Why? The Klan are exactly the sort of people the Republicans have been trying to appeal to for decades with their “Southern Strategy”. While most Republicans aren’t Klansmen, I expect that most Klansmen are Republicans, or at least vote for them.
Indeed. Both sentences, I’d say, are dead accurate, factually-speaking.
Not just vanity plates, but I wonder if Georgia has plates from organizations - alum, abortion kills children, whatever.
Ah, they do. Not sure what the rules are for submitting, though.
By special license plates I suppose you are referring to vanity plates? Restricting the content on a vanity plate because of the view or message expressed may violate the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause. Some states have held the state creates a non-public forum when it allows vanity plates and therefore, the restrictions on vanity plates must be viewpoint neutral alnd reasonable. See Perry v. McDonald, 280 F. 3d 159 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2001; Lewis v. Wilson, 253 F. 3d 1077 - Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit 2001;
Yes we do. Because government is there to protect us from raging assholes trying to exploit the law
I love this type of gamesmanship. Let’s face it, if it was still cool to attack black people and lynch them, the people would do it, law be damned. It took a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, and overt violations of the law and winning the support of many many people to force the law to acknowledge that those things are bad, and longer still for regular people to give a shit and enforce those laws. I’d argue that we’re still not all the way there yet
But to have a group of assholes come in and try the “we’re just like everybody else” schtick while pretending this is still 1950 should not play here. I want our government to have the power and the willingness to stop this kind of shit. The KKK is a racist and terrorist organization and have no business trying to rebrand themselves to look better. And the thing is, almost nobody will rise up to try to defend the KKK on this. Maybe a few people will make objections like you do to try to make this a fight on ideals, but pragmatically, if they did the same thing with Native Americans, a whole lot of shit will be raised. Bullying the KKK around? Meh, who gives a fuck?
So if the nice folks from the GLAAD want to adopt a highway the state of Georgia can turn them down as well?
Lynching in the United States largely came to an end in the 1930s. (Yes, I’m aware of some famous lynchings that occurred in later decades.) What law would you say was used to stop lynching?
No, we don’t. At least, those of use with some grasp of how the Constitution works don’t.
Actually from raging assholes trying to break the law.
Right, right - if a bunch of racist assholes wanted to march thru Skokie, Illinois, no doubt no one would lift a finger if the government denied them that right.
Regards,
Shodan
I would. I did. When the ACLU defended the right of racist assholes to do that, I cursed, I swore, I gritted my teeth and wrote them a check. The ACLU, that is.
I’m talking about the special plates you can get at the DMV. An organization has to apply for one and pay the fee.
Can? Probably, yeah. Even if they sue, get enough sympathetic judges and they’ll find a loophole to get out of it. Now that doesn’t mean its not harder to be sympathetic to GLAAD than the KKK, but without a clearly defined criteria for what constitutes being civic-minded, you’re basically at the mercy of whoever is in charge. I’d like to believe that government is a long ways away from the overt racism of 50+ years ago. That’s why I’m fine with them rejecting the KKK. I know it can be abused, but I see it as being more positive than negative, so fuck the KKK, they don’t get to adopt a highway if Georgia can find a reason to deny it to them. Chances are, it won’t create much outrage
It continued in other forms. Blacks and civil rights workers were routinely harassed, beaten up, and even killed decades later. Sympathetic juries acquitted white folks of horrible crimes. I wouldn’t be for that but I know that sort of thing is almost completely eliminated now. Stuff like that doesn’t happen as much, or if it does, it actually generates real outrage. If no one rioted in 1992, the white cops who beat Rodney King would still all be free. But the amount of public anger could not be ignored and resulting in another trial. Some people may call that double jeopardy, but if it corrects an injustice, then so be it. It doesn’t always work, it doesn’t always end up good, but its a powerful tool. Just like in this case, public anger at the KKK trying to adopt a highway should cause Georgian lawmakers grief and make them use any legal tactic to deny them that highway
You can find a few people to say anything about anybody.
I seem to recall earlier threads, (or, perhaps it was only one thread that seemed endless), where you have stated such opinions.
You seem to favor the sort of “anti Nazi” legislation that several European countires have adopted. SCOTUS and, so far, the majority of people in the U.S. have decided that the right of freedom of speech is more important.
I’m not sure that this is a hijack, so I am going to let this discussion proceed, for now, but I do want everyone to be aware of the position being asserted in this case.
It seems to be YogSosoth’s position that there is some speech that is sufficiently ugly that we have a moral imperative to suppress it, regardless of our 223+ year old tradition of freedom of speech.
Don’t try to make this about me vs. hundreds of years of tradition. Not that I favor it all the time, but there are plenty of reasons, good reasons, to suspend or eliminate certain types of speech. You have your typical treasonous, seditious BS, your calls to violence and incitement that is prohibited. Then there are laws prohibiting speech that lead to safety hazards, like the good old standby of shouting Fire in a crowded theater. Repeated harassment carries a penalty, and in recent years even solicitation has fines if the person requests not to be solicited. Then there are laws prohibiting speech that is slanderous, and finally all the way on down to the extremely and completely subjective and easily abused prohibitions on vulgarity and obscenity.
Like I said, I don’t agree with all of them, but the fact remains that plenty of speech have restrictions or bans. Violating them can incur fines or prison time. It is simply a dishonest tactic to make it seem like I’m some anti-speech authoritarian out to suppress freedom.
I’ll tell you what I don’t like. I don’t like the subjectiveness of obscenity and vulgarity laws. I believe that there is little evidence that they do actual harm to people, and even in cases where people are negatively influenced by repeated exposure, it seems to only desensitize. I have no problems with that. Have a free network channel showing hardcore porn 24/7 with no ability to block it from your TV if you have a set in the house and I’d be totally cool with it.
But going back 50 or 100 years to a time where groups like the KKK did real damage to real people? Where they’ve tried to subjugate entire races and classes in some mad pursuit of a dipshit ideology based on a notion of racial superiority that doesn’t exist? Fuck that, supress and stamp that shit out! Its not that its simply morally objectionable, but proliferation of such speech actually harms real people. If people were suddenly cool with workplace discrimination, discrimination in court, education, finances, etc. of minorities, this won’t be like little Timmy catching a glimpse of nipples on the Spice Network. This will actual do real harm, harm that is measurable, that have a history and consequences we can see if we only look back in our history books. Racial bullshit like this is just as bad, and I’d argue worse, than treasonous language or shouting Fire in one theater. This affects large groups of people, is pervasive, and can last for a lifetime
So no, its not just me against 223 years of free speech. Free speech has limits, all our freedoms do. That’s why I can’t stab a random guy in the street for chewing gum. My freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose, and the KKK’s freedom of speech ends where they try to bring some racial bullshit into the public eye and try to pass it off as government sponsored and correct
I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t mind living under modern Germany’s anti-Nazi laws, or heavy restrictions on press in places like the UK. I consider them just as free as the US, and in many ways better, because I don’t have to worry about being unable to defend myself against some jackass who’s a little richer and a little determined to pry into my private life. For a non-racist, non-KKK member, which is like 99% of us, its paradise. And if you are a member of the KKK, well, practice that shit on your own time but don’t try to push it on anyone else.
I have no intention of arguing that way. I merely wanted any other participant to understand your position from the outset. It is an unusual position to be found on this board and I would not want anyone to enter the discussion failing to realize where you stood.
My argument is not that we have a long tradition of freedom of speech. My argument is that any effort to outlaw the expression of ideas is corrosive to liberty. If we can outlaw Nazis and the Klan, we can outlaw communists and socialists. We can also outlaw libertarians. We can outlaw capitalists. We can outlaw different religions–or all religions or atheism. We can outlaw the teaching of evolution. We can outlaw proponents of Montessori schools or the Amish. I guarantee you that whatever rationalization you can create to suppress the ideas of Nazis and the Klan, I can find more than a few people in the U.S. who would have strong, (in their minds), arguments to suppress any of the groups I have named and many more besides.
All the pious claims about “protecting” us from bad ideas boil down to one group with enough power silencing a group that they do not like. This seems good to you; it seems bad to me.
nitpickery: LTC Custer had been General Custer, he just lost his brevet at the end of the war. He was often still referred to by the title of his former rank.
On the contrary, historically there has been quite a bit of overlap in their memberships, and both aided and abetted the grand old tradition of lynching.
The Republican Party did the same in Indiana and elsewhere in the north, but that’s not the point.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
If we can outlaw Nazis and the Klan, we can outlaw communists and socialists. We can also outlaw libertarians.
[/QUOTE]
That ship has sailed; we do outlaw communists.
Give them their stretch of highway and broadcast it’s location to the rest of the country. Free speech needs to apply to everyone or noone. If they really want to get their pride on, they should do their work in their hoodies.
Besides, it’s a rural highway. Accidents can happen.
- WHUMP *
“Aw shoot, Lonzo! Did I just run over that white boy?”
“No, Deshawn, you missed him. But I got him with the door.”
Are you kidding! Let 'em. I would though so much junk out my window all over that road.
tomndebb, I don’t buy your slippery slope schtick. The government has a compelling interest to restrict the speech of bigots. Right?