Should the kkk have the right to assemble

As repugnant as their ideas are, it’s more dangerous to allow the government to decide who can and can’t peacefully assemble. Freedom of assembly is a Constitutional right, because without it, the government can simply prohibit any form of assembly it wants.

Toadaly is absolutely right. The ACLU even defended the klan’s right march in Skokey, IL. The government should not be in the buisness of deciding what is offensive or not. All speech should be protected, unless it includes threats of violence against others.

Unless there is physical harm to people or property, I will have to go with Jimahl and toad on this one. The good news is that that organization has shrunk to isignificance over the years.

I think denying them the right to assemble would actually bring more attention to them. Letting them peaceably assemble, while basicly ignoring them is far more useful way of marginalizing them than putting up a big fight against them. That is exactly what they want. Publicity.

You are not for free speak unless you are willing to defend it for even those who you strongly disagree with. Voltaire famously said, I disagree with what you said but would fight to the death for your right to say it.

No right is absolute; with freedom comes responsibility. Certain types of speech are illegal. Slander, libel, disclosing classified information or copyrighted material (beyond fair use) are all illegal. If you decide to speak to your neighborhood though a megaphone at 3 in the morning you can be arrested for disturbing the peace. The courts have ruled that causing a hazard by falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater was not protected speech. Most attempts by our government to muzzle free speech tried to broadly interpret one of these exceptions to cover something they don’t want said.

Hard to add anything to that which has already been said… just to agree with the above… in that if we allow some of the diabolical messages to be heard from these groups… that would not help their cause or boost their numbers… if they are preaching hate… their appeal can only wane.

There is no good reason for censoring them… and censorship laws can become stifling to all speech when we begin to distinguish on the terms of idealogy.

Funadvice is a good microcosm for this question… in my opinion it does much greater good to allow a hateful post to be refuted by members than to have it removed by advisors… I understand that marketing plays a role in this protocol… but in my opinion when a hateful person is confronted and refuted in a civized manner by a majority of his or her peers… that person learns what maintaining the hateful stance or behavior will cost them.