From: johnsd2@jec318.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:17:01 GMT

In article <wb9omc.703357248@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu>, wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes:
|> 
|> Let's try another angle on this....
|> 
|> I think *most* people would consider the KKK a HATE group, whose sole
|> existance is to suppress the rights of other human beings any way they
|> can, including but not limited to violent acts.

This is certainly true. But who knows? Maybe one day the KKK will
decide to lighten up and stick with hate advocasy. That would
be different. I do not like the idea of condemning them forever
for what they have done. Not that I would trust them (ever).

|> On the other hand, I doubt seriously that *most* people would consider
|> the NAACP a hate group willing to use violence to suppress other
|> human beings.  Gerenally, the NAACP has come out publically AGAINST
|> violence.

I agree witht this too. But here's where things get interesting...

|> Now when you balance those two ideas with the *intent* of Freedom of
|> Speech, which do YOU think deserves protection?

Why, -->BOTH<-- of them do of course. Free speech certainly applies
to unpopular viewpoints like the KKKs. That, IMHO, remains the case
no matter how hatefull they are, and it remains teh case despite the
violence they advocate. I don't think it excuses the things they do,
but I do NOT think its appropriate it punish them by taking away
their freedom of speech. How could we know if they turned over a new
leaf? :)

Well, maybe not but why set a bad preceedent?

|> The triple-kappa is a hate group, pure and simple.  Their sole existance
|> is to deny rights to other people who are not of the same race and
|> creed.

This I agree with...

|>  IMHO, this makes them a criminal organization,

This I do not. They are criminal because of what they 
have done, not because of what they preach. Hate isn't
a crime- or if it is, we are all going up the river.
I sure hope it's not a crime...

|> one which has
|> thus voided any claim to "rights", other than possibly due process
|> AFTER they are busted for whatever their special crime may be.

This I also disagree with, on moral grounds. I don't know the law
in this respect but I do not think criminals should be denied free
speech. Guess Im just warped :)

|> 
|> That is strictly my *opinion* - please feel free to disagree as you
|> please,

I will, um, did...

|> and consider that the law may disagree with my opinion as
|> well.

I do not think that criminals loose all rights when convicted,
and Im pretty sure they retain those rights after they have
served their time/whathaveyou.

And I'm quite sure you have to convict them first. It's not
just what you've done, its what you're convicted for.

And I am only talking about United States law, BTW. as I remember,
there are several people on the net who don't hail from there! :)

|>  Direct flames to dev/null.

[sound of flamethrowing being armed].. WHOOfizzle.. aw damn.

|>  Reasonable discussions are fine.

But they aren't any fun...

|> Duane
|> 

Needless to say, IMHOs should be spread liberally about all the
stuff I have just writted. So why I did I just say it?

-- 
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7664 alt.individualism:2436 talk.politics.misc:18081