The Klu Klux Klan - Wrong or the right to free speech?

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=brignull]
However in the US they bought over black Africans as slaves so there is tension till this day between white Americans and black Americans.
[/QUOTE]

Well, this could be a topic for debate in and of itself. One, there really isn’t all that much tension anymore. Most people get along perfectly fine with people of other races. Two, what tension does exist probably has little to do with the fact that the great-great-great grandfather of a white person was a slaveowner and the great-great-greate grandfather of a black person was a slave. Most tension, in my opinion, comes from the different cultures of black and white Americans, or at least a subset of these cultures. Quite a few middle class white folks have a problem with “ghetto” culture. Of course, they also have a problem with white “redneck” culture. Many middle class black people have problems with ghetto and redneck culture, too. Three, racist groups have very, very few members and exist on the margins of society.

22

An African-American reporter I know covered a Klan rally in Beaumont. (Beaumont is a Texas town near the Louisiana border; the petrochemical industry is the main employer & hurricanes can be A Problem.)

A large number of local African-Americans showed up for the rally. They made no threats; he said it was like a big reunion. I don’t think the Klan made any new recruits that day.

The Klan committed crimes back in the day. Now, they’re mostly fat, stupid fools. Some have jobs or are just flat broke; they can’t afford to “help” the Minutemen guard the Border.

23

From the perspective of someone who has actually HAD a cross burned on their lawn (mind, I don’t remember it too well as I was very young…my dad still talks about it though)…Of COURSE the Klan is wrong. Bunch of fuckwits. But…they have the right to demonstrate, protest, and even write their ridiculous bullshit. If they go beyond that, they have the right to go to jail like any common criminal, and hopefully have a 350 lb black cell mate named Bubbah who will want to introduce them to his rather large friend…

[QUOTE=rjung]
The Ku Klux Klan have the right to say whatever asinine, bigoted, small-minded, ignoramous, eye-rollingly stupid thing they want to say.

I have the right to call them a bunch of asinine, bigoted, small-minded, ignoramous, eye-rollingly stupid morons.

Sounds fair to me.
[/QUOTE]

You’ll almost NEVER see me agreeing with rjung…but, pretty much spot on. :stuck_out_tongue:
The OP seems to have an overly rosy view of his (supposed) home country though. I would challenge him to ask older folks from India how THEY all got along fine with the British Empire, or to do some research on how the Welsh, Irish and Scots, next door neighbors, found the English and their charming ways. While the US has certainly had our share of racial fuckupery, the Brits haven’t exactly been clean nosed and kindly, and their empire days weren’t filled with light and roses.

Even if we are only talking about today, and only talking about the relations between whites and blacks in London, when I visited I didn’t see any less racial tension than I would in any modern US city…seemed about the same to me. I think the OP also has the impression that the Klan is still out in force every week, burning crosses and lynching blacks. The Klan is mostly a toothless joke these days, laughed and and dismissed by all but the loonies whites. I’d rate their impact on modern US life as less than what my English friends describ of the BNP today…who appearently actually DO occationally win political office in England (correct?). You won’t find someone openly from the Klan (i.e. running AS a Klansman, or going about saying they are KKK or whatever) winning political office today in the US…least, not that I’ve heard.

-XT

24

[QUOTE=OneCentStamp]
Yes, Klu Klux Klan is definitely, absolutely, totally wrong.
It’s spelled “Ku Klux Klan.” :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

Yep. They haven’t got a klu.

25

[QUOTE=AskNott]
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” --Attributed to Brandeis. That’s the best reason I know to let nasty, ignorant people speak their twisted minds. The more exposure the nonsense gets, the more people get a chance to denounce it, eloquently.
[/QUOTE]

Yes indeed.

But also blacks in America need to get over it. Slavery was endemic across the world. It wasn’t just blacks being enslaved in Africa and taken to America; whites were taken from England and taken to North Africa and Arabia; the Romans enslaved everyone. China had slaves; Japan had eta, etc. Actually, pretty much every conquering group enslaved the survivors of the conquered. The rest of the world has got over it, so black America should do so too.

26

[QUOTE=Quartz]
But also blacks in America need to get over it.
[/quote]

This should be… interesting. Could you tell us in what way “the rest of the world has gotten over it” that black Americans haven’t?

27

Quite obviously, the Ku Klux Klan is reprehensibly wrong. (I like the mnemonic “They haven’t got a klu.” Thanks, Alessan!)

But free-speech-wise, they’ve got the same rights as everyone else. There are only a few possibilities for restrictions on speech in the US, but only the most extreme free-speech defenders would allow many of them.

-Can’t defame/slander/libel, or you’ll get sued in civil court. (Doctering photos and affadavits and saying “Fred is a murderer, and I have proof! I witnessed it myself and I have documents!”)

-No “fighting words” or other words that imminently endanger the public order. (Standing in front of, say, the local post office in front of an angry mob and saying “The Postal Service is raising the price of first class mail again! Fascists! They deserve to die today! Right now! There’s an employee! Shoot him! Do it!”)

-Obscenity can be banned. It’s contraversial, but it’s the state of the law in the US. (Can’t disseminate hardcore child pornography, for instance.)

-So-called “Time, place, and manner” restrictions. (Many cities don’t allow me to stand with a megaphone in front of your house at 3 AM expounding my political preferences, or stage protests in a courtroom.)

-Classified information. (Although we don’t have an Official Secrets Act in the US, I won’t get very far with a free speech claim if I worked in the intelligence community and were to give away troop positions to the enemy in a time of war.)

There are probably others, but unless the KKK breaks them, they have the right to say what they want.

28

It was brought to my attention recently that we are not free to shout anything in a crowded theater. It’s private property. The First Amendment speaks to government restriction of freedom of speech.

29

Sorry, Martin. I intended to give you credit for your observation.

30

The “shout fire in a crowded theatre” quote actually comes from a Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Holmes.

That case brought us the “clear and present danger” standard, which was later overturned in Brandenberg v US, which brought us the “imminent lawless action” standard which is, I think, still the standard today with regards to inciting riots and such.

31

Posted by aclubs

That seems to be a pretty low standard. How imminent is imminent supposed to be?

I don’t think it’s possible for genuine freedom of speech to exist in the same environment as those who freely espouse doctrines of intolerance. If persons who preach intolerant doctrines are given free rein to broadcast their hatred in any forum then that will, in the long run, guarantee the end of free speech.

To guarantee freedom of speech, it is essential that the government and legal enforcement systems have the will to protect the greater good of society by strictly prohibiting the espousal by any individual, or alliance, of doctrines that advocate or practice: -

  1. Killing, injuring, insulting, ostracizing or declaring “unclean” people who do not belong to the favoured group (i.e. ethnic/national/racial and or cultic/religious, or any combination of these).

  2. Indoctrination of minors into the belief systems of the group that subscribes to doctrines that could be anti social to the inhumane.

Depending on the nature of the content of the unprotected hate doctrines, automatic imprisonment for many years for those who advocate killing those who are “outsiders”, with proportionally lighter sentences for those who advocate less murderous teachings.

Parents who teach, or allow others to teach, such doctrines to their children should be declared by law to be unfit parents. The parents should be jailed and their children should be removed from their custody and placed in foster care.

On this basis the doctrines of the KKK would automatically disqualify it and its memebrs from protection under the principles of “freedom of speech”. The priority here is to protect civilized political discourse and punish to the maximum murderous political discourse.

To give a less extreme example, the milder form of declaring someone: “Fair Game”, Scientologist style, would also lose any protection under free speech, simply because The Church of Scientology advocates a level of violence (harassment) to their perceived enemies.

32

[QUOTE=Aquila Be]
I don’t think it’s possible for genuine freedom of speech to exist in the same environment as those who freely espouse doctrines of intolerance. If persons who preach intolerant doctrines are given free rein to broadcast their hatred in any forum then that will, in the long run, guarantee the end of free speech.

[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure you grasp the concept of free speech. :slight_smile: In general, as long as you are not advocating violence in an immediate and concrete manner, free speech is protected. Do you really want a government agency deciding what is or isn’t indoctrination? If they choose to prohibit one group from speech that is deemed indoctrination what if they go after your group next? This thread could be considered indoctrination by some.

Free speech is just that. You seem to be attempting to create “correct speech” which is outside of the field of government control.

33

[QUOTE=MGibson]
Usually we draw the line at inciting violence or slandering someone. ie. I could say Mexicans were lazy but I could get into trouble for spreading rumors that Salma Hayak was a child molester. Though slander is for the civil courts not criminal courts.
[/QUOTE]

It may be interesting to note that even types of speech which have been found to be libel or slander aren’t even barred with prior restraint.

In the US, you won’t be prevented from writing or saying (nearly) anything. After you’ve said what you said, you might face repercussions, but you’re very rarely barred from saying or writing it in the first place.

34

[QUOTE=Quartz]
Yes indeed.

But also blacks in America need to get over it. Slavery was endemic across the world. It wasn’t just blacks being enslaved in Africa and taken to America; whites were taken from England and taken to North Africa and Arabia; the Romans enslaved everyone. China had slaves; Japan had eta, etc. Actually, pretty much every conquering group enslaved the survivors of the conquered. The rest of the world has got over it, so black America should do so too.
[/QUOTE]
It’s really sad to see this display of ignorance repeated over and over again on the Straight Dope[sup]®[/sup], especially as often as it has been corrected. However, it is not really pertinent to this thread, so I will not hijack it further.

35

[QUOTE=Aquila Be]
I don’t think it’s possible for genuine freedom of speech to exist in the same environment as those who freely espouse doctrines of intolerance. If persons who preach intolerant doctrines are given free rein to broadcast their hatred in any forum then that will, in the long run, guarantee the end of free speech.
[/quote]

How long a run are we talking, here? We’ve had freedom of speech in this country for over two hundred years, and our society is more tolerant today than it has been at any other point in its history. We had free speech back when the most vile racist sentiments imaginable were considered a mainstream political position, and today that attitude is almost entirely marginalized. Why? In large part, because of the principle of freedom of speech. Censorship legitimizes what it seeks to censor. Telling people they aren’t allowed to advocate racist philosophies sends the message that these philosophies are powerful, and a threat to the established power structure.

That doesn’t guarantee freedom of speech. That destroys freedom of speech.

And what do you do when people start expanding those definitions to include you? I’m an atheist. There’s already a significant population in this country that feels atheism is “anti-social.” What’s to stop these people from deciding that raising my kids without religious instruction is “indoctrinating them into an inhumane belief system?” And let’s not even get into how your proposal could be twisted to discriminate against gays.

I would take up arms against any government that adopted your ideas. Your proposal would gut the very heart of the freedoms upon which this nation is founded, and would lead, inexorably, to a totalitarian state where “free speech” exists only for the power-holding majority, and those who dared voice disagreement would quickly find themselves legislated into the “anti-social or inhumane” category. Your ideas are among the most terrifying and sickening I’ve ever heard proposed on this site, all the more so because you have cloaked them in the language of freedom and equality - the two qualities that would be the first casualties of your philosophy.

36

I’m a Christian, and just got done reading an interesting article about hardline atheists (a-la Sam Harris) in Wired mag. There are quite a few folks who believe that religion is ipso-facto an intolerant and ignorant worldview.

Having said that, I agree wholeheartedly with you. Arrest the intolerant folks when they actually do bad things. When the KKK goes out an lynches someone, throw the book at them, by all means. But I don’t want government deciding what are “intolerant” or “correct” views to hold.

37

And to explain the “imminent lawless action” standard. In the area of advocating violence, I can say many things about my mayor. “She’s corrupt. She doesn’t deserve to live. She deserves to be shot.” That sort of thing. But nothing I say would lead to “imminent lawless action.” If, on the other hand, I were to say “She’s corrupt. She doesn’t deserve to live. She deserves to be shot. And I’m going to march to city hall and storm her office right now. Who’s with me?”, I could get arrested for incitement.

(Note. I have no such hard feelings against my own mayor.)

38

[QUOTE=aclubs]
I’m a Christian, and just got done reading an interesting article about hardline atheists (a-la Sam Harris) in Wired mag. There are quite a few folks who believe that religion is ipso-facto an intolerant and ignorant worldview.
[/quote]

Oh, they exist, no doubt about that. There are a few of them on this board. But they’re a minority among atheists, and atheists as a whole make up less than 5% of the population of this nation. On the otherhand, a recent poll found that Americans consider atheists to be the least trustworthy minority in the country. Lower than gays and Muslims. And that’s not just “hard line” Christians who believe that. It’s a mainstream view.

39

[QUOTE=Miller]
I would take up arms against any government that adopted your ideas. Your proposal would gut the very heart of the freedoms upon which this nation is founded, and would lead, inexorably, to a totalitarian state where “free speech” exists only for the power-holding majority, and those who dared voice disagreement would quickly find themselves legislated into the “anti-social or inhumane” category. Your ideas are among the most terrifying and sickening I’ve ever heard proposed on this site, all the more so because you have cloaked them in the language of freedom and equality - the two qualities that would be the first casualties of your philosophy.
[/QUOTE]

That’s quite a straw man you created there. :slight_smile:

Actually, I’m quite surprised at the extent to which my letter was misunderstood by a few people.

I thought I made it clear that my comments involving restrictions on free speech were directed exclusively towards the type of speech that concerns advocating, recommending or urging the commission of harm or violence, including death, on others for any reason, including reasons based on some form of belief system.

For a government to deliberately ignore such threats on freedom of speech grounds would have the effect of curtailing the freedoms, including freedom of speech, of a targeted group.

No targeted group would feel safe in an environment where one group preaches hatred and death towards outsiders. The freedom of speech of the targeted group would be effectively stifled if the government allowed such intimidation to continue unchecked

A government would not be acting for the common good if it waited for the hate group to actually practice what it preached and commit an act of violence to members of a targeted group.

A society that permits any group to wish or injury death on people outside the confines of the group, for whatever reason, is not a free society. It is a society where thugs call the shots, in a manner of speaking.

40

[QUOTE=Aquila Be]
No targeted group would feel safe in an environment where one group preaches hatred and death towards outsiders. The freedom of speech of the targeted group would be effectively stifled if the government allowed such intimidation to continue unchecked

A government would not be acting for the common good if it waited for the hate group to actually practice what it preached and commit an act of violence to members of a targeted group.

A society that permits any group to wish or injury death on people outside the confines of the group, for whatever reason, is not a free society. It is a society where thugs call the shots, in a manner of speaking.
[/QUOTE]
And yet, you have described the current actual situation of the United States and there really are no groups where speech is stifled. Groups related to the Aryan Brotherhood and some splinter groups from the Nation of Islam have each called for the death of people of other perceived races for years and no one in either the white or black communities actually feels that their speech is limited. Once the actions of the KKK were inhibited to the point where they were no longer lynching or otherwise murdering “uppity Negroes,” their speech, including threats, became irrelevant. (In fact, it was the lack of action to support their speech that caused such groups as the Aryan Brotherhood to rise up. And yet, barring one or two isolated cases over the course of nearly 40 years, they have also failed to act on their threats and there are no black communities who fear to express themselves in this country.) Similarly, there are no white communities (or Asian or Hispanic communities) where people are afraid to speak up, despite various odd expressions of hate speech throughout different loony organizations.

We do, indeed, have to wait until there is a reasonable expectation that a group will act on their expressed hatred before we have any right to shut them down.