Skip to comments.
Klan May Wear Hoods in New York
AP ^
| 11/19/2002
| LARRY NEUMEISTER
Posted on 11/19/2002 7:09:06 PM PST by hchutch
NEW YORK (AP) Members of the Ku Klux Klan may demonstrate in their ceremonial hoods, a judge ruled Tuesday, saying a state law banning masks at public gatherings is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. said the First Amendment required him to reject New York's law finding a person guilty of loitering for joining a masked group.
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.''
The Klan pursued its case after members were forced to assemble without their hoods at an October 1999 Manhattan event.
Gabriel Taussig, chief of the city's Administrative Law Division, said the decision is legally wrong and deprives police of an important law enforcement tool.
In 1999, the 2nd U.S. Circuit of Appeals had permitted the city to enforce the law, which Taussig called ``a good indication that we will prevail on the appeal.''
Norman Siegel, a civil rights attorney who pressed the case when he headed the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the ruling was significant because it upholds anonymous free speech.
``The decision says all speech, including repugnant, bigoted and wrong-minded expression, is protected under the First Amendment,'' he said.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: badruling; kkk; racistcreeps
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
Can't stand these KKK goons. And I think I've heard of this judge before - a previous outrageous ruling.
1
posted on
11/19/2002 7:09:06 PM PST
by
hchutch
To: mhking; rdb3; Miss Marple; Howlin; JohnHuang2; Luis Gonzalez; Poohbah; Congressman Billybob
I've heard of this judge before, but I don't remember the specifics. Can someone fill me in on the details?
Quite frankly, the government ought not give these sheetheads the time of day.
2
posted on
11/19/2002 7:10:26 PM PST
by
hchutch
To: hchutch
Guest of Honor
To: rdb3; Khepera; elwoodp; MAKnight; condolinda; mafree; Trueblackman; FRlurker; Teacher317; ...
Black conservative pingIf you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
4
posted on
11/19/2002 7:11:52 PM PST
by
mhking
To: hchutch
Judge Baer ruled on January 24 that the search of Carol Bayless' car was unreasonable because police brutality and corruption are so prevalent in some neighborhoods in New York City that it is natural for people to run away from police. He said that even innocent people flee the police in Washington Heights, a neighborhood where officers were viewed as "corrupt, violent and abusive." Because he found the search unreasonable, Baer excluded 80 pounds of drugs as evidence and a videotape confession in which Ms. Bayless stated that she had made at least 20 round trips from New York to Michigan since 1991 to ferry drugs.
5
posted on
11/19/2002 7:15:31 PM PST
by
Howlin
To: Howlin
Despite lifetime tenure, federal judges aren't immune from criticism either. In 1996, New York Federal District Court Judge Harold Baer Jr. came under widespread attack for his opinion excluding 75 pounds of cocaine evidence from an accused drug courier's trial.
New York City police observed men drop two duffel bags in a car trunk before fleeing when they caught sight of the police. In part of the opinion that drew the most criticism, Judge Baer wrote it was not unusual for citizens to run from police in the neighborhood of Washington Heights, where he said police are viewed as "corrupt, abusive, and violent."
President Clinton's press secretary hinted that the president might ask Baer to resign but later retracted the statement. Baer ultimately reversed his ruling after hearing new evidence but says the public outcry didn't influence him at all. Looking back, Baer admits, "It wasn't what I'd call an enjoyable moment."
Still, Baer says federal judges must "do what they they think is right," and let the appeals courts judge decide whether they acted correctly.
6
posted on
11/19/2002 7:17:59 PM PST
by
Howlin
To: hchutch
The KKK are a bunch of morons, but a selectively-applied law banning masks is a crappy law.
7
posted on
11/19/2002 7:18:39 PM PST
by
dead
To: hchutch
They should probably also wear running shoes and have a pretty good escape route planned.
8
posted on
11/19/2002 7:18:52 PM PST
by
lds23
To: hchutch
Is Al Sharpton going to wear his hair?
To: hchutch
I don't see why it's a bad ruling. Forget it's the Klan; how does the government justify a dress code for demonstrators that doesn't apply to anyone else?
10
posted on
11/19/2002 7:20:47 PM PST
by
Dog Gone
To: hchutch
You either have to apply the law or not apply it.
The biggest annual public event in New York every year is not the St. Patrick's Day Parade but the annual Halloween parade. Are they about to tell a couple of million gay/lesbian/transgendered marchers and their friends that they can't wear masks?
11
posted on
11/19/2002 7:21:51 PM PST
by
Cicero
To: hchutch
The law was originally placed on the books decades ago, when hooded goons roamed the streets and attacked people, escaping prosecution by avoiding identification. It wasn't a "speech" issue.
To: mhking
13
posted on
11/19/2002 7:23:18 PM PST
by
rdb3
To: rdb3
Now, mhking, you know that ain't the Prettyboy way of doing things, is it? ;-) You mean you didn't have to wear a mask at some point when you pledged? ;)
14
posted on
11/19/2002 7:25:29 PM PST
by
mhking
To: mhking
15
posted on
11/19/2002 7:28:08 PM PST
by
rdb3
To: NativeNewYorker
Are you sure the law is that old? I thought the law was passed fairly recently in New York.
I think the first anti-hood law was in Georgia and it was specifically passed to unmask the Klan (though I doubt Geogia enforces it against other groups either).
The judge (and the ACLU) is right, any restriction on free speech has to be content neutral. I don't know any sane person who graduated from the 8th grade who endorses the Klan but the government isn't in the business of deciding what is acceptable speech.
If they don't enforce it against everyone who breaks this law, then it's unconstitutional to enforce it against the Klan solely because of their odious message.
To: Maximum Leader
I also heard that law was passed back in the mid 1800s to curtail the Irish street gangs, along with banning concealed weapons. I might have heard wrong though. But I bet here someone knows for sure.
17
posted on
11/19/2002 7:42:33 PM PST
by
Hugin
To: hchutch
Hoods in the 'hood.
18
posted on
11/19/2002 7:42:58 PM PST
by
Consort
To: Maximum Leader
You are right. As much as the KKK is hated, it is their freedom to wear it. Wasn't there a woman who wore a burka mask for her driver's license picture in Florida? Personally, I think only fraidy cats hide behind masks. (Unless you are one of clinton's ninja guys.)
TC
19
posted on
11/19/2002 7:47:26 PM PST
by
I_be_tc
To: hchutch
Norman Siegel, a civil rights attorney who pressed the case when he headed the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the ruling was significant because it upholds anonymous free speech.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.
Remember, for the first hundred years of U.S. history, letting your neighbors know your vote was a condition for being granted the privlege of voting. The reason the anonymous ballot was adopted was not at all for privacy, but rather for prevention of vote buying. The theory, hotly disputed in the nineteenth century, was that if the vote buyers could not really know if you voted as paid for, they would not bother buying your vote.
It doesn't make sense to petition the government for redress of a grievance if you don't have the courage to sign the petition.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson