ACLU may defend FOS of the KKK

Yesterday, we told you about how the state of Georgia was trying to decide whether to accept an "adopt-a-highway" application from a local Ku Klux Klan group or risk facing a lengthy legal battle by denying it. Now It looks like the state's Dept. of Transportation has opted for the latter.

Citing an anonymous state official, CNN reports that the Georgia DOT won't be accepting the KKK's application to adopt a one-mile stretch of road near the North Carolina border.

The Klan chapter, which filed its application in late May, has already said it would pursue legal action if the state denied its request to clean up the roadway in exchange for official recognition. The group previously stated its intention to ask the American Civil Liberties Union to get involved on its behalf.

The ACLU was involved in a similar legal battle between the Klan and Missouri. In that case, a judge ruled in favor of the Klan's application, saying that the state could not deny an application simply because it disagrees with a group's beliefs. The U.S. Supreme Court opted to not review that case.

Even though the Klan was successful in its legal efforts, it apparently was not as successful in actually cleaning up the stretch of I-55 it had adopted, allowing the state to cancel the group's participation in the program.

"I don't see why we can't (adopt the stretch of highway)," a rep for the Klan chapter in Georgia tells CNN. "Would it be any different if it was the Black Panthers or something? Someone always has some kind of race card."

After a local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan was denied its application to be part of Georgia's adopt-a-highway program, the group is turning to an unlikely potential ally — the American Civil Liberties Union. It seems the ACLU is slightly uneasy about helping the KKK, but not because of the group's beliefs. The ACLU isn't sure if the KKK's freedom of speech has been violated or not.

"We are considering next steps and whether or not we will support the group," said Debbie Seagraves, executive director for the ACLU of Georgia, reports CNN. "We know this is unpopular," she added.

If the ACLU decides to help the KKK it will be based on legal precedent. It's happened before in another case in Missouri, where a court ruled that the state had discriminated against the KKK when it tried to participate in a program that was supposed to be open to any group.

"It's clear and understandable that the message of the KKK is offensive and hurtful to many people, but when you cede the power to the state to decide whose speech is objectionable, we give it up," Seagraves said.

Re: that stretch of highway in Missouri, if it's the one that I'm thinking of (I had friends nearby, so I'd driven that stretch once or twice), the klan had it approved and then NEVER took care of it. They just wanted their name on a sign.

If they get approved here, they had better take care of the freakin' highway accordingly.

Even though the Klan was successful in its legal efforts, it apparently was not as successful in actually cleaning up the stretch of I-55 it had adopted, allowing the state to cancel the group's participation in the program.

Re: that stretch of highway in Missouri, if it's the one that I'm thinking of (I had friends nearby, so I'd driven that stretch once or twice), the klan had it approved and then NEVER took care of it. They just wanted their name on a sign.

If they get approved here, they had better take care of the freakin' highway accordingly.

I would think it'd be difficult to get volunteers to clean it if people are throwing empty containers at the KKK member mowing the lawn or picking up trash.

So, what's the solution? Allow them to have the highway sign but not the responsibility of doing the actual work? That doesn't make sense.

FWIW, in that Missouri town, the klan was essentially represented by one crack-pot fundamentalist who drove around in a van covered with hand-painted paraphenalia and slogans (-covered-). He wasn't known for his tidiness, so if he was the one who signed the group up for that stretch of the highway, it wouldn't be surprising that he wouldn't bother actually cleaning it.

Usual ACLU PR....

They occasionally defend some group or individual that is universally abhorrent, to suggest they are blind defenders of all constitutional rights, for everyone.

They aren't.

what are you basing this on?

My opinion? Their own PR, along with my personal observations.

The italicized "everyone" made it sound like they routinely refuse to help a certain group... just wondering who that was

The ACLU typically doesn't represent 2nd amendment issues.

That's because they define "second amendment issues" differently than you do - namely, as a collective right rather than an individual one:

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justic...-amendment

That's because they define "second amendment issues" differently than you do - namely, as a collective right rather than an individual one:

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justic...-amendment