Court: KKK can continue quest to 'adopt' a Georgia highway

[11Bravo]

What would saying anything about have to do with anything. I am talking about the propaganda that promotes committing terrorist acts and joining a terrorist organization.

Once again, propaganda is not illegal, and never will be. You're talking about a direct violation of the United States Constitutions. I see your location is "Canada". If in fact you live there, go for it. Ban whatever you want. Your rights are irrelevant to American rights.

 

[Carjosse]

Once again, propaganda is not illegal, and never will be. You're talking about a direct violation of the United States Constitutions. I see your location is "Canada". If in fact you live there, go for it. Ban whatever you want. Your rights are irrelevant to American rights.

I never said it should be, the KKK can say the Jews are evil all they want but as soon as they say there needs to be some lynching, that is where the line is drawn.

 

[11Bravo]

I never said it should be, the KKK can say the Jews are evil all they want but as soon as they say there needs to be some lynching, that is where the line is drawn.

Yes, an investigation into those words would ensue. Private companies can ban that speech because they have their own rules. However, the 'propaganda' itself is not ban-able publically unless there's an imminent threat. However, I'd have to really look at that law to get specifics.

 

[Hatuey]

I hope there will be as big of an issue with this as there was with Muslims getting their hands on a permit to build a mosque.... but I doubt it.

Anyways, they can adopt a highway if they so wish. Free country and all.

 

[Deuce]

Let a group of them cut off a head on a video WITHIN US borders, and see how fast they lose their 1st Amendment rights.

I imagine it would happen pretty rapidly following a speedy trial before a jury of their peers, or something. Perhaps, I hope, lacking cruel and/or unusual punishment.

 

[Cephus]

I believe that they would kill again if they thought they could get away with it.

So would a lot of people, but you can't penalize people based on what they might do, only on what they actually do.

 

[Cephus]

I am not. Why should speech that endanger people's lives be protected? Does the right to association mean joining ISIS is protected? Clearly you are sympathetic to them, you support the promotion of murder of innocent people.

Speech doesn't endanger anything. Someone can talk all they want and it doesn't hurt a thing. It's only when people ACT on that speech that it becomes dangerous. The speech itself is protected, whether you like that speech or not.

 

[danarhea]

Violence against INNOCENT people for political objectives. Same definition regardless of rights. BTW, if they were making threats against anyone from within the US, that's illegal. They aren't doing that.

No, they don't make threats. They just carry out terrorist acts. The KKK didn't stop doing it after the government went after them. They are still at it. If you don't believe me, then just ask the family of Robert Byrd of Jasper, Texas, who was decapitated after being chained behind a pickup truck, then dragged until his head came off.

 

[poweRob]

So the KKK suit against the state of Georgia gets to continue, as that organization is vying for the right to have it's own sign on Georgia roads.

And to those of you who believe that the ACLU is a liberal organization, they are the ones who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the KKK. And it's not the first time they have helped the KKK. Remember Skokie, Illinois, in which the Klan was allowed to march through the Jewish section of the city?

Moral of the story? Yes, even douche bags have First Amendment rights. But I do have a question. Do terrorist organizations deserve them and, if not, then what defines a terrorist group?

Article is here.

If they "adopt a highway" that means they have to keep in clean right? Awesome! I like to cop a squat in the open air so now I have a great place to do so when I go home to Georgia.

 

[American]

No, they don't make threats. They just carry out terrorist acts. The KKK didn't stop doing it after the government went after them. They are still at it. If you don't believe me, then just ask the family of Robert Byrd of Jasper, Texas, who was decapitated after being chained behind a pickup truck, then dragged until his head came off.

Date?

 

[danarhea]

Date?

Sure, June 7, 1998. You can read about it here. KKK terrorism didn't die in the 1960's. And I have personally seen it first hand. In 2004, I was playing a gig in Shephard Texas, when the Beckett Klan did a drive by shooting on the place because the bartender was Jewish, and played another gig at the VFW in Camilla Texas in 2002, where the Camilla Knights burned a cross in front of a black church that was a mile down the road. Yes, it still exists, and these inbred assholes are no better than ISIS.

 

[beerftw]

But the KKK still commits terrorist acts. Here in Texas, there are 2 KKK members on death row for dragging a black man to death behind their pickup truck. So I do not regard them as funny. The KKK is every bit as terrorist as ISIS. The only difference is that America has a better legal system than the Middle East. If not for that, the KKK would still be lynching black people and blowing up their churches and homes for just wanting to vote.

You are referring to draggin town texas aka jasper texas, There were 3 people involved, two definitavely involved, and one not but who willfully assisted. One was already executed the second awaits execution, the third got life in prison.

That is not very reflective of the kkk, that happened around 2 decades ago, by a few individuals of the organization, not in order of the organization. Also to note the guys who did it dumped the body at a black church and went to a bbq, almost like they were certain they would get away with it.

 

[American]

Sure, June 7, 1998. You can read about it here. KKK terrorism didn't die in the 1960's. And I have personally seen it first hand. In 2004, I was playing a gig in Shephard Texas, when the Beckett Klan did a drive by shooting on the place because the bartender was Jewish, and played another gig at the VFW in Camilla Texas in 2002, where the Camilla Knights burned a cross in front of a black church that was a mile down the road. Yes, it still exists, and these inbred assholes are no better than ISIS.

Are they making threats?

 

[blarg]

This whole Highway thing is just a ruse. They want their "own" highway so they can have parades. When the Gay KKK comes out from under their white sheets, they'll invite BLM to join them in solidarity. That's when the real fun begins. What Constitution?

:cuckoo:

or maybe a joke?

 

[JasperL]

The few times in the past when the ACLU has helped the KKK, they had their own motives.
The big case that comes to mind is they defended the KKK's right to keep it's membership list private.
This supported the right of the ACLU to keep it's own membership list private.

That's kind of the point of rights, isn't it, and the beauty of protecting them? The same ones that protect the KKK's right to march, adopt a highway, speak, keep a membership list private and more protect everyone else's rights to do those things, including gun groups, political groups, churches, AA groups, etc. You have to reach pretty far to get from that to ACLU helped the KKK for selfish motives. :roll:

 

[longview]

That's kind of the point of rights, isn't it, and the beauty of protecting them? The same ones that protect the KKK's right to march, adopt a highway, speak, keep a membership list private and more protect everyone else's rights to do those things, including gun groups, political groups, churches, AA groups, etc. You have to reach pretty far to get from that to ACLU helped the KKK for selfish motives. :roll:

Not really, I think at the time, the ACLU was under fire to release their membership list,
by winning the KKK court fight, they squashed their own fight less publicly.

 

[Ikari]

So the KKK suit against the state of Georgia gets to continue, as that organization is vying for the right to have it's own sign on Georgia roads.

And to those of you who believe that the ACLU is a liberal organization, they are the ones who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the KKK. And it's not the first time they have helped the KKK. Remember Skokie, Illinois, in which the Klan was allowed to march through the Jewish section of the city?

Moral of the story? Yes, even douche bags have First Amendment rights. But I do have a question. Do terrorist organizations deserve them and, if not, then what defines a terrorist group?

Article is here.

I think they're more a stupid group than a terrorist group. They've generally ceased hostilities (in the physical sense) and now just preach hate like a bunch of inbred idiots.

Still, they should be allowed to adopt a highway so long as they keep up their end of the bargain by keeping it clean. The government cannot discriminate.

 

[Ikari]

Sure, June 7, 1998. You can read about it here. KKK terrorism didn't die in the 1960's. And I have personally seen it first hand. In 2004, I was playing a gig in Shephard Texas, when the Beckett Klan did a drive by shooting on the place because the bartender was Jewish, and played another gig at the VFW in Camilla Texas in 2002, where the Camilla Knights burned a cross in front of a black church that was a mile down the road. Yes, it still exists, and these inbred assholes are no better than ISIS.

Is the KKK in general doing drive-bys and blowing up people/places? Or is it isolated to the most extreme and ignorant groups?

 

[JasperL]

Not really, I think at the time, the ACLU was under fire to release their membership list,
by winning the KKK court fight, they squashed their own fight less publicly.

Not really what? It's impossible for the ACLU to defend any right without also defending that right for the group and its members. I guess in that light everything they do can be considered as merely a selfish motive, but that's, again, a big reach. "They're just defending free speech rights for KKK because they want to defend their OWN free speech rights!!" True, but unavoidable, and unobjectionable in every possible way.

Besides, I can find no evidence the ACLU was ever sued to disclose its members, nor can I understand why they'd hesitate to defend themselves (instead of or in addition to the Klan) given that the SC has ruled that private organizations are entitled to keep those lists confidential, or see why they'd rather defend that right by defending the KKK instead of themselves. None of it makes any sense, or appears to be grounded in actual facts.

 

[tres borrachos]

Like most people with a working brain, I dislike the KKK. But I do like the Constitution, and prohibiting them from their little highway adoption plan would be a slippery slope. Unless there is clear evidence that this particular group is a threat, they need to be allowed to do this. It's still a free country.

 

[Mr Person]

They are a "liberal" organization and that is precisely why they filed that and similar suits.

The few times in the past when the ACLU has helped the KKK, they had their own motives.
The big case that comes to mind is they defended the KKK's right to keep it's membership list private.
This supported the right of the ACLU to keep it's own membership list private.

They also defended their right to obtain a marching permit and many other things. I'm sorry that the very liberal ACLU defeats some persons' deep rooted bias against all things not red.

 

[longview]

They also defended their right to obtain a marching permit and many other things. I'm sorry that the very liberal ACLU defeats some persons' deep rooted bias against all things not red.

The ACLU for the most part does defend civil liberties, what I am saying is that sometimes their selection
of what to defend, serves themselves as well.
I keep waiting for the ACLU to speak up about civil forfeiture laws, and
some of the uses of eminent domain!

 

[JasperL]

The ACLU for the most part does defend civil liberties, what I am saying is that sometimes their selection
of what to defend, serves themselves as well.
I keep waiting for the ACLU to speak up about civil forfeiture laws, and
some of the uses of eminent domain!

Of course "sometimes their selection...serves themselves as well." There is no example anywhere of a group whose acts don't at time serve the interests of the group (e.g. NRA!). That's especially true with constitutional rights.

And they already have:

https://www.aclu.org/search/ ?f[0]=field_issues:40&f[1]=type:press_release

Victory! Philadelphia Artist Beats City Hall in Eminent Domain Fight - Institute for Justice

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-and-...oia-lawsuit-over-efforts-limit-municipalities

 

[NotreDame]

Furthermore any organization should be allowed to adopt a section of the highway as long as they meet the requirements.

Maybe, whether your statement is accurate, at least from a legal perspective, is contingent upon whether this is government speech, whether the government created a forum for private speech and whether they are complying with the rules associated with a government created forum.