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