but if you make change too easy, you loose consistency. As we are seeing played out right now, your thesis doesn't hold water. Obama won an election, based in part on his promise to bring about health care reform, yet the actual legislation was rather difficult, even with a one party "control." And, one party control is really an illusion; as we have seen everyone in that party does not agree.

Economic equality and education is the only way.

 

Yeah, but their opinions are hateful and totally dangerous. Their opinions are about advocating white dominance over all other races. How is that a freedom?

It's more like a luxury and an excuse to perpetuate a racial social system.

 

Problem is, If you can deny the Klan the right to speak because you don't like what they say, someone else can deny your right to speak. In a free and equal nation, everybody has the right to speak, or nobody does.


.

 

Absolutely, if you want to have freedom of speech you have to allow others, even though you may disagree with what they have to say. Like I have said before, I think people should be free to say what they want, but their actions should be monitored.

 

everybody has the right to free speech. wether it leaves you butthurt or not. i hate the let's supress all the racist talk type attitude here that is prevalient. but let's allow free speech for the unwashed leftist crowd who worships marx and planted bombs into banks in the 60s and 70s. either you support freespeech for everyone, or you are against it period.

and passing laws that turn certain ideas into thought crimes is just a terrible idea. this means you too canada.

 

why is it okay to moniter pissed off peckerwoods? but not monitor the likes of william ayers and bernadine dohr? why should we monitor every muslim charity out there, but ignore what former weather underground members have been up to lately?

 

I have no idea who those people are, and I think you must have mistaken me for someone who controls monitoring.

 

so why can we not monitor white liberals who hate other whites? who put garbage into universities and public schools about how whites are more evil than anyone else is. the KKK used to be extremely charitable, handing out food baskets to poor fmailies on christmas. yes,. including poor black and catholic families as well. some of you forget that anyone could buy and put on a kkk styled robe and do or say whatever they feel like doing or saying. there's atleast a few places online where anyone can buy ku klux klan memorabilia. anyone online can claim to be anything they want and not usually have to be held accountable for it. believe it or not, the klan has also had it's share of moderates as well.i feel they had every right to resist the motives of northern bankers who were trying to buy up everthing for pennies on the dollar.

while i do often find the KKK to be uncultured and obnoxious rednecks. i don;t think they are that uncultured compared to the likes of anti racist action and antifa. both of which are known to have campaigns of harrassment, intimidation and firebombings. riot police the world over say there's more violence from the antiracist crowd at kkk rallies than from the klan. then again without hollywood's jewish money, the kkk never would have rose to power again the way they did in the early 1900s. thanks to dw griffin's film birth of a nation. and yet i'm to believe they are the mortal enemies of jews? how laughable it is

 

william ayers and bernadine dohr were bigwigs in the weather undergorund. a group that was marxist influenced and opposed capitalism so much. that they had campaigns of bank bombings years ago. they also tried to set off bombs that were to kill people enlisted in the military too. but now they sit fat because of their political loyalties to barack obama. bill ayers was one of the people most intrumental in putting him into power. yet i';m supposed to believe president barry when he says he's commited to fighting terrorism? what a joke