High court leaves KKK on highway litter duty
 

So, should Missouri be required to allow the KKK to participate in its' Adopt-A-Highway program?

Well, apart from the implied danger to highway workers, I find this potential hilarious. Just drive by and dump thousands of filthy diapers, industrial waste, hospital waste, offal and detrius from your local abattoir.

Let the fuckwads clean that up...


Mr Mephisto

The court of appeals is correct. This is America and anyone can say or believe any damn fool thing they want. You can NOT descriminate against it via government. It is unfortunate that people have forgotten this very integral part of freedom. Freedom for everyone, not just what some people think is "right". It is rather cut-and-dry.

This is America. If some guy wants to run around yelling "nigger nigger!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" they can.

Voltaire said it best: "I might not agree with you but I will defend your right to go against me to the death." (that may not be a perfect quote, sorry if it is innacurate.) I think they're a bunch of scumbags, but it doesnt make them any less subject to the rights given to them by this country.

The thought of a sign thanking the KKK on the highway is cringe-worthy, but yeah.. I suppose you can't put exceptions to fundamental freedoms.

yes, missouri must abide.

at least the kkk would be doing something positive... :shrug:

Love both of those quotes in your sig uncle_el. More people need to remember what America and basic freedom is all about.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend unto death your right to say it"


Like I said, let them pick up shit, offal and used syringes for a few months, all the time trying to dodge the 18-wheelers as they whiz by.

"What the fuck is that? I ain't touchin' it" and "ARRRRGGH!!! Watch out!!!" are free speech too.




Mr Mephisto

It would be a very bad thing for the government (state or federal) to start discriminating against a particular group, unsavory though they may be. Someone once said that the measure of a society is how much freedom they grant their dissidents, or something along those lines.

Who want's to take a road trip and dump some garbage on that 1/2 mile?

Still, they have just as much a right to pick up trash as anyone else...

I wonder how many people see the sign indicating it is the KKK's adopted stretch and deliberately toss thier trash. I think if I saw the sign then saw someone cleaning up the highway I would toss my trash at them. Trash for trash.

we may not agree on the beliefs of the kkk, but they do have a right to help out by sponsoring a stretch of highway to clean up. i like the fact that they are doing this. i don't see what's wrong.

Here's how Wisconsin handled the issue...

LINK
-Mikey

Well, considering there could be the potential for additional KKK backlash if they were allowed to clean the freeway, I have to say no. Because of road rage, and a general disliking for closeminded KKK members, I would have to ay the road would be safer if they weren't allowed to solicit their "good neighbor" policy.

I do value the freedom of speech and would typically say this would be ok, but because it is the KKK and could cause for additional hardships on that road, I have to say no.

Although I will support the rights of people to have racist beliefs and organize racist groups to protest racial integration I don't think the KKK should have this stretch of highway.

Historically, they have been a terrorist organization. They've burned down houses, hanged black men, and basically causes havoc for minorities. They should not be allowed to exist, even if their violent activities have been fewer lately.

Would we give a highway segment to Al Quedia or Hammas?

Ok, so then who is on the "ok to clean the highway list" and whom is the list written by?

As distasteful as it is, I think they should be allowed their stretch of highway.

I don't understand how the KKK can continue to exist? Isn't inciting racial hatred illegal in America?

I don't know who writes it but I'm pretty sure that a group wanting to get a good name for picking up little should not have a well documented history of murdering, beating, and intimidating people based on the color of their skin.

I know, I'm asking too much. Why don't we invite the IRA and Hammas to pick up your freeway? I'm sure they'd be happy to pimp their image as servants of society. While we are at it, let's invite ELF and ALF as well.

The US government has a well documented history of murdering, beating, and intimidating people based on the color of thier skin too, you know.

And your suggestion of inviting the IRA or Hamas to pick up our freeways is, pardon my language, stupid. Hardly a part of the US or protected by its constitution. The KKK wasn't exactly invited either, were they? Should ELF and ALF be allowed to if they choose to? Yes. Deal with it.

It's picking up freeway trash man - garbage. They want to pick up garbage. Garbage. Just repeat that to yourself.

Indeed, but what country doesnt? The KKK still profess racial hatred as far as i know, even if they cannot actively exercise these ideas.

Very true. However, we must afford them the same rights we afford others or else we have failed as a society. And that would make us no better than the KKK.

Please don't think I have any love for these asshats, because I do not. But I understand the need to treat them in a manner in which I myself would expect to be treated by people who do not share my views.

Hell, we use convicts to pick up garbage on the side of the road. What's the big deal with the KKK? The NAACP is welcome to pick up garbage on the stretch of road before or after them (though they might want to do it on a different day).

I don't get how picking up garbage or being xcluding from doing so is a challenge to first amedment rights. Pretty interesting interpretations if you ask me.

Anybody ever watch that episode of South Park when Nambla was trying to argue constitutional protection for molesting boys? This is almost as ridiculous as Trey Parker and Matt Stone's over the top political commentary.

To me this is freedom of speech gone too far. Sorry but any organisation which is openly racist, and therefore impeeding the rights of others should not be allowed.

If it was merely a racist group that organized white pride rallies but NEVER broke the law or encouraged members to do so then they would be fully able to do it. The thing is that the KKK is not such a group. They may have attempted to clean up their image but a superficial makeover does not undo 150 years of violence and illegal activities.

Maybe you haven't heard of ELF, they like to torch mansions and luxury car dealerships. Nice guys.

If they can make exceptions whenever they want, what happens when they decide that john_713 is no longer allowed his rights to freespeech because he bugs john_247?

That is a poor comparison imo. If john_247 bugs me then it could be for a thousand reasons. The KKK do not 'bug' people and if they do they do it simply because of the colour of their skin. How can this be allowed?

I have heard of ELF. If they want to clean up the freeway, more power to them. That doesn't hurt anyone. In fact, it helps us all. Condoning freeway cleanup does not equate with condoning arson, there's a very important difference.

And it is true that convicts are used to cleanup roadsides. Surely you would profess that if a convicted criminal is good enough to clean up our roads, a bigot is as well?

Sure, on a practical standpoint, the KKK shouldn't be allowed to exist, and sure, they committed horrible acts.
But think on a legal standpoint. There is no "common sense" in the law, the limits must be well established and firm, there is no case-by-case, only rules that apply to everything.
So even if KKK is associated with murder and arson, you cannot simply ban anything and anyone under that name.. if an individual is caught committing murder or arson, he will be judged as such, but in itself, the KKK is "only" a group expressing their freedom of speech.

Boohoo, let them have their name on the sign and let them pick up trash. At least they're doing something positive for everyone for a change. This wouldn't be an issue if dirty ass people didn't litter in the first place.

That's the problem. They are trying to clean up their image. The adopt a highway program is all about image for most corporations.

I bet a lot of people will think that the organization with the name on the sign actually do the work. In reality they just pay a fee that helps fund public workers. The extra trash people throw out along that stretch could easily end up costing the taxpayers a fortune.

Still, the whole point of our constitution is we protect the unpopular from the mainstream.

The point of the constitution is to protect people from an overbearing and overreaching government, not to protect hate groups which sanction and condone violence and terror.

I think the protection afforded to groups like the KKK is disgusting, and don't give me 1st amendment protection, the 1st amendment doesn't protect assault.

And an overbearing and overreaching government would be one that denies opportunites to some while advancing the same to others.

I think it's laughable that first amendment rights were called into question and applied on whether or not the KKK can clean up highway.

And boo fucking hoo if the government discriminates against a bunch of hill billie terrorists. Groups like the KKK should be treated like Al Qaeda, the only protection that should be afforded them is civil and legal protection as it applies, groups that preach, foster, and commit hate and violence should not be allowed to survive in civilized society.

Well, then what about the NAACP? I would challenge you to find the last time they actually fought on behalf of a white person. Now, admittedly, they do profess to seek betterment for all people (I think that's right), but let's be realistic, they primarily seek to help black people. I'm sure there are tons of bigots in their ranks as well. By your thinking, these urban-dwelling, gun-toting, drug pushers (since we're slinging around stereotypes, Mojo) and others like the Black Panthers should not be able to do this either.

Does anyone really think an 18x24" sign is going to change anyones opinion of the KKK?

I doubt this is going to help their image to any great degree. People in their right mind are not going to look at this and say "You know, those motherfuckers are OK after all"

These assholes just want publicity and any debate about whether or not they should be allowed to pick up cans and dirty diapers along a roadway gives them more publicity than just letting the fuckers fill Hefty bags on Saturday mornings.

Trash picking up trash, kinda ironic.

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.