A chapter of the Ku Klux Klan is suing the state of Georgia because the Department of Transportation denied its Adopt-a-Highway application earlier this summer.
The American Civil Liberties Union will be representing the Klan, arguing that the denial was in violation of the organization's First Amendment rights.
The state of Georgia is requesting that a judge dismiss the suit.
Here at Strong Black Woman we agree on most topics. But the First Amendment is not one of them. And so we'll argue separately this time.
M argues "Don't let the Klan adopt-a-highway":
Imagine the case where tax dollars were
used to promote the KKK, and if the ACLU has its way, then that will be
precisely the case in the state of Georgia.
Thankfully the ACLU’s suit on behalf of
the KKK is time-barred, meaning, they waited too long after the statute of
limitations to file lawsuit. And thankfully, the state of Georgia has sovereign
immunity to protect its legal system from these types of matters. However, for
argument’s sake, the KKK does not have a “right to adopt a highway.”
Allowing the KKK to participate in a
state sanctioned highway cleanup program, and by allowing them to erect a sign
with their name on it on public space, would serve as an endorsement by the
state of Georgia.
Certainly, any group has the right to
gather and assemble, but allowing them to have a permanent sign emblazoned with
the words 'Ku Klux Klan', would be like allowing a permanent burning cross on
that strip of the highway. The KKK, might call themselves a political group or
type of brotherhood, but what they really are is an instrument of
intimidation.
Just as Justice Thomas wrote in his
dissent for Virginia v. Black, the
case that struck down a Virginia statute which criminalized all cross burning,
“one cannot burn down someone’s house to
make a political point and then seek refuge in the First Amendment, those who
hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point.”
J argues "Let the Klan adopt-a-highway":
The ACLU has unquestionably been the
best defender of civil rights in the American courts through out history. It is
among the most ardent defenders of the Constitution which, as we know, protects
all Americans. Executive Director of the ACLU Foundation of Georgia, Debbie
Seagraves, says it best, “There will always be speech and groups conveying
hateful messages that are distasteful to some. That is why the First Amendment
protects free speech for all.”
Tax dollars will not be promoting Klan ideals. The
state of Georgia will be funding cleaning of the highway, not funding klavern
repairs, meeting handbills, holey sheets, or gasoline-soaked burlap.
Cleaning the highway is not a state
endorsement of behavior. Or speech. Georgia officials argued that the
designated section of highway cannot be adopted because “motorists seeing KKK
members picking up trash could be a safety hazard” when the posted speed is 55
mph. In this case, the Klan is not requesting to burn a cross on the side of
the street in full regalia, which would undoubtedly be a distraction. They want
to clean. Georgia is overstating its claim.
As I am never one to agree with Silent Thomas, it is of note that his logic
is flawed here. (And his opinions are poorly written.) To quote a superior
justice, Justice Holmes (in Abrams v. US): “The hallmark of the protection of
free speech is to allow 'free trade in ideas' – even ideas that the
overwhelming majority of people might find distasteful or discomforting.” Justice
Brennan said later in Texas v. Johnson: “If there is a bedrock principle
underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the
expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or
disagreeable.”
The Constitution does not pick and
choose. It protects everyone. No one is able to selectively hide under it.
When we allow the voices of the unpopular to be silenced, we allow an assault on all of our First Amendment rights.
Lynne Silloway, a female employee of the Department of Corrections is suing the state of Vermont. She claims is "alleging that she was being paid $10,000 less than a male co-worker for performing substantially the same work." She says the male employee shared the same title, performed the same duties, and had less seniority. The Human Rights Commission has joined her to sue the Department of Corrections, looking to have an independent organization audit all state employees to ensure the issue of pay inequity is addressed. 
