1st Amendment Rights and certain Organizations

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Now, with all of this talk about the Constitution, I have a question that has been bugging me ever since I was young.

Now, don't get me wrong, I believe that our decision to pursue foreign terrorist organizations that kill Americans is in the right, however, why do we continue to pursue those such as Osama Bin Laden, while we never pursue those terrorist organizations here in our own country, such as the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nation, who have murdered, tortured, robbed, terrorized, and stolen from American citizens? I mean... the ACLU (not surprisingly) has fought for the KKK's privilege to march and hold public rallies to preach their racist and terrorist philosophy. If they're protected, then why shouldn't say... a home grown radical Islamic organization march and hold public rallies, screaming "DEATH TO AMERICA", while in the back they murder Americans? Just replace "DEATH TO AMERICA" with "DEATH TO (insert anyone who is not white and protestant here)", and you get the KKK.

[TruBlu]

Here's the problem in not supporting groups like these. They all (the established and legal groups like the KKK) do not directly support violent actions. Therefore, they do not infringe on anyone's rights, and are simply exercising their "right" to "free speech." Check this out: http://www.kkk.bz/ourgoal.htm. They are a "political party." Hell, their website is registered as a business, not even an organization!

The bottom line with these sects is this: They aren't illegal, because they aren't evoking anything illegal (technically). Are the morally incorrect? That's a question that will tap into whatever side of the fence you stand on, and to me they are. Any one that evokes a supremest message is morally incorrect. Then you have to break down what is law and if morality should be an issue within the law. In most cases, it is not the case because the interpretation of morals varies so greatly.

I never have, do not, and never will support a groups such as these. I will attempt, in all my powers to disrupt and disband such groups. But, there isn't much we can do because "law is law," and interpretation of our constitution is so broad and misled (I've been corrected many a time as to what is our "right" and what is not because that is what has been taught to me, that's right educational institutions).

I'm not saying everything on this site is a God send and holy piece to be revered and taken 100%, I totally disagree with that. But, if we all look into our new found "Constitutional Discussion" portion of the forum, we can get a little more insight from those who dissect and study these documents.

The First Amendment is this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Where does it specify as to what is free speech, and what is not?

[03_SHOOTER]

Originally Posted by Buffa1oso1di3r

Now, with all of this talk about the Constitution, I have a question that has been bugging me ever since I was young.

Now, don't get me wrong, I believe that our decision to pursue foreign terrorist organizations that kill Americans is in the right, however, why do we continue to pursue those such as Osama Bin Laden, while we never pursue those terrorist organizations here in our own country, such as the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nation, who have murdered, tortured, robbed, terrorized, and stolen from American citizens? I mean... the ACLU (not surprisingly) has fought for the KKK's privilege to march and hold public rallies to preach their racist and terrorist philosophy. If they're protected, then why shouldn't say... a home grown radical Islamic organization march and hold public rallies, screaming "DEATH TO AMERICA", while in the back they murder Americans? Just replace "DEATH TO AMERICA" with "DEATH TO (insert anyone who is not white and protestant here)", and you get the KKK.

The difference is that here in America, the government cannot take actions against an American citizen until such time as that citizen has in fact actually done something. In those cases where members of the KKK or Aryan nation have in fact violated the law, they are pursued and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Take for instance the recent case of Edgar Ray Killen who in 2005 was recently arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced to 60 years in prison for manslaughter in the deaths of 3 Civil Rights workers in Mississippi in 1964, or the case of Bobby Frank Cherry who was arrested, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced in 2002 for his part in the murder of 4 girls in a Birmingham church in 1963. Cherry died in prison in 2004.

Also, we don't drop Mk-84's on groups of people for chanting "Death to America", and we don't arrest and prosecute people for chanting "Death to _______" here either. It's that whole First Amendment thing that most of us swore to "...suppor and defend...". It doesn't matter if you like, agree with, support, or even condone what they're saying, but you must support their Right to say it. Now, once they have said it, if you want to join the Tar and Feather Committee, that's your choice, but you can help run them out of town on a rail knowing that you haven't violated their First Amendment Rights.

[HairyEyeball]

...the government cannot take actions against an American citizen until such time as that citizen has in fact actually done something.

Interesting choice of words, intentionally or otherwise pointing out that one does not necessarily need commit an act in violation of a law (licit or not), merely an act that p*ss*s off 'the wrong people' - or being alleged to have committed such act.

And while we're on the subject of 'freedom of speech', before someone (as has previously occurred here) erroneously pontificates, it is only 'the government' barred from interfering with the right to spew any nonsense you choose, and only in those cases where your speech does not present a 'clear and present danger' - as in Justice Holmes' admonition that it does not apply to someone falsely shouting 'fire' in a theater. Individual organizations are not 'the government': If you attend a KKK rally and agitate for the canonization of Dr. King, you will be (at best) shouted down, and asked to leave. Unless you are assaulted in the process, your 'freedom of speech' has not been 'violated' (and if you are assaulted, it still has not, that is a separate issue) - they are not a 'government entity'.

Under the law, you have the right to advocate - in speech, in print, in any form of media - whatever cause you choose. That is, however, a sword that cuts both ways: Your 'audience' is equally entitled to air their position, and both may fail to realize that words have clear and distinct meanings, and actions sparked by those words have consequences.