Although many people often wonder why we haven't made the KKK illegal yet - and wonder so, with good reason might I add - I am against the criminalization of KKK membership. And that sound strange, one must admit. Why would one be against the criminalization of the KKK, a supposed domestic terrorist group (in act, not in name yet) which has been found guilty of lynching black people for naught more than the colour of their skin? One would immediately think to the first argument that can be made (and is commonly made for similar things) and this is a fickle argument but one that I would not forget. But as with all things, the right to free speech is a right subject to law, and therefore like all things, can be changed and retracted at will of the government. A similar argument is perhaps the argument of 'this and that is safeguarded in the constitution!' and although this is true and does give some credibility, it doesn't mitigate for the fact that the constitution (and rights) can be changed at will (and in recent history, similarly, has been changed often in Europe.)

So then, you ask, why would you willingly defend a group that is guilty of hatecrimes?

Well, first of all, I believe in free speech. This right to free speech should go to everyone - the far left, the far right, everyone. I am willing to listen to but the radical anarcho-communists as to the nazi's. I am willing to listen to propositions of why I should accept genocide as opposed to opposing it, or propositions about destroying governments and returning to a tribal lifestyle of communities. I believe everyone should have access to a platform. I also believe I should have access to a platform to critique those ideas (hence, you'll often find me calling people idiots) as this is how debate works and should work. It is important to me because I believe the basis of progress and understanding is dialogue and communication, as well as participation. Non-participation, if voluntary, is not a problem per definition, but will quickly become a problem to the integration and neutralization of particularly rebellious groups if it is enforced by criminalizing them. Imagine your classroom, but your teacher only gives turns to your classmates to speak, leaving you out of the equation. This limits participation and diminishes your motivation to take part in this mini-society. This would work similarly for the KKK - take away their platform to speak, and they will seek other methods to take action. Dislike them and their ideas as much as you want, they have a right to voice them peacefully and without threat of violence.

Secondly, I believe in the right for groups to meet up and discuss ideas and plans. The reason I believe in this is simple; first of all, regular meetings are required to run organizations and without them the group would fall apart (which, if you support dismantling the KKK, would be a benefit). Second of all - dismantling this right would dismantle it for everyone. We enjoy equality (formal equality) one supposes, so if we remove the right to congregation/freedom of assembly, this would be removed for all groups.

Muslims are no longer allowed to come together.
Christians are no longer allowed to come together.
Jews, Buddhists, Hindus..
Your local sports organization would no longer be allowed to come together to organize the group.
Trade unions would no longer be allowed to congregate and oppose their opposition.
You would no longer be allowed to take part in associations and organizations.
That would include the opposition of the KKK, like protest groups and such.

Therefore removing the right to congregate would be an evil thing that removes power from the people. Perhaps it is a suitable way to silence people. Perhaps. It will not work. I will explain why in my next reason for disliking the proposed criminalization of the KKK.

Thirdly... One must suppose that the KKK organization has tight control on it's members. After all, it's an organization for which you have to sign up. In fact, as far as I am aware, it is possible to sign up online (I have never tried to sign up for the KKK, so feel free to correct me on this.) or otherwise do so officially through paperwork. Therefore, it is possible for government instances to keep tabs if they suspect illicit activities taking place (which for the KKK would be hard not to have). One most also suppose that this is in fact already taking place. Given the NSA has a rather annoying method in place to assure intercepting information that could be potentially used for tracking terrorists and radicals, it would be really hard to argue that the government does not already keep tabs on KKK members. It would be quite easy for the government to merely keep an eye on KKK members and take extra precautions when it comes to hiring these individuals, which is partially why there is a scare for KKK members. I ask myself why this does not occur in the US already, but that is not a matter I can discuss without reading into that more deeply (and, waiting a few years, as this kind of thing is classified).

By criminalizing membership of the KKK, in turn, you nullify these records. People would no longer associate with the label of the KKK. They would no longer officially be members. It can no longer be used to keep tabs on people, as there is no reason to assume that they might be radicals. They have ceased associating with the (now illegal) KKK after all. Legally you'd need to find new grounds to keep tabs on these people. Especially if they own a brain and are aware of how to commit to domestic terrorism (aka, do not use cell phones or internet in general to transfer information, blabla). I won't assume that you are all familiar with the way criminal justice works when it comes to evidence and/or the legal ability to tap phones or acquire information, but I can assure that it would be more difficult to obtain permission legally to do so if there were no legal records of their membership, which are easier to acquire (if not already acquired at this point in time) if the membership itself is not illegal.

Shortly: it is easier to hunt these people if you have a track record of their membership. Remove that, remove the ability to efficiently keep eyes on them.

Fourthly, there is evidence from previous encounters with left wing radicals, namely the Rote Armee Fraktion in Germany during the 70's. The organization started as a student movement in I believe the 60's but grew into a radical organization during the 70's that was responsible for murders, robberies and bombings. During the early years of the student movement as well as the early years of the RAF creation, the movement faced heavy repression (repression = the oppression or persecution of an individual or group for political reasons) and was also criminalized (at least in part). As a result of this, members of the groups had to go 'underground' and as a result of that became detached from society.

I am not one to advocate that the society must always take responsibility for the wrongdoings of individuals, but one cannot help but understand that the society can definitely have a large impact on a persons motives. We often underestimate the effects of society and our ties to society, but anyone with criminological understanding of the common theories will know that social ties to society are in fact a large pillar to preventing crime and terrorism. This is also the case for the KKK.

Due to their detachment from society, members became paranoid and quickly radicalized under the belief that 'peaceful protest' would no longer work (they were being represssed! How could it work?!) and thus they had to take violent action to ensure that their political agenda was heard and established (similar to the 'we must enforce the class struggle, it will not occur naturally on it's own as Marx imposed').

During this process, the 'moderate' students stopped association with the repressed RAF as the benefits no longer outweighed the negative of being repressed. The hardcore radicals continued doing what they did and went underground - and this echo chamber furthered the process of radicalization. So, the 'positive' repression that prevented these troublemakers from causing a ruckus in public in fact turned 'negative' as it silenced them for a short period, but ended up creating a domestic terrorist group due to the fact that the members of the group had to go underground.

Source: Like Zealots and Romans: Terrorism and Empire in the 21st Century, by Henner Hess (Great article, can definitely recommend).

Now the models used had two criticisms. The first model was the psychiatric model, which looked at the individual and found that the majority of the individuals (not all) found guilty and imprisoned that were a part of the RAF had a troubled childhood and suffered trauma's. However the problem with this was that there was no control group, and as such we have since found that in fact many of these traits could be found among, for instance, politicians too.

The other model was the social model, which found that indeed the effects of being repressed had harmed their integration in society and caused them to be driven further away from the rest of society, which increased the speed at which they radicalized. This model however did completely ignore all personality traits of the domestic terrorists, which none would argue was a smart idea.

A combination of the two models is preferable. It is hard to implement, as both models are built from opposing views, however. The psychiatric model blames the individual, and is a very right approach to this situation, as it removes all blame from the rest and makes it easy to punish the criminals harshly. The social model was made by left wing criminologists, and thus is very much based on society, removing (large amounts of) blame from the individual, even if there is clearly a lot of blame to be placed on them.

Never the less efforts should be made to combine these.

From this we can take that repressing groups that are in a 'danger zone' so to speak is not a smart idea in all cases. It would be hard to argue for 'giving ISIS a platform to speak' but it is much easier to argue this for the KKK, as they do take part in peaceful protests (as ... chaotic as they can get.) Assuredly, criminalizing them would be a bad move, as it forces the groups to disband, and forces the radicals among them (that are already dangers) to go underground to hide their association with these ideas - in turn radicalizing them even more quickly due to echo-chambering, paranoia and a sense of justification that is found in their repression ('white genocide' would be easily 'proven' by 'silencing the ones that see the truth'). It would be a self-inflicted timebomb, which is not preferable, obviously.

Therefore one can only conclude that although it is very hard to say, criminalizing the KKK would be a mistake. If one clings to their ideology, it would be easy to say 'we must ban the KKK because they spread hate' but the effects would be disastrous. If one looks for efficiency and effects of policy - not criminalizing them would be the better option.

Let me know what you think.

Shoutout to @Mag Lev for moving my thread.

On a somewhat related note, I am all for the criminalization of masks. There is no constitutional right to clothing choices. From protesters to luchadors, you have no rights to your own identity. There will be no identity fuckery.

And perhaps finally I can find out who that goddamn Spiderman is!

On a somewhat related note, I am all for the criminalization of masks. There is no constitutional right to clothing choices. From protesters to luchadors, you have no rights to your own identity. There will be no identity fuckery.

And perhaps finally I can find out who that goddamn Spiderman is!

well there goes the KKK.

Banning the KKK right now would be silly. They used to be a major terrorist organization. They are now a sort of outcast hick version of the Lions Clubs. The KKK fifty years ago was burning crosses and lynching people. The KKK now hands out pamphlets and keeps up their news letter.

And besides that, we don't typically ban organizations because... you can't. In the United States (where the KKK are) we are constitutionally guaranteed freedom of assembly (in the first amendment). You must have legit evidence of criminal conspiracy to bust them up. That's why the federal government, when they seriously wanted to expend the effort on breaking up groups, had to use shady methods to get away with it, bending the law a bit.

What we can do is monitor known members though. After all, in this racially charged time, it's not hard to imagine a situation where the KKK comes back into prominence.

What we can do is monitor known members though. After all, in this racially charged time, it's not hard to imagine a situation where the KKK comes back into prominence.

Yeah this pretty much, also the same with certain biker gangs and those dodgy 'charities' that seem to be sending money abroad to potentially dangerous extreme organisations. If you want to be associated with extreme groups then you have to accept a sharper eye on you.

I get what you're saying. Freedom of speech is one thing, everyone has a right to their opinion no matter how misguided it is and it's part of humanity and living has a collective, but banning or making that group illegal would only turn them into extremists, and we sure as heck don't need more of those.

From my experience, it's not by banning someone to do something that they'll magically change their mind and their ways. It's only by themselves that they can see how wrong they are and in most cases it takes a long time. There's also the whole pressure and brainwashing of an organized group that makes it harder for people to get out - just imagine how much worse it would be for them with the added pressure of their gatherings being criminal. Their leaders would have to be extremely strict.

Not to mention they'd be targets for other crime groups - which wouldn't be all that bad if you think about it. Racism is disgusting, but they have a right to redemption just like anyone.

On a somewhat related note, I am all for the criminalization of masks. There is no constitutional right to clothing choices. From protesters to luchadors, you have no rights to your own identity. There will be no identity fuckery.

And perhaps finally I can find out who that goddamn Spiderman is!

Given that these cunts exist and show up everywhere I am not wholly against the criminalization of masks at protest. If you are peacefully protesting something you don't need to hide your identity.

And besides that, we don't typically ban organizations because... you can't. In the United States (where the KKK are) we are constitutionally guaranteed freedom of assembly (in the first amendment). You must have legit evidence of criminal conspiracy to bust them up. That's why the federal government, when they seriously wanted to expend the effort on breaking up groups, had to use shady methods to get away with it, bending the law a bit.

Like said, theoretically the rights can be changed (and they have in Europe in some cases, as have the constitutions) but for America I don't see it happening, considering the US has not changed their constitution much as far as I am aware. So you're not wrong, but just because something is a right doesn't mean you have unequivocal access to it at all times.

As for monitoring known members, this shouldn't be hard but so far the US has failed tremendously as the KKK is very prominent in rural areas in terms of obtaining seats of power in the police department for example.

1st Amendment frees you from the persecution from government or its affiliates.

Your 1st amendment does not protect you from the consequence of your "speech"

Yes, I believe you should not be arrested for spouting idiocy, however, don't be surprised when someone who doesn't want to listen to your BS hauls off and knocks you out, at his own risk of litigation.

I always back my 1st with my 2nd...RAH?

1st Amendment frees you from the persecution from government or its affiliates.

Your 1st amendment does not protect you from the consequence of your "speech"

Yes, I believe you should not be arrested for spouting idiocy, however, don't be surprised when someone who doesn't want to listen to your BS hauls off and knocks you out, at his own risk of litigation.

I always back my 1st with my 2nd...RAH?

I suppose this means I should start assaulting people I disagree with, because I'm a twat, right?

That said, you are correct somewhat, as it doesn't free you from the consequence of their speech, but lets be fair, what does the KKK care about that? Or Hamas sympathizers? Not a single fuck. So this is a pointless argument I think.

<Snipped quote by j8cob>

Given that these cunts exist and show up everywhere I am not wholly against the criminalization of masks at protest. If you are peacefully protesting something you don't need to hide your identity.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Like said, theoretically the rights can be changed (and they have in Europe in some cases, as have the constitutions) but for America I don't see it happening, considering the US has not changed their constitution much as far as I am aware. So you're not wrong, but just because something is a right doesn't mean you have unequivocal access to it at all times.

As for monitoring known members, this shouldn't be hard but so far the US has failed tremendously as the KKK is very prominent in rural areas in terms of obtaining seats of power in the police department for example.

It could be changed, but I don't see it happening. The optics of changing the first amendment are pretty damned bad. To change the constitution, we have to A: Call a constitutional convention, which hasn't happened since 1789, or B: Two thirds of both houses have to vote for it, and then 38 of the 50 states have to ratify, which has only happened 18 times in US history. That's a massive undertaking so it only ever really happens when something is popular with both political parties. Nobody really gives a shit about the KKK because they've pretty much been left behind. Neo-Nazi groups are more prominent now.

Also, a ban on masks is going to be a hard one to hold up. It's arbitrary and will probably have a hard time holding up in courts. Not to mention, it's not like Antifa groups are exactly worried about following the law - if they show up and start doing shit that is blatantly illegal, like throwing bricks and shit, it's not like they are going to leave the masks behind. All an anti-mask law does is create an excuse for cops to start making mass arrests quicker. In them same sense when a brick is thrown they'll arrest all the protesters in a sweep, if some dude shows up in a mask they'll now start the same round-up process sooner.

1st Amendment frees you from the persecution from government or its affiliates.

Your 1st amendment does not protect you from the consequence of your "speech"

Yes, I believe you should not be arrested for spouting idiocy, however, don't be surprised when someone who doesn't want to listen to your BS hauls off and knocks you out, at his own risk of litigation.

I always back my 1st with my 2nd...RAH?

I actually agree with this more or less. Maybe I'm too much of a redneck, but "talk shit, get hit" seems like a fair rule. After all, we are talking about somebody being punched, not somebody getting lynched, it's not the end of the damned world. If someone spouts off about your girl, everyone in the vicinity will consider punching the dude an acceptable response, even though in the cosmic sense that is a pretty small offense. If someone is sitting there saying your entire race, or a racial group that might involve friends or family, should be wiped out, that doesn't become some sort of sacred speech by honor of having a political bent. Naw, it's plain talking shit, and by the laws of common decency, it can be responded to by a hit. Don't kill the guy, just bruise him up a bit.

And, like you said, the law has to be impartial, so the puncher in either situation risks an assault charge. That's fair too.

I do think violence can have a place in politics. Shit, I think if you are an American and you say violence doesn't have a place in politics, you are a hypocrite. But, I only support violence if I think it is going to have a positive effect (or if it follows the talk shit rule). Berkley was dumb (though Berkley does that shit every couple of years). Smashing up some woman because she voted a different way and then fucking up a few windows is useless violence. Of course, the Boston Tea Party was useless violence... that's the funny thing about history. If tomorrow the left wing went into full revolt and somehow eventually won, Berkley could become something at the same level as the Boston Tea Party. But as of now, it's just dumb violence.

@Vilageidiotx Even neo-nazi groups aren't enough to warrant this all because the same principles I just proposed in the OP also apply to neonazi groups. Repression = faster and heavier radicalization. It's a timebomb.

Ban on masks has already been imposed in Europe. Specifically motorcycle helmets and balaclavas. Wearing them anywhere other than on a motorcycle will get you arrested. Not hard to hold up, and it's not arbitrary since they are 2 well defined clothing articles. So far it has worked. Somewhat.

And since protests typically need permits (here in the Netherlands, unsure about US, can't imagine it's different there though) it'd be pretty easy to just have oversight, and pick out those people wearing clothing that is too concealing. I suppose a warning could be given first, but really, they'd just re-enter the crowd and put it back on.

I remember the G20 in Toronto had heavy problems with this type of shit, where people would conceal themselves, break down Starbucks and other 'capitalist' symbols, and then disperse and undress and rejoin the regular protesters. It was hard to deal with.

@Vilageidiotx Even neo-nazi groups aren't enough to warrant this all because the same principles I just proposed in the OP also apply to neonazi groups. Repression = faster and heavier radicalization. It's a timebomb.

Ban on masks has already been imposed in Europe. Specifically motorcycle helmets and balaclavas. Wearing them anywhere other than on a motorcycle will get you arrested. Not hard to hold up, and it's not arbitrary since they are 2 well defined clothing articles. So far it has worked. Somewhat.

And since protests typically need permits (here in the Netherlands, unsure about US, can't imagine it's different there though) it'd be pretty easy to just have oversight, and pick out those people wearing clothing that is too concealing. I suppose a warning could be given first, but really, they'd just re-enter the crowd and put it back on.

I remember the G20 in Toronto had heavy problems with this type of shit, where people would conceal themselves, break down Starbucks and other 'capitalist' symbols, and then disperse and undress and rejoin the regular protesters. It was hard to deal with.

They do, though protest permits are about as controversial as gun permits. The idea you might have to purchase your rights rankles people.

@Vilageidiotx Doesn't cost shit here except some evidence that, like, there's actually people gonna show up. If it's a small protest (1-10 people?) you don't even need a permit, lol.

@Vilageidiotx Doesn't cost shit here except some evidence that, like, there's actually people gonna show up. If it's a small protest (1-10 people?) you don't even need a permit, lol.

I don't think small groups here usually get permits. It's the big stuff, like that Women's march, that might need permits. I honestly don't know much about it because I don't go to protests so I just hear shit second hand from those who do.

<Snipped quote by cpldingo>

I suppose this means I should start assaulting people I disagree with, because I'm a twat, right?

That said, you are correct somewhat, as it doesn't free you from the consequence of their speech, but lets be fair, what does the KKK care about that? Or Hamas sympathizers? Not a single fuck. So this is a pointless argument I think.

Or Christian conservatives getting assaulted for staging a right to life protest.
Or being assaulted for identifying with a certain ideology, it doesn't just stop with those on the extremes of both aisles.
My main point was, if your going to stage a movement or whatever, and your going to do it in an area where you will meet opposition....maybe back your 1st up with your 2nd.

There will always be "twats" both progressive and not, and all other facets to social stigmas.

This comes down to standing your ground against mob rule.

@cpldingo In my country and, I dare say, most countries, this task falls on the law enforcement agencies. It's their job to protect legal protests.

That said, I am pro-violence, so I don't think you're putting forth a bad proposal here. The thing is that I am against hypocrisy, and 'violent opposition' and 'democracy' sadly do not go hand in hand.

"talk shit, get hit" seems like a fair rule.

By this logic, big, burly men have a much greater right to freedom of speech than women and weaker men.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

By this logic, big, burly men have a much greater right to freedom of speech than women and weaker men.

You're generalizing. The grand majority of things in politics aren't talking shit. Different opinions about economics, warfare, etc, are just that; opinions. But when you say "All the jews must die" or something to that effect, that isn't exactly the same sort of deal. If you say in public that you want my friends, family, or even myself to die? To me it doesn't just become sterile politics because you tie it into a shitty philosophy. If someone says "Your girlfriend should die" right there to your face, most witnesses would accept a punch as a result. So if they say "X group of people that include your girlfriend should die because of Y and Z", yeh, I don't see that as much of a difference. Remember too, we aren't talking about just chance suffering like most other political ideas ideas. Libertarians might say "I don't want taxes to pay for the healthcare of the poor" but this isn't exactly personal. Even if you are a poor person who desperately needs publicly funded healthcare, that libertarian opinion isn't talking shit because any suffering you receive is incidental and not the direct purpose of the libertarian. They didn't take away your healthcare because they wanted you to suffer, they took it away because they disagree with the concept of public funding. Even if a person supports a war, any deaths resultant are incidental because it is the goal of the war and not the deaths themselves that are the direct want of that person. But a Nazi fuck saying they want to kill all the Jews? Yeh, killing Jews is the direct purpose of their philosophy. If the Libertarian's changes resulted in no suffering, he would be happy. If the pro-War guy managed to win his war bloodlessly, he would be tickled shitless. But if the Nazi comes to power and no Jews were hurt or killed by his regime, he would be let down, because he cannot succeed in his mission without a large group of people either suffering violence or death. Hell, even if you are one of those especially dishonest Nazi's who talk about the peaceful creation of ethnostates, there is still mass violence in the forced removal of millions of people.

And like whats-his-face said above, Freedom of Speech is in place to keep the government from deciding what can and cannot be said. It isn't in place to protect shit talkers from being slapped by those they talk shit toward. That silly Nazi fuck who got punched did not have his freedom of speech violated, just his stupid face.

And I'd like to think I'm a fair person. That crazy fucking professor who wanted to wipe out white people? Yeh, they earned a tap on the jaw. It's not a right wing or left wing issue, it's an issue of it being beyond the pale to call for mass murder.

"Talk shit, get hit" is a pretty general statement, and when it comes down to it, what you are saying is that it's okay to hit people if you disagree with them strongly enough. Well, I mean, what you are actually saying is that it's okay to hit people if you, specifically, disagree with them strongly enough.

What was violated was whatever his name is' right not to get beat up in the street. The right to free speech isn't the only right people have, and that you apparently believe that mob rule overrides law is absolutely appalling to me.

Additionally, where I'm from, most people wouldn't approve of you flipping out and starting a fight because somebody insults you.

"Talk shit, get hit" is a pretty general statement, and when it comes down to it, what you are saying is that it's okay to hit people if you disagree with them strongly enough. Well, I mean, what you are actually saying is that it's okay to hit people if you, specifically, disagree with them strongly enough.

What was violated was whatever his name is' right not to get beat up in the street. The right to free speech isn't the only right people have, and that you apparently believe that mob rule overrides law is absolutely appalling to me.

Additionally, where I'm from, most people wouldn't approve of you flipping out and starting a fight because somebody insults you.

You're being hyperbolic and you know it. Calm down. I didn't say the entire crowd should have kicked him senseless (though I do admit I wouldn't defend the guy in the slightest if that happened), I'm just saying a tap on the jaw wasn't the end of the fucking world, and that he earned it by being an evil shit. And also, legal intervention isn't wrong. I would also have no problem if the guy who punched the Nazi was jailed. That's the way the law is supposed to work.

And like I said before, this might be my midwestern hick blood talking. If it's more normal for your people to pout when someone says they want to kill your family, that's cool too.