Klan May Wear Hoods in New York

AP ^ | 11/19/2002 | LARRY NEUMEISTER

[sheik yerbouty]

Robert Byrd probably wants to visit.

[gatex]

The BATF wears masks.

[Maximum Leader]

You're probably right about when the law was enacted.

I was thinking about the news reports from 1999 about the last time this law was challenged, and the courts upheld the anti-mask law being used against the Klan.
http://hcs.harvard.edu/~dnd/pages/archives/2000/winter/unmasked.html

Though I think Judge Baer was right in his decision, not sure how he distinguished this case from the 1999 case.

[dead]

I don't see what is so important about having a right to anonymous speech. I hardly think our founding fathers would have had any regard for such a right, or any expectation that the first amendment would be interpreted to protect those not manly enough to expose their identity.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay would strongly disagree with you.

They recognized their right to anonymous free speech when the originally published the Federalist Papers in that manner.

The Supreme Court has ruled that protecting anonymous speech has the same purpose as the First Amendment itself: to "protect unpopular individuals from retaliation ­and their ideas from suppression."

[Salman]

To think that these marginal morons were once a menace.

That KKK rally in New York was about 20 Klansmen surrounded by about 200 police with about 2000 counter-demonstrators (leftists with time on their hands). Also more police to keep the counter-demonstrators peaceful (they were).

I say let the KKK wear their masks, but make them pay for the extra police. And extra sanitation men for the litter left by the counter-demonstrators.

[betty boop]

He added that New York City engaged in viewpoint discrimination when it applied the law to the Klan but not to other groups in similar scenarios....

``No one disputes the fact that (the) plaintiff is a notorious racist organization, at least not this court,'' he wrote. ``The focus here, however, is on constitutional protections.''

I am very sorry, but IMHO there are absolutely no scenarios under which the federal judiciary is required to uphold and protect projects of organized hatred, designed to be acted upon.

The First Amendment does not protect perjury; it does not protect crying "Fire!" in a crowded building; it does not protect slander or defamation....

Therefore, certainly it cannot protect any person or group of people whose entire reason for being is to prosecute acts of hatred against other persons or groups of people.

Please note: I do not here argue for "hate speech" laws. What I DO argue for is basic, civilized standards of public custom and discourse.

People who wear hoods while perpetrating evil deeds hardly seem to fall within the zone of protection afforded by the Bill of Rights.

FWIW, IMHO.

[Steve Eisenberg]

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay would strongly disagree with you.

They recognized their right to anonymous free speech when the originally published the Federalist Papers in that manner.

I thought someone might bring that up. Pen names were popular in the eighteenth century, but the motives of those who adopted them were far from those of a Klansman wearing a mask in order to conceal his identity out of fear of letting his neighbors know who he is. One of the main reasons pen names were used in the eighteenth century was humility.

The Supreme Court has ruled that protecting anonymous speech has the same purpose as the First Amendment itself: to "protect unpopular individuals from retaliation ­and their ideas from suppression."

The truth is, anonymous ideas which stay anonymous will go nowhere, just as surely as if they had been suppressed, despite all the legalistic protection in the world.

(This of course implies no criticism of use of pen names on FR, which is close in spirit to the use by Madison et. al.)

[dead]

People who wear hoods while perpetrating evil deeds hardly seem to fall within the zone of protection afforded by the Bill of Rights.

Evil deeds, if illegal, are not protected.

So called "evil speech" is, lest we get into judging who's speech is evil.

Leftists believe that yelling "baby killer" at an abortion doctor is "evil speech" as was yelling "Get out of Cheney's house!" at Al and Tipper Gore.

Free speech applies to idiots as well as geniuses.

[dead]

Why do you think the patriots at the Boston Tea Party wore Indian costumes?

While also technically vandalism, the point of the event was to send a message to the king, and they didn't want their identities revealed for fear of retribution.

I can't speak for the founding fathers, but I don't believe a single one of them would argue against the right of the citizen to express his opinion anonymously.

[45semi]

I'm dressed! Let the march commence!

[betty boop]

Free speech applies to idiots as well as geniuses.

Well, if that is the case dead, then it seems to me: the geniuses need to figure out a way to rule in the idiots in order to help them achieve a more realistic future.

Either that, of we may presently find that the world we live in is truly unliveable.

For under current conditions, the idiots have no incentive to improve their lot; and the true genius seems increasingly irrelevant to public questions.

If there's a "third way," please -- I'm dying to hear about it.

[Concentrate]

People who wear hoods while perpetrating evil deeds hardly seem to fall within the zone of protection afforded by the Bill of Rights.

Makes me think of completely veiled Islamic suicide bombers. Imagine the possibilities.

[dead]

Either that, of we may presently find that the world we live in is truly unliveable.

I think the current system - freedom - is working out just fine.

The KKK hasn't won over many converts in the last forty years. They were allowed to air their message and the very vast majority of Americans have recognized their message as asinine gibberish.

If we suppressed their message, they probably would have grown in popularity as people wondered why it was so powerful it needed to be suppressed.

I should admit I have a selfish reason for supporting their right to parade in hoods in NYC. The semi-annual spectacle is one of the funniest things I've ever seen - twenty moronic hillbillies surrounded by screaming Hasidim, angry lesbians, pontificating black activists, hundreds of cops, dozens of journalists, and thousands of bewildered onlookers.

I'm sorry I enjoy such things, but there's really nothing else good on television.

[Steve Eisenberg]

Why do you think the patriots at the Boston Tea Party wore Indian costumes?

Because they were planning to destroy property and wanted to protect themselves from being recognized and later arrested as criminals. The justification for this mob action, if any, is wholly tied to the illegitimacy of the British colonial government. Anything comparable in today's America is part of what our Coast Guard exists to prevent.

I can't speak for the founding fathers, but I don't believe a single one of them would argue against the right of the citizen to express his opinion anonymously.

I said almost the opposite in my last post, but the real answer may be that different founding fathers would, well, differ. It mainly would have to do with their attitude towards "the mob." I did notice the previous post stating how dozens of demonstrating klansmen are surrounded by thousands of counterdemonstrators, making it a bit of a judgement call as to where the mob lies. However, in siding against a masked mob trying, however ineffectually, to intimindate, I think I am taking the side of Washington, although probably not that of Jefferson, and certainly not that of Paine.

Thanks to dead for the opportunity to discuss an issue where I am not sure I am right.

[NativeNewYorker]

I seem to recall the law going back to the 19th century. It certainly pre-dates WW II. If I get a chance, I'll look into it later. On child care patrol now. :)

[betty boop]

I should admit I have a selfish reason for supporting their right to parade in hoods in NYC. The semi-annual spectacle is one of the funniest things I've ever seen - twenty moronic hillbillies surrounded by screaming Hasidim, angry lesbians, pontificating black activists, hundreds of cops, dozens of journalists, and thousands of bewildered onlookers.... I'm sorry I enjoy such things, but there's really nothing else good on television.

LOL dead, I see your point! :^)

It's the hood thing that gets to me: It seems so cowardly -- it says, although these people claim to have certain "convictions," they don't have the courage to stand up for them "like a man."