Prof Wants KKK Banned From University

[Aaron]

CNN

LOUISVILLE, Kentucky (AP) -- University of Louisville professor Ede Warner has a unique plan to keep the Ku Klux Klan off his campus: He wants the school to ban the group, then argue in court that it's a terrorist organization.

"Nobody has ever done that," Warner said.

Klan members started posting fliers on campus early in the spring semester to protest diversity programs sponsored by the school. That stirred debate among faculty and administrators that has taken place on campuses around the country: how far the university can go to keep some groups off campus and how to best deal with unpopular ideas in the academic setting.

What makes the Louisville situation so unusual is the presence of the KKK, said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama, which tracks the Klan and other hate groups.

"I cannot think of another situation when the Klan has appeared on campus," Potok said. "The Klan is quite small, even within the contemporary radical right."

Having the Klan banned as a terrorist organization based on its past would be legally difficult, especially given the Klan's inaction in recent years, and probably unnecessary, said Potok, whose organization has beat the Klan in court over other issues.

"You would run into issues of free speech," he said.

University officials banned two members of the KKK from campus this month, saying they violated university policy about where fliers can be posted.

That could give Warner his fight, if the Klan challenges the school over access to a public university and its students. Jim Kennedy, the self-described point man for the KKK in the Louisville area, said the Klan is preparing to contest the ban in court.

"They don't like us too much over there," Kennedy told The Associated Press. "They're trying to get around that freedom of speech any way they can."

Divergent views
The Klan started appearing on campus in the fall after black activist and rapper Sister Souljah gave a speech that some students said was derogatory to whites and received $11,000 for the talk. Others said the main theme was black empowerment.

Afterward, Kennedy demanded that the Klan be given equal time and compensation or the school end the diversity program, which he considers racist.

If we wanted to learn to hate, we could just learn from the streets and not come to school for it.
-- Maymon "Mona" Nageye, University of Louisville sophomore

The appearance by the KKK prompted protests on and off campus. A state representative has asked the FBI to investigate the Klan.

University spokeswoman Rae Goldsmith said the school is cooperating with the FBI, which was tapped after Klan members accused the university of violating their civil rights. The FBI would not confirm a complaint being filed.

Dave King, one of the banned Klansmen, said he's not a terrorist and that the ban is an attempt by the school to shut down an unpopular point of view.

"They don't like what I'm saying, so they're trying to make it so I can't speak," King said.

Goldsmith said the Klan can still distribute fliers and appear on campus in one of two designated "free speech zones," but to speak at a campus function, it would need sponsorship from a campus organization.

Student sentiment
Around the 21,400 student campus, with 77 percent white students, 12 percent black students and 11 percent other minorities, reaction to the Klan and Warner's proposal is mixed.

"We shouldn't keep them away," said Raul Zamora, a 24-year-old junior. "We should give other ideas besides theirs."

Diversity means two sides, one on one side, one on the other discussing the problem. I just want equal time.
-- Jim Kennedy, self-described KKK pointman

But, Maymon "Mona" Nageye, a 21-year-old sophomore, said the Klan shouldn't be allowed on campus.

"If we wanted to learn to hate, we could just learn from the streets and not come to school for it," Nageye said.

Some schools, such as the University of Texas in Austin, bar all non-campus groups from making presentations on campus unless they are invited and sponsored by a campus organization. At Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, where former Klan grand wizard David Duke makes the occasional on-campus appearance, anyone may speak as long as they do not disrupt classes or university business, said LSU spokeswoman Kristine Calogne.

Raul Sanchez, director of human rights and diversity at the University of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho, countered a presentation by a minister calling slavery Biblically correct with one of his own featuring the history of slavery and its legacy.

"We were interested in offering a healthy dose of an alternative message," Sanchez said.

Kennedy said he just wants to present an alternative to the school-sponsored diversity program.

"Diversity means two sides, one on one side, one on the other discussing the problem," he said. "I just want equal time."

I thought freedom of speech laws didn't apply to those distributing hate speech, and therefore the Klan could be banned from speaking on campus. Or do these laws only apply in Canada?

[SirNitram]

CNNI thought freedom of speech laws didn't apply to those distributing hate speech, and therefore the Klan could be banned from speaking on campus. Or do these laws only apply in Canada?

Pretty much. Americans are granted the right to promote as much hate as they want.

[Gandalf]

I thought the KKK was outlawed?

[Elfdart]

Nope, the KKK is perfectly legal. So are skinheads, Panthers, militia nuts, and other crank organizations. If they break the law, they can be prosecuted.

But there's no law barring "hate speach" (whatever that is). People can be every bit as racist (Rush Windbag), anti-Semitic (The Savage Wiener), homophobic (Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps) or pro-Nazi (Pat Buchanan) as he wants -and in the case of Ann "Thrax" Coulter, all of the above!

Groups like the KKK, Nazi Holocaust deniers and other creeps are always trying to get on campuses in order to get free publicity when students and faculty protest their appearance. It's an old trick, but it still works.

[Durandal]

Ann "Thrax" Coulter

Oh shit I've got to remember that one.

[Frank Hipper]

Unlike the BNP, the Klan is a dying relic. They're reduced to meeting in small scattered groups on private property, and flier distribution is the most vocal thing I've heard from them in years.

Calling them "The" Klan is a bit grandiose for what they've become, as well. They abndoned centralised structure years ago out of self defense. They're just impotent little groups of hate in a far bigger world than their minds can accept.

Why ban them? Welcome them out in the open so they can be easy targets for media coverage. Here's one case where there is no good publicity.

[kojikun]

This guy doesn't need to argue it in court. Schools have the right to ban certain forms of speech that can be construed as a fighting words.

[salm]

screw free hate speech. ban the fuckers. free speech is highly overrated.

[Chardok]

This guy doesn't need to argue it in court. Schools have the right to ban certain forms of speech that can be construed as a fighting words.

I dunno, though, in a public university recieving federal funds, can this be....a grounds for eliminating that funding? based on violating their right to free (albeit moronic and dipshitty and hateful) speech?

[Glocksman]

This guy doesn't need to argue it in court. Schools have the right to ban certain forms of speech that can be construed as a fighting words.

But in this case, the Klan isn't using what is universally understood to be 'fighting words'. The objection is that the Klan is the group speaking.

LOUISVILLE, Kentucky (AP) -- University of Louisville professor Ede Warner has a unique plan to keep the Ku Klux Klan off his campus: He wants the school to ban the group, then argue in court that it's a terrorist organization.

"Nobody has ever done that," Warner said.

There's a reason no one has done that.

Over the years there have been literally hundreds of groups that have called themselves a variation of 'Ku Klux Klan'. 99% of them were/are not affiliated with each other and there is no one 'Klan', not even today.

He's going to have to prove that this particular group has committed terrorist acts. He can't pin on them acts committed in the past by other 'Klans'. And in this day and age, the biggest complaint Klansmen have is that they don't have enough members for a quorum at the meetings without the FBI informers.

In other words, unless there's a lot more to this group than reported, his 'case' is going to be nothing but guilt by association.

[Colonel Olrik]

Just tear the posters apart, and if you see someone posting them again, mock the asshole to oblivion. That's what we did to posters in the campus that offended our intelligence. If people are afraid of doing that because of violent repercussions from other donkey fuckers, then I'd say there is a very valid reason to expel them from campus.

Anyway, like Salm said, here in Europe freedom of expression doesn't mean I'll let you spew hatemongering crap in front of me, and do nothing. And I see nothing wrong with that attitude.

[Elfdart]

The best response is to ignore the assholes altogether unless they are committing an actual crime. Being a racist scumbag isn't a crime or else Jabba the Rush would face a long stay in the jug. These groups are simply trying to get free publicity.

The black community (especially churches) here in Dixie have been on to this act for years. They simply don't take the bait. When all of a dozen or so Klansmen show up, an equal number of counter-demonstrators show up and heckle the living shit out of them. It's an incredibly slow news day when a local reporter even bothers to cover it.

But banning them or beating them up gives them free publicity and sympathy they don't deserve.

[Rogue 9]

Afterward, Kennedy demanded that the Klan be given equal time and compensation or the school end the diversity program, which he considers racist.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Coming from a Klansman, that's priceless!

[Darth Wong]

banning them or beating them up gives them free publicity and sympathy they don't deserve.

Hate groups are banned in Canada (unless their particular form of hatred is religious in nature, as we have unfortunately seen during the gay-marriage debates), but it has not created widespread sympathy of attention for their cause. Far from it; there are far fewer of them operating in Canada than there are in the US.

I don't understand this widespread American belief that it will somehow help hate groups to ban them. What evidence is being used to bolster this logic?

[Rogue 9]

The theory goes that it makes other far-righters more sympathetic. But what we know it does is give their message air time, which makes them think they're succeeding. Ignore them and they'll go away, at least when they're already marginalized as much as the Klan is.

Though I have to admit, I found it fun counterprotesting at the Klan rally in Salem a couple years back. The police kept the two groups apart during the rally only to have a riot almost start when both groups went to the same Hardee's for lunch after the march.

[Glocksman]

screw free hate speech. ban the fuckers. free speech is highly overrated.

*offensive Nazi reference deleted by author*

[Darth Wong]

screw free hate speech. ban the fuckers. free speech is highly overrated.

*offensive Nazi reference deleted by author*

Perhaps instead of using an eye-roll icon, you could explain precisely why it's so bad to ban Nazi propaganda. Believe it or not, citing axiomatic American values as evidence does not fly as logic.

[Glocksman]

Far from it; there are far fewer of them operating in Canada than there are in the US.

I suspect that there would be far less in Canada even without a ban, as Canada lacks most of our history of racial conflict.

Anyway, I suspect the ACLU will be in court for the Klan if that Professor tries to ban them as a terrorist group.

[Glocksman]

screw free hate speech. ban the fuckers. free speech is highly overrated.

*offensive Nazi reference deleted by author*

Perhaps instead of using an eye-roll icon, you could explain precisely why it's so bad to ban Nazi propaganda. Believe it or not, citing axiomatic American values as evidence does not fly as logic.

He didn't state specifically that banning Nazi propaganda was good. What he did state was that free speech is highly overrated.

The problem with that statement is that you cannot have a functioning democracy without the free exchange of ideas. Free speech is the root of a democracy because the people need information on which to base their decisions.

[Currald]

I have to disagree with the "ignore them and they'll go away" crowd. When the Klan marches unapposed, kids who see the march begin to think that the Klan is acceptable. Only by demonstrating that the Klan goes against what the community considers to be acceptable can we keep them from gaining very many new members.

[Dahak]

*offensive Nazi reference deleted by author*

Perhaps instead of using an eye-roll icon, you could explain precisely why it's so bad to ban Nazi propaganda. Believe it or not, citing axiomatic American values as evidence does not fly as logic.

He didn't state specifically that banning Nazi propaganda was good. What he did state was that free speech is highly overrated.

The problem with that statement is that you cannot have a functioning democracy without the free exchange of ideas. Free speech is the root of a democracy because the people need information on which to base their decisions.

We do have a functioning democracy.
But we do not have this absolutly free Free Speech. It has certain limits, which, mostly, go down to either our bad history, or from article 1 of our constitution: Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
This is THE defining principle of the German Basic Law. Everything else is subordinbate to it, even free speech (which is called Freedom of Expression around here...)

[Darth Wong]

He didn't state specifically that banning Nazi propaganda was good. What he did state was that free speech is highly overrated.

The problem with that statement is that you cannot have a functioning democracy without the free exchange of ideas. Free speech is the root of a democracy because the people need information on which to base their decisions.

Correct. However, your counter-argument requires that Nazism be considered a viable option in this democracy, so that people should be allowed to give it public hearing all the time. Why not give it a public hearing once, ie- by democratically deciding to ban it? It's not as if the idea of Nazism is a secret that nobody knows about once the groups advocating it are banned, or that the concept of Nazism is no longer discussed in schools or anywhere else; it's just that groups openly advocating Nazism are not allowed to spread their filth.

Also note that the subject of repealing the ban on hate literature is not banned, so a Nazi sympathizer could always try to make a political movement out of repealing the ban on hate speech, with no success here in Canada. Maybe he would find more sympathetic ears in the US.

[Rogue 9]

I have to disagree with the "ignore them and they'll go away" crowd. When the Klan marches unapposed, kids who see the march begin to think that the Klan is acceptable. Only by demonstrating that the Klan goes against what the community considers to be acceptable can we keep them from gaining very many new members.

I was just stating the theory. You'll note that I do counterdemonstrate and find it to be great fun.

[Elfdart]

The laws in Canada are awfully effective against neo-Nazis. About as well a speech codes have done on campuses down here.

The fact that there are fewer "hate" groups in Canada owes more to the fact that Canada's record of ethnic strife is a joke compared the Uncle Sam's. It's kind of silly to credit Canada's hate-speech laws with stamping out the KKK and similar groups when you never had as many as we do in the first place.

That's why Nazi Holocaust deniers like David Irving and Ernst Zundel are constantly trying to get prosecuted up there: They love it when the authorities try to slap them with fines or deport them. When the government censors or bans "hate", they do four things that actually further the cause of the skinheads:

1) They give them free publicity. Yes, there are people shallow and stupid enough to see a cross-burning on the tube and say "COOL! How can I join?"

2) A large number of people are instantly on the side of those the government is against. If the state brands a group as outlaws because of what they THINK, the group -no matter how vile- will get sympathy. What speech codes have done in schools here in the US is encourage a new generation of YAF creeps to go out of their way to bait blacks, immigrants, homosexuals.

3) Assorted losers and misfits realize that a sure way to get attention (and money) is not just the shock value of being an overt bigot, but the publicity they get from the media and state. Being a hatemonger can pay well since a fool and his money... are welcomed everywhere. At the very least, these shitstains can parley their hatred into a guest shot on Jerry Springer. Last time I checked, Springer's guests got $300 per appearance.

Do you think Pastor Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps wants to WORK for a living? This free publicity puts money in their pockets and helps them attract followers.

4) When the state decides what is acceptable speech, one person's definition of "hate" becomes just as good anyone else's -as long as they can muster enough votes. Today, it's people who bash blacks, immigrants and homosexuals. Tomorrow it could be people who think certain Christians are off the deep end who are brought into court on charges.

What a lot of people don't know about the Red Scare of the late 40s and early 50s, is that the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committe) wasn't started to harass communists, left-wingers or liberals -it was founded to investigate American Nazis ("Silvershirts") and other fascists. CPUSA supported HUAC at first! They only complained that Trotskyists weren't being hounded by the FBI. Don't be so eager to use the power of the state against those who practice bigotry. That stick could easily be picked up by the bigots to club you!

[Darth Wong]

That's why Nazi Holocaust deniers like David Irving and Ernst Zundel are constantly trying to get prosecuted up there: They love it when the authorities try to slap them with fines or deport them.

And interestingly enough, they have never managed to create successful followings.

When the government censors or bans "hate", they do four things that actually further the cause of the skinheads:

1) They give them free publicity. Yes, there are people shallow and stupid enough to see a cross-burning on the tube and say "COOL! How can I join?"

2) A large number of people are instantly on the side of those the government is against. If the state brands a group as outlaws because of what they THINK, the group -no matter how vile- will get sympathy. What speech codes have done in schools here in the US is encourage a new generation of YAF creeps to go out of their way to bait blacks, immigrants, homosexuals.

3) Assorted losers and misfits realize that a sure way to get attention (and money) is not just the shock value of being an overt bigot, but the publicity they get from the media and state. Being a hatemonger can pay well since a fool and his money... are welcomed everywhere. At the very least, these shitstains can parley their hatred into a guest shot on Jerry Springer. Last time I checked, Springer's guests got $300 per appearance.

And last time I checked, Springer was an American show. Please present your evidence (not just speculative predictions) that Canadian hate-crime and hate-speech laws have actually encouraged this behaviour.

Do you think Pastor Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps wants to WORK for a living? This free publicity puts money in their pockets and helps them attract followers.

So let me get this straight: you feel he will be more able to get his message out if he is thrown in jail and his literature is destroyed?

4) When the state decides what is acceptable speech, one person's definition of "hate" becomes just as good anyone else's -as long as they can muster enough votes.

Bullshit. Hate speech is explicitly defined as advocation of violence or discrimnation against an ethnic or religious minority. It's not just "whatever we think is 'hate' today".

Today, it's people who bash blacks, immigrants and homosexuals. Tomorrow it could be people who think certain Christians are off the deep end who are brought into court on charges.

"Slippery slope" fallacy.

What a lot of people don't know about the Red Scare of the late 40s and early 50s, is that the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committe) wasn't started to harass communists, left-wingers or liberals -it was founded to investigate American Nazis ("Silvershirts") and other fascists. CPUSA supported HUAC at first! They only complained that Trotskyists weren't being hounded by the FBI.

Interestingly enough, these agencies were granted the power to do this despite a total absence of hate-speech laws. Kind of blows a hole in your argument, doesn't it? A sufficiently hateful population will make these kinds of things happen, hate-speech laws or no hate-speech laws.

Don't be so eager to use the power of the state against those who practice bigotry. That stick could easily be picked up by the bigots to club you!

Prove it. Show how the existing hate-speech laws could be used to arbitrarily shut down anyone who says anything that annoys anyone.