From: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov (Keith S. Freedman)
Subject: KKK and Freedom of Speech 
Reply-To: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:02:49 GMT

In article 23377@midway.uchicago.edu, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>
>Why do people constantly make this fallacious argument about the First
>Amendment?  Does the Ku Klux Klan's First Amendment rights suddenly
>preclude the First Amendment rights of those who wish to hold a 
>counter-demonstration?
and In article 8159@amhux2.amherst.edu, twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>And to me and six hundred other people, if we wish to express our
>views at the very same time in the very same place.  The First
>Amendment prohibits governmental suppression of speech.
>

The KKK is required to get a permit for a place to express their views, so should any
who disagree.  This is a necessary requirement of society to attempt to maintain
order.

In article 20568@m.cs.uiuc.edu, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>The freedom speech and freedom to listen are to sides of the same
>coin. If you reject one, you reject the other.
>
>>The counter-protestors also have a right to free speech.  If,
>>by exercising their right, they drown out the speech of the
>>Klan, so be it.

I've said this before, so I'll say it again, "If I don't like what someone has to say, I
won't invite them into my house for coffee.  However, if they wish to stand outside
the window yelling and screaming, they are welcome to do so.  At which time, I
am free not to listen."

In article 18928@cs.ubc.ca, manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) writes:
>
>Make no mistake. The Klan would, if it had the opportunity, deny any
>semblance of democratic rights to, among others, blacks, Jews,
>immigrants, Catholics, adulterers, and GLB's. But they know they'll
>never reach any form of power. So why do they demonstrate? It's a show
>of power. I think that when `free' speech is used to intimidate other
>people, it ceases to be free speech.
>
The klan would prefer to deny members of these group freedom of living, but You'd
be hard pressed to get one of them to admit that in public.
Lets not underestimate their ability to reach any form of power.  Being a US senator/
congressperson or Governor of a state are pretty powerful positions.
Pat Buchannin is, basically, a David Duke without the pointy hat and is a viable
presidential candidate.

We must be careful with the free speech issue.  "If we deny others the right to express
their dislike for us, then we no longer have the right to express dislike for them."

In article 10220@m.cs.uiuc.edu, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>Morally, in my opinion, no one has the right to shout down those they
>oppose. As to whether anyone can get away with shouting down those
>they oppose, it is probably quite easy, but that doesn't make it
>right.
>
One shouldn't "Fight fire with fire."  If someone is screaming hate speech towards
you, the best thing to do is calmly turn to them and ask, "Why are you shouting."
(This really pisses them off and, when people are pissed off, they tend to act less
rationally than usual.)  The Klan knows this and so they trie to piss people off.

In article 3018@athena.mit.edu, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>(1) You're mixing past and present.  There is not necessarily any
>real connection between the Klan's origins in the late 1860s-early
>1870s and its status today.
>
I recently listened to Shawn Slater (Colorado KKK leader) spend 15 minutes
giving a speech on the history of the klan going back 150 years at a public
forum held in Durango, Colorado on (interestingly) St. Patricks Day.  This tells
me that the Klan takes the views of the 1860's -70's very seriously.


---
Keith Freedman
United Coalition Against Prejudice
freedman@ilmen.lanl.gov