Gettysburg National Military Park grants KKK event permit

[Hum]

GETTYSBURG, PA ?  The Ku Klux Klan has been granted a permit to hold an event at Gettysburg National Military Park.

Park officials say the special-use permit was approved for a Maryland-based KKK group to exercise its First Amendment rights on Oct. 5. The afternoon event will be held on the lawn area north of Gen. George Meade's Headquarters.

 

Officials say the park has a responsibility to make that land available for citizens to exercise their right to freedom of speech, even if the views expressed are contrary to those of most Americans.

The group held a membership rally earlier this month at the Antietam National Battlefield near Sharpsburg, Md., where thousands of people died in a Civil War clash that set the stage for the Emancipation Proclamation.

source

[MDboyz]

Maybe they should let the new black panthers to host the event near that, so they can duel out with each other.

We all can just sit back and enjoy.

[ANON86364]

Cool I guess.

[Hum]

Maybe I'll drive over and take pictures for Neowin. :laugh:

[fusi0n]

eh, who cares.. let racism die. 

[Xerino]

Well, I guess thats ok.. I mean whether its a KKK party, or a huge mormon fundraiser, or even a girl scout cookie rally, its covered by the constitution, no matter how ludicrous...

 

Have fun you crazy hillbillies...

[Growled Member]

I don't think someone thought this one through.

[ILikeTobacco]

Maybe they should let the new black panthers to host the event near that, so they can duel out with each other.

We all can just sit back and enjoy.

Can't decide which group I dislike more. Obviously racism is dumb. The KKK have managed to keep anything "bad" they do under wraps for some time now. Black Panthers have become more of a problem than the KKK in recent years for the general populace.

[compl3x]

eh, who cares.. let racism die. 

 

 

They won't.

 

 

 

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. You don't have to pass an IQ test or have a minimum level of logic or reasoning skills to be granted access to the right.

[ILikeTobacco]

They won't.

 

 

 

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. You don't have to pass an IQ test or have a minimum level of logic or reasoning skills to be granted access to the right.

same reason why we can't really stop that crazy church. Everyone agrees we should but doing so would create precedence

that would quickly be abused.

[FlintyV]

same reason why we can't really stop that crazy church. Everyone agrees we should but doing so would create precedence

that would quickly be abused.

 

They won't.

 

 

 

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. You don't have to pass an IQ test or have a minimum level of logic or reasoning skills to be granted access to the right.

 

At least force these kind of people to express their opinions away from other people. Surely that's reasonable? 

[compl3x]

At least force these kind of people to express their opinions away from other people. Surely that's reasonable? 

 

 

How? It's not free if you can only express it in certain places and/or certain times.

 

No one has the right not to be offended.

[DocM]

At least force these kind of people to express their opinions away from other people. Surely that's reasonable?

No, it isn't. Everyone has to have equal access to the public square or freedom of speech means nothing. Even the ACLU has come down on the side of the KKK and neo-NAZI groups on this.

[compl3x]

No, it isn't. Everyone has to have equal access to the public square or freedom of speech means nothing. Even the ACLU has come down on the side of the KKK and neo-NAZI groups on this.

 

 

What do you mean even the ACLU? This is something the ACLU would be expected to defend.

[ncoday]

At least force these kind of people to express their opinions away from other people. Surely that's reasonable? 

 

Nope, freedom of speech means just that, freedom to say what you want.

 

Start restricting speech, either by location or content, then there is no longer a 1st amendment right and then all speech must be restricted, including that which you agree with, to be fair.

 

Some people would say they would be fine with restricting certain speech that they don't agree with.

 

The danger is that then creates a state-sponsored speech. And if you don't agree with what the state wants to allow, you end up with what you see in Russia where just saying you support gay rights gets you put in prison.

 

Think about it people!!

[DocM]

What do you mean even the ACLU? This is something the ACLU would be expected to defend.

Because more than once so-called "liberal" groups, including ACLU and NOW, have turned their back on people/groups who they should have supported purely because of their politics. Sometimes they're just acting stupid and violate their own supposed principles..

Ex: ACLU rails against the NSA for obvious reasons, then they turn around and use sophisticated data mining and snooping of their own members finances to better fine-tune their fundraising efforts. Board members have broken away because of this privacy breech.

Don't even get me started on their failure to back conservative women or blacks when they should have.

[FlintyV]

Nope, freedom of speech means just that, freedom to say what you want.

 

Start restricting speech, either by location or content, then there is no longer a 1st amendment right and then all speech must be restricted, including that which you agree with, to be fair.

 

Some people would say they would be fine with restricting certain speech that they don't agree with.

 

The danger is that then creates a state-sponsored speech. And if you don't agree with what the state wants to allow, you end up with what you see in Russia where just saying you support gay rights gets you put in prison.

 

Think about it people!!

 

No, it isn't. Everyone has to have equal access to the public square or freedom of speech means nothing. Even the ACLU has come down on the side of the KKK and neo-NAZI groups on this.

 

 

How? It's not free if you can only express it in certain places and/or certain times.

 

No one has the right not to be offended.

 

But the US already uses free speech zones. That's why I suggested it as there's precedent of it in the US. 

 

"The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner?but not content?of expression. "

[Arachno 1D]

Do such events not get banned restricted through the high probability of civil unrest caused by holding such an event?

[compl3x]

Because more than once so-called "liberal" groups, including ACLU and NOW, have turned their back on people/groups who they should have supported purely because of their politics. Sometimes they're just acting stupid and violate their own supposed principles..

Ex: ACLU rails against the NSA for obvious reasons, then they turn around and use sophisticated data mining and snooping of their own members finances to better fine-tune their fundraising efforts. Board members have broken away because of this privacy breech.

Don't even get me started on their failure to back conservative women or blacks when they should have.

 

 

I really wish people would link to a source when they post stuff. I don't just take what people say on the internet as being true.

[ncoday]

 

 

 

 

But the US already uses free speech zones. That's why I suggested it as there's precedent of it in the US. 

 

"The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner?but not content?of expression. "

 

 I seriously disagree with those so-called "free speech zones". You essentially made my point I think. Setting a precedent is very dangerous as it can be used to go even further in restricting our rights.

 

As an example, I severely hate the Westboro Baptist Church and honestly wouldn't feel bad if some vets started a fight with them, but in the end, even people like that get the same rights to free speech as everyone else does.

[Hum]

Do such events not get banned restricted through the high probability of civil unrest caused by holding such an event?

The KKK does not have much influence anymore.

[MorganX]

I don't think someone thought this one through.

Well, technically the KKK was born of ex-confederates so, it is a historically understandable spot for them to rally. I suppose. Does it really matter where? They have the right to do it. If there's still enough of them to gather, there is as good as any other spot.

[DocM]

I really wish people would link to a source when they post stuff. I don't just take what people say on the internet as being true.

ACLU on NSA privacy violations

https://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights-national-security/un-review-nsa-privacy-violations-among-other-us-rights-abuses

ACLU's hypocrisy

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/18/national/18aclu.html?pagewanted=print&position=&_r=0

[Growled Member]

Does it really matter where? They have the right to do it. If there's still enough of them to gather, there is as good as any other spot.

I would say yes, it does matter. Allowing that group into Gettysburg makes a mockery of everything that place stands for.

[DocM]

I would say yes, it does matter. Allowing that group into Gettysburg makes a mockery of everything that place stands for.

Like it or not the KKK has its roots in the Civil War. Denying them their fundamental rights while allowing others of the opposite view is a bigger mockery.