"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. Truth was never put to the worse in a free and open encounter..."
~ Milton
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin

Reading:
A Fistful of Euros
Andrew Tobias
Angry Liberal
Archy
Bad Attitudes
Common Dreams
Fablog
Hullabaloo
Informed Comment
Madelaine Kane
Mahablog
Obsidian Wings
Off the Kuff
Orcinus
Sarah Kendzior
War and Piece
Washington Monthly

Books
The Emerging Democratic Majority (Judis & Teixeira)
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Franken)
Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot (Franken)
The True Believer (Hoffer)
Still Being Bushwhacked

All Book Reviews
Race, Gender, and Sexuality
It's always "us" vs "them"
Women's March on (fill in your location)
Children learn what their parents teach them.
You Got My Support. But.
Even Endangered Penguins Do It

All Race, Gender, and Sexuality
Campaigns and Voting
Where do we go from here?
It's always "us" vs "them"
Some interpretations
On and on I go
Just appalled

All Campaigns and Voting
Lecture Circuit
It Was 40 Years Ago Today
July 2, 1964
Pledge
May 14-15, 1970
The Erotica of Bare Knees

All Lecture Circuit
Media
The Liberal Media, At It Again
Fairly UNbalanced
P.S.
What's this?
OHMIGOD

All Media
Big Brother
Shoulda' Guessed
Where did my country go?
You know what you never thought you'd read?
Not in his name
Sleight of Hand

All Big Brother
World O'Blog
It's Vocabulary Time!
They wrote it
Mighty-fine blogging
Other People Said....
Phillipines

All World O'Blog
Aimless Ranting
It's always "us" vs "them"
So, I'm thinking with half my brain
Do You Know Peter?
Long, Little Privacy Rant
My Takeaway

All Aimless Ranting
Archives
February 05, 2017 - February 11, 2017
January 22, 2017 - January 28, 2017
January 15, 2017 - January 21, 2017
November 13, 2016 - November 19, 2016
October 09, 2016 - October 15, 2016

All Weekly Archives


Electioneering
Open Secrets
Political Wire Exit Polls
Politics1
Polling Report

Information
American Research Group
Center for Democracy and Technology
Center for Public Integrity
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Congressional Report Cards
Death Row Roll Call
DebtChannel.org
Democracy Now
Economic Policy Institute
FairVote Colorado
Foreign Policy In Focus
Global Exchange
Human Rights Watch
Independent Judiciary
Inequality
Institute on Money in State Politics
Institute for Public Accuracy
JobWatch
Lying in ponds
Media Reform
Media Transparency
Move On
One World
Open Democracy
Pew Research Center
Project Censored
Public Citizen Health Research Group
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Take Back The Media
The Urban Institute
WHO Outbreak News

Connections
XML & RDF
Peevish for PDA



Blog Directory


Search








Credits
Powered by Movable Type

Site Design by Sekimori





All content © 2002-2005 Anne Zook

May 21, 2004
Dispensing Hate

The history of the KKK arguably defines it as a terrorist organization.

Nevertheless, it's also arguable that they're entitled to the same free speech rights as any other group. If they can find a campus organization willing to sponsor them, then they should be entitled to speak on campus.

Freedom of speech isn't about people we agree with being free to speak. It's about everyone being free to speak.

For the record, when the KKK wanted to speak on my campus in Kansas in the early 80s, I and most students supported their free-speech rights.

(Of course, when they showed up, we exercised our free speech rights and sang at them until they fled the stage, the building, and the campus without having spoken a word anyone could hear.)

Posted by AnneZook at 01:11 PM


Comments

Actually, the history of the Klan is unequivocal: for the first century or so of its existence it was the foremost US-based terrorist organization (there were a few anarchists in the early 20th century, but being anarchists, they weren't that organized), but Potok is right: there's not much left of the Klan at this point, and the organizations that exist are not always direct institutional descendants of the "glory days" Klan.

There is a difference between freedom to speech and balanced speech. There are cases where, even when balance is invoked, that it needn't be evenhanded if one side is so well known/represented that having a speaker would be redundant.

My wife told me of a case (I don't remember offhand it it was at her alma mater or elsewhere, and she's reading to our son right now) where a notorious anti-homosexual preacher wanted to speak at a college; similarly, he needed student organization sponsorship to use school facilities. So, the GLBT student group stepped up and sponsored him, which required that their name be on his fliers and that he note their sponsorship at the beginning of the talk.....

Posted by: Jonathan Dresner at May 21, 2004 11:05 PM

The KKK is "arguably" a terrorist organization? Arguably? Jesus. What would then qualify as "absolutely" terorist? Dumbest. Relativism. Ever.

Posted by: Derek Catsam at May 23, 2004 12:15 AM

Derek - The qualifer comes in because I'm not certain precisely what groups qualify for the designation under the current rather fluid definition.

Posted by: Anne at May 23, 2004 08:49 AM

Derek: The KKK is an organization whose methods and reach have changed considerably over time. As I said above, there was a time when it was unequivocal, but that time has passed. You'd have more luck attacking them under RICO (multi-state organization violating laws, in this case civil rights laws, with malice aforethought) than under USA PATRIOT. They want to be frightening, but they're not even the most dangerous White Power folks out there right now.

Posted by: Jonathan Dresner at May 24, 2004 02:39 AM

As usual, Jonathan said it first, and better. The KKK is largely a symbol these days and as such is abhorent, but they're also a shadow of what they used to be. There are much more dangerous organizations working in this country today.

In any case, you can make such groups illegal, but that won't get rid of them, it will just increase their sense of paranoia.

There will always be those who hate. There will always be the impotent who think that gathering together in darkness makes them powerful.

All we can do is monitor such groups and take any increase in membership or activity as a sign that a society is getting sick.

Posted by: Anne at May 25, 2004 08:58 AM

I take flack for this on HNN, but I'm a supporter of the Southern Poverty Law Center. These people read stuff that would make me naseaous, and keep track of people that would make me question my committment to public justice. I can barely stand to read their intelligence reports, but they cover this stuff and nobody else does. Their definitions are sometimes criticized as overbroad, but given the way in which these things seem to evolve, I don't think so.

Posted by: Jonathan Dresner at May 26, 2004 12:20 AM

Jonalthan -

I'm a big fan of the work done by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Like you, I can't fathom how they can do what they do, but I'm profoundly grateful that our society has them.

I don't think of their definitions as "overbroad" so much as "forward-looking." They do tend to try and figure out where problems will arise in the future and using terms defined too narrowly can be a handicap.

Posted by: Anne at May 26, 2004 09:03 AM