Unfortunately white supremacist groups are still very active. I live in Northern Michigan and about once a year or so there's a neo-nazi/WS group in the news. There's a large population of them in Cadillac, a town about an hour south of where I live. A few years ago they were spreading hate pamphlets around town, specifically targeting minority families. I run an independent record store and I keep waiting for them to come in here with their propaganda because I know they used to bring all kinds of bullshit in here to the previous owner. I have a large poster hanging up with MLK's "I have a dream" speech on it, and I hope that sends a clear enough message.
The only benefit I can see to these groups speaking up about the Jena 6 is that it lends some legitimacy to our side - most people are going to be immediately opposing anything the Klan says, and if the Klan is speaking up in support of the white students in this way, hopefully it will make people reflect on the injustice perpetrated on the black students. But maybe that's just me being optimistic.

I'd rather massively counterprotest any gathering of the KKK and affiliated groups, sue them a la Morris Dees, but I don't believe in censorship. Censorship drives shit further underground, when we should be encouraging dipshits to make themselves heard so that we know where they are.

You see it in practice in Samhita's post itself: as Lyra says, because of free speech, we have identified racist cretins as become the vanguard of the backlash.

I heard of a fantastic counter protest. At a White Power/Aryan Nation/Wingnut demonstration, a bunch of people (way more than the wingnuts) showed up dressed like clowns. Every time the Dipshits would shout "White Power", the clowns would all jump up and down, yelling "Yay! White flowers!" While throwing white flower petals. Later, when the Dipshits yelled "White Power!" the clowns jumped up and down, yelling "yay! White Showers!" and opened white umbrellas. The Dipshits became so frustrated, that they left, leaving only the clowns. It quickly turned into a peace parade.

I just thought I'd share, since I always get so mental whenever I hear about shit like this. When I heard about this sort of counterprotest, it put a smile on my face.

Hope it does the same for you all.

Keep the assholes in the light, I say.

There was a small protest march on the university campus where I work the other day for the Jena 6. I hadn't known they were going to do it, and just happened to be sitting outside smoking on my lunch break when they went past my building. I was gratified to see both white and black faces (with a smattering of other ethnicities, it seemed) holding up the signs and placards.

Oklahoma's not always been known as the most enlightened place in the world (and the understatement of the year award goes to...). The high school I spent my junior and senior years at had one black person and one person who was of mixed-heritage (Hispanic mother, white father, I believe). And we've had our share of racism, and we have our share of current racists. I hate what they do, I hate what they say, I hate what they stand for, and I hate that they hate other people so strongly and for so little reason. I'm all for the harshest penalties for any crimes that they commit, and I like to think this is the sort of thing the human race might outgrow in time (even though I really know better).

That said...I've always been a big believer in "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it," or whatever the quote was. I'm an atheist. A lot of people don't want me to have the right to speak. But if I support banning a racist group from being able to gather in public, or demonstrate or whatever, aren't I just setting myself up for an atheist group to be the next to go?

If they break the law (whether that be hate crime legislation, assault, defamation of character, littering, blocking traffic, jaywalking, or cussing in front of women and children - an actual law in OK), then I hope they feel the full force of our legal system. If they don't...I kind of feel like we have to let them be. They have just as much right to the use of public land as any other group, don't they?

Good point Norbizness. I guess the question becomes how to deal with it after we have mapped it.

"Free speech and hate speech are two different things."

No, they are not. Free speech is the ability to say vile and stupid things. Hate speech laws are a joke and an affront to the civil liberties established by our founding fathers. These White Supremicists are moronic, bigotted, asshats - and they are exactly who needs protection the most. By the way, that quote of yours is the same flavor of quotes that the Catholic League used to get Amanda fired. Surprising how both sides of the aisle want people they disagree with silenced. Oh wait, no it's not. Let everyone talk.

White supremacist websites, along with former KKK Grand Master David Duke all spoke up in support of the white students in Jena. What? Are you fucking kidding me?

I'm... not sure why this is surprising. This is exactly the kind of case that would attract racist extremists.

...perhaps don't let a Klan leader quote you as supporting their activities, or perhaps don't let the Klan demonstrate in your town.

While I think you make a good point about the difference between free and hate speech, I don't know how well it would fly in the inevitable lawsuit the Klan would bring against anyone who infringed on their right to free assembly. You'd have to argue that gatherings of groups like the KKK are inherently dangerous to the public, whether overtly violent or not. I am Not a Lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I imagine this would be a very difficult case to win. I lived in the South in my youth, and every now and then the Klan would march somewhere nearby. The general public usually took the line that although the KKK is totally disgusting and embarrassing, even jerks in bedsheets have the right to peaceful demonstration.

(For the record, I'm inclined to doubt that the mayor of Jena was overly afflicted with concerns about constitutionality when he decided to allow the KKK to protest in his town.)

I substitute-taught an English class last week, and the class watched "A Man For All Seasons." I think one of Sir Thomas More's lines from this piece is appropriate here, and is a good argument as to why the rights of free speech and freedom of assembly should apply to everyone:
------------------------
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws being all flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil the benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Suissesse, that definitely brightened my day. It's so awesome to know there are people out there standing up against horrible, horrible people.

Makes me think of those bumper stickers that say "ORGANIZE!" with all the little fish turning to attack the big fish.

For a little lighter fare, the tale of my 1993 Klan counterprotest in College Station. I'm not saying it's a universal plan of action, but making fun of racist losers (while not underestimating their capacity to be damaging) is a way to go.

I love hearing about creative counter protests. A few years ago Fred Phelps' group came to Ann Arbor, MI (I don't even remember what they were "protesting") and protested outside of a bar owned by a gay couple. The bars owners used it as an opportunity to raise money for a local PFLAG type group. For every minute that Phelps was there, people pledged a certain amount of money. I know a lot of Planned Parenthoods have been doing this recently as well.
I also read yesterday about the reception given to the Minutemen founder when he spoke at Columbia University.
http://www.nysun.com/article/41020
It really made me feel good to read about the different student groups coming together to speak up against that asshat. I wish the liberal movement in general could take a cue from that.

What I enjoy about the clown counter demonstration is that is highlights the absurdity of the KKK. I think people's reactions to the KKK are often so visceral. The idea of "white power" is rather absurd. The KKK has (and should have) the right to free speech and they have the right to go to Jena just as much as anyone else. We can't fight them on that, when we enjoy and need those same rights. Neo-Nazi groups are based on fear and anger and I'm not sure we can fight those kinds of deep seated emotions, either. But I think that if we fight them with what we do have- knowledge, open discussions, experience- and don't lose our sense of humor or lose sight of the fact that underneath it all there is something inherently ridiculous about dressing up in sheets and shouting, we'll have a chance to make a difference and stay sane.

Here's the thing about all this "protect the klan because it's free speech!" stuff:

The website Samhita wrote about listed the contact information for the 6 defendants AND THEN ENCOURAGED PEOPLE TO DRAG THEM OUT OF THEIR HOUSES AND BEAT THEM.

Sorry but that kind of shit is not protected under "free speech".

Every time there's a rape case posted on here and a lawyer or newspaper or just someone with an agenda gives out that womans name or information, nobody runs around saying "BUT IT'S FREE SPEECH" but when it's dealing with RACISM, oh, then we can go ahead and say that asking people to go commit acts of violence is something our "founding fathers" wanted us to have.

Right, that's great logic. This isn't just about some white people going around saying "I hate niggers" or their right to gather and say it or have a website and say it - this is about a group of people who essentially advocate genocide. And telling people they should go out and kill people because of their race and then giving them the means to do it is just not free speech. It just isn't.

There is no peaceful exchange of ideas here, no wish to communicate and come to an understanding and just promote their viewpoint, this is about violence.

And if anyone is going to suggest that KKK rallies are really about free speech, exchanging ideas, protesting an unfair system then you're totally naive and out of touch with reality.

MirandaJay - there is a difference between encouraging a specific act of violence against a specific person (which would be a threat and not protected speech) and generally advocating hatred for another group of people.

Threats should be investigated and prosecuted.

Rallies spouting idiotic hatred remain protected.

There is a line to draw, and it is drawn when the speech turns into an overt threat.

Miranda: I was initially responding to Samhita's "ban the Klan" idea, not to the specifics of the website. I would definitely prosecute that as a terroristic threat, like those horrific anti-choice websites with doctors crossed out, in that that's an immediate incitement to violence, or like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Incidentally, the Klan counterprotest I went to didn't contain any such threats; although the speeches were odious, the pathetic KKK members were outnumbered by police about 2-to-1 and by counterprotestors (including some reps from the Nation of Islam) about 25-to-1.

Actually, I think this a good thing. Anyone who might have been on the fence about the Jena 6 situation will in a way be forced to pick a side. Any given person can have their reservations about Rev. Al Sharpton, but the same person doesn't hate him enough to side with the KKK. This kind of puts people in the position of either being against racism or being a Klan sympathizer. If there was a gray area about the Jena 6 case before this, there certainly isn't one now.

People refrain from publishing rape victims' name because doing so is uncaring, impolite, and obnoxious, not because it's forbidden.

I don't think papers SHOULD publish rape victims' names, and I would be pissed at any paper that did so, but I don't think it should be illegal to publish them. And I don't think people SHOULD generally make idiotic statements like these Klan folk are doing, but I don't think those should be illegal either.

"So no, I don't think they should be allowed to organize, given the history and threat of hate and violence they have tortured black communities with since their inception."

This is exactly the same attitude that keeps Feminist women from being able to organize in many countries across the world. What is considered the wrong opinion is determined by the people in power.

We all agree the KKK is horrible, but that above all we must protect the fundamental right to free speech, lest we lose it ourselves.

Hence the reason the ACLU defended the right of the KKK to march in the Jewish neighborhoods of Skokie, Illinois.

Samhita: Unfortunately these groups have not become less prevalent. Only two years ago, in Toledo Ohio a
planned neo-Nazi march sparked violence. It was an extremely tense situation.

"And telling people they should go out and kill people because of their race and then giving them the means to do it is just not free speech. It just isn't."

Yes, it is. Speech is speech. If some dickhead tried what is being advocated lock him up and throw away the key. But speech is speech. From the founding of this country groups have called for violent uprisings that have never materialized and that speech has been protected. As a built in defense against the tyranny of the government against it's own citizens, this right was protected. And from the beginning those that advocate violence and then ACTUALLY INCITE violence get arrested and prosecuted. The cost of a nation that allows free speech is some violence from fringe nut jobs. It's a very very very small price for a society to pay.

"here is no peaceful exchange of ideas here, no wish to communicate and come to an understanding and just promote their viewpoint, this is about violence."

Where does it say there has to be an exchange of ideas for speech to be protected? Where does it say it must be peaceful? You pile a lot of hopes and dreams and unicorns and flowers and pixies on top of the protection here. Absolute, complete fucking dickheads saying the dumest shit ever is protected. That's it.

"And telling people they should go out and kill people because of their race and then giving them the means to do it is just not free speech. It just isn't."

Yes, it is. Speech is speech. If some dickhead tried what is being advocated lock him up and throw away the key. But speech is speech. From the founding of this country groups have called for violent uprisings that have never materialized and that speech has been protected. As a built in defense against the tyranny of the government against it's own citizens, this right was protected. And from the beginning those that advocate violence and then ACTUALLY INCITE violence get arrested and prosecuted. The cost of a nation that allows free speech is some violence from fringe nut jobs. It's a very very very small price for a society to pay.

"here is no peaceful exchange of ideas here, no wish to communicate and come to an understanding and just promote their viewpoint, this is about violence."

Where does it say there has to be an exchange of ideas for speech to be protected? Where does it say it must be peaceful? You pile a lot of hopes and dreams and unicorns and flowers and pixies on top of the protection here. Absolute, complete fucking dickheads saying the dumest shit ever is protected. That's it.

Note also that David Duke is not only a former Grand Wizard, but founder of the "National Association for the Advancement of White People" (cringe), and, among many other things, a former member of the Louisiana House of Reps and had a number of failed bids for LA Governor (lost, but with almost 40% of the vote -- he claimed afterwards that he considered himself the winner, having recieved 55% of the *white* vote, ugh) and even U.S. President.

I would just like to point out that I never defended posting that stuff on the website. Violation of privacy at the absolute gut-busting minimum. I also want to state that I don't agree with buffythewhite that we have to allow violence from the fringes in order to protect free speech.

All I said was that, so long as they are breaking no laws and committing no crimes (hate crimes, inciting to violence, etc.) the Klan has the same right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly that the rest of us do. Once they cross those boundaries, though, I'm all for locking them up and hitting them with the penalties as hard as we can.

Buffythewhite, speech is not speech. Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say anything, anywhere, anytime you like. There are a number of exceptions.

SarahMC, there are a number of exceptions, but those exceptions are few and extremely narrow. The obvious example is shouting "Fire!" in a crowded room, if there is in fact no fire.

Believe me, I don't have much love for the KKK or their message. I think their message is hateful and horrendous. However, I think civil liberties should apply to everyone, even knuckle-dragging morons like them, because I think the law should apply equally to everyone.

The Mayor of Jena has been quoted by Klan leaders as saying that he is not endorsing any of these folks and supports what they are trying to do. Hmm, later on he says that he feels his town has been said to be unfairly racist. Well then, perhaps don't let a Klan leader quote you as supporting their activities, or perhaps don't let the Klan demonstrate in your town.

He can't do either of these things.

Free speech and hate speech are two different things.

Yes. Everywhere in the world but the United States.

-- ACS

As much as I sympathize with Samhita's post, I just can't agree.

The traditional view in America - and one held even by the ACLU, which has a history of defending the Klan - is that the only way to defend free speech for you and me is to defend it for everyone.

This is because the problem lies in who's defining "hate speech." Sure, right now, we would define it as anti-minority racism. But 10 years, 20 years, 40 years later, eventually some judge or some Congress might decide to define "hate speech" as anti-white speech. Or anti-American speech. Or even anti-Republican speech.

Is it really that much of a stretch of the imagination to say that a bunch of right-wingers might get feminism to be declared as "anti-man" or "anti-family" hate speech?

So, better I say to let the Klan speak. After all, there IS one good thing about letting them speak publically. Instead of them hiding behind a veneer, they are honest with their racism. It lets us know exactly who some of these people are.

Got to agree with the commenter who recalls the ACLU's defense of the Nazi march on Skokie - defended by Jewish lawyers, no less. For the mayor to try to keep the Klan from demonstrating in his town would be a blatant First Amendment violation. That's what Skokie tried to do, and got spectacularly whupped in court for, decades ago.

"Hate speech" is a tricky issue but it is also, for the most part, permitted under the U.S. Constitution (with the exceptions of terrorist threats, etc. as noted above). The temptation to dictate what ideas can be expressed can be overwhelming when you have to listen to crap like the KKK - but as others point out, their presence may actually serve to illustrate that the town of Jena, while not identifying ITSELF as racist, is easily recognized by racist freaks as being of like mind.

Woodrow Wilson put it well: "I have always been among those who believe that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking."

This is such a tough issue. While my gut screams, "shut these assholes up", I also stop and think about the implications of this. Is there a difference between free speech and hate speech? Who gets to choose what opinions are allowed to be stated? How do we deal with people like this? Do we have to wait for them to actually kill someone before we take action?

I don't know that I have the answers to any of these questions, but I really liked the comment about the clown counter demonstrations. I feel that maybe limiting free speech or reacting violently towards groups such as the KKK just buys into their tactics. Maybe the way to get through to these assholes is to send in the clowns (har har har).

This is such a tough issue. While my gut screams, "shut these assholes up", I also stop and think about the implications of this. Is there a difference between free speech and hate speech? Who gets to choose what opinions are allowed to be stated? How do we deal with people like this? Do we have to wait for them to actually kill someone before we take action?

I don't know that I have the answers to any of these questions, but I really liked the comment about the clown counter demonstrations. I feel that maybe limiting free speech or reacting violently towards groups such as the KKK just buys into their tactics. Maybe the way to get through to these assholes is to send in the clowns (har har har).

This is such a tough issue. While my gut screams, "shut these assholes up", I also stop and think about the implications of this. Is there a difference between free speech and hate speech? Who gets to choose what opinions are allowed to be stated? How do we deal with people like this? Do we have to wait for them to actually kill someone before we take action?

I don't know that I have the answers to any of these questions, but I really liked the comment about the clown counter demonstrations. I feel that maybe limiting free speech or reacting violently towards groups such as the KKK just buys into their tactics. Maybe the way to get through to these assholes is to send in the clowns (har har har).

By MirandaJay. Reposted for awesomeness:

Here's the thing about all this "protect the klan because it's free speech!" stuff:

The website Samhita wrote about listed the contact information for the 6 defendants AND THEN ENCOURAGED PEOPLE TO DRAG THEM OUT OF THEIR HOUSES AND BEAT THEM.

Sorry but that kind of shit is not protected under "free speech".

Every time there's a rape case posted on here and a lawyer or newspaper or just someone with an agenda gives out that womans name or information, nobody runs around saying "BUT IT'S FREE SPEECH" but when it's dealing with RACISM, oh, then we can go ahead and say that asking people to go commit acts of violence is something our "founding fathers" wanted us to have.

Right, that's great logic. This isn't just about some white people going around saying "I hate niggers" or their right to gather and say it or have a website and say it - this is about a group of people who essentially advocate genocide. And telling people they should go out and kill people because of their race and then giving them the means to do it is just not free speech. It just isn't.

There is no peaceful exchange of ideas here, no wish to communicate and come to an understanding and just promote their viewpoint, this is about violence.

And if anyone is going to suggest that KKK rallies are really about free speech, exchanging ideas, protesting an unfair system then you're totally naive and out of touch with reality.

"SarahMC, there are a number of exceptions, but those exceptions are few and extremely narrow. The obvious example is shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded room, if there is in fact no fire."

Another would be posting a "help wanted" ad for a hitman, right?

While it might be tempting to push for harsher speech codes as a means of controlling right wing loonies...

Historically, the vast majority of speech enforcements have been used to attack or silence those who opposed the administration; generally these are the liberals. Communist witch hunts, anyone? WTO protest arrests? Limited access and "free speech zones" around republican political rallies?

Be careful what you wish for.

I'm sorry I have to open up old wounds, but when you compare what's going on here to what happened back here, you don't get the same passion. And, frankly, I'm a little disappointed.

"The website Samhita wrote about listed the contact information for the 6 defendants AND THEN ENCOURAGED PEOPLE TO DRAG THEM OUT OF THEIR HOUSES AND BEAT THEM.

Sorry but that kind of shit is not protected under "free speech"."

You're right, that isn't free speech. Few people would defend explicitly encouraging or abetting criminal action as "free speech."

Similarly, inciting a riot is a crime even if you're using nothing but words. I don't think many commenters here would deny that.

But locking someone up merely for expressing their political views? Even if those views are as odious as those of the Klan? That's entirely different.

You don't know who might wind up being the one defining which political viewpoints constitute "hate speech" is years down the road. And every political viewpoint has someone that would define it as "hate speech."

All I know is, every time something that involves race is posted on this website the comment section is filled with this kind of shit. All of a sudden one voice of outrage quickly turns into a whole bunch of "oh well, gosh, I just don't know, this is so complicated..." When one of the feministing editors posts about someone making a joke about rape, or a disgusting article on anal sex, or you know, anything that someone writes or says that is sexist, everyone says "that's awful." But when it concerns race and black people, everyone says "oh but that's free speech." Yeah, well all women are nagging inferior cunts that deserved to be raped is free speech too, but I have NEVER heard anyone defend that behavior on Feministing.com comments as free speech and if they do, they are banned or called trolls or rallied against.

""So no, I don't think they should be allowed to organize, given the history and threat of hate and violence they have tortured black communities with since their inception."

This is exactly the same attitude that keeps Feminist women from being able to organize in many countries across the world. What is considered the wrong opinion is determined by the people in power."

Did you notice the part where she said "tortured black communities since their inception"?

Feminists not being able to organize has nothing to do with the KKK. It's not even REMOTELY the same. You are acting like all the KKK ever did was say "we hate black people" NO! They KILLED black people, they WANT to kill black people - and not jus