Yes, but we’re not talking about speech. As I said, a Klan that doesn’t talk about violence can’t be tied to violent acts - and it is membership in a group that participates in violent acts that the state can take into consideration.
Moreover, the Democratic Party does lots of different things. The various Klan groups do one thing. If they were a community group or political party which happened to have a bunch of white supremacist members- like, say, the Constitution Party- it would be different.
So your position is that if a group, at any time in the past, committed violent acts, then it is no longer entitled to free speech? What if they disband and reform as The Ku Klux Klann?
There are as many Klan groups as there are racists, so its hard to say. Thanks to SPLC litigation, most Klan and other white supremacist groups have adopted all sorts of amusing disclaimers on their websites and printed materials about how they don’t condone violence, but they still engage in it on a semi-regular basis. Mostly they just spray paint stuff on the houses of Jews and black people, and stuff like that, though.
On the face of it, I am inclined to say that the state should simply accept the services offered. The KKK is not really a monolithic organization. If this particular branch is little more than a bunch of frightened white folks who want to clean up their image, (while picking up litter), let 'em.
On the other hand, if this particular group has been involved in any actual efforts to harm or disparage others, then I would say that they have surrendered their “civic” credentials and the state can declaine their offer.
I’m not quite following this “free speech” argument. Not that I’m an expert on the subject, but I tend to think of highway cleanup efforts as state organized events, for the most part. It doesn’t seem to me that organizations are just willy-nilly free to create their own signs and set them up on the side of the highway… are they?
So, where is the “speech” that’s being exercised if some group wants to ask the state if they can take responsibility for cleaning up some stretch of freeway in exchange for a sign next to that part of the road?
I think more to the point is that individuals do not lose other rights based on their exercise of others.
The KKK is antithetical to my beliefs but due to the freedom of association was granted through the 1st amendment, they have a right to associate for politically unpopular reasons.
The fact that they are exercising and forming as a group for a repugnant reasons is not justification for the State to exclude them from a program.
Even though this is not Virginia it would be awesome if they did rename it Mildred Loving.
Its pretty clear part of the reason groups join the highway cleanup is for the advertising value of getting your name on a “highway sponsored by” signs. And since advertising is a type of speech, the State either has to open it to all comers or get rid of it entirely.
And even bigger than that, it is the state denying a group from participating in a state organization because of the unpopularity of its views. That’s a textbook denial of a right based upon speech.
Sort of like you can’t use the public beach if you are a Republican. Not using the beach doesn’t deny a Republican free speech (with some exceptions) but more importantly, it disallows a benefit SOLELY because of a person’s political speech or beliefs.
I don’t litter, but if I knew these guys would have to go out and pick it up, I’d be tempted to start. Might even encourage others to join me. Keep 'em busy enough, and it could have a beneficial effect.
Clem: “We missed you at the cross burnin’ last night.”
Billy Ray Earl Clyde Jasper: “I fell asleep on the couch. I was out picking up candy wrappers since 7:30.”
Clem: “But dude, you had the lighter.”
There are posters on this board who would gladly say that Republicans are no different than Klansmen. There are posters who would say that Democrats are no different than Socialist Revolutionaries.
When we start down the road of saying that we believe in free speech, but THAT speech is too far, then there really are no limits.
I have no use for the Klan, but this demonstrates an attitude that elevates them in importance far beyond their actual abilities or power. The overwhelming majority of the (much fragmented) Klan groups tend to be composed of a dozen or fewer frightened white folks who are afraid they are losing some “power” or “position” that they never actually possessed and gather in basements and living rooms to bemoan the way the world has treated them. The number of active Klan organizations that actually engage in harrassment of any sort is tiny.
It depends how the various laws/regulations governing the Adopt-A-Highway and the vanity license plates are worded.
Missouri has already been compelled by a court to let a local chapter of the KKK adopt a section of highway.
License plates are generally censored according to “good taste” vs obscenity and a few other limits on what can be displayed.
If the rules for plates are more restrictive than the rules for the highway signs, (which generally say little more than that the organization has “adopted” the section of road), then there may not be a legal reason to permit Georgia from accepting the offer. If Georgia has a more restrcted definition of permitted organizations than does Missouri, then they may be able to decline the offer, as well.