It's actually baffling, insulting, and hilarious that you are a) comparing the NAACP, who I will admit has it's share of racists, to the KKK and b) using said comparison as justification for the KKK... actually it's sickening.

You are comparing a group of people whose idealogy is for equal rights, as misguided as it's current leaders and idealogy may be , to a group who in their history has done nothing been spread violence and hate. The KKK's sole purpose was to administer violence to terrorize, i.e. TERRORISM, amongst minorites and even catholics such as myself, to push their sick, twisted, racist idealogy on AMERICA. Save America for the white man, let's go lynch some coons.... say them naggars are trying to vote, let's fire bomb a church... You're black I think you would best being dragged behind my Ford.

The case can still be made, which me as a stauch conservative as many will atest to here, that at least the NAACP is trying to improve and level the playing field for people of color who are still not getting an equal shake. Look at poverty and criminal incarcirations rates amongst blacks, that is millions times more legit then trying to "preserve America for the white man" through violent means.

Get fucking serious.

While I agree that the KKK has the same rights as any other organization, distastfull though that may be, I think some people will be disposing their used condom collections somewhere other than their toilets :)

I believe in a free America. I support the war on terrorists.
The KKK are terrorists running freely in the United States.
They are hiding behind the constitution as well as every bush and dark alley.
Engage the military and hunt them down on US soil and shoot the mother fuckers...!

I have that right too!

Saying that freedom of speech has gone too far scares me. Once we give our government the right to arbitrarily decide what is acceptable speech, we cannot take it away. Courts will have a legal precedent to use in future cases. You may think it's gone too far now, but if it legislation comes around and bites you in the ass by prohibitng you from saying something that yout think is right, you'll start caring.

On the other hand, maybe we should ban all negative speech, not just hateful language, but anything that offends anyone, or has the potential to offend anyone. We can fine people for insulting each other, swearing, maybe even giving each other dirty looks. The prohibition of hate will lead us down the road to a utopia, Maybe in twenty years we'll have scanners that can detect when anyone so much as thinks bad thoughts, and punish or rehabilitate them for failing to integrate properly into our utopia. WE can install these scanners in every room of every home and public building; I propose that we call them "telescreens." When they're not scanning us, they can broadcast government-approved messages that will reinforce our sense of utopia.

MrSelfDestruct: As long as i get soma holidays i'll be fine with that. hah.

I think you are taking what I am saying a little too far. No I am not saying any government should have the right to stop people saying what they want. BUT I most definately AM saying a government has the right, nay the duty to protect ALL of it's citizens. Any club/group/society which has a policy to discriminate in the way the KKK does should not be allowed to practice it. Fair enough it is impossible to control what people think. They will think it whether you incarcerate them of not. But allowing the KKK to exist as an organised group seems strange for a nation that prides itself on accepting all peoples.

I am not saying individuals should not have the right to voice their opinions but allowing them to form into a group and go unchecked doesn't make sense to me. Especially with views such as theirs.

I has already been said in this thread that the KKK are no better than Al Quaeda and i am inclined to agree. In a way they are worse, they discriminate purely because someone's skin is a different colour. At least al quaeda had some kind of reason to react in the way they did. The KKK do not feel oppressed by black people, quite the opposite.

Just because I think something is right in my mind does not make it right. Society as a whole decides what is considered generally morally right. Of course there are different points of view and of course they are perfectly acceptable. However society agrees killing an innocent man for no reason is immoral. I also believe in general society would agree discriminating against someone due to the colour of their skin is also immoral.

I take it you've never heard of the Posse Comitatus Act.

Much as I hate to say it, Klan members are people too. And yes, America accepts even these people. We may not like them, but they're tolerated along with everyone else who is a law abiding citizen. I suppose you'll say they don't abide by the laws. Maybe, but when they don't, they are treated accordingly.

By stating that the government should disallow some people certain basic freedoms, you're no better than a Klansman. You just hide behind faux righteousness.

Mojo, please know that I am NOT trying to justify the KKK's existence. The organization as it stands was and still is a joke and insult to me as a Southerner. It is also important to note that while there is a history of violence, terrorism, and other rather unsavory problems with the KKK, there is also a history of them helping poor white people or white people encountering hardship. Does this excuse their other actions? Not even close. But I still maintain that there is similarity between the NAACP and the KKK in this respect.

And as others have said, the fact that you would have the government restrict them in any way (when they are not committing a lawbreaking act, of course) is appalling and frightening to me. What if I believed that you were promoting some kind of hateful propaganda? By your own voice, if you have some history of it, I should be able to get your rights pushed aside. This is an exaggerated example, but I think it gets what I'm trying to say across.

For the sake of arguement ,Would it be legit if Al Qaeda or perhaps a group that has a more grass roots following like Hamas get constitutional protection?

Are they American citizens? Because American citizens are granted freedoms according to the constitution, not groups.

A few years ago, they used to have a stretch of highway near Branson near the Arkansas state line. Their 'mile' ran right by a big ass RV & Trailer park, so that was funny and I'd have to admit it was always litter free.

I don't give a flying fart what name is on the sign as long as they're picking up the trash so I don't have to.

I think they're getting more publicity from the story than the actual signage along a small stretch of road in a sparsely inhabited area.

Anyways, could you imagine if they tried to sponsor a highway in LA or New York?

I don't think the Klan as an organization has ever been found guilty (under law) of any crime but the individuals have. DOes anyone know? So the Klan org. on paper at least, would be a legal entity entitled to rights and what-not to adopt-a-highway.

Secondly, not all "speech is free" right? I just can't remember, hopefully someone here knows. I thought hate speech was illegal, speech that incites or advocates violence, 'fire" in a crowded theater so on and so forth.

This is where I was coming from with my argument. If you started a rally to kill the president you would be silenced? The KKK are not as bad in this respect but still I hope you can see my point not all speech is free. Exceptions are already made. Mrselfdestruct implied silencing them would lead to a 'slippery slope' I dont believe it would.

Well, that isn’t really a great comparison, because if i remember correctly there is a law making it illegal to talk about killing the president even in jest. The 'slippery slope' is this, and it has shown many times before when there is a case with landmark ruling(look at how mucked up roe vs. wade is, the people on either side of the lawsuit cant decide which side they are on, let alone the government figuring out a definite ruling), once the constitutional barrier has been crossed, a precedent has been set, and it leads to abusive treatment of all of our rights. YOU may not mind your rights being trampled behind some thin veil of "for the common good" nonsense, the definition of terrorism (as per dictionary.com) is:
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
That sounds closer to what the US Government is doing by telling you it's okay to suck it up and hand over your rights than anything Al Queda or the KKK is doing(not that i would consider the KKK to be a 'terrorist' group, but fuck the semantics of it). And all I know is that I definitely do, and those old dead bastards that started this country probably did have something a little different in mind when they penned the constitution than a bunch of wishy-washy Bureaucrats who care more about money that the people and the beautiful foundation on which this country was built.

They rally for white pride and the superiority of whites, not to kill others, that's just implied. A rally to kill the president would be a direct threat.

To help you understand where I'm coming from, I believe that any legislation that does not specifically prohibit harming of others is a setp down the slippery slope, and that and that anything restricting speech beyond basic necessities (national security/military plans, yelling "fire" in a theater, etc.) is like taking a step back, getting a running start, jumping and yelling "Whee!" as we fly down that slope.

edit: to add a conclusion, being free means that we have to put up with hearing and seeing shit that isn't right.