M-13 - Ku Klux Klan--An exception to freedom of speech?

[MarcKal]

I think the Ku Klux Klan people should all be arrested. They burn crosses, discriminate other races, e.t.c. What do you think?

[GinWeasRox]

I think the Ku Klux Klan people should all be arrested. They burn crosses, discriminate other races, e.t.c. What do you think?

In my point of view, anything the Klan says is disgusting. Their actions are, without exception, evil.

But on the other hand, the religion I profess has been denied freedom of speech by several different governments in Iran for more than 150 years, and by Nazi Germany.

Who is qualified to decide which groups are free to speak out and which are not?

And still further, there is the unpleasant fact that if we allow fringe groups free speech, even though we disagree with them, they aren't ignored by everyone and they DON'T go away. They find people who are willing to join them.

Something should be done about anyone who preaches hate, but we need safeguards to prevent the suppression of groups that the decision-makers simply don't like.

[Dark Fallen Pride]

I think members of it should only be arrested if they cause physical harm
Everyone discriminates, so they should be able to do that without acting it out in a harmful way...

[Angora]

We have hate speach laws here that are a little controversial. I think there's a difference between getting up and saying "I hate ___" and saying "I hate ___, let's kill them!" So I think as long as you don't advocate discrimination, or violence or anything else that would be illegal (as long as you're just saying your opinion) that's okay, no matter how distasteful your opinion is. But if you're trying to rally people into doing something illegal that's another matter.

[MarcKal]

The KKK are known to injure people......from what I've heard. They also have a thing against God! GRRRRRRRRRR!

[Auror Williamson]

I think the Ku Klux Klan people should all be arrested. They burn crosses, discriminate other races, e.t.c.

It's all a part of our constitutional right to freedom of speech. If you want to assemble, which is protected under the constitution as well, and burn crosses, and voice your views on such issues as raciality and ethnicity, then so be it.

They also have a thing against God!

Actually, KKK members are extremely religious people.

KKK.com (http://www.kkk.com/) shows that they are religious people. In some cases, different realms are headed by pastors!

In fact, one of their reasonings for their actions is:

Proclaiming a Message of hope and deliverance for White Christian America!

And they use a bible verse as well:

If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways; Then will i hear from heaven, will forgive their sins, and will heal their land ii chronicles 7:14

They also talk about the Ten Commandments:

The Ten Commandments of the Holy Bible are at issue throughout America in courtrooms, school rooms, and other government buildings and property. How sad that a nation based upon Biblical principles is now having its symbol of law removed from places throughout the country where previously they had been displayed for sometimes hundreds of years. The Knights' Party is a political organization and believe we rightfully place our foundation upon the word of Jesus Christ. This we feel is what made America great. Today, many deny the Christian foundation of America. Some are aware of the Christian beliefs of the founding fathers, but hate them more for it. Others, are only sentimental about the good ole' days when everyone went to church on Sunday, yet haven't given much thought to the consequences of no longer basing our society upon Christianity. Sometimes, even well meaning people don't even understand the Ten Commandments, even as simple to understand as they may seem. When The Knights' Party says it believes and is working for a return of Christianity into public affairs, it means that we want recognition and adherence to the Ten Commandments of the Holy Scripture. This was the intention of the framers of our wonderful country. It is only by basing governmental policy and laws upon the Christian faith that our nation and people will retain our cherished liberties and freedom. Our nation must repent of its sins and return to the laws of God and the precepts which made America Great! Our children are worth it.

The only reason Klan members should be arrested is if they did commit any sort of physical violence or damage to property they do not own. As long as they stay within the legal limitation set forth in the law books, there is absolutely no valid reason that each and every Klan member should be arrested simply for speaking their mind.

[Rowena Ravenclaw]

I don't agree with what the Klan stand for in the slightest, but Auror_Williamson's right. Direct action doesn't need to be taken against them unless they do violate the law in some way. I remember one time when they tried to hold a rally in my community, a counter-demonstration was organized that so vastly outnumbered them, they called it off. Now that's freedom of speech in action.

[MarcKal]

Why do they burn crosses then?

[Mireille]

Why do they burn crosses then?

They were banned from burning crosses by the US Suprime Court in April of 2003. From what I gather they used to do this to intimidate the people they hated.

[Auror Williamson]

Why do they burn crosses then?



According to church doctrine the first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine, beheld a vision of a fiery cross in the sky on the eve of a battle. With the fiery cross vision in the sky were the words: "With this sign ye shall conquer." Constantine adopted the fiery cross as his symbol on his shield and won the battle. That's how it all got started and since then the fiery cross has been a religious symbol not only for the Catholic Church, but numerous Protestant churches as well. As a religious symbol these churches use the fiery cross in various ways.

Does it make any difference whether or not the cross is drawn or painted burning, or is actually lighted with fire? Have you ever stopped to think of just how many times God and fire are connected in the Bible? The Bible often uses fire as a symbol of God. In Deuteronomy 4:24 and in Hebrews 12:29, God is referred to as a consuming fire. In Malachi 3:2, the promised Messiah is referred to as a refiner's fire. In Mathew 3:11, John the Baptist speaks of Christ saying, "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." In Exodus chapter three, God spoke to Moses out of a burning bush. In chapter 14 of Exodus, God came down as a pillar of fire. In Genesis chapter 19:24-25, Leviticus 10, Second Chronicles 7, and First Kings 18, Second Kings 2, God is again and again symbolized with fire, and fire gives light. Now the cross has been long established as the symbol of Christ and Christ is the Light of the world. The Gospel of John 1:4-5 states: "In Him (Christ) was life and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness and the darkness grasped it not." Thus, this passage has been symbolized by illuminating a cross with fire at night.

the original KKK did not use the fiery cross. In the 47 volumes that make up the Ku Klux Report to Congress there is not one newspaper, not one eye witness, not one ex-Klansman, not one surviving victim who makes a reference to a fiery cross of any kind during the era of the original KKK. A fiction writer, Thomas Dixon, in his novel, "The Clansman" added a fiery cross. When questioned years later as to why he did that, Dixon said that he put the fiery cross into his Klan novel because his Uncle had told him that on one occasion the Klan used a small fiery cross as a signal light. This one use of a small fiery cross by a local Klan unit may not have even happened! However, when D.W. Griffith made the Dixon novel in to the epic motion picture, "The Birth of a Nation", Griffith embellished the ficticious usage of a fiery cross by the Klan. He knew a good movie prop when he saw one.

Then came Col. Simmons who revived the KKK in 1915. He was a former Methodist circuit minister, the fiery cross is a Methodist religious symbol. After he saw Birth of a Nation, he quickly incorporated the fiery cross as a major ceremonial prop in his revived Klan. However, the use of fiery crosses were quickly misinterpreted on one hand and on the other, unauthorized use of fiery crosses by local units led to misuse and then, abuse by renegade Klansmen and pranksters. The revival Klan disbanded in 1944.

The Klan was revived again in 1946 and the fiery cross was kept as a ceremonial prop. But during the violent 1960's Civil Rights era renegade Klans and rabid rednecks truly abused the fiery cross and did use it as an act of intimidation, terror, and lit it in some cases as to make it a part of arson.

Well, recently various wannabe Klan groups have held their imitation cross lightings against the orders of the police who have cited various newly passed federal, state, or local laws regarding such. They then found themselves on the losing end in court room cases because these amateurs couldn't even defend their use of the fiery cross by proving it a well established religious symbol and thus protected under the First Amendment.


Cross burning is not a sign of Christ-hate.

[MarcKal]

Well, good or not good, cross burning means a bad thing to me! You know how many african americans are saddened each year with the KKK's sick remarks! I don't know! But I fell many are saddened and are in fear of seeing a cross burning in their front yard!

Just a quick question Auror_Williamson, do you support the KKK? I'm not calling you evil, but do you?

[Hufflepuffy]

I'm a Criminal Justice major, so I've had my share of law classes, one last year dealing with the Bill of Rights specifically, and we spent a few lectures discussing the rights of the KKK and other types of hate groups. Basically, free speech can only be limited if the speech directly calls for people to take specific violent action. Since the KKK doesn't tell it's members to target a specific person, the speech is perfectly legal. As much as anyone might disagree with their beliefs, it doesn't mean that their constitutional rights should be violated.

[MarcKal]

Yeah....maybe you guys are right......ah! Now I have nothing to argue about!!!!

:upset:

Ah, what the heck?

[triki1988]

Ah, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are too tricky rights.
I live near Davie, Florida, which is claimed to be a place full of kkk members. I think it's a bit scary since I'm hispanic and they hate everything that wasn't born in this country and is Christian.

I believe they should be dismantled and whomever attempts to kill or harrass anyone be sent to jail. But again, they slap you in the face with the constitution.
It's all so complicated.
All I know is that your rights end when another person's begin.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

A little while ago in my city, the KKK "adopted" part of a highway. The Adopt-a-Highway program is one where various groups go around every so often and clean up the highways of pollution and littering. There is always a sign that says "This section of Highway Blank has been adopted by . . ." Well, just a little after the KKK adopted it, someone tore down the sign. They put it back up, and someone tore it down. They put it back up, and someone tore it down. It became a big free speech issue, and the KKK won, as they should have. But the best thing was what the legislature did. They named that part of the Rosa Parks highway, after the woman who wouldn't give up her seat. So now the KKK cleans up the Rosa Parks Highway!

[Hufflepuffy]

They named that part of the Rosa Parks highway, after the woman who wouldn't give up her seat. So now the KKK cleans up the Rosa Parks Highway!

That's great!!! I love it

[tabby]

No matter what you think of what someone believes, taking away their right to say it is also taking away your right to express your views.

I dislike everything the KKK stands for but not enough that I'll give up some of my rights just to shut them up.

[NiCk RiDdLe]

The people of the KKK are just sick and disgusting people. I really wish they didn't exist, but they do. That's just how life goes.

[Midnightsfire]

Well...I think banning the KKK is a form of censorship. They should be permitted their views regardless how hateful it may appear to others. (re: Censorship thread (http://cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=4655))

If nothing else they help in an inadvertant way. They help delineate a line of hatred that most people will not cross.

[Weatherby]

Well as much as I'd love for the KKK to be disbanded if they took away their rights then what would come next?
Not even banning Birth of a Nation would be right.

I wish they'd find a way to prove them as a cult group.
Too many cults and organisations fall under the protection of religion and get away with murder as well.
They are promoting murder and violence and twisting the law to work for them.

When I think about the programs I saw on the television where people had to protect the KKK as they preached killing them based on their skin colour I become ill.

[Sherlock Holmes]

There will always be extreme elements in any society, especially in societies which promote freedom, as the United States does. One of the good things about the way our constitutional goverment is set up is that it encourages a two-party system rather than a coalition-type of goverment. That means, in other words, that it is difficult for fringe groups to get any kind of government power: they can't get a majority of people anywhere to elect them. As such, they are unlikely to ever be able to make any real difference.

The KKK has often acted hatefully, to be sure. Communities and law enforcement is right to be suspicious of their activities, given their history. Nevertheless, as many others have stated, until they move beyond mere speech to prohibited actions, they can say whatever they like.

[Auror Williamson]

Just a quick question Auror_Williamson, do you support the KKK? I'm not calling you evil, but do you?


Just because I am informed and well-read on the history and background of the KKK, it does not mean that I support them.


The KKK is not as bad as a lot of you think. Negative displays of actors playing the KKK in movies create stereotypes and untrue facts.


September 24, 1920, the Chamber of Commerce of Yoakum, Tx., accepted an offer of the Yoakum Klan to loan $30,000 to the city for the building and equipping of a public library. It was stipulated in the loan by the Klan that six Holy Bibles must be on file in the library, and the American flag was to fly over the building at all times.

The following are all from the years 1920 - 21:

On Sept. 17, in Richmond, Va., a police officer was killed by a criminal. The Richmond Klan sent $100 to the widow.

On Aug. 27, in Charleston, W.Va., Klansmen contributed $275 toward the support of the Old Ladies Home in Kanawha County.

In March the Charlottesville, Va., Klan gave $1,000 to the University of Virginia Centennial Endowment Fund.

November 24, the Henderson, Tx. Klan gave $50 to two Negroes in needy circumstances.

October 1, the Atlanta Klan contributed $100 to help pay expenses of Confederate veterans from Atlanta to Houston, Tx., at the annual reunion of the United Confederate Veterans.

Nov. 23, the Greenville, Tx., Klan contributed $1,000 toward rebuilding Wesley College, which had been destroyed by fire.

On Christmas Day, 1921, the Atlanta, Ga., Klan contributed $125 to the Christmas fund for former slaves.

Nov. 25, the Memphis, Tn., Klan gave $100 to the Red Cross.

Nov. 7, the Goliad, Tx., Klan contributed $50 to a town citizen whose home and possessions had been destroyed by fire.

June 22, the San Antonio, Tx., Klan gave $100 to the local Orphan's Home.

July 6, the Wharton, Tx., Klan contributed $50 to a destitute widow.

July 9, the Cureo, Tx., Klan gave $60 to help a man afflicted with tuberculosis.

Nov. 21, the Austin, Tx., Klan sent $100 to the Salvation Army.

July 20, the Dallas, Tx., Klan sent $100 to the Orphans' Home.

The Atlanta Klan gave $1,000 to the Agnes Scott Girls' School in that city.

Nov. 29, the Washington, D.C., Klan gave $100 to the Salvation Army.

During this same time period the Atlanta Klan loaned $15,000, interest free, to small tradesmen who needed capital for their businesses. The Klan loaned many more thousands of dollars, free of interest, to small tradesmen across the country.

January, 1921, there was a race riot at Winter Gardens, Fl., the local Klansmen helped to suppress the riot, and members of that Klan stood guard for three days and three nights, protecting lives and property in the Negro quarters.

Feb. 5, 1921, the Mayor of Columbus, Ga., praised the Columbus Klan for its assistance to the police department during an epidemic of burglaries.

In Atlanta, Ga., a mob formed to storm the jail and lynch a Negro charged with an atrocious crime. Col. Simmons happened to be passing and sent Klansmen among the mob to persuade them to disband, which was done. Later when the Negro was taken from the jail to the courthouse, Klansmen stationed along the way prevented any act of violence against the accused.

Nov. 25, the Little Rock, Ar., Klan gave the chief of police $1,000 as reward money for the arrest and conviction of anyone attacking a woman.

And that's just the beginning of the revival Klan!

[Confessor]

The KKK has often acted hatefully, to be sure. Communities and law enforcement is right to be suspicious of their activities, given their history. Nevertheless, as many others have stated, until they move beyond mere speech to prohibited actions, they can say whatever they like.

Maybe. But since many western laws are essentially the same, I'll say this. They can't actually say anything, as that's considered discrimination. Discrimination is the act of acting upon prejudicial thoughts, at least as far as the law is concerned. Discrimination is illegal, but only a civil offence. It's entirely up to whoever is affected by the acts to get proper restitution.


Positive stuff

You're right; I haven't ever seen that side before. It's not only movies that create the untrue stereotypes, however.

[Auror Williamson]

The following was taken from an article that appeared in the New Hampshire Sunday News in Manchester, N.H., May 29, 1983.

"Few remember that 50 years ago the Klan was an accepted and often respected organization. It donated to numerous charities, sponsored social clubs and with few exceptions, was a law abiding society accepted by other clubs such as the Masons, Knights of Pythias, Odd Fellows, and the Grangers. On April 24, 1924, during a dedication ceremony for a new organ at the First True Memorial Baptist Church, 20 Klansmen marched down the aisle, donated $67.00 to the church and left the service without incident."

The following was taken from, "Hoods: The Story of the Ku Klux Klan", by Robert Ingalls.

In Portland, Or., in the early 1920's, the Ku Klux Klan pledged $50,000 to a children's home and held a Christmas party featuring Kris Kringle. The Klan also organized a Klan Kommunity Kit to compete with the Community Chest, church visits became a kind of ritual. Typically, a small group of Klansmen would march down the aisle, hand the minister an offering of money, and silently depart. (page 39)

Protestant ministers quickly found that the Klan's emphasis on religion helped swell church attendance. (page 41)

Most Klansmen were law abiding, church going family men. Klansmen also hoped to eliminate vice and corruption through the ballot box. One Klansman declared, "Everybody knows that politicians nowadays cater to all kinds of elements, mostly selfish, some corrupt, and some definitely anti-American. They cater to the vice vote and even to the violently criminal vote. What the Klan intends to do is make them pay some attention to the decent God fearing, law abiding vote." (pages 42-43)

During the 1920's, the Klan was subjected not only to verbal abuse but also to physical assault in some areas. Bootleggers, for example, did not take kindly to the Klan's attempts to enforce prohibition. When New Jersey's Klan declared war on local bootleggers, the rum runners formed a defense council and publicly threatened to "Shoot to kill" anyone other then a policeman who interfered with their illegal traffic in liquor. (page 68)

The following was taken from, "Hooded Americanism, the History of the Ku Klux Klan", by David M. Chalmers.

In Minneapolis, the Klan presented bibles to Methodist Churches and stressed "positive Protestantism". (page 151)

In Indiana the Klan gathered contributions to build a new hospital. (page 165)

In Florida, the Klan donated flags and bibles to schools. It gave a big contribution to the YMCA building fund. The Klan joined other civic groups to protect city beaches from commercial exploitation and Klanswomen devoted their efforts to running a two story high free nursery. (pages 226-227)

In Virginia, the Klan presented a flag and flag pole to William and Mary College. (page 234)

In Pennsylvania, the "Pennsylvania Dutch" made the most loyal of Klansmen, once the Klan made certain concessions to accommodate their religious beliefs. The Klan helped passage of a bond issue for the new high school in Greensburg. Elsewhere in the state, the Klan donated bibles and flags to schools. (page 237)

The Pennsylvania Klan was engaged in expensive educational and charity work. It built Klan Haven for orphans and shared in paying the orphanage's expenses with the state. (page 240)

The New York Klan donated the trophy at the Huntington Firemen's Tournament. Federal prohibition agents on occasion worked with the Klan. The Klan placed a wreath at the memorial for Hicksville's war dead, who had all been Catholics. (page 256)

Klan parades featured floats representing the Declaration of Independence, the Pilgrims, Betsy Ross, and the importance of bible reading in schools. (page 260)

The New York Klan built Klan Haven Home in Mannsville, south of Watertown, where orphans were trained in farming and domestic science. (page 261)

In Washington, D.C., the Klan sought, with aid from the National Education Administration and the Scottish Rite Masons, a cabinet-level department which would spend liberally to advance teacher training and salaries, educate aliens and illiterates, and promote physical education. In short, Federal aid to education. (pages 284-285)

The York, Pa. Klan organized two enormous meat and bean soup dinners for the victims of the depression. The Klan also contributed to the Red Cross. (page 306)

In Gainesville, Fl., the Klan closed down houses of prostitution so that the students at the university would not be distracted from their studies. (page 311)

In the early 1950's, the Georgia Klan presented a radio to a 107 year old Negro, distributed food among the needy, and donated clothing to the Old Folk's Home in Atlanta. (page 329)

In New Jersey, the Klan built Shark River Recreational Park. (pages 244 & 253)

The primary concerns of the New Jersey Klan was the preservation of the traditional American values. Baptist, Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, and Evangelical Pastors and churches supplied pulpits for the cause. Most of New Jersey's Klan leadership were clergymen. The Klan's truest friends came from Bishop Alma White's Zarepath, Pillar of Fire Church near Bound Brook, and the Methodists. Bishop Alma White praised the KKK by book and sermon. (pages 245-246)

The New Jersey Klan formed the New Jersey Easter Sunday Evangelistic Society and held sunrise services at Basking Ridge and Bridgewater. (page 249)



There are more radical branches of the KKK that are only organized to discriminate, and act violently towards minorities. Some work towards the well being of America's citizens.

[Morgoth]

I think the problem Auror is the same one you faced with the confederate flag issue. The image of the KKK is a racist and a hateful one, led no doubt by a large anti-racist lobby and the media. Whilst it is likely that there are people within a KKK group that embody compassion and charity, the fanatical and racist elements are obviously the ones that people will focus on because there is no other word for the KKK other than racists. So again the image issue is the biggest issue and probably one that will not be overcome by those within the group that do not believe in racism or segregation.

[Hagar]

The KKK is a sad sad group, they're too wimp to actually go around saying they hate blacks in a normal community, so they need to play dress up so they can all feel safe together, pathetic. In the end they my have a right to free speech, but everyone knows they promote violence so yes they should be shut down.

[Angora]

Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I wouldn't read anything too nice into them throwing money at things. It's still founded on the idea of racial supremacy. A) they're going to take care of their own and B) it makes them look less racist if they throw a few bucks to minority groups here and there. I consider them a gang, only it's a different kind of gang warfare where they try to manipulate people and cast themselves in a possitive light, when they're really just a bunch of dirty racists.

I don't like to cite TV shows, because they're fictional, but one thing keeps leaping to mind. On Oz (which started out brilliantly and ended out okay) they used to have a character called Vern Schillinger who was part of the Aryan Brotherhood (similar to the KKK) who I thought was well written and well acted. He expressed a lot of the sentiments from the "charitable" donations above, and he guinely liked his family and his friends, and he had feelings and everything, but the minute he thought he could get away with it, he carved people up.

The long and short of it is, I don't care how much money they give away. I don't care who they give it to. They still have a repulsive idea at their core.

[Weatherby]

I think they ought to form a different group that doesn't preach hatred of people who aren't white and Southern if they want to do some good.
As Morgoth pointed out the KKK is always going to be viewed in a negative light.

Well that's an interesting point Auror.
So does donating money outweigh murder and making millions of people feel scared?

[ssimons]

I don't think that the KKK could ever be called a "good" organization, no matter how many good things they may do for society. I agree with whoever it was that said that the basis is still racial prejudice; how can that kind of organization ever be truly beneficial to society?

However, I do agree that their constitutional rights should be taken away just because a lot of people disagree.

[Squarmy]

I do not agree with the KKK, but i do think that they have the right to say what they want. The constitution should not ban them because then the constitution would have to ban every hate group and also ban the good groups. Besides even if the constitution banned the KKK, the KKK could easily sue the government for billions of dollars. Discrimination should not be tolerated but when you hear black people and other minority groups calling us, whites, names we get upset. Blacks and other minorities could easily start hate groups towards white americans but it has not happened. What are we going to do when that happens?

[Confessor]

I do not agree with the KKK, but i do think that they have the right to say what they want. The constitution should not ban them because then the constitution would have to ban every hate group and also ban the good groups. Besides even if the constitution banned the KKK, the KKK could easily sue the government for billions of dollars. Discrimination should not be tolerated but when you hear black people and other minority groups calling us, whites, names we get upset. Blacks and other minorities could easily start hate groups towards white americans but it has not happened. What are we going to do when that happens?


For all anyone knows there are those groups; however, they're against Caucasian males, and are overlooked. Hating non-black people based on skin colour is okay, so long as you don't kill someone. Feel free to beat them into submission, though. (note: don't take that seriously)


So does donating money outweigh murder and making millions of people feel scared?

It depends entirely on the 'victim' in that circumstance. Like I said previously, discrimination is illegal, but it's a civil offence; making it up to the reciever of said discrimination to get proper resitution.

Well, maybe I should elaborate on how discrimination becomes an offence. If say, they just said 'I hate you because you are of X racial group', that wouldn't be discrimination in a legal sense, just asininity. If, however, they said that, and you felt your life was threatened, it would be an offence.

[Auror Williamson]

So again the image issue is the biggest issue and probably one that will not be overcome...

Exactly. The image is a problem that needs to be squashed under the mighty feet of truth. If half of those that think the KKK is a totally racist organization would just dent the vast history of the Klan, most of their views would change.

I am not doubting that a good portion of the KKK is extremely racist and oppressive. It undeniably true that the KKK is and will unfortunately remain a racist organization.

With that said, one must enjoy and consider in the beginnings and foundations of the Klan, as it was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee in 1866 as a social club with wild titles and such positions of honor as the "Grand Wizard."

There are other hate groups such as M.E.C.H.A. that former Califormia Recall candidate Cruz Bustamante was a member of, and the Black Panthers. Such racist and discriminitory groups are just as bad, if not worse than the KKK.

Just today, a Hispanic kid said to me, "Move over, Whitey!" in the cafeteria. Is that not racist and prejudiced? Other minorities are just as capable of making racist comments and actions.

[Weatherby]

I don't think that the KKK could ever be called a "good" organization, no matter how many good things they may do for society. I agree with whoever it was that said that the basis is still racial prejudice; how can that kind of organization ever be truly beneficial to society?



It can't be.
Donating money to charities may help a few people but as for society the KKK is a knife in it's back.
They've been very instrumental in ruining our society because if people can't live together then how can we exist in harmony?
How can we live if someone is going to come over and put a firey cross in your front yard? You can't.

They are only "helping" their fellow kind anyway. Lots of racist hate groups have charity drives for those like them.

There are other hate groups such as M.E.C.H.A. that former Califormia Recall candidate Cruz Bustamante was a member of, and the Black Panthers. Such racist and discriminitory groups are just as bad, if not worse than the KKK.

Just today, a Hispanic kid said to me, "Move over, Whitey!" in the cafeteria. Is that not racist and prejudiced? Other minorities are just as capable of making racist comments and actions.

Two wrongs doesn't make a right.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

The KKK does do good to the society, just by being there, without engaging in physical violence. By giving alternative viewpoints, it keeps the country a democracy. If we ban the KKK, what's next? Eventually, whoever had the power to ban groups would streamline the permitted groups until there was no freedom of choice. So as long as the KKK does no physical harm, it, and the rest of the extremists, actually prop up our society.

[swishandflick]

wow I feel really sick. Its strange that I have to go on a message board to have my eyes opened to society (a hp board on top of it). Granted, Constitutionally, the KKK has every right to congregate and have meetings ect. But you cant deny the atrocities that they commited. I am very tempted to post a photo of a lynching, but instead Ill write this about it:

"After the establishment of the Ku Klux Klan in 1867 the number of lynching of African American increased dramatically. The main objective of the KKK was to maintain white supremacy in the South, which they felt was under threat after their defeat in the Civil War. It has been estimated that between 1880 and 1920, an average of two African Americans a week were lynched in the United States."

hmmm, and I wonder where they got thier bad reputation from?? The KKK can claim that they are a religious organization all that they want, they have every constitutional right to do so, but the bottom line is that the Bible should not be used as a weapon. Ever.
Just because something is constitutional does not make it right.

How can you defend, on any platform, and organization like the KKK? As far as I am concerned, they are monsters, and I would not be called dead supporting them in any way, shape, or form.

[bellatrix669]

I personally abhor the Klan and everything for which it stands. They may have donated money and helped others, but while they were doing that publically, they were burning crosses in yards of those who sympathized with the cause for civil rights. Today, their main mission is to normalize their views via political lobbying and scaring middle America by hinting that affirmative action programs and welfare have had severely detrimental effects upon the greater good. Does the name David Duke ring a bell?

[Weatherby]

The KKK does do good to the society, just by being there, without engaging in physical violence. By giving alternative viewpoints, it keeps the country a democracy. If we ban the KKK, what's next? Eventually, whoever had the power to ban groups would streamline the permitted groups until there was no freedom of choice. So as long as the KKK does no physical harm, it, and the rest of the extremists, actually prop up our society.

But a democracy for who? White men?
That's not propping society up considering how many people live in this country that aren't white men.
The same goes for all the other similar organisations who promote the same "values" and hide behind religion.

The horrible thing is the KKK disbanded and the propaganda film Birth of a Nation came out and they felt they needed to be "heros".

Cults and groups like the KKK are abusing our rights until we won't have them anymore.
If your pursuits get in the way of other people then should you be protected? There's a limit people should draw in free speech if your group is asking others to kill or harm someone else.
That's illegal even if you hold a few bake sales for a lynch mob member's widow. That doesn't wipe out goals to remove the rights of other people.

People really should start trying to live together.

[Midnightsfire]

Hehehe...The revisionist history section on the KKK's website is rather amusing. (Yes I can debunk it easily enough, but why bother?)

A few reasons (http://www.splcenter.org/legal/landmark/hate.jsp) why the KKK have an image problem...

http://www.math.unl.edu/~bcooley/school/kkk.htm

And I do agree that the "Birth of a Nation" was nothing more than silly propaganda. (Woodrow Wilson wasn't one of our better presidents...)

[Auror Williamson]

There's a limit people should draw in free speech if your group is asking others to kill or harm someone else.

The only reason the KKK should be shut down is if they act upon the impuleses they preach and actually kill, destroy or harm property or people. Everyone has the right to wish harm upon another being, so long as they do not act upon their thoughts.


Midnightsfire, are you saying that I am getting my information from the KKK website? I'm not, for I only visited it in my first post on this thread.


Here's a short History of the Klan.


"Adventurers swarmed out of the North, as much the enemies of one race as of the other, to cozen, beguile and use the Negroes. The White men were aroused by a mere instinct of self preservation until at last there sprang into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable Empire of the South, to protect the Southern Country." - Woodrow Wilson (of New Jersey) President of the United States, in his "History of the American People."

In April 1865, the war of Southern secession came to its bitter end. For the last time the Confederate armies assembled themselves before the Union forces, not to do battle, but to stack arms, surrender, and go home. But what did they go home to? After four years of bitter conflict the South was devastated. Its economy was shattered. Its countryside was ravaged. Its cities lay in ruins and most bridges and ferries were destroyed or damaged.

With the collapse of the Confederate government, Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, did not want to grant even a shadow of legality to Southern civil authority. He declared that all police power in the South had reverted to the United States Army. Individuals who held local civil positions had to report themselves to the military authorities. Anyone who violated these instructions was liable to trial before a military tribunal. Civil authority thus fell into a void. Lawlessness abounded. Millions of emancipated Negroes roamed about. They had no education, no work, no homes, and no money. To avoid starvation they raided and stole whatever they could. Poor whites who owned small family farms were defenseless against large roaming gangs of desperate hungry Negroes. Rape and murder became commonplace.

The collapse of the Confederate armies alone guaranteed an upsurge in crime as half starved veterans began their long march back to their homes. In desperation they scrambled for handouts and resorted to petty thievery. General Johnson noted he could do nothing as Lee's veterans passed through the lines of his still intact army in late April, stealing mules and horses as well as clothes hung out to dry. A week earlier Thomasville, Georgia had been the scene of three days of disorder as disbanding soldiers passed through the town. On the night of May 6, more then fifty armed men stole eighty nine mules and seven horses from the loosely guarded Confederate depot. On May 8, four hundred former soldiers attacked the Confederate storehouses. At the commissary they broke into two warehouses and carried away 125,000 pounds of corn. They also destroyed all books, papers, and office furniture they could find. Such riots were widespread in the deep South following the war's end.

When a group of paroled soldiers arrived in Houston, to find that the Confederate storehouse had already been looted, they threatened to burn the Texas town. Frightened citizens hastily provided food and accommodations for the ex-soldiers. The sanctity of private property had already been severely undermined by the wartime foraging practices of Union and Confederate forces. By war's end bands of outlaws had deserters roamed from county to county plundering the scanty stores of the distressed and impoverished people.

More than a year after the end of the war one newspaper editor noted that it was impossible for Southerners to pick up a local newspaper without being horror stricken with the details of some terrible atrocity, robbery, rape, or murder. Before the war these were rare occurrences. Observers often differed as to which area of the South was most crime ridden. On top of all this, Southern Unionists shared a blood thirsty desire for revenge. Later, the Radical Republicans transformed vengeance into a state religion and exemplified the bitterness of Southern Unionists who had been persecuted during the war.

In the summer of 1865, Gov. Brownlow of Tennessee, declared that persecutors of Union men had forfeited all rights to protection and life. That same year one delegate to the Tennessee Constitutional Convention stated that the only right the Rebels had was to be hung. There is ample documentation of cases in which Unionists, seeking revenge for wartime harassment, used their new positions to jail their old enemies on trumped up charges. On the vaguest rumors and hearsay, cavalry units calmly put the torch to the homes of citizens. Vengeful Unionists formed the Loyal League, ostensibly to suppress crime, keep order, and maintain discipline among the Negro population. In fact the Loyal League acted to intimidate political opponents and ex-Confederates.

Worsening the post war situation were the infamous Carpetbaggers and Scalawags, who sought personal profit and political power by exploiting the plight of both the freed Negroes and conquered Whites. The Radical Republicans declared the Southern States would have to be re-constructed before they could be re-admitted into the Union. Until then, the ex-Confederates had no rights of citizenship. Southern whites were completely disenfranchised with no legal standing. They could not vote, hold public office, or petition for the redress of grievances. In an effort to stop the lawlessness, the South was divided into five military districts and marshal law declared. Through out the South, freed Negroes formed the Union League and Black Militias and in most areas were given the task of enforcing marshal law. Led by corrupt officers and self serving politicians, the Union League became the most violent and murderous arm of the reconstruction to Blacks and Whites alike.

It was amid this atmosphere that John Lester, James Crowe, John Kennedy, Calvin Jones, Richard Reed, and Frank McCord met in a law office in Pulaski, Tn., on Christmas Eve, 1865 and, innocently enough, decided to form a social club for the purpose of mutual entertainment. The club adopted the style of the college fraternities in vogue at the time. They would dress up in weird costumes and play practical jokes on unsuspecting people. To create an aura of mystery they invented an unusual name and called their social club: the Ku Klux Klan.

In 1866, the popularity of the Ku Klux Klan grew through out Tennessee and beyond. At the same time depredations committed by renegade Blacks and Whites, coupled with the absents of constitutional law and vengeance seeking Radical Republicans, made life in the South become all but unbearable. Quite by accident the nocturnal pranksters of the Ku Klux Klan discovered that their costumes and highjinks had a startling effect on the superstitious Negroes. The Negroes thought they were seeing ghosts whenever a group of Klansmen were seen going about at night. The Klan was quick to realize that their newly discovered ghostly image could be used to control bands of unruly Negroes. At first the night riders went out unarmed. Not intending to hurt anyone, they believed that anyone they met would be too frightened to try to harm them. Things were soon to change.

When the Carpetbagger and Scalawag politicians noticed that renegade Negroes were beginning to behave themselves and crime went drastically down in areas where a Den of the Klan had been established, they reacted swiftly. Carpetbaggers and Scalawags were manipulators. They thrived in the violent post Civil War period where they could take advantage of people's fears to increase their own fortunes and political powers. The Loyal League and Union League made willing allies. The Klan was, for the most part, made up of ex-Confederates who were hated by the Loyal League and if crime and violence went down, no one could justify the expense of maintaining the Negro Militias. The Loyal League and Union League began night patrols in the name of protecting the terrified Negro population. These patrols did not hesitate to open fire on the Klansmen, who, up to that point, were guilty of nothing worse then Halloween tricks. The Klan responded in kind. Soon skirmishes broke out when night patrols of each side would chance encounter each other.

By early 1867, the Klan was spreading through out large sections of the South. It was still largely unstructured and unorganized. By the same token, the Reconstruction Acts of Congress were very organized and well structured . In short, the White South had no constitutional or legal rights at all. The freed Negroes, however, were given full rights. The end result was Negro rule through out most of the South, enforced by Union bayonets. To avoid chaos and to confront the oppression of reconstruction the Klan sought to organize itself. Spokesmen for the Klan first asked former general, Robert E. Lee, if he would head the organization. Lee declined citing his age and poor health. Lee suggested they ask the younger former general, Nathan Bedford Forrest. When the Klan spokesmen asked if they could count on Lee's support, Lee said yes but only if his support for their growing empire remained absolutely invisible. This inspired the Klan to adopt the nickname, "Invisible Empire". N.B. Forrest accepted the Klan's offer to lead the organization and in April 1867, at a convention in Nashville, Tn., Forrest became the first Grand Wizard of the Order of the Ku Klux Klan. The rules and regulations of the order, called the Prescripts, were written by former general, John B. Gordon, who became the Grand Dragon or state leader of the KKK in Georgia. Former general, Albert Pike, became the chief judicial officer for the Klan. Pike was also a major figure in Scottish Rite Masonry in America. A notable Klansman and Free Mason, Pike is buried in the Masonic Lodge in Washington, D.C., just a few blocks from the White House.

Once organized under Grand Wizard Forrest, the Klan became a force to be reckoned with. Disbanded Confederate units reunited to form Dens of the Klan. Ex-Confederate officers became the Grand Dragons, Giants, and Titans. Ex-Confederate common soldiers made up the rank and file of the Klan and were called Ghouls. As this was happening, other organizations independently began to form in the South to combat the depredations of outlaws, renegade Whites and Blacks, the Union and Loyal Leagues, Carpetbag rule, and the outrages allowed by the Reconstruction Acts of Congress. Some of these new organizations were: the knights of the White Camellia, the White League, the White Brotherhood, and the Red Shirts to name a few. These organizations were independent from, yet just as secret as, the Ku Klux. Having no legal rights, members of these organizations could not afford to have their identities made known and solemn oaths of secrecy were taken by all. The secrecy was both a help and a hindrance to the Klan. While it protected the identity of its members, it became difficult to tell if an act had been committed by the Klan, one of the other ant-reconstruction organizations, or by outlaws impersonating the Klan. In the forty seven volumes that make up the Ku Klux Report to Congress, there is ample documentation to prove that most of the atrocities attributed to the Klan were, in fact, committed by the other anti-reconstruction organizations, outlaws impersonating the Klan, and in many cases Loyal Leaguers and Black Union Leaguers who would disguise themselves as Klansmen and raid Negro hamlets to instill anti-white sentiment for political purposes. The Reconstruction authorities soon declared the Ku Klux Klan and all other resistance groups as outlaws. The Negro militias were ordered to kill on sight anyone believed to be a Klansman.

During all this the Klan tried to keep its intentions on a high level. When the Klan "Ku Kluxed" someone it was only after the victim was given a trial and was allowed to choose someone to speak on their behalf and defend them. The Klan also gave large sums of money to war widows and orphans.

The victims of the Klan, who were White as well as Black, tended to be people proven to be guilty of serious crimes such as barn burnings, theft, rape, or murder. Corrupt politicians, Carpetbaggers and Scalawags were also Ku Kluxed. Usually the Klan left cryptic messages to warn minor offenders, but if these warnings were ignored, they too could be Ku Kluxed, which meant anything from a flogging to execution. These were barbaric times, but the Klan sought to restore law and order, not to destroy it. There was, in fact, no law and the Klan only used force when the forces of the Radical Republicans gave it no other choice.

Ignored by most modern historians is the fact that after the Civil War many ex-Union soldiers chose to settle in the South. Shocked by the outrageous conditions reconstruction imposed upon the White South, many of these ex-Union soldiers either joined or supported the Klan or the other resistance groups. Many Union soldiers and officers occupying parts of the conquered South co-operated with the Klan in fighting Carpetbag rule and outrages committed by Negro organizations.

The term "ku klux" became popular and was widely used. Any resistance to reconstruction was given the label "ku klux". In their efforts to crush all resistance, the Radical Republicans labeled ALL white southerners as "Ku Klux" and the atrocities committed by outlaws, bandits, impersonators, and anyone else were all laid to the Klan's blame. With the death penalty hanging over their heads, Klansmen were in no position to come forward and openly deny the charges and defend themselves. But the Klan did attempt to police the situation. The Klan issued public warnings that anyone caught committing a crime while disguised as a Klansman would be executed. It is documented that the Klan publicly posted warnings condemning the mistreatment of innocent Blacks and it is equally documented that on at least one occasion the KKK even hung one of its own members for beating up an unoffending Black man. (As soon as I can I will create a section going into greater detail concerning these incidents.)

The Klan was in a dilemma. It found itself in a two front war. On the one hand they were confronting criminals, carpetbaggers, and renegade Negroes in their efforts to protect their families and restore law and order. On the other hand they had to deal with impersonators who committed all manner of outrages motivated by everything from personal revenge to political manipulations. Plus the Klan, itself, was declared outlaw and hunted. As anti-white reconstruction legislation became more brutal the situation worsened. All sides clashed in nocturnal pitch battles which sometimes involved hundreds of participants as well as the use of cannon. During reconstruction there were approximately 50,000 casualties. The Klan grew to over 400,000 members. Negroes, on the one hand, opposed the Klan while Black Union Leaguers impersonated the Klan to ferment further unrest and anti-white hatred. At the same time thousands of Negroes aided the Klan who helped rid them of carpetbaggers and outlaws. There is documented proof that there were even Negroes who were actually sworn into the KKK as members. (In time I shall create a section dealing with the Negro members of the KKK.)

Full fledged guerrilla warfare was on the verge of breaking out throughout the South and the federal government found itself powerless to stop it. The harsher the government mandates became, the stiffer the resistance became. Finally, in 1869, newly elected President Grant agreed to a secret meeting with Grand Wizard Forrest. The two men had faced each other in the Civil War and were now facing each other in a new kind of war. Grant asked what it would take to end the turmoil. Forrest replied the restoration of full rights of citizenship to the white South and home rule. Grant agreed. Grand Wizard Forrest would disband the Klan and later that year Grant would begin the process of withdrawing federal troops and restoring Constitutional Rights to the South. Unfortunately, the unrest did not end with the disbandment of the Ku Klux Klan in 1869. Grand Wizard Forrest had no authority over the other independent groups that also opposed the Reconstruction. Some of these groups, like the White Camellia, had grown to be as large as the Klan, and the outrages committed by impersonators continued. Though he did what he could, under these conditions President Grant found it difficult to keep his end of the bargain. Though Reconstruction would eventually end, it was agonizingly slow.

In the early 1870's there was no longer a Ku Klux Klan. But all resistance had been labeled "ku klux" by the northern newspapers and public officials. In 1871, Congress passed the Anti-Ku Klux Act which launched a massive investigation into the affairs of the late insurrectory states. The Federal government found its own policies largely to blame for the post Civil War turmoil. Gradually (too gradually) the government began to make amends and slowly, all organizations labeled "ku klux" faded away. By 1880, there was no longer a need for them. The restoration of civil liberties, civil authority, and home rule to the white South enabled law enforcers to stamp out the outlaws and criminal impersonators of the Ku Klux Klan.

The most unfortunate victims of the Reconstruction Era were the poor whites and freed Negroes who fared the worse under the violent conditions. The most infamous villains were the Carpetbaggers and Scalawags, most of whom just happened to be Jewish. But there is documentation that ex-Confederate Jews, as well as many Catholics also joined the Klan. Religious distinctions were not part of the original Ku Klux Klan's doctrine. Names like Cohen and Rosenbaum appear on both sides. Some Jews rose as high as the rank of Grand Cyclops in the original KKK. (In time I will add a section dealing with the Jews in the KKK.)

While most historian claim that the country has never fully recovered from the Civil War, the reality is that the country has never recovered from the Reconstruction. More accurately we should simply consider the Reconstruction as the last battle and chapter of the Civil War. In the wake of Reconstruction, many myths have sprung up concerning the Klan and the most ridiculous ones seem to be most widely accepted today as facts. Most biased modern historians claim that the Klan just wandered around looking for innocent Negroes to hang. In fact, the original Klan never hung anyone who was truly innocent and did much to protect the innocent of both races.

Another myth is that the Klan was started by the Knights of the Golden Circle, which was a Confederate guerrilla organization that operated in the border state areas of the Midwest. This is unfounded. While former members of the Knights of the Golden Circle may have joined the Ku Klux Klan at one time or other, the origins of the Klan are well documented by its own founders.

The most common myth is that the original Klan burned crosses. This is the invention of fiction writer, Thomas Dixon, and elaborated upon by movie producer, D.W. Griffith. In the 47 volumes that make up the Ku Klux Report to Congress, not one eye witness, not one ex-Klansman, not one surviving victim, not one newspaper article makes any reference at all to a fiery cross of any kind. In the Klan's own Prescripts much detail is given to making the Klan flag or Grand Ensign, but no mention of a cross, fiery or otherwise, is made. It was not until 1915, that former Methodist minister, William Joseph Simmons, adopted the Methodist religious symbol of the fiery cross as a symbol for his revived Ku Klux Klan, after being inspired by the Dixon novel, "The Clansman" and the Griffith motion picture, "The Birth of a Nation".

For nearly one hundred years the Klan was recognized as the savior of the white South. Amid the lawlessness and chaos of the Reconstruction Era the Klan sought to restore law and order and protect the defenseless population. It was incredibly successful. Unfortunately for all involved, it could only use the means at hand. Amid a reign of terror committed by the highest levels of government, to the lowest common outlaws, the Klan resorted to the use of terror. Having felt they accomplished their goals for the most part, the Klan disbanded itself and was not defeated by government legislation. Had there never been a revival of the Ku Klux Klan, the original Klan would have maintained its place in history as an organization of decent men who were forced under unbearable conditions to do only what was necessary to protect life, liberty, and property at a time of unprecedented lawlessness and abuse of authority by a government gone mad with power. (Just like today.)

The following is taken from, "A Story of the Original Ku Klux Klan" and is available from us for $2.50. It is General Order No. 1, issued by the KKK to warn against unjustified violence against anyone:

"We (the KKK) reiterate that we are for peace, law, and order. No man, white of black, shall be molested for his political sentiments. This Klan is not a political party; it is not a military party; it is a protective organization, an will never use violence except in resisting violence.

Outrages have been perpetrated by irresponsible parties, in the name of the Klan. Should these parties be apprehended they will be dealt with in a manner to insure us future exemption from such imposition. These imposters have in some instances, whipped Negroes. This is wrong! Wrong! It is denounced by this Klan as it must be by all good and humane men.

The Klan now, as in the past is, is prohibited from doing such things. We are striving to protect all good peaceful, well disposed and law abiding men, whether white or black.

The Grand Dragon deems this order due to the public, due to the Klan, and due to those who are misguided and misinformed. We therefore, request that all newspapers who are friendly to law, peace, and public welfare, will publish the same. By order of the Grand Dragon of Realm No. 1. By the Grand Scribe."

So, did the Klan enforce this order? History indicates that it did. The following is taken from, "Invisible Empire", by Stanley Horn:

"The explosion came when a conservative Negro had the temerity to attempt to make a political speech, and the armed League (the Black Union League) members broke up the meeting and marched away firing their guns into the air. That night there was a fatal clash between a parade of the exulting Negroes of the League and an armed party of conservatives, black and white, who attempted to prevent their demonstrating on the public square. When the gunfire subsided and the smoke cleared away one white conservative was dead and six white and seven Negro members of that party were wounded, along with 27 wounded Leaguers.

As a result of this riot, and similar clashes in other parts of the state, fears were expressed that there would be serious trouble on election day, and leaders of both parties worked together to prevent bloodshed. In Memphis, Gen. Forrest (the Grand Wizard, himself) organized a body of volunteer police (the Klan) who co-operated with the city police department on election day to prevent outbreaks; and in the other cities of the state similar efforts were made to insure peace, with the result that the casualties on election day were held to a minimum."

But did the Klan go so far as to execute anyone caught committing an outrage in the name of the KKK? Yes, according to an article in the Jan. 19, 1869 issue of The Memphis Daily Appeal! The following is taken from that article:

The Execution of Bill German in Overton County.

The Union and American of Saturday says: "By a private letter from a trustworthy gentleman residing at Cookville in Putnam County, we give some further information in regard to the recent execution near Livingston, in Overton County, by a body of supposed Ku-Klux, of the young man Wm. German, an account of which we published Thursday morning. "He says that a few days before the execution, German shot and badly wounded, and supposed he had killed, a Negro man living in his neighborhood. The shooting took place in a public road, and the Negro managed to crawl to the house of his employer, where he told who had shot him. The Negro had the character of being a quiet, peaceable man, and as there had been no previous trouble between him and German, it was supposed the crime was perpetrated in pure wantonness.

It is thought that the persons by whom German was killed were members of a secret organization, to which he belonged - but whether Ku-Klux or not, nobody in the neighborhood appears to know. The body of men concerned in the execution numbered about 200, and none of them were identified by citizens who witnessed their appearance and departure. Accounts reported Bill German was found hanged in a nearby barn; a sign posted there declared: Hung for shooting a Negro, Bill Cullum, and violating the laws of Ku Klux."

[swishandflick]

beguile and use the Negroes
Millions of emancipated Negroes roamed about
desperate hungry Negroes
the superstitious Negroes
bands of unruly Negroes.
Negroes
For nearly one hundred years the Klan was recognized as the savior of the white South

Just a few comments that I found especially discusting to read. "Negroes" are reffered to as dogs, and the KKK is the saviour of the WHITE south, apperantly the only people that matter? Its sickening, really, I cant believe it.

[Auror Williamson]

Did you fail to notice the mentionings of whites who were acting the same as the discriptions of the negroes?

The summary had just as much criticism of whites than it did blacks.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

But a democracy for who? White men?

For everyone. For white men, for black militants, for terrorists, for racists, for the plain old middle of society.

[Angora]

You know, there are enough links between them that you should be able to nab most of them for conspircay to commit a crime by now.

I don't find vigilantes especially heroic, either. I wasn't moved by their story. It made them sound self-righteous. And I wasn't fond of "the superstitious Negroes" parts either.

And, you know what we don't have to be tolerant of? Intolerance. No really. Think about it. Since we're tolerant that means we're opposed to the opposite of tolerance, right?

[hesdead-dealwithit]

And, you know what we don't have to be tolerant of? Intolerance. No really. Think about it. Since we're tolerant that means we're opposed to the opposite of tolerance, right?
Not exactly. If you are intolerant toward intolerance, then you are no longer tolerant. As long as the intolerance does not morph from thoughts to actions, we would be tolerant toward intolerance.

[Auror Williamson]

Exactly. You become intoleerant of intolerance when someone is preaching tolerance while they themselves are intolerent of intolerance.

[praisequeenfreddie]

The preamble to the United States Constitution Explains that we have certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. You have the freedom of speech as long as your speech does not infringe on the rights of others. If you freedom of speech is lynching people then that is infringing on all of their rights.That is why abortion is not a decided issue.

[GryffindorSeeker]

I suppose that if your tolerant, you are tolerant to others and you except the fact that not everyone is tolerant, and you are not intolerant of them. I think that narrows it down sufficently, doesn't it?

Those rights are so that the people can live freely, but if one lives freely while doing things that infringe on others lives, then they aren't living freely, are they?

[Angora]

You can have intolerance to intolerance because the nature of tolerance precludes tolerating intolerance. Just like the nature of freedom precludes leaving people free to oppress. Whenever you take a stance for anything you take a stance against it's opposite. That's just the way it works.

[swishandflick]

If you freedom of speech is lynching people then that is infringing on all of their rights.That is why abortion is not a decided issue.

Okay the act of lynching people is not freedom of speech. Lynching is murder, and in the US you cant hang someone from a tree and say its within your rights. Abortion is another issue entirely and that has to do with freedom of choice in your own body. Either way, thats another thread.
As far as intolerant to the intolerant, that is something I am struggling with, I have to admit. I have a very hard time tolerating racism, and the best I can do is try to prove my points. Sometimes, racists are missinformed and are the product of thier upbrininging so it is not entirely fair for one to jump on thier back for saying a racist comment when they dont know any better.

[Midnightsfire]

Interesting...

The Klan doesn't know their history...?

[Hagrid442]

Today's KKK or any group like it (not MeCHa, btw... it was Republican spin that MeCHa is a racist group) must have the right to say whatever they please. See, if they're banned, then they're martyred and can go underground. But if they're allowed to voice their views, then people will see them as who they are and not take them seriously.

Let's say that the revisionist history that Auror-Williamson posted is true. Well, the Klan of the 1920's wasn't the same. It was a full-blown hate group that maintained a strong following. It died out after World War II, but had another "revival" during the tumultuous 1960's. This is the Klan that Americans see. Hence, even if the Klan during Reconstruction was not like the Klan of today and the 20th Century, it's easy for people to think that way.

Somehow, I don't think that was the case. Nathan Bedford Forrest was the First Grand Dragon of the Klan. Ok. Yup, I'm sure he ran that group benevolently. Yup yup, mmmmhmmmm.... yessiree. Oh wait. Colonel (I believe he was a Colonel then) Forrest captured Fort Pillow on the Mississippi river, and put to death the Negro garrison and its white officers. Forrest also routinely voiced his views about "Negros", and they were none too flattering. Logically speaking, a group that was led by a renown racist, with blood on his hands no less, is not really worthy of a favorable spot in history.

[Auror Williamson]

Oh wait. Colonel (I believe he was a Colonel then)

You don't know your Civil War history. I just got done giving a long lecture on Naval Warfare of the Civil War yesterday at my school...

Nathan Bedford Forrest was a wealthy tobacco/hemp grower from Memphis, Tennessee, who rose through the ranks from Private to Lieutenant General.

Forrest was in command of the troops reponsible for the Fort Pillow Massacre, but he did not order it. In fact, he tried to restrain his men, and ordered his subordinate officers to stop the killing. Even if the killing was deliberate, and it wasn't, Forrest gave the garrison three ultimatems to leave or surrender.

Once the early KKK became a little too rowdy in the latter half of the 1860's, he tried to restrain Klan members from all the lynchings and destruction before it was ordered to disband.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

(not MeCHa, btw... it was Republican spin that MeCHa is a racist group)
Just to jut in here - while MECHA is not as bad as some have said, it is still racist. Look here (http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXI/Issue_2/Editorial/editorial1.shtml).

[haycheng]

not to be off topic or anything. I heard someone get sue by post a chapter of bible in the newpaper in Canadia. It is about the anti-homosexual part. I am very worry that my bible is going to get censored soon.

I against the idea of KKK but how far do the exception go for the freedom of speech. Would I be prosecuted someday if I say meat is good for young children as it is difficult for the child to be vega?

[Fairydust]

I totally don't agree with the KKK and I really hate what they stand for. But I do believe that they have the right to say what they want whenever they want. I think the whole constitution is messed up anyway. But that's 'cuz I'm canadian. ;)

[Confessor]

not to be off topic or anything. I heard someone get sue by post a chapter of bible in the newpaper in Canadia. It is about the anti-homosexual part. I am very worry that my bible is going to get censored soon.


Well, it sort of is. It's technically illegal to pray in a public school if you're Christian, but it isn't usually enforced.

And the the racist remarks the KKK (may)does are not protected by the Freedom of Speech - not in the Canadian Charter, anyway. It's considered unlawful to state those things, but since it really isn't a big thing, it's a civil offence.

[Hagrid442]

It has been a while since I've read something on the Civil War, while to you it's fresh. It's not so much I don't know my history as I'm rusty. I knew enough that Forrest rose precipitously in rank. It was inferred in my statement. I just didn't know what particular rank he was at the time of the Fort Pillow Massacre.

[roz]

However much I might disagree with the statments made by the KKK I would like to point out that they are not the only people saying that sort of thing. I can remember being scared by a group of large African American men who were stood on Times Square pronouncing that white skin was the mark of Cain and that all white people were evil.

That being said as long as all they are doing is talking and they cannot be said to be inciting violence then I think that it is great that they are allowed to talk. As dangerous as that talk is it is much more dangerous not to let people talk. I would rather live in a country where I get to ignore the people talking about things I don't want to hear than where I am not allowed to talk about something because the government won't allow it.

Roz.

[Auror Williamson]

Here's some additional information on the Fort Pillow Massacre:


Fort Pillow

Other Names: None

Location: Lauderdale County

Campaign: Forrest’s Expedition into West Tennessee and Kentucky (1864)

Date(s): April 12, 1864

Principal Commanders: Maj. Lionel F. Booth and Maj. William F. Bradford [US]; Maj. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest [CS]

Forces Engaged: Detachments from three units (approx. 600) [US]; Brig. Gen. James R. Chalmers’s 1st Division, Forrest’s Cavalry Corps [CS]

Estimated Casualties: 654 total (US 574; CS 80)

Description: In April 1864, the Union garrison at Fort Pillow, a Confederate-built earthen fortification and a Union-built inner redoubt, overlooking the Mississippi River about forty river miles above Memphis, comprised 295 white Tennessee troops and 262 U.S. Colored Troops, all under the command of Maj. Lionel F. Booth. Confederate Maj. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest attacked the fort on April 12 with a cavalry division of approximately 2,500 men. Forrest seized the older outworks, with high knolls commanding the Union position, to surround Booth’s force. Rugged terrain prevented the gunboat New Era from providing effective fire support for the Federals. The garrison was unable to depress its artillery enough to cover the approaches to the fort Rebel sharpshooters, on the surrounding knolls, began firing into the fort killing Booth. Maj. William F. Bradford then took over command of the garrison. The Confederates launched a determined attack at 11:00 am, occupying more strategic locations around the fort, and Forrest demanded unconditional surrender. Bradford asked for an hour for consultation, and Forrest granted twenty minutes. Bradford refused surrender and the Confederates renewed the attack, soon overran the fort, and drove the Federals down the river’s bluff into a deadly crossfire. Casualties were high and only sixty-two of the U.S. Colored Troops survived the fight. Many accused the Confederates of perpetrating a massacre of the black troops, and that controversy continues today. The Confederates evacuated Fort Pillow that evening so they gained little from the attack except a temporary disruption of Union operations. The “Fort Pillow Massacre” became a Union rallying cry and cemented resolve to see the war through to its conclusion.

Upon further research, I found that Forrest was actually a Major General during the battle, but was a Lieutenant General towards the end of the war.

[Midnightsfire]

*nods* I have several references to union troops being either burned alive and buried alive. Hmm...One reference makes mention of crucifixions...

If I have time I'll pursue said references for validity.

[Auror Williamson]

I have several references to union troops being either burned alive and buried alive. Hmm...One reference makes mention of crucifixions...

Crucifixions? I have been studying this war for 4-5 years, and in all of the books, discussions, debates and documentaries I have seen and read, there has been no mention of any Federal troops being crucified, burned purposefully, or buried purposefully.

Sure, In the battle of the Wilderness, the forests were burning, and the wounded soldiers of both sides were burned alive by the burning woods in which they were trapped.

There is also a great possibilty that the soldiers who were buried alive looked dead, and were thrown into the grave while actually unconsious or barely clinging to life.

I have very sincere doubts as to the truh behind any crucfixions of Federal troops.

Where did you read/hear this, Midnightsfire? I am interested into researching this quite a bit.

[Midnightsfire]

Where did you read/hear this, Midnightsfire? I am interested into researching this quite a bit.

As for the burning and buried alive bit...

one (http://www.assumption.edu/HTML/Academic/history/His130/P-H/Pillow/default.html)...another (http://www.millikensbend.org/events/fort-pillow-massacre/fort-pillow-8-003.htm)...

Another link (http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/civwar/html/cw_008402_fortpillowte.htm).

For crucifixions, I read this book: Mississippi: Conflict and Change (http://www.anybook4less.com/detail/0394710088.html) by Loewen and Sallis.

Just for a start....

[Auror Williamson]

Harpers Weekly, which supplied the text for the first two websites is known to be a Union propagandist newspaper, often supplying feel-good information and false stories of cruelty commited by Southerners. I have a rather large book complete with several hundred newspapers from 1863, I think I'll pull it out and show some of the rediculous things Harper's Weekly published in one year alone.

In fact, I have an authentic Harper's newspaper, in it is one such example of the printing that the Union Army of the Potomac was winning in it's advance on Richmond during the Seven Days campaign of 1862. Without getting out my newspaper book, I do clearly remember that one newspaper, printed shortly after the battle of Gettysburg told of how the Army of the Potomac captured "40,000 men and all of the Army of Northern Viginia's supplies" Which is quite false.

War is war, it's obvious. Attrocities are commited during war, and sometimes it's not always intentional.

[Midnightsfire]

War is war, it's obvious. Attrocities are commited during war, and sometimes it's not always intentional.
I'll agree with you there.

From the books I've read, it can be determined that (1) Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the more brilliant commanders (2) He was a slave trader and plantation owner (3) some really nasty beyond the pale stuff happened when he captured Fort Pillow (4) He founded the KKK.

Hmm...The exact quote from my book: "Then came the incongruity of truly beastly behaviour by Southern whites toward captured black soldiers, such as the infamous Fort Pillow massacre by troops under Nathan Bedford Forrest, who crucified black prisoners on tent frames and then burned them alive, all in the name of preserving white civilization."

Hmmm...Harper's Weekly...So your saying this is nothing more than propaganda (http://blackhistory.harpweek.com/7Illustrations/CivilWar/RebelAtrocities.htm)? (This would be better in the Civil War thread.)

[Morgoth]

(This would be better in the Civil War thread.)

Yes it would...

[Auror Williamson]

I remember something about the tent frames now.... It's starting to come back to me when I saw Shelby Foote explaining it on the Ken Burns documentary I last watched three years ago.

While book does not contain the Harpers Weekly issue that concerns ft. Pillow, I do have a copy of the Ney York Herald concerning the massacre.

IMPORTANT FROM MISSISSIPPI

***********************

Capture of Fort Pillow by the Rebels.

***********************

Reported Massacre of the White and Black Troops.

***********************

Women and Children Murdered in Cold Blood.

***********************

The Dead and Wounded Negroes Burned.

***********************

And that's just the headline!

Once I find a magnifying glass, I'll copy down the entire article.

[hermy_weasley2]

The KKK are known to injure people......from what I've heard. They also have a thing against God! GRRRRRRRRRR!


Correction: They have been known to injure people. They don't do that anymore, nor do they still lynch people. I am by no means an advocate of the Klan,but they are entitled to their rights like everyone else. As long as they aren't hurting people, they should be allowed to say what they want. I've lived in the Deep South all my life. I took swimming lessons across the street from the Grand Wizard or Grand Dragon or whatever they call him for the area. His yard is fenced in and has statues of black people looking out through the fence. The Klan still has rallies here too. And they don't have anything against God. In fact, a group of KKK members worked with a prodominately Black church in Atlanta to help keep the Ten Commandments posted in public places, which is a big issue right now. On the news, there were pictures of children from the church singing with the Klansmen. Like I asaid before, I'm not an advocate of the KKK at all, but your opinions seem misinformed.

[hermy_weasley2]

Why do they burn crosses then?


Again, as you see from my post above, I've lived in the Deep South all my life. I've actually SEEN a cross burning from the road. They burn crosses so the crosses can be easily seen. It's a way of shoving their religion into people's faces - for lack of a better way to put that. Agin, I'm not an advocate of the KKK, but they do have as many rights as we do to say what they say as long as they don't physically hurt people. Besides, here, people don't even take them seriously.

[Auror Williamson]

hermy_weasley2, you don't need to double post, it can be seen as post-boosting, and can carry a warning from the moderators.

The next time, just add your comments to your first post using the edit button.

Of course the KKK is well within the bounds set forth by the Constitution. They can preach, command and hope for violence all they want, but they cannot be ordered to disband unless they all start breaking laws.

Once can say and think, but one can't act upon what they say and think if it is illegal.

[Midnightsfire]

I guess they need a lesson in basic physics...

Participant at KKK initiation wounded after shots fired into sky (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/11/24/klan.initiation.ap/index.html)

A bullet fired in the air during a Ku Klux Klan initiation ceremony came down and struck a participant in the head, critically injuring him, authorities said.
Gregory Allen Freeman, 45, was charged with aggravated assault and reckless endangerment in the Saturday night incident that wounded Jeffery S. Murr, 24.

About 10 people, including two children, had gathered for the ceremony. The man who was being initiated was blindfolded, tied with a noose to a tree and shot with paintball guns as Freeman fired a pistol in the air to provide the sound of real gunfire, Sheriff Fred Phillips said.

A bullet struck Murr on the top of the head and exited at the bottom of his skull, authorities said.

Freeman fled the ceremony but was arrested near his home, authorities said. He was released on $7,500 bail.


Silly ignorant racists....

[Auror Williamson]

I heard that on talk radio today, and I thought, "These people are more stupid than I thought they were!"

[IrmoPimp]

The Klan today is vastly different from the Klan of old. Originally, the Klan was created to restore white rule in the South. This was accomplished by the mid 1880's, after which they disbanded, as ordered by Nathaniel Forrest. The Klan reappeared in the early 1900's where it was viewed as a very patriotic thing to do. Membership peaked in about 1910-1912, hitting the millions across the ENTIRE country. In fact, the highest membership was in Indiana. Hmmmm..... The Klan descended into obscurity once again, and reappeared after the WWII. Nowadays, they have adopted the values of the German Nazis, along with the ideals of white power.

The thing that gets me the most about them is how they fly the Confederate flag alongside the American flag. Do they not realize how many proud, valiant southerners fought and died to reject that striped banner!?

I agree with many of the ideas of the Klan and they have every right to say what they want when they want how they want. Remember, freedom of speech protects speech you hate, not speech you love.

[Hagrid442]

I was going to post that story, too, Midnightsfire. Stupid, stupid, stupid. But of course the KKK deserves 1st Amendment protection. Otherwise they wouldn't be outed as the racist bigots that they are.

[Bhodi]

I guess they need a lesson in basic physics...

Participant at KKK initiation wounded after shots fired into sky (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/11/24/klan.initiation.ap/index.html)

A bullet fired in the air during a Ku Klux Klan initiation ceremony came down and struck a participant in the head, critically injuring him, authorities said.
Gregory Allen Freeman, 45, was charged with aggravated assault and reckless endangerment in the Saturday night incident that wounded Jeffery S. Murr, 24.

About 10 people, including two children, had gathered for the ceremony. The man who was being initiated was blindfolded, tied with a noose to a tree and shot with paintball guns as Freeman fired a pistol in the air to provide the sound of real gunfire, Sheriff Fred Phillips said.

A bullet struck Murr on the top of the head and exited at the bottom of his skull, authorities said.

Freeman fled the ceremony but was arrested near his home, authorities said. He was released on $7,500 bail.


Silly ignorant racists....


This must be a top nominee for the annual Darwin Awards!

[Hermione713]

Bottom line people, the first amendment gives any group the right to assemble. I hate the KKK, and I think they are the ones that are all going to hell, but I can't restrict someone's right to free speech or assembly, even if I disagree with them. That's the beauty and the major flaw of free speech, everyone has it, so everyone gets to use it.

[Kaonashi]

Yes, we have the right to assemble, and the right to free speech. However, we are not allowed to shout FIRE in a crowded theatre. Hey, if they want to assemble, so be it. But they should NOT ask the city where they are doing their rallies to pay for their police protection because the police have better things to do.

[IrmoPimp]

"I hate the KKK, and I think they are the ones that are all going to hell, but I can't restrict someone's right to free speech or assembly, even if I disagree with them."

Wow, you seem to think that all members of the Klan are going to hell because they vocalize their hate. Everyone has a hate, whether they know it or like to admit it. In fact, the Klan, along with other groups, deserve some degree of respect because they go out into public saying what they believe, knowing they will need police protection and what not. Just because a persohn speaks his beliefs, doesn't mean he's going to Hell.

[Kaonashi]

Free speech is two way traffic, Irmo. That's the beauty of it.

[Hermione713]

"Wow, you seem to think that all members of the Klan are going to hell because they vocalize their hate. "

Okay, sorry I obviously didn't get my message across properly, and I apologize for that, my fault. What I meant by the fact that I think members of the KKK are going to hell (a place in which I don't even believe by the way) was that they say that all people who are not exactly like them are going to hell. Meaning that all gays, jews, blacks, etc. I am offended by this form of thinking, and probably should rethink my statement given that also made an overly generalized, hate-filled statement about one group of people. I just wanted to say that if there is a God and if he is as omnipotent as Christians say he is, then he will realize that hating people for something over which they have no control (being gay, being black, etc.) is wrong and then he will do whatever He deems appropriate with respect to those who do believe in one superior kind of person. My hope is that people that truly and deeply believe in one superior race or gender are either taught the error of their ways, or punished for their sins. Either way, the KKK is a bad organization in my opinion and I hope that they recieve their justice, whatever it may be.

[Kaonashi]

I find it very ironic that the KKK seem to have a problem with other's First Amendment rights while they are shoving their rights in our faces. And I have no respect whatsoever for groups that actively go out and not only vocalize their hate, but actively harass and harm others based on their beliefs. The first amendment does NOT protect you if you're in someone's face shouting racial epithets and/or either trying to harm someone or their property.

[Flagg]

well, after reading this thread, I think it's safe to say that the Klan has nothing to worry about in the future. They're here for a long long time.


God bless America indeed (sarcasm)

[Hagrid442]

The Klan has been pretty much marginalized. They're not really any threat to anybody anymore. The KKK is effectively a joke now. Even if they persist, they'll probably never amount to anything ever again.

[hermy_weasley2]

I think that people have come to associate the name "Ku Klux Klan" with ignorant rednecks. So no one's doing themselves a favor by advertising that they're a member. Their opinions and beliefs, though based in bigotry and racism, might carry a little more credibility if they weren't in a group like the Klan. People would be more willing to listen to them anyway. I agree with Hagrid, though; the KKK is little more than a joke now.







well, after reading this thread, I think it's safe to say that the Klan has nothing to worry about in the future. They're here for a long long time.


God bless America indeed (sarcasm)

They're here as long as some people are intolerant. Unfortunately, the government's job isn't to rid the world of intolerance. If the rights of people like the Klan were taken away because they didn't agree with the rest of us, then the rights of anyone who disagreed with the rest of us could be taken away.

[dobby_rocks]

My thoughts on the KKK

I suppose they do have the freedom to say what they want , but that power can be asbused, i coudlnt go into an airport and yell out "Bomb" id be arested. The same should be for anyone who is preaching to go and kill whoever, maybe they woudlnt do it but that's what they are telling people to do, in away they want others to do their dirty work


Another reason why i dislike them, is cause they hide behind the bible, talking about God wants white supremacy :grumble: , where in the holy bible does it say that, on the contrary god wants people of all colors to get along to love each other, sadly that isnt how it is, but how it should be

Another is they talk about Jesus Christ, however Christ was middle eastern so most likel he wasnt white himself but of Olive complection

[IrmoPimp]

Hey FLAGG, why are you sarcastic in saying God Bless America? Everyone, you must realize that the Klan is not just one group. There are many factions that call themselves the Klan, but they have different beliefs and agendas than you might think. Also, does anyone know if there are any groups similar to the Klan thesedays, such as The Knights of the White Camelia?

The Klan was an evil organization, but they did not just target blacks. They wanted to restore competent white rule, which means they also directed violence toward drunks who beat their wives, and deadbeat dads. They also conducted many public service projects. There is a road near a hunting club I attend called Magnolia Drive because it is lined with dozens of Magnolia trees. The Klan planted these to beautify the country.

[Hagrid442]

You're right, they didn't just target blacks. They also didn't look too favorably on Jews, Catholics, and other non-white people.

[Elocin4684]

I think the Ku Klux Klan people should all be arrested. They burn crosses, discriminate other races, e.t.c. What do you think?



I don't care about them burning crosses. I'm not Christian, so that doesn't bother me. As long as it's not in front of my house. (I live in a very dry area of West TX and it's very easy to catch outside stuff on fire.)

A lot of people discriminate. The KKK just does it in an organized fashion. Have you ever been to TX?

Anyways, it is their right as long as tehy don't hurt anybody. They should clean up their members, though. They really have that white trash look going on and if they don't want to be looked down upon, they would do something.

Ireally don't like them, no. They do say some awful things.

[Wab]

Whether the KKK donates money to good causes or not is somewhat moot. Outlaw motorcycle gangs in these parts do the same and no doubt a big chunk of that cash comes from amphetamine sales.

The causes may accept the dosh (God knows they need it) but the donations doesn't absolve the gangs.

As for freedom of speech let them rant and rave under the Voltairian principle that the right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins (also I may disagree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it).

Besides, banning these groups only serves to make them more bitter and dangerous and harder to keep track of.

[Sherlock Holmes]

A lot of people discriminate. The KKK just does it in an organized fashion. Have you ever been to TX?

Errr, be careful about making blanket statements like this. I guess you are implying that Texas is a state which discriminates a lot. No need to run a state down, especially when the topic is about the KKK.

[hermy_weasley2]

ElodinI'm not Christian, so that doesn't bother me.

They actually don't burn crosses to downgrade the cross. It's a way of forcing it upon it people. The reason goes deeper than that, but that's one of the reasons for the cross burning.

[IrmoPimp]

Wow, MarcKal, are you Communist? You don't like what they say, so they should be arrested? Don't you realize that is what is so great about America? That we can say what we want without fear of reprisal.

[Hagrid442]

It could also be considered fascist.

Either way, communism and fascism = totalitarian. Both are anathema to what America is all about. As much as I don't like the KKK's message, to silence them is unAmerican.

[Kaonashi]

The Klan has the right to free speech. Other people, however, have the right to say whatever they want about them as well. That's what free speech is all about. I think some are missing that point here.

[DsX Phoenix]

It could also be considered fascist.

Either way, communism and fascism = totalitarian. Both are anathema to what America is all about. As much as I don't like the KKK's message, to silence them is unAmerican.

Communism doesn't necessarily mean totalitarian. All communist countries to date have pretty much been totalitarian (to my knowledge), but this isn't really what was intended. But anyways, this is off-topic.

As for the KKK, again, as long as all they do is march and talk about their beliefs, there is nothing that can be or should be done about them. They have as much right to say what they want as any of us do.

[Zachary1993]

I think that they are dumb. They hate people because of their skin colour. I know a member of KKK and they hate blacks for no reason and believe all these lies about them all being criminals. Just look at America's Most Wanted they have all sorts of people on there from different backgrounds and the people that the KKK hates are just like us some of them are criminals some are charity workers they do all sorts of different things.

[hermy_weasley2]

I think that they are dumb. They hate people because of their skin colour. I know a member of KKK and they hate blacks for no reason and believe all these lies about them all being criminals. Just look at America's Most Wanted they have all sorts of people on there from different backgrounds and the people that the KKK hates are just like us some of them are criminals some are charity workers they do all sorts of different things.

Yes, they're dumb, but their stupidity alone doesn't make them criminals.As someone mentioned earlier the KKK does do a few good things, but those are few and far between.

[MarcKal]

The Ku Klux Klan group hate not just blacks, but any one not from the US (well, that's what I heard). I'm an asian and I am offended by those morons! First of all, many people in the US came from other countries, or at least their ancestors did, so basically, the KKK would hate themselves. Right?

[HollywoodBob]

In 1871 the KKK was deemed an illegal terrorist organization, first amendmant aside, why are they still allowed to be around, and why isn't anyone that admits to being a member(or former member) immediately imprisoned? If Al Qaeda put a known cell operating in the US, you can gaurantee they wouldn't be for long.

If the US wants to fight a war on terrorism they should clean up all the ones within our boarders as well. And that goes for the KKK, the ALF, the Crips/Bloods, and any group that would purposely do harm to another group of people merely because of differing ideologies.

-HollywoodBob

[hermy_weasley2]

I find that hard to believe, Hollywood Bob, no offense. I doubt the organization itself is illegal, now at least. Maybe in one state, but not everywhere. All the rallies I've seen have been treated like special events. Law enforcement was obligated to provide security for them.

[Master Qui-Gon]

I strongly disagree with the KKK's opinions, but nevertheless I respect their opinions and believe they should have the right to say whatever they want. A society where people are criminalized for their opinions is horribly undemocratic.

(BTW, not being able to say whatever you want has nothing to do with leftism)

[HollywoodBob]

Let me make a correction, the KKK was made an illegal organization in 1871, its membership then declined/dissolved. In 1915 was founded for a second time. This second form of the Klan was not merely rooted in the white supremacy movement, they branched out into anti-Catholicism and anti-semetism. This second group since it claimed to be unique from the original, was not bound to the original Klan Enforcement Act. So the "cross burning, african american hating, white hooded party gown dressing" Klan that we know, isn't illegal.

As far as I'm concerned any group that incites hatred and violence to another group should be illegal.

Edit: That's not to say they don't have a right to their opinions, it's when their opinions inflict harm on others that they cross the line.

-HollywoodBob

[fawkes5]

The KKK may be legal but that doesn't make them right. Any group that teaches hate but professes to love God and bible are acting like hypocrites.

[DsX Phoenix]

Edit: That's not to say they don't have a right to their opinions, it's when their opinions inflict harm on others that they cross the line.

-HollywoodBob

But here's the tricky part. When do words cause harm to someone? We all know the rhyme "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

However, we also know that those words are wrong. But, when are words harmful enough to warrant free speech being restricted? When someone is offended? Well, then anything anyone says could be considered illegal speech. John Kerry could be arrested for offending George Bush.

How about when words cause violence? A good start, but how do you decide if the words actually incited violence? A neo-nazi may say that only whites should be allowed to live in America, but does this mean this person is advocating the murder of every black person? This is something the courts have argued over for years, and there still is no real clear definition of when words cause violence (except in cases where someone hires someone to kill another person or something). And, because of the uncertainty, the courts feel it is safer to allow some people to get away with saying things they shouldn't be allowed to say than to crack down on too many people, and punish innocent people.

[Kaonashi]

You can't scream "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Likewise, the Klan having their little rallies in areas that are predominately Hispanic or Black is the equivalent of a brush fire. Not to mention some of their followers go for the express purpose of harassing people in the neighborhood before and after the rally. Is it asking too much to have them pay for their own security? Every time they ask for a permit to have ther rallies, they also ask for police protection...which the town (and the taxpayers) have to PAY FOR.

[hermy_weasley2]

You can't scream "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Likewise, the Klan having their little rallies in areas that are predominately Hispanic or Black is the equivalent of a brush fire. Not to mention some of their followers go for the express purpose of harassing people in the neighborhood before and after the rally. Is it asking too much to have them pay for their own security? Every time they ask for a permit to have ther rallies, they also ask for police protection...which the town (and the taxpayers) have to PAY FOR.


I think that's a local law that's different in different places. Where I live, if you ask for police protection or a police officer to direct traffic for a certain event, they use off-duty officers, and you have to pay them yourself.

[FloydTheBarber]

They should not only be arretsed they should be punished or worse....for all the terror they unleashed the group should be outlawed. They dragged people on their cars at high speed , they mutilated them, shot them and they loved all of these acts.

I wouldn't consider it an exception to the freedom of speech. KILLING BASED ON RELIGION, RACE, GENDER ISN'T FREE SPEEECH !

The leader of the group The "Grand Wizard" lives around where i live... I didn't know till I heard about it...freaky.

[DsX Phoenix]

But, you cannot say someone isn't allowed to be racist just because some racists have killed. If that were so, every single religion in this country would be banned.

[hermy_weasley2]

They should not only be arretsed they should be punished or worse....for all the terror they unleashed the group should be outlawed. They dragged people on their cars at high speed , they mutilated them, shot them and they loved all of these acts.

I wouldn't consider it an exception to the freedom of speech. KILLING BASED ON RELIGION, RACE, GENDER ISN'T FREE SPEEECH
The leader of the group The "Grand Wizard" lives around where i live... I didn't know till I heard about it...freaky.

They don't kill people any more. We can't punish the present-day ones for the mistkes of the ones in the past. If that were done, all of us would be arrested and put in prison for something that someone in our religion, ethnic group, etc. did in the past. We can't outlaw them, because then we'd have to outlaw every group that didn't agree with the general population. It just wouldn't work.

I think there's more than one Grand Wizard, because there's a Grand Wizard that lives near me. Unless, we live near each other and don't know it. :huh: He may have moved though. I think my mom said something about some of his family members moving in.

[Tane]

If the KKK do harm to any other person regardless of there status they are in breach of the general laws that are out there and the Klan does break the Constitutions of America in more ways than one.

I still think that the KKK have a right to there own opinion but holding rallies to me is a little too much and frankly a waste of time as no one owns the right to say who lives in this world and who does not.

[DsX Phoenix]

I think there's more than one Grand Wizard, because there's a Grand Wizard that lives near me. Unless, we live near each other and don't know it. :huh: He may have moved though. I think my mom said something about some of his family members moving in.

I'm pretty sure there's a grand wizard for every local chapter of the Klan, though I do not know for sure.

[hermy_weasley2]

I'm pretty sure there's a grand wizard for every local chapter of the Klan, though I do not know for sure.

I think that's how it works. I don't think they're all united under one leadership, but I could be wrong too. I don't like to pry into the innerworkings of the Ku Klux Klan.

[FirefightingMuggle]

I read about a case in my college ethics class where an entire town that was made up of mostly Holocaust survivors sued and said that the KKK had no right to have a rally in their town. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Klan, stating that basically as long as the Klan didnot incite a riot or cause people to do physical harm to anyone else, they had every right to speak in the town, or anywhere else for that matter.

It may seem unpopular, I certainly don't like what the KKK has to say, but I think the Supreme Court's decision in that particular case is the right one. It's a slippery slope argument. Once one group is censored, it gives precident for other groups to be censored. If we were to completely censor the Klan today, it may wind up that someone completely censors the AARP, Greenpeace, or anyone else tommorow. That's why we can't just tell the KKK that they can't have their little rally things....it would give rise to further censorship. I definately would not want to live in a country where no one is allowed to say what is on their minds.

I really really can't stand the Klan. About 5 years ago, there was a big time Klan leader living in my town (he's now in jail for arson and drug charges...great guy eh?). He brought his little rallies and cross burnings here. He brought his hatred here. But no one listened. The last rally he had, which was heavily talked about on about 6 Western PA TV stations, and in just about every newspaper I saw, only had like 70 people in attendence. More people chose to go to the Unity Rally that was being held in another part of town on the same night. Our town's unity rally had almost 1,500 people in attendence, and it wasn't advertised outside of town at all. Goes to show you, just because some idiot in a hood talks, doesn't mean that people will listen.

[Hagrid442]

I think you're referring to Skokie, Illinois and their suit against the American Nazi Party, Firefighting Muggle.

Turns out they didn't hold their rally anyway.

[mirandam]

I don't agree with the KKK and what they say, but there are a lot of groups that I don't believe in out there. They do have the right to their opinions and the right to voice that opinion as long as it is done in a non violent matter. Unfortunatly a lot of these different groups always have members that do go to the extreme and make it bad for all. The town right next to me is all white and they are KKK mostly. These are normal people that you would never even suspect of being this way, but there has never been any violence there on any racial level and they are very quiet about their opinions. They don't attack anyone if they do come to their town or go all wacky like some other towns that are mainly KKK members.

[Wab]

I think you're referring to Skokie, Illinois and their suit against the American Nazi Party, Firefighting Muggle.

Turns out they didn't hold their rally anyway.

That's 'cause the Blues Brothers pushed them off the bridge. ;)

[Master Qui-Gon]

If the KKK do harm to any other person regardless of there status they are in breach of the general laws that are out there and the Klan does break the Constitutions of America in more ways than one.



True, but that's no different from if non-KKK-members do harm to a person. No one's suggested that KKK members should be excepted from general laws.

I still think that the KKK have a right to there own opinion but holding rallies to me is a little too much and frankly a waste of time as no one owns the right to say who lives in this world and who does not.

If you believe the KKK shouldn't be able to hold rallies and other organizations should be able to, then you still favour certain opinions above others. Just as undemocratic as if you would want to ban the KKK's opinions.

[hermy_weasley2]

I still think that the KKK have a right to there own opinion but holding rallies to me is a little too much and frankly a waste of time as no one owns the right to say who lives in this world and who does not.

Well, you know, KKK rallies, 4th of July parades...It's all the same thing in the eyes of those laws.

[XxIslandgirlxX]

I too would love to see the KKK banned. But as long as they get their jollies from doing sick things on their own property, there's nothing we can do. On the other hand, if they one day decided to burn a cross on my or anyone else's lawn, then action could be taken. Of course, they have from time to time lashed out on other groups in very inapropriate ways- ways that have actually physically harmed others.

[PeppyPuffskein]

Ahh the KKK. My short opinion - They should all be lined up and sho...er...
disbanded...in...a peaceful...and orderly...fashion.

Maybe I'm particularly sensitive about this because I'm half-African American (on my dad's side.) and half-Okinawan ( on my mom's side. And if you don't know, Okinawa is a island prefecture of Japan.) and I know that the KKK are prejudiced not just to blacks but to every other minority that didn't come from America. That being said, I think it's rather strange that they say that America rightfully belongs to the whites and that everyone else is inferior when the first people in America were the Native Americans. :huh:

Personally, I think that anyone who walks around with a white paper cone over their face need help. That's just my opinion.

[XxIslandgirlxX]

Ahh the KKK. My short opinion - They should all be lined up and sho...er...
disbanded...in...a peaceful...and orderly...fashion.

Maybe I'm particularly sensitive about this because I'm half-African American (on my dad's side.) and half-Okinawan ( on my mom's side. And if you don't know, Okinawa is a island prefecture of Japan.) and I know that the KKK are prejudiced not just to blacks but to every other minority that didn't come from America. That being said, I think it's rather strange that they say that America rightfully belongs to the whites and that everyone else is inferior when the first people in America were the Native Americans. :huh:

Personally, I think that anyone who walks around with a white paper cone over their face need help. That's just my opinion.

Too true! That's why they're called NATIVE Americans. The KKK is full of power-hungry idiots.

[DrummerboyDT]

Freedom of speech should only be about protesting ideas. It shouldn't be about protesting people.

[hermy_weasley2]

Freedom of speech should only be about protesting ideas. It shouldn't be about protesting people.


Well, that brings up an interesting question; What exactly does the KKK believe? I once heard one say he didn't hate minorities, he felt that thwey should be "kept in their place" and that races shouldn't interact. He seeemed like one of the more intelligent ones (not that that's saying much), so I don't know eactly who he was speaking on behath of.

[Amadeus]

Well, that brings up an interesting question; What exactly does the KKK believe? I once heard one say he didn't hate minorities, he felt that thwey should be "kept in their place" and that races shouldn't interact. He seeemed like one of the more intelligent ones (not that that's saying much), so I don't know eactly who he was speaking on behath of.
It really is interesting how the main targets of KKK changed over time. It seems as if they are trying to find someone to squash beneath them to make themselves feel better. When KKK was first founded, its main purpose was lynching blacks and preventing them from getting any sort of rights. Starting around mid 20th century, they moved onto Asian immigrants. If KKK was founded as anti-black group, then it should have dissolved long ago, or persist weakly as an anti-black group. However, it moves onto the Asian immigrants which proves that they are doing so just to feel better about themselves (which reminds me of Virginia Woolf and A Room of One's Own in which men kept women beneath themselves to feel better about themselves)

According to what hermy_weasley2 said, the KKK argues that they do not hate the minority groups, but feel that the minority groups should keep their place. That alone shows that they think of the mionrity group as inferiors. Also, That statement contradicts all the actions that KKK has conducted during the past couple centuries against the minority groups that they claim that they do not hate.

From what I've seen, the KKK has absolutely no grounds to stand on. It is just persisting to reflect back on the good old days when they whites were the kings of the world ordering black slaves around. You may call me stereotypical but when someone mentions KKK, I can't help but think of a drunk, cussing southerner who has nothing better to do than be a sadist and daydream about their 'possible' world dominance.

[DsX Phoenix]

Well, that brings up an interesting question; What exactly does the KKK believe? I once heard one say he didn't hate minorities, he felt that thwey should be "kept in their place" and that races shouldn't interact. He seeemed like one of the more intelligent ones (not that that's saying much), so I don't know eactly who he was speaking on behath of.

This is really the "message" of the KKK. They believe in white supremecy and segregation. And, I guess you could say, in some way, they really don't hate minorities. However, they [i]do[i/] believe European Christians are of a superior race, and thus should have more freedoms and rights.

Amadeus, if you look at what the KKK did over the years, it really is along these lines. The only times they lynched blacks were when the blacks "got out of line" (i.e., looked at a white woman the wrong way, didn't speak with respect to a white person, or any other kind of rediculous crime). Also, a lot of their hate crimes were against whites who were sympathetic of blacks.

As for the transition of philosophies, I don't really think there was a major one. In the 1800's, there weren't many Asians in America, and the only real minority group was the blacks. Therefore, it would make sense to focus on them. However, once more and more Asians and Hispanics came into this country, they shifted their focus slightly.

[FirefightingMuggle]

The KKK that was in my area was against blacks, Jewish people, homosexuals, and Catholics. I'm not quite sure how Catholics got in there, but some how they did. They never really went after Asians and Hispanics though, I guess because there aren't really a lot of Asian and Hispanic people living in my area.

[Wab]

Catholics copped it because the Irish were the other underclass when no blacks were handy.

[IrmoPimp]

No one ever mentions the activities of the Klan that didn't have to do with blacks. That's the liberal media at work. Anyway, The Klan also targeted drunks who beat their wives, men who didn't take care of their families, politicians who worked against the people, etc. No one can disagree that those actions are at least somewhat justified. And after "removing" the wrongdoers, Klansmen assisted in getting families back on their feet. The Klan also engaged in all sorts of public service projects, such as planting trees and flowers, cleaning littered areas, cleaning graveyards, etc. It's fine to berate the Klan for thier bad activities, but at least give them credit for their good activities.

And by the way, freedom of speech is just that. The freedom to say what you want. Saying you hate blacks/catholics/etc. hurts NOONE. If you don't like it, don't listen to it. They have every right to say what they want.

[DsX Phoenix]

It's not a question of whether or not the Klan does good deeds as well, it's of whether or not the good deeds outway the bad deeds. There is a priest who was recently convicted of a hit and run. Surely this priest has done several good deeds through his work as a minister. Should he get off because of this? Or what about the numerous priests convicted of child molestation? Should they be let off because of their good deeds?

[Hagrid442]

There's no such thing as the mythical "liberal media", but that's a different thread.

Really, a couple of those "good deeds" you mentioned aren't all that good either. Interfering in other people's affairs? Maybe I can feel somewhat sympathetic to someone that takes care of a wife-beater extrajudiciously, because some visceral part of me would like to do very much the same. But then I take a deep breath and think I'd much rather the woman do it herself. Or think it would be better if someone would do it for her not out of some macho "damsel in distress" trip.

But I'm just a born Catholic, one of the many targetted groups of the KKK, and a "yankee". What do I know?

[Wab]

The Klan also engaged in all sorts of public service projects, such as planting trees and flowers, cleaning littered areas, cleaning graveyards, etc. It's fine to berate the Klan for thier bad activities, but at least give them credit for their good activities.

Groups like Hamas and the IRA also provide services like in their communities should we laud them?

[FirefightingMuggle]

The Klan also engaged in all sorts of public service projects, such as planting trees and flowers, cleaning littered areas, cleaning graveyards, etc.

So do the Boy Scouts. If I had to see an organization in my town that did those things, I would rather see the Boy Scouts. You'd get all the service with out the hatred.

Look, I live in a town where the Klan has been active for quite a while. I personally have never seen any of these people out and about in their white robes and pointy little hats planting flowers in the park. I've also never seen them cleaning litter along the roadways. In Pennsylvania we have this program called "Adopt a Highway". If you clean litter along a 2 mile stretch of road, the DoT will put up a sign with your name on it. I've never seen the KKK's adopted highway. I have seen them commit arson though. If arson's a community service, then I guess we have a winner.

[Pilum]

Just a little aside. Not too sure about the KKK as it's not in my area (I don't think!), but you may have seen the BNP (British National Party) on the news recently. They are portrayed in a similar way to the Klan. Recently they invited Jean-Marie Lepen (a French National Front politician) to address them, and the Anti-Nazi League (amongst others) organised protests, threw eggs at the cars and so on. Now apart from the negative image you then portray of your cause by attacking the cops, it's also quite ironic that the (usually painfully right-on student-type) anti-nazis were effectively telling a foreigner to go back where he came from....

Well I found it mildly amusing anyway. Normal service will now resume.

[FloydTheBarber]

No one ever mentions the activities of the Klan that didn't have to do with blacks. That's the liberal media at work. Anyway, The Klan also targeted drunks who beat their wives, men who didn't take care of their families, politicians who worked against the people, etc. No one can disagree that those actions are at least somewhat justified. And after "removing" the wrongdoers, Klansmen assisted in getting families back on their feet. The Klan also engaged in all sorts of public service projects, such as planting trees and flowers, cleaning littered areas, cleaning graveyards, etc. It's fine to berate the Klan for thier bad activities, but at least give them credit for their good activities.

And by the way, freedom of speech is just that. The freedom to say what you want. Saying you hate blacks/catholics/etc. hurts NOONE. If you don't like it, don't listen to it. They have every right to say what they want.
So it's ok to be walking around and having a couple of hooded individuals to insult you ?Maybe it doesn' hurt you nor does it hurt me, but it hurts others.

You make them sound like a volunteer community group.

[pasalita]

If there's anything that has been proven in many country's long-standing history, freedom of speech, while it should be inherent, is truly a privilege. As such, I don't think it fair to use such a privilege in a manner so ignorantly as to justify the use of slurs and the spread of hate.

For me, what a prejudiced person spews is not an exception to the freedom of speech. The choice to voice opinion is protected in the US. But, using it to campaign and organize legions of people into hating people inherently different simply because they are different, terrorizing neighborhoods... that, to me, is an exploitation of the right to free speech. That, to me, is what is at the heart of the KKK.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is a great motto for the playground. But, the blind hate and intolerance taught and proliferated by this group is hurtful when people of the Klan garner positions of influence and power in society, just as any person that is a bigot in any way could take away the freedoms so cherished by those that live in the US. These people, should they be in a position of economic power, can block opportunities of livelihood from someone simply because they are different. That is what is harmful, and those ideals are the result of words put on paper, on the internet, in emails, and spoken.

Words do hurt because they make up our basis of communication. We communicate ideals through words. And ideals are what support action. If someone is raised on hateful words and thoughts, they will act accordingly even if confronted with actions that challenge those ideals.

[IrmoPimp]

Look, this thread is about whether or not the Klan is/should be an exception to freedom of speech. The answer is no. You can't deny their right, just because YOU don't agree with it. That's illegal and anti-American. They like what they say, and probably don't agree with what you say, so from their viewpoint, YOU should be banned. It's all from what perspective you're at. I hate the Black Panthers and Crazy Muslim Groups, and other fanatical groups, but I wouldn't deny their right to rant and rave about the White Man or the Infidels if I could. That's what makes America great. So if you don't like the Klan, DON'T JOIN. If you don't like their message, DON'T LISTEN. And if they harass you, TELL THE AUTHORITIES. It's that simple. The law is no longer on the side of the Klan. Those days are over.

[Hagrid442]

Look, this thread is about whether or not the Klan is/should be an exception to freedom of speech. The answer is no. You can't deny their right, just because YOU don't agree with it. That's illegal and anti-American. They like what they say, and probably don't agree with what you say, so from their viewpoint, YOU should be banned. It's all from what perspective you're at. I hate the Black Panthers and Crazy Muslim Groups, and other fanatical groups, but I wouldn't deny their right to rant and rave about the White Man or the Infidels if I could. That's what makes America great. So if you don't like the Klan, DON'T JOIN. If you don't like their message, DON'T LISTEN. And if they harass you, TELL THE AUTHORITIES. It's that simple. The law is no longer on the side of the Klan. Those days are over.


I agree 100%.

[pasalita]

Look, this thread is about whether or not the Klan is/should be an exception to freedom of speech. The answer is no. You can't deny their right, just because YOU don't agree with it. That's illegal and anti-American. They like what they say, and probably don't agree with what you say, so from their viewpoint, YOU should be banned. It's all from what perspective you're at. I hate the Black Panthers and Crazy Muslim Groups, and other fanatical groups, but I wouldn't deny their right to rant and rave about the White Man or the Infidels if I could. That's what makes America great. So if you don't like the Klan, DON'T JOIN. If you don't like their message, DON'T LISTEN. And if they harass you, TELL THE AUTHORITIES. It's that simple. The law is no longer on the side of the Klan. Those days are over.

Hm. I don't think many disagree with you on the idea that the existence of the Klan, ie. their existence is protected in the US. But, as many a thread in the forum evolves, this discussion has evolved as well to also ask if the right to free speech is being exploited. I agree that any fanatical group has the right to exist based on the US Bill of Rights, but as an individual, I believe it's an exploitation of the right of free speech to use it in a manner that spreads and perpetuates hateful thoughts.

To me, the idea of the freedom of speech is to allow all perspectives to be voiced so that, as individuals, we can make our own decision on how and why we stand on certain issues. It is a right that is exploited, but never-the-less still protects, those that wish to use it to promote a negative, devisive agenda.

I don't like the Klan, so clearly I won't join, and thank goodness I've never been explicitly harrassed by a person of the Klan. But, as I don't agree with their message, I also refuse to turn away from confrontating the issue by ignoring what they say. I choose to use my right of speech to question and challenge their message and attempt to dispel the hate and ignorance they proliferate.

Like I mentioned earlier, the freedom to speak out is a privilege, and it would be a waste of a freedom to simply remain silent.

[Hagrid442]

I disagree about it being a priviledge. A priviledge can be taken away. No, freedom of speech is a right. However, there is much responsibility that comes with this right. I think groups like the KKK are irresponsible, and yes, exploit this right. However, it's still their right to say their hateful things, as well as it's our right to call them out on their ****.

[FirefightingMuggle]

Freedom of speech is a right in the United States. It's gaurenteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution, and unfortunately there is no way to stop the Klan, and other groups like them, from spreading their message. But on the upside, the First Amendment also gives other people the right to speak out against the Klan and other hate groups. It gives regular people the right to tell the Klan to go soak their heads.

Like I said in a previous post, we can't tell people that they can't say what they want just because we don't agree with it. When we start doing that, we open ourselves up to further censorship. I believe that the Nazis didn't let people give opinions that they didn't agree with....we don't want to start being like the Nazis, even if the opinions of people like the Klansmen go against what most people think and feel.

[SilverStar]

Just like everyone else, they can say what they want. It's when they act on it (and I don't mean burning crosses; they can do protests just as anti-abortion people can) like killing people that they get into trouble.

[pasalita]

I disagree about it being a priviledge. A priviledge can be taken away. No, freedom of speech is a right. However, there is much responsibility that comes with this right. I think groups like the KKK are irresponsible, and yes, exploit this right. However, it's still their right to say their hateful things, as well as it's our right to call them out on their ****.

Stone me for my nit-pickiness later :D, but, in relation to a more global community and history, I've come to see that the freedom of speech is not just a right, but a privilege. To me, it's a privilege because only those that are privileged with the right (ie. those that have fought for that right) are able to choose between taking advantage of it, or taking it for granted. I say, "in relation to a more global community and history," simply because there are still many countries and communities that deny what we take for granted as inherent (ie. as a woman, there are still many countries where I am not allowed to speak out; as a person, there are still countries where I can't even dance in public). It is inherent to the US simply because many generations of people before us fought to maintain the use of this right and privilege, and because the US Government (though some may beg to differ) supports the maintenance of that right/privilege.

But, in relation to the US - yes, I agree that it can simply be considered a right.

But, I digress: Is the question more about whether this right/privilege is exploited by groups such as the Klan, or simply about whether groups such as the Klan is an exception and should be abolished?

[Nys]

I think that if KKK was banned, all you'd do would be make people want to join it. At the moment, only the extremists are members. If it was banned then people who only slightly agreed with what they were saying would join it because they were told they weren't allowed to think this way.

[Kaonashi]

Just like everyone else, they can say what they want. It's when they act on it (and I don't mean burning crosses; they can do protests just as anti-abortion people can) like killing people that they get into trouble.

Lat time I checked, burning a cross on someone's else's property (which still happens) defacing someone's home, and harassing people is illegal. If I walked up to you on the street, announce that I was a member of some group, starting shouting racial slurs at you and started throwing things and spitting at you and the cops saw that, I would be the one going to jail, not you.

People have the right to free speech, but when you use that right to harass other people that's where I draw the line.

[mirandam]

The issues are about the KKK's freedom of speech, and yes they have the freedom. Just like all the other groups out there, but they don't have the right to do crimminal acts. I don't think anyone is questioning that fact. I don't like what they stand for, but if I feel they don't have a right to voice their opinion, then neither do I, or anybody else for that matter. As much as we don't like them, there are also other groups out there that I don't like either, but that is my problem. Could you imagine what would happen to this country if the freedom of speech was taken away? Yikes.


.

[FirefightingMuggle]

The issues are about the KKK's freedom of speech, and yes they have the freedom. Just like all the other groups out there, but they don't have the right to do crimminal acts. I don't think anyone is questioning that fact. I don't like what they stand for, but if I feel they don't have a right to voice their opinion, then neither do I, or anybody else for that matter. As much as we don't like them, there are also other groups out there that I don't like either, but that is my problem. Could you imagine what would happen to this country if the freedom of speech was taken away? Yikes.


.
Exactly. That's the point that I was trying to make with the "slippery slope" argument. When you set a precedent to remove freedom of speech from one group, you open the door for it to be taken from others. The door opens for fringe religious groups, musicians, activists, authors, screen writers, politicians....everyone to lose the right to say what they feel. In a way, it would be like Nazi Germany, or communist nations....you could not speak out agaisnt policies or opinions that did not fit within the official line of thinking. It would land you in jail. Groups like the Klan, the Neo-Nazis....they have to have freedom of speech. If we take it from them, we open up to losing it for ourselves.

[accioinsight7]

While I believe the Freedom of Speech right has no exceptions, I am severely against the Klan. I don't know what the current laws involving these so-called "knights" (that's a laugh, as if they're noble or something) are, but I know that mere laws are not going to stop them (see, Force Acts of 1870 and 1871). I am a Catholic, and know that this group had been persecuting Catholics for years. But, my history teacher (also Catholic), brought in an invitation letter and Klan newspaper that had been left at her home. The invitation letter was disgusting enough, outlining the Klan's beliefs, and saying that if a body did not wish to join the Klan, that they could simply give a donation. It further said that the Klan was now accepting Catholics among its ranks (blech). The newspaper was almost too much too handle, and was definitely laughable...trumping up members who had been "wronged" as "heroes", insulting many who were directly contrasted to the Klan, and then, after all this "epic heroism" and support of the Klan as a great institution, the back page had items for sale, just like any newspaper. But these weren't ordinary newspaper 4sale items. There was a 10 inch statuette of Hitler, for use on your desk. There were CHILDREN's T-shirts saying things like "Klan Kids Kare." It was awful. I am also very much against racism. The Klan is just one group that tries to keep some other group of people down. I found it interesting, when statistics came out, that (I could be off, but I'm in the correct general area) 80+% of Klan members did not have a high school diploma...This is not surprising as "ignorance spreads hatred." The Klan to me is a racist group of propaganda spreaders, citing the "browning of America," and nothing more.

communist nations....you could not speak out agaisnt policies or opinions that did not fit within the official line of thinking. It would land you in jail.
This made me think of a quote from a book by a Russian emigrant to America that went "The difference between Russia and the Western world is this: In Russia, you have freedom to say whatever you want to--in the Western world, you have freedom after you say whatever you want."

[morgiana]

While the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech it doesn't guarantee the right to harm others or burn crosses on lawns. The KKK is not an organization I'd like to join nor would I like to know any of it's members.

There are lots of groups who want to tell you their beliefs and they would like you to embrace them; Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, Democrats, Republicans, Born again Christians, Enviromentalist, Pro-choice, Right to lifers, activists of all kinds and hate groups.

Freedom of Speech means allowing someone who believes in something you would spend your whole life fighting against the right to speak and the courtesy of if not listening then being quiet until it's your turn.

[purplehawk]

Freedom of Speech means allowing someone who believes in something you would spend your whole life fighting against the right to speak and the courtesy of if not listening then being quiet until it's your turn.

That doesn't happen very often in real life. Whenever a Klan member rears his sheeted head and opens his mouth tempers start to boil over. These "people" don't want to talk anyway. They exist solely to strike fear (or possibly anger) in the hearts of those they deem to be targeted for extinction. We haven't had a traveling minstrel show of KKK members petitioning to rally at our state house in years - not since the metropolitan police departments and state troopers said the Klan would have to pay for its security. Until then, every rally was a fight waiting to happen.

[Masterfroggy]

Freedom of Speech means allowing someone who believes in something you would spend your whole life fighting against the right to speak and the courtesy of if not listening then being quiet until it's your turn.

There have been something like 225 case that have “tested” the Freedom of speech part of the first amendment “ everything from a prisoner is only allowed free speech providing it does not break the rules of the prison he or she is held in

According to the United States Senate printing service, current thinking of the courts is that under the Freedom of Speech section of the first amendment.

http://civilliberty.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.access.gpo.gov%2Fcongress%2Fsenate%2Fconstitution%2Ftoc.html


`` the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation, except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

Therefore, if the government “thinks” you or your organisation are inciting or advocating lawlessness you have no right to free speech.

[Kirsten]

They believe in white supremecy and segregation. And, I guess you could say, in some way, they really don't hate minorities. However, they [i]do[i/] believe European Christians are of a superior race, and thus should have more freedoms and rights.

Which is hilarious, given that they're American.

There were CHILDREN's T-shirts saying things like "Klan Kids Kare."
I'd be so tempted to make one saying "Klan kids can't spell."

I believe every group has the right to say what they want. Freedom of speech has to be for everyone, or it's meaningless. It's not safe to start limiting freedom of speech depending on whose opinion is popular at the time. If you hate what someone says, ignore it or challenge it, but don't try to ban it.

[ComicBookWorm]

I don't have anything positive to say about the Klan or any other white supremacist groups. In fact the things that I would like to say would probably get me banned.

Any group that exists to foment hate turns my stomach. Nothing good comes from an organization like that since it only serves to reinforce and amplify the anger and hate that members may have harbored. Individually a person may have had these fears and angers toward minorities as a low-level background set of beliefs. But a group like this lends credence to ideas that might have been dismissed as unthinkable by an individual. It provides group encouragement and approval for this hatred.

You have to feel sorry for people with such low self-esteen that they have to denigrate others to make themselves feel superior. Well maybe feeling sorry is too nice a reaction.

However, like most hate groups, it isn't enough to just provide support and encouragement for hateful behavior, since this is only the intial step taken. From there, acts of hate and terror are planned. In the present day, the instructions are designed to look "innocent", and they are described for use as edification only. You know--like how to make bomb as an educational informational exercise only. It would have disclaimers about really making a bomb. I am lumping the KKK with all white supremacist groups here.

I dated a guy in college whose father left the John Birch Society because it was too liberal for him. I am not kidding here. That's what he told me. He had a wall of books with titles like "2001 Jews are Communists". Printed inside the book was simply the names and addresses of the people listed as communists. There was nothing else in the books. I guess they did it as a public service, so if you wanted to make a social call and politely explain your political viewpoint to the people in the books you could find them easily. He had books like that for almost every minority including Catholics. When I did press him about why someone would want a book like that, he just said it was for informational purposes. But for the life of me, I can't come up with an innocuous use for the information.

Unfortunately, we do have to support free speech even when it comes from the most unpleasant sources, so we do have to tolerate the KKK or any other group of its ilk. They can be as hateful as they may like, but they aren't permitted to act on their ideas.

[purplehawk]

I guess their close ties to the NRA and the weapons they keep at home are for informational purposes as well?

[Spirit]

I think that the Freedom of Speech was not meant to accept murder as a protest. I had the impression that the Freedom of Speech was the freedom to be able to state your opinions to America, and nothing more. The right to take off the workday and go protest by going out and marching in front of a buildng would be as far as I think it should go. What if a group of people thought that they should end the human race, so they go and kill people and then themselves? Would that still apply to the Freedom of Speech, even if it was their religion to kill? There should be a certain line, and I think that you've crossed the line is if you harm someone. The KKK had crossed that line.

[gred&forge4ever]

I truly hate both the KKK and the ACLU. That being said however, as long as the action stops at speech, I think that any group has the right to protest. I feel especially strongly about it because where I live, if one does not follow the liberal political agenda and speaks their mind, they are branded as a hate monger. That is wrong, everyone is entitled to the free expression of their thoughts, opinions and ideas.

[purplehawk]

II feel especially strongly about it because where I live, if one does not follow the liberal political agenda and speaks their mind, they are branded as a hate monger. That is wrong, everyone is entitled to the free expression of their thoughts, opinions and ideas.

I agree with your take on speaking one's mind - but why do you think people brand you as a hate-monger if you speak out on what I assume are more conservative views?

[ComicBookWorm]

I still support the ACLU because they truly fight for everyone's constitutional rights throughout the politcal spectrum. When a neo-nazi group wanted to march through Skokie, Illinois the ACLU supported them. What was so obnoxious about the march wasn't that they were merely neo-nazis (which of course is bad enough), but that one out of six residents in Skokie were Holocaust survivors or directly related to a survivor. And of course the march was deliberately planned to upset the residents. I'm Jewish and even I had to very grudgingly acknowledge that they had the right to march.

The point then and the point now was that eveyone has the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, because we can't start down the road of deciding who gets to speak out and who doesn't

We've had glimmers of those restrictions recently with public figures saying that it is unpatriotic to speak out against the Irag war. It is never unpatriotic to speak out. And since we can't start parsing who gets to speak and who doesn't even hate groups can spew their hated legally. The problem comes from the stuff they do that isn't in public like foment hate crimes and acts of terror.

[Kangy]

Hm.

I guess I'm one of the few people that thinks censorship is completely okay, if it's for the betterment of the majority?

And yes, my opinion on the KKK being censored falls in line with that. The KKK are a stain on the image the US has, and I'd have no qualms about shutting them up.

[Mundungus Fletc]

The problem about restricting the freedom of speech other than in very specific ways is that it is an endless slippery slope ending up in a lack of freedom of speech.

The exceptions I have in mind are the obvious ones - no right to cry 'fire' in a crowded theatre and no right to incite people to commit a crime. From what I've read here (I'm not going to view sites that would only make me angry) the KKK site sails very close to the line on the latter. If an extreme Islamic group had a site saying how to make bombs on a server in the USA how long would it stay up I wonder.

[purplehawk]

The exceptions I have in mind are the obvious ones - no right to cry 'fire' in a crowded theatre and no right to incite people to commit a crime. From what I've read here (I'm not going to view sites that would only make me angry) the KKK site sails very close to the line on the latter. If an extreme Islamic group had a site saying how to make bombs on a server in the USA how long would it stay up I wonder.

It wouldn't stay very long. It would disappear as a matter of national security. What is the message we're supposed to draw from this? It's not okay for extremist Islamic groups to discuss how to kill masses of people online - but it is okay for the KKK to arm itself via it's sister group, the NRA, and kill masses of people a few at a time. I assume the distinction here is that Islamic extremists are not Americans and thus have no protections under freedom of speech. From there we can assume it's okay for the KKK to kill Americans, but not okay for Al Queda to do so. The saddest thing about all this is there are Americans who believe in just that.

Still, silencing them would just force them underground and that might even be worse.

[Masterfroggy]

I assume the distinction here is that Islamic extremists are not Americans and thus have no protections under freedom of speech. From there we can assume it's okay for the KKK to kill Americans, but not okay for Al Queda to do so. The saddest thing about all this is there are Americans who believe in just that.

Still, silencing them would just force them underground and that might even be worse.

If America is anything like the UK I have to disagree, there are Islamic extremists who were born in the USA and are in their mid twenties now, listening to American clerics spouting their versions of the Faith,
Islam is a faith not a culture. People from every race and colour follow the faith.
the KKK hate is home grown as well, it is born from fear and poverty, fermented by people with their own dreams of power, and unlike some people will have you believe, it is alive and well and growing, it has many names but few faces, but like bogus charities set up by political parties to fund their senators campaigns, you only find them if you want to look

[msmooney]

Hm.

I guess I'm one of the few people that thinks censorship is completely okay, if it's for the betterment of the majority?


Kangy, though I find the Klan morally reprehensible, they do have the right to free speech. What you're suggesting above treads a dangerous line. Who is this majority that decides where to draw the line? Because right now in government, the Republicans are the majority. Can you imagine what would happen if they had legal powers to censor the minority? It would lead to even more disinformation then there already is in this society. As foul as the Klan are, if someone has the power to censore them today, who's to say those same folks won't be censoring you tomorrow?

[hermy_weasley2]

Hm.

I guess I'm one of the few people that thinks censorship is completely okay, if it's for the betterment of the majority?

And yes, my opinion on the KKK being censored falls in line with that. The KKK are a stain on the image the US has, and I'd have no qualms about shutting them up.


But what good is freedom of speech if exceptions to it can be made for the betterment of the majority? The whole point of freedom of speech is so that people other than the majority can have their opinions heard however unpopular, racist and hurtful they may be. Unfortunately, those opinions (and not just with the KKK) can escalte into something more than speech . That's where the line has to be drawn for the betterment of the majority and everyone else.

[DarkThunder]

Why do people seem to care if someone is burning crosses, but dont care when someone is burning a symbol of a different religion? :|

[MarcKal]

Well, they believe in white supremacy, segregation (sp?), etc...

I hate them for what they stand for and burning a religious symbol!!!!

[purplehawk]

Why do people seem to care if someone is burning crosses, but dont care when someone is burning a symbol of a different religion? :|

We care about the cross-burnings, too.

[hermy_weasley2]

Well, they believe in white supremacy, segregation (sp?), etc...

I hate them for what they stand for and burning a religious symbol!!!!


Burning crosses has nothing to do with anti-Christianity, at least in their minds. They consider themselves to be more Christian than others and superior to anyone who isn't Chrisitan (or white). and burning crosses makes them more visable (I can't think of a better way to put that), which, to them, helps them prove their point. Personally, I think it's sick and disgusting that they'd use it that way.

[purplehawk]

They use the bible to support their racist beliefs, along with the Constitution of the United States.

[Kangy]

Well, I guess the issue here is that I don't believe in freedom of speech.

And no, the Government should have no power over censorship, just the majority.

[AM Lehr]

When it comes to hurting other people physically and mentally like they did then it draws the line. Everyone had their own right to speech. But when it comes to what they did, they drew the line. KKK is still alive today, just not as bad. I don't think that it should be stopped, because the governmont doesn't stop Sunday morning Church. Everyone has freedom of speech. But I do feel sorry for them because they were consumed by their hatred towards others. I hope that those who are part of KKK will realise what they are doing and stop.

[Windham]

I think the Ku Klux Klan people should all be arrested. They burn crosses, discriminate other races, e.t.c. What do you think?

The problem is, free speech is free speech. If you make an exception, then you open a door for any group who claims to be offended to arrest the free speech of whomever they choose. Better that these people are free to say their bit than that you're not free to say yours, I think.

And then there's this...

But what good is freedom of speech if exceptions to it can be made for the betterment of the majority? The whole point of freedom of speech is so that people other than the majority can have their opinions heard however unpopular, racist and hurtful they may be.

You put it perfectly. Popular speech doesn't have to be defended. To let the majority overrule free speech would serve only to turn any nation into one in which the mob rules.

[GSCY]

Kangy, there is this little thing called the tyranny of teh amjority that the checks and balances of the constitution are supposed to protect us from. The KKK falls squarely in line with this, the fact is that a vast majority of Americans would love to see the KKK go away, but in a free society that cannot happen. I can understand if you don't want to live in a free society, but then are you faced with a threshold problem. How much of majority is enough 50.01% or does it have to be 51%. Both members of teh major political parties want to see the other side go away, would a thin majority be enough to silence either the democrats or the republicans.

The KKK is a minority, the views they espouse are despicable, but they must be allowed to compete in the arena of ideas, that is how we reach a majority by offering choice. It is great that we say that everyone should be tolerant, it is wrong to say that everyone MUST be tolerant.

Free speech only works in relation to the government. The Klan does not have a right to hold a rally in your living room, but they do have a right to hold a rally on government land. They do have a right to burn crosses in their yards, just not yours. And yes, I know they have a history of burning crosses in the yards of African-AMericans or other minority groups, but those insatnces are not about free speech at all. At the very least tresspassing has occured, as well as harassment, and arson with a slew of other potential charges. Those tactics ARE illegal, and have nothing to do with free speech.

[puer]

i couldn't agree more the kkk should be arresed and destroyed. All of the members should recive a live sentcence.

[marauderlupin]

I'm no expert on American laws, but haven't the KKK perpetrated enough murders to warrant classifying them a terrorist organization? I would think they have. I personally think there's a double standard going on. When the Black Panthers were killing and scaring whites, the law enforcers did whatever they could to stamp them out. They took both legal and illegal actions. When it comes to an organization that kills and terrorizes blacks, the law says its hands are tied :rolleyes:

[Hagrid442]

The Supreme Court has ruled that cross-burning isn't protected by the First Amendment. Seeing as it's a message of intimidation, it's the right ruling.

However, they're still free to hold their rallies. As long as they pay for the extra security needed.

[ComicBookWorm]

And to posters who think that freedom of speech is ok as long as they approve of what is being said, they have to worry about what might happen when some other group doesn't approve of what that poster might want to say. What is great about America is that we feel we have to put up with speech even if it is hateful. That way no one group gets to sit down and decide what we should or shouldn't say.

[purplehawk]

I'm no expert on American laws, but haven't the KKK perpetrated enough murders to warrant classifying them a terrorist organization? I would think they have. I personally think there's a double standard going on. When the Black Panthers were killing and scaring whites, the law enforcers did whatever they could to stamp them out. They took both legal and illegal actions. When it comes to an organization that kills and terrorizes blacks, the law says its hands are tied :rolleyes:

The Black Panther Party didn't kill anyone. Huey Newton's conviction of killing a police officer was eventually overturned and is widely-viewed as a setup. They were systematically hunted down by white Americans and government institutions such as the FBI.

As racial tension increased around the country, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) blamed the Black Panthers for riots and other incidents of violence. The bureau launched a program called COINTELPRO (short for counterintelligence program) designed to disrupt efforts to unify black militant groups such as SNCC, BPP, and US. FBI agents sent anonymous threatening letters to Panthers, infiltrated the group with informers, and worked with local police to weaken the party. In December 1969 two Chicago leaders of the party, Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, were killed in a police raid. By the end of the decade, according to the party's attorney, 28 Panthers had been killed and many other members were either in jail or had been forced to leave the United States in order to avoid arrest. In 1970 Connecticut authorities began an unsuccessful effort to convict Seale and other Panthers of the murder of a Panther who was believed to be a police informant. In New York, 21 Panthers were charged with plotting to assassinate police officers and blow up buildings. Chief of staff David Hilliard awaited trial on charges of threatening the life of President Richard Nixon. Cleaver left the United States for exile in Cuba to avoid returning to prison for parole violations.

Black Panther Party (http://www.africana.com/research/encarta/tt_031.asp)

The BPP was systematically hounded and interfered with by the FBI and others in a way the KKK has never been. The message was loud and clear. White supremacy is one thing, but black supremacy, or any form of black activism, was not going to fly in America. Keep in mind that by 1969, the BPP leaders were all in jail or had fled the country. And in 1968, both Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were assassinated. Three-pronged attack on the entire black activist movement.

[marauderlupin]

Thanks for that purplehawk. I learned something new. There was a former Black Panther caught in Toronto recently and the newspapers pretty much assumed his guilt and didn't have anything good to say about the Panthers, though some did mention all the illegal wiretaps that police used. Still, I should know better than to believe mainstream press without research. They're nothing but a bunch of lazy lemmings anyway.

[purplehawk]

It's pretty incredible how uninformed the American public really is about what happened to the brave souls who dared to speak up for black Americans during those years. It took nearly forty years to bring the men who bombed the church in Birmingham to justice - and they knew who had done it decades before they were finally convicted. The same was true of Byron de la Beckwith, who murdered Medgar Evers. He was widely-viewed in the south as a true patriot and hero when he finally went to jail. If you're interested, I posted a good deal more in the "What's So Great About America?" thread.

[marauderlupin]

It's pretty incredible how uninformed the American public really is about what happened to the brave souls who dared to speak up for black Americans during those years. It took nearly forty years to bring the men who bombed the church in Birmingham to justice - and they knew who had done it decades before they were finally convicted. The same was true of Byron de la Beckwith, who murdered Medgar Evers. He was widely-viewed in the south as a true patriot and hero when he finally went to jail. If you're interested, I posted a good deal more in the "What's So Great About America?" thread.


It's true. The BP's have a very bad image.

As an outsider, I see such an obvious double standard. If this were bizarro world and the KKK was a black organization, would they last a decade? Definitely not. Free speech and idealism aside, I see the real reason they're being tolerated is because they don't harm the white majority in the U.S.

[purplehawk]

I see the real reason they're being tolerated is because they don't harm the white majority in the U.S.

Change that to read that the Klan "is propped up by the white majority in the U.S." and you've probably got a winner. Not all whites, of course, but many more than you might think in this day of supposed enlightenment.

[marauderlupin]

Sure if the public was angered enough and if members of the FBI took it personally, they would have been gone a long time ago.

I recently took an American Studies class and the sorts of stories our professor had us read were beyond horrifying. I find it a bit callous that so many people want to push everything under the rug. There seems to be a prevailing attitude of "get over it" with respects to blacks in America, especially with the recent attacks on Affirmative Action but all I did was read some autobiographies classified as slave narratives and I can't get over it. They should be required reading in American classrooms.

[purplehawk]

I have several books filled with slave narratives and a wealth of various artifacts from the slave era here in the United States. My sister and I are avid, determined collectors. She is an excellent genealogist and keeps the records associated with our family tree. We have enough to probably produce a second iteration of "Roots."

The "get over it" concept works to a point. It worked for most of my life. Get over it and move on. That was my motto in my younger years... a necessary thing when raising black children to be able to survive in the United States. Now that they're all adults and raising their own families, I find myself a bit more militant. I don't want to forget what happened. I don't want anyone to forget what happened - what continues to happen even today on a federal level. Forgetting lets white American off the hook too easily.

[accioinsight7]

I feel there needs to be a little bit of "get over it and move on", because that is my philosophy. But definitely don't forget. Letting go of the hate that is involved in the KKK and the hate that comes from the past conflict/poor acts of the days of slavery is vital to peace. But forgetting isn't. Remembering what has happened and IS happening is also vital. Grudges aren't.
Someone said earlier on that post that they wouldn't feel bad if the KKK were shut up, and I would agree that I wouldn't feel any regret at all. But I wouldn't want them silenced unconstitutionally. I would just rather have the entire group more defamed than it is, and completely eliminated through de-organization. Or through jail-time after illegal acts. That would be nice. If the Klan could die out with a generation soon. But not likely, thanks to the passing of their message of hate and superiority. They cannot be silenced by the Constitution, because that would be reckless by the government. But it is groups like the KKK that have even ever made me question the Constitution...

[purplehawk]

The Klan won't die out completely until people stop preaching it's "merits" (or lack thereof) to succeeding generations. I don't support silencing even them constitutionally, but it wouldn't be the first time the government has taken it upon itself to ride roughshod over the exact same rights with non-white American activists. Just Google for J. Edgar Hoover and his private dossiers.

I don't think black Americans, at least, have yet arrived at the point where "get over it" is a valid suggestion. If you have never experienced life as a black man or woman in this country, it's probably best not to suggest it.

[Aramina]

The "get over it" concept works to a point. It worked for most of my life. Get over it and move on. That was my motto in my younger years... a necessary thing when raising black children to be able to survive in the United States. Now that they're all adults and raising their own families, I find myself a bit more militant. I don't want to forget what happened. I don't want anyone to forget what happened - what continues to happen even today on a federal level. Forgetting lets white American off the hook too easily.

Now hold on a minute. I can understand not wanting anyone to forget about what the KKK has done (they're a bunch of royal ********, in my opinion), but what's this about 'forgetting lets white Americans off the hook too easily.'
We're not responsible for anything that our ancestors (or our ancestors' neighbors, friends, etc.) did. We had no say in it. If you're going to hold us accountable, why don't you travel on over to Africa while you're at it and blame the descendants of people who sold your ancestors into slavery? They got you in the position for the KKK to discriminate against you in the first place.

I don't think that the stuff the KKK has done should be forgotten, anymore than the Holocaust, or Pearl Harbor, or 9/11. But I do think it's unfair to make out like the entire population of white Americans discriminates against black Americans, or is responsible for the KKK doing so.

EDIT: I just want to say, before anyone yells at me, gets offended, etc., that this was not meant to be an inflammatory post. I just wanted to point out that while it is necessary for us to remember things like the KKK, the Holocaust, etc., it is not good or fair to blame the descendants of those who did things like that. Just as we don't blame descendants of the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor or those of the Nazis, it's unfair to blame white Americans whose ancestors might have been members of the KKK.

Yes, people are still being discriminated against on basis of skin color, and so many other things, but it's going to take more than 4 or 5 generations for people to rid themselves of these prejudices. You must keep in mind that blacks in American didn't even truly become considered anywhere near equal until the 60s. And even then it was still a fight.

I don't think that the average person will be satisfied until these prejudices disappear, but it will take time. Just as it took time after WWII for other Americans to trust Japanese Americans...eventually, though, prejudice will be a thing of the past.

And now I've exhausted what little eloquence I have. I hope I've made my point a bit more...clear, and less rude or insensitive.

[ComicBookWorm]

Now hold on a minute. I can understand not wanting anyone to forget about what the KKK has done (they're a bunch of royal ********, in my opinion), but what's this about 'forgetting lets white Americans off the hook too easily.'
We're not responsible for anything that our ancestors (or our ancestors' neighbors, friends, etc.) did. We had no say in it. If you're going to hold us accountable, why don't you travel on over to Africa while you're at it and blame the descendants of people who sold your ancestors into slavery? They got you in the position for the KKK to discriminate against you in the first place.

I don't think that the stuff the KKK has done should be forgotten, anymore than the Holocaust, or Pearl Harbor, or 9/11. But I do think it's unfair to make out like the entire population of white Americans discriminates against black Americans, or is responsible for the KKK doing so.

EDIT: I just want to say, before anyone yells at me, gets offended, etc., that this was not meant to be an inflammatory post. I just wanted to point out that while it is necessary for us to remember things like the KKK, the Holocaust, etc., it is not good or fair to blame the descendants of those who did things like that. Just as we don't blame descendants of the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor or those of the Nazis, it's unfair to blame white Americans whose ancestors might have been members of the KKK.

Yes, people are still being discriminated against on basis of skin color, and so many other things, but it's going to take more than 4 or 5 generations for people to rid themselves of these prejudices. You must keep in mind that blacks in American didn't even truly become considered anywhere near equal until the 60s. And even then it was still a fight.

I don't think that the average person will be satisfied until these prejudices disappear, but it will take time. Just as it took time after WWII for other Americans to trust Japanese Americans...eventually, though, prejudice will be a thing of the past.

And now I've exhausted what little eloquence I have. I hope I've made my point a bit more...clear, and less rude or insensitive.
Actually purplehawk remembers the 50s and 60s just like I do. She is multi-racial and her children have made color-blind multi-racial marriages, so every time someone misjudges her attitude they lose the benefit of her rich experience. Black people or those with some black blood (since we've never gotten past the one drop of black blood mentality) can and do experience prejudice every day. There are an uncomfortable amount of whites running around today with the same prejudices of the past. I know because I'm white, and I hear and see other whites doing and saying things all the time. It's not gone. It's less overt. Until we don't have this covert bigotry it won't be gone. And it will take longer than 50 years.

Not every white is a bigot. But they are still there. Otherwise why would be still have a KKK or any of the other white supremacist groups?

[Hagrid442]

I have several books filled with slave narratives and a wealth of various artifacts from the slave era here in the United States. My sister and I are avid, determined collectors. She is an excellent genealogist and keeps the records associated with our family tree. We have enough to probably produce a second iteration of "Roots."

The "get over it" concept works to a point. It worked for most of my life. Get over it and move on. That was my motto in my younger years... a necessary thing when raising black children to be able to survive in the United States. Now that they're all adults and raising their own families, I find myself a bit more militant. I don't want to forget what happened. I don't want anyone to forget what happened - what continues to happen even today on a federal level. Forgetting lets white American off the hook too easily.


My friend, I understand your frustration, but please refrain from including all members of my race in this. I feel I try very hard to be as tolerant and color-blind as anyone. However, I do not appreciate having to take the responsibility of someone else's actions, especially when their views are anathema to mine.

I say this out of the utmost respect for you, but I would ask you to temper your militancy a little for it injures me deeply.

[purplehawk]

My friend, I understand your frustration, but please refrain from including all members of my race in this.

I know the idea rankles, especially with people like you who are in no way racist. The trouble in separating those who are and those who aren't is that nothing meaningful gets accomplished. When apartheid came down in South Africa, whites acknowledged and then renounced their racist past.

Those who would resist were repudiated by their peers in the interest of the common good. It was a kind of moral cleansing that has yet to happen in America.

I feel I try very hard to be as tolerant and color-blind as anyone. However, I do not appreciate having to take the responsibility of someone else's actions, especially when their views are anathema to mine.

Again, racism in the United States will never be wholly eradicated until moderate whites do take responsibility for the actions of their peers. When there is a clear consequence from their peers, conservative racists are going to have make changes. Right now we are faced with a majority (I think and hope) who are more progressive and open - and a rabid minority with an overlarge political mouth that gets away scot-free because no one calls them on what they're doing.

I say this out of the utmost respect for you, but I would ask you to temper your militancy a little for it injures me deeply.

I realize that, Hagrid, and it pains me to know it. I've said to you privately that I think any hope of a colorblind future for America lies in the hearts and minds of people like yourself. If you and others like you stood up to your peers and said "enough is enough," something truly positive could very well occur.

[purplehawk]

*bump*

Hagrid and I are okay, folks. No need to avoid this thread.

[ComicBookWorm]

You know me purp, I do think my fellow whiteys shoulder the blame. If we don't condemn groups like the KKK, then some people may think that what they say is ok. I think about all the kids who wander into a KKK site and believe the filth that is there.

I'm out of here. Hand issues. Bye.

[purplehawk]

I'd bet my last dollar those kids heard of the Klan at home, long before they ever logged onto a Klan website on a computer. That's a big part of the problem. There are still "Confederates" who will never surrender on the issue of race. Parents teach the hatred to their children and install the the regimen of white entitlement before the kids can read or write. In many ways one could call it a form of child abuse, at least mentally and emotionally, to corrupt a child's mind so relentlessly.

[ComicBookWorm]

I'd bet my last dollar those kids heard of the Klan at home, long before they ever logged onto a Klan website on a computer. That's a big part of the problem. There are still "Confederates" who will never surrender on the issue of race. Parents teach the hatred to their children and install the the regimen of white entitlement before the kids can read or write. In many ways one could call it a form of child abuse, at least mentally and emotionally, to corrupt a child's mind so relentlessly.
The shock I got when I moved to the deep south was how little the attitudes had improved, and how much palpable hate there was. Ok before forum members flame me, I know there are many without those attitudes. But what was shocking for me, was how many did still hold those attitudes. Only they have learned that it is socially acceptable in polite company to hold these attitudes, so what used to be overt is now covert. And is isn't reserved to the south since I run into here in LA. But we don't have a KKK presence in LA, we did in the south.

That's why hate sites flourish. They are a boon for the hateful to gather and fester.

[purplehawk]

I've met some of the nicest people down there. Many of them are actually my relatives from "the white side of the family," as they put it ever so politely. They're nice, yes, but they're not ready to "elevate the 'nigra'" to equal social status with whites. A few could care less about black-or-white, but by and large most of them do care. Very much so. They sat down with us and shared recollections of chain gang bosses and slave owners and Irish merchants, gave us a few pictures and genealogical records and so on, but it was clear where they stood. Talk about a Twilight Zone experience! I'm speaking of Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia here as recently as 2002. If we ever had white "relatives" in Alabama or Mississippi, I don't know about them and don't want to know. No way in hell am I going digging around in either state.

[LuvHP_001]

I will just make this nice and short.

I think that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but something should be kept to themselves. Racists are not good people and they defintely shouldn't and DON'T have any exception to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech can only go up to a certain level and boundaries and they crossed it.

Just to throw in my opinion I would like to say that the Ku Klux Klan are terrible people and deserve to burn in hell.

[ComicBookWorm]

I will just make this nice and short.

I think that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but something should be kept to themselves. Racists are not good people and they defintely shouldn't and DON'T have any exception to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech can only go up to a certain level and boundaries and they crossed it.

Just to throw in my opinion I would like to say that the Ku Klux Klan are terrible people and deserve to burn in hell.
Regarding your signature look Here (http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=1315076&postcount=172) The wizard had to remove it since it was triggering adware for everyone.

BTW I don't think angry inflammatory statements on any side of the argument further the cause. I despise the KKK, but beyond that I won't stoop to their level and spew anger. And we have to jealously guard free speech or we will give it up out of our own freewill.

[DougJohnston]

Just to throw in my opinion I would like to say that the Ku Klux Klan are terrible people and deserve to burn in hell.
While that might be true, its probably not necessary. There is already enough hate in the world :sigh:

Anyways, The KKK is absolutly horrible and nothing but scum. What they stand for is completely wrong and unjust and it angers me that there are people in the world that are so full with hate and so morally wrong. I saw a show on the History Channel about the subject and it got me so heated that I practically put my foot through the screen watching all of these people chanting "white power, white power".

Everyone on this earth is equal. We are all just as good as the next guy; No one should be discriminated upon because of background, religion, appearance, etc. I love living in a world as diverse as the one we have today and with all the cultural diffusion and everything that occurs, we learn much more. The bottom line is that we all need to learn to love and get along with eachother before its too late.

[purplehawk]

The thing that blows me away is their use of the Holy Bible and protestant religious canon and/or tenets to support their position. I've never understood that.

[DougJohnston]

The thing that blows me away is their use of the Holy Bible and protestant religious canon and/or tenets to support their position. I've never understood that.

You mean they are backing up their beliefs with the same bible I hear read every week in church?

I guess its possible, it all depends on how you interpret things, but that is horrible...

[purplehawk]

You mean they are backing up their beliefs with the same bible I hear read every week in church?


Yep, that's exactly what I mean. The same is true of slavery and segregation. They argued up one side and down the other that both were justified in actual the scriptures, just like they're arguing now that gays are an abomination before God.

Dying from the neck up": Southern Baptist resistance to the civil rights movement (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_1_34/ai_94160905)

Governor George Timmerman was so impressed that the next day he invited Criswell to address a joint session of the South Carolina legislature. Criswell enthusiastically accepted the invitation and reprised his uncivil rejection of the civil rights movement, the high court, and other Americans who supported the end of Jim Crow. "Let them integrate," he thundered, "Let them sit up there in their dirty shirts and make all their fine speeches. But they are all a bunch of infidels, dying from the neck up."

Interesting use of the slur "infidel," isn't it? I've heard it used more recently by Osama bin Laden. Another brief excerpt:

One should view resistance to the integrationist goals of the civil rights movement as more than merely a hypocritical rejection of Christianity's universal acceptance of all persons or as the captivity of the churches to the traditional Southern social and racial arrangements. This resistance also constituted a virtual pledge of allegiance to a Southern civil religion, or a white Southern version of the American civil religion, that viewed desegregation and the movement that fostered it as a threat to its understanding of America's sacred meaning as a nation.