Exactly. I am of the opinion we should be able to defend in this matter ourselves, not have someone silence everyone so we won't have to.

Even if groups like the KKK were made unlawful and everything else that by law would eradicate their organization, that is akin to merely burying the head in the sand. It will not make the problem go away, only make it harder to see it coming if you ask me.

That was very beautifully said, Nephele! I am all for protesting and trying to change things for the better and your post was wonderful in read in that sense!

I just want to clarify, I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF WHITE SUPREMACY! But as supporters of individuality, don't we have an obligation to support the first amendment?
I AM AGAINST THE KKK AND ALL THOSE WHO AFFILIATE WITH IT, but I do have a little bit of a point, don't I?

Sure, I support the First Amendment, too. But has the First Amendment been violated?

The Georgia State Department of Transportation claims to have valid reasons for denying a roadside sign to the KKK, involving driver distraction, interference with flow of traffic, the potential creation of social unrest, etc.

Plus, the Georgia DoT's Adopt-a-Highway program states that only civic organizations may participate, and there are those who argue that the KKK is not a "civic-minded" organization.

Additionally, there are legal experts who are saying that if the KKK's name appears on a highway sign, it can then be viewed as a government endorsement of that organization, and in such a case the government has the right to deny such a group's participation in the program.

Whether or not these are valid objections is something that can be determined in a court of law.

If the KKK feels that they've been unjustly treated, then nobody is stopping them from doing what anyone else can do in this great nation of ours: Take it to court.

-- Nephele

Well put. The strongest endorsement of the First Amendment is that groups like the KKK can take ridiculous stances and then go to court over it.

I would agree with that assessment. I do not see the organization as being 'civic-minded'. They are-in my opinion, in the same league of 'The Mob'. I don't see the government approving that either- because is it not beneficial to society. If they can make a good case that they are not 'civic-minded' then I'd be all for denying them the right tow adopt a highway.

You nailed it with "The Mob" comparison. No, the KKK isn't any kind of "civic-minded" organization:



They may try to wash their sheets, but underneath they are still criminally-minded.

-- Nephele

I just have a hard time taking any hate group seriously when they whine and cry about having their "free speech" taken away when otherwise they support all freedoms of speech, life, and otherwise, taken away from anyone who doesn't agree with them.

It's like Hitler complaining that the British government was taking away his right to be a tyrannical dictator.

Hate groups just reach all new levels of low for me the moment they start playing the victim card. Infiltrate any of these stupid neo-nazi forums and you will see they are ALL doing this.

"Boo hoo, my right to beat up and kill interracial couples is being curtailed...... it's a Zionist conspiracy I tell you!!!"

It gets even more ridiculous when they start crying about the largest ethnic group in the world, with a huge history of supremacist colonialism, facing extinction.

All of you make some interesting points, and I largely agree (though not totally). I do find it interesting however that the KKK in this instance obviously used a loophole so they could get a whole bunch of KKK signs posted on a road at tax payers' expense.

My thoughts, exactly! I have a hard time accepting that such hate groups should be covered under 'free speech'. Meh.

As Elphie says, "They have the right to be idiots and I have the right to ridicule them for it!"