where in the constitution is there such a right? you are permitted free speech, not anonymous speech. the first amendment only prohibits the government from limiting your ability to speak. it does not guarantee anonymity.
Posted on 12/06/2004 8:59:13 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) rejected on Monday a free-speech challenge to a New York law banning the wearing of masks at public gatherings by a group claiming ties to the Ku Klux Klan.
Without comment, the justices let stand a ruling by a U.S. appeals court that upheld the law as constitutional and rejected the challenge by the Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.
The group advocates white separatism and "white pride." It calls itself an "ideological descendant" of the original Klan, but says it does not use violence. Members wear white robes and hooded masks at public rallies and demonstrations, just like the Klan.
In 1999, the American Knights filed a lawsuit arguing that the refusal of New York City police officials to allow it to conduct a rally wearing hooded masks violated its free-speech rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Seventeen of its members attended the rally on Oct. 23, 1999, but they did not wear masks.
A federal judge in 2002 ruled that the law violated the group's free-speech rights, but a U.S. appeals court early this year upheld the anti-mask law as constitutional.
"Since the robe and the hood alone clearly serve to identify the American Knights with the Klan, we conclude that the mask does not communicate any message that the robe and hood do not," the appeals court said.
Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), which has represented the group during the legal battle, appealed to the Supreme Court.
They argued the appeals court was wrong in concluding that the First Amendment right of anonymous speech does not cover a right to conceal one's appearance at a public demonstration because of fear of retaliation and harassment.
The attorneys said the ruling could have a broad impact, affecting other groups across the political spectrum. For example, "persons of Iranian descent who protested against the shah and who wore masks out of fear of reprisals against family members in Iran would not have been protected," they said.
New York officials told the high court the city's compelling interest in law enforcement and public safety outweighed any burdens on the group's free-speech rights.
They said the law only applied in certain situations, such as rallies, and that the group's masked members could take part in the city's Halloween Parade without risk of arrest under the law.
no burkhas in public?
The Klan Klowns get smacked down again.
No, no burkhas, and no Halloween parties either.
SO, why don't police enforce this law when the "black block" "anarchists" (read, stalinists and their trustafarian dupes) use masks during their "protests" (read, vandalism)???
Or motorcycle helmets.
Exactly. I'm not advocating the KKK or "white power" in general, but it does seem that similar behavior by other ethnic groups is okayed, even encouraged, while the same behavior perpetrated by whites is stonewalled at every turn.
Do they also enforce this law during gay pride parades?
(Don't get me wrong, the KKK is no friend of mine. I just see it as selective administration of rights...)
Ah, the KKK, the ACLU's #1 client.
Ok, all of you "conservatives" who complain about "activist judges" reading things into the Constitution that do not exist.
Where in the U.S. Constitution does "compelling interest" outweigh "rights."
The First Amendment states "make NO law."
What part of "no" do they not understand?
Know where I first heard about this? On the Howard Stern show a few years ago, the Klan leader from upstate NY (who was once a prison guard) who was a semi-regular minor character in the Stern circus was the force behind the suit.
Sorry, but the disguising of one's identity is not speech. Nor is the publication of vaginal examinations, like Hustler. "Speech" is obviously extends beyond the literal meaning to cover communication, but what constitutes protected communication? The first amendment makes clear what its purposes are: the redress of grievannces, and the exchange of ideas. Freedom of speech was granted to prevent government from stifling dissent or the exchange of ideas which may result in dissent.
Flying planes into buildings may communicate the message, "I hate you," but it is not speech. Pornography may lead to more liscentious behavior which may in turn cause political agitation, but it is not speech. Wearing a mask may allow people to be identified as members of a group, but it is not speech.
Speech is, however, so vital that government must err on the side of caution when determining what constitutes speech. For that reason, government must have a compelling interest in determining that something is not speech. For this reason, the government must establish that pornography serves purient interests (which it has been shockingly remiss in attempting to do). Likewise, the city had to show a compelling interest in the anti-masking law.
The purpose of the KKK masks is evading the law. They are criminals and cowards who knew lynching people would result in their persecution. Or, at least, if the local officials did not care to pursue justice because they sympathized with the Klan, the easy identification of Klan members would cause an outcry against the officials who knew damned well who the criminals were. The masks served to protect the Klan's political cronies.
If I were to argue a case for a masked protest, it would be that masks allow people to express their political viewpoints anonymously, when they might otherwise be subjected to unjust discrimination on the basis of their beliefs. Given the identification of the Klan or of the WTO protestors with organizations tied to actual crimes, I would suggest that this would be a lame attempt.
By the way, if prosecutors REALLY were just in their dealings with WTO protestors, they'd nail them under RICO.
To clarify: It would be a lame attempt, because one would have a hard time asserting that the discrimination was unjust (due to he expression of beliefs) and not due to a reasonable and legal desire to not deal with people who choose to associate with criminals.
I know this article is going to ruin your day.
Why would an article about a bunch of yankee blue stater thugs losing a court case ruin my day? Given your proclivity to associating with known Aryan Nation types like the now-banned FR poster #3fan and given the fact that this group was one of your very own blue stater organizations, one would expect that the disappointment is all yours.
where in the constitution is there such a right? you are permitted free speech, not anonymous speech. the first amendment only prohibits the government from limiting your ability to speak. it does not guarantee anonymity.
HTML trouble again, capitan?
I thought you might be a statist (either a current or ex-prosecutor) from the subject of your reply.
Justifying why government can "deny and disparage" rights retained by the people.
This forum is FreeRepublic.com.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others, retained by the people.
Look this issue from a presumption of liberty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.