The Ku Klux Klan has been on a PR campaign of sorts, lately. Their website claims that they preach a message of love, now, and "NOT hate." I'm not convinced. In 2008, a jury awarded an 18-year-old with $2.5 million after several Klan members had beaten him at a Kentucky fair two years prior. But more insidious than a private organization running a terroristic campaign of violence against individual citizens is the notion that they might hold sway over public safety officials.

It is already legal for a police officer to be fired for membership in the Klan. Though that was fought, the public interest won out: because you have a legal obligation to obey police orders, there is an inherent danger in the risk of police complicity in Klan dealings. This is an important thing to keep in mind.

Here's my question: should States be allowed to require the Klan to produce its membership lists for the purpose of rooting out those Klan-cops?

In 1958, the Supreme Court gave its opinion in NAACP v. Alabama. The NAACP is a public nonprofit incorporated in New York. Alabama statute required that out-of-state corporations register with the State before doing business, and NAACP mistakenly believed that, as a nonprofit, it was exempt. It's generally agreed that Alabama pursued this action in retaliation for the Montgomery Bus Boycott, but the fact remains that Alabama was enforcing a legitimate statute.

In the course of the proceedings, a Court order was issued for the NAACP to produce for the State a wide variety of documents, including bank statements and a complete membership list. NAACP, arguing that the order was violative of its members' associational rights, presented all the documents except the membership list. It was subsequently fined $10,000 (which went up to $100,000 a week later), and then they appealed. The Supreme Court held that the state interest in getting the list did not outweigh the associational right of NAACP members to not have their association in Alabama revealed.

It ultimately was a decision that the private acts that would inevitably result (read: lynchings) were closely enough tied to the State action as to have the First Amendment protect against the Alabama Court's order that the document be revealed.

Is it the same with Klan-Cops? The state interest is not negligible, here. In 2009, the Department of Justice reported that the greatest terroristic threat from within the United States came from right-wing extremists. If their members infiltrate the police force, violent crimes are committed and covered up, as has been seen with the Klan in the South. Is the threat of public reprisal against Klan-members (or Christian Identity adherents, or Neo-Nazis, etc.) on the basis of their membership so great as to outweigh this legitimate State interest?

Short, from-the-hip answer:

Yes, KKK members who are also police officers should be rooted out. Perhaps a compromise would be the best answer. Something to the tune of only providing a list of members who participate in law enforcement.

Interesting precedent with the NAACP, but it is a little different in this case. I'm willing to bet 9/10 people would not be comfortable with a klan cop in their town.

The popularity or unpopularity of a particular group shouldn't be our deciding factor. I'm willing to bet that in the mid-to-late 1950's, 9/10 Alabamans would not be comfortable with the NAACP in their town. :P

The state interest in asking for a list of every member in the organization needs to be far more substantive than "We don't want your kind around here." That's the kind of thing the First Amendment is supposed to protect against, I think. With the Klan, we get an easy answer because membership requires an oath that places loyalty to the Klan above loyalty to the country, and that creates a genuine conflict with their job.

So what about members of the U.S. Armed Forces? They, too, take an oath that their country comes first. So they would, then, either have to voluntarily separate from Klan membership or would be guilty of violating their sworn armed services oath, right?

I would think so. Does Klan membership get you discharged from the military?

I can see why it might not: a guy in military fatigues comes into a bar and orders you outside. Do you? What if the guy's wearing a police uniform? We don't have to obey military orders on American soil. There's a Latin term for it, and I can't recall what it is.

POSSE COMITATUS. Of course I remember right after I post.

I was thinking more about the inherent conflict of taking the oath to serve your country as a member of the military and the Klan oath to serve the Klan before your country, but I'd say that your average citizen would obey an order from an armed member of the military who is dressed in fatigues.

Doubly so if that person is in the National Guard. "All threats foreign and domestic."

IBCoupe wrote:The popularity or unpopularity of a particular group shouldn't be our deciding factor. I'm willing to bet that in the mid-to-late 1950's, 9/10 Alabamans would not be comfortable with the NAACP in their town. :P

The state interest in asking for a list of every member in the organization needs to be far more substantive than "We don't want your kind around here." That's the kind of thing the First Amendment is supposed to protect against, I think. With the Klan, we get an easy answer because membership requires an oath that places loyalty to the Klan above loyalty to the country, and that creates a genuine conflict with their job.

My argument wasn't really "Yes, because people don't want the KKK in their town." My mistake for not taking more time to more clearly write out my thoughts. I agree, that is not even close to enough reason. The organization has a right to exist wherever it pleases (as far as I'm aware).

I meant to infer that because of the authority a police officer holds over the general public, their association with a group like the KKK should not be tolerable, and that in itself gives the state reason enough to demand a list of law enforcement that are involved.

As you said, the KKK is loosely considered a threat to national security. Not only that, they have 150 years of hate crime under their belt. It's not reasonable to allow officers of the law to be involved with organizations as such, unless they are on assignment to do so.

Are we also going to root out any cops who are New Black Panthers? Or any other extremist group? Where does it start, how do you draw the line, what constitutes an extremist group? Gotta make it fair across the board.

You don't have to make it fair across the board. The Department of Justice has a list of domestic terrorists, and the Klan is on it.

IBCoupe wrote:You don't have to make it fair across the board. The Department of Justice has a list of domestic terrorists, and the Klan is on it.

Is Westboro on it by chance?

What about Weather Underground? Oh wait .... nvm

Westboro is a hate group but I don't think they meet the definition of terrorists.

Weather Underground is on the list, which includes:

Animal Liberation Front
Alpha 66 and Omega 7
Army of God
Aryan Nations
Black Liberation Army
The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord
Earth Liberation Front
Jewish Defense League
Ku Klux Klan
May 19th Communist Organization
The Order
Phineas Priesthood
Symbionese Liberation Army
United Freedom Front
Weathermen (aka Weather Underground)

Encryptshun wrote: Phineas Priesthood

And he seemed such a good kid. Never trusted that platypus though.

Oh sorry I have kids dont mind me.

It sounded like you were implying something in your comment about the Weather Underground, but I guess I'm too dumb to figure out what you were trying to say. Care to elaborate?

Nah was just being coy about Obama's involvement with William Ayers. Dont mind me this week, divorce has me loopy, its almost over though!

Lol ^. That's how I took it. And I needed the laugh. Thanks.

Side note: you were/are married?!? Not what I imagined (not sure why - no offense meant by that). Maybe I just figured you were younger? Oh, and all joking aside, sorry to hear about that.

Sorry to hear about your de-nuptualization. I've been there, done that, so I know it can be like pulling a bandaid off your hairy arm very very slowly.

I figured that's where you were going with the quip about the Weather Underground. Maybe I'm just a little over-sensitive about that, as it continues to be thrown out a lot even now. Guilt-by-association arguments appeal to people who don't have a good enough grasp of facts to bring any real arguments to the party. I know you aren't one of those people, but for every one of you there are about ten thousand idiots who believe it and spout it off at every opportunity.

You can commence to congratulate me now. Was a tough road a year ago, but all the hurts gone, just ready to get 'er done and move on. Almost there. Thanks for the concern tho

And ya I've not responded on some posts this week cause im not really in a mind to piece together a good argument, thus im being funny.

Well, then, congratulations!