link





By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Missouri lost a Supreme Court appeal Monday over its decision to bar a Ku Klux Klan group from a highway litter cleanup program.

Photo
Reuters Photo



The court's rejection, made without comment, means that the KKK chapter must be allowed into Missouri's Adopt-A-Highway program, which is designed to save money by using volunteers for garbage pickup. Volunteer groups are publicly thanked with signs along the highway acknowledging their help.

Every state but Vermont has such a program. States supporting Missouri in the appeal argued that the Supreme Court needed to intervene so that states unwilling to partner with the KKK would not decide to abolish their programs.

The dispute involves a half-mile stretch of Missouri 21 near Potosi, a town of fewer than 3,000 in the eastern part of the state.

A KKK chapter sought permission to pick up trash along the road, but was turned down because the program is not open to groups that discriminate based on race or those that courts have said have a history of violence.

Missouri lawyers had argued that a sign marking the KKK stretch of road could lead to more dumping, and could endanger highway workers mistaken for Klan members.

The Klan sued and won on grounds that it had a First Amendment free speech right to participate.

In its appeal, Missouri attorney Erwin O. Switzer III said state leaders are "trying to avoid giving motorists the mistaken impression that the state has anything good to say about a horrific, racist group."

He argued that the case was about government speech, not speech of the group.

Robert Herman of St. Louis, the attorney for the KKK, said that the group wants to do its part in community service and to express "solidarity with the community."

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) had ruled that Missouri's "desire to exclude controversial organizations in order to prevent 'road rage' or public backlash on the highways against the adopters' unpopular beliefs is simply not a legitimate governmental interest that would support the enactment of speech-abridging regulations."

Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz, who filed a brief on behalf of 10 states that backed Missouri, said that states unwilling to partner with the KKK may "forgo the economic benefits of having volunteers pick up tons of roadside trash each year." The 10 states are Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Vermont.

The case is Rahn v. Robb, 04-629.

He he


Last time the put up those signs, they were cut down immediately.

Eckankar sponsors a highway near me.

I'm no fan of the Klan by any measure, but the fact remains that they have the same rights as any other political group. Telling them they can't sponsor a road because some might be offended is rediculous.

bout time

Quoted: He he Last time the put up those signs, they were cut down immediately.

Go cut down some a group like NAACP sponsors I expect you will be hunted for a hate crime.

I bet they dont last a single night.

So they pick up trash.  What's the harm?

LOL!

Quoted: So they pick up trash.  What's the harm?

Yeah - this is really because they want to help society  

Quoted: Quoted: He he Last time the put up those signs, they were cut down immediately. Go cut down some a group like NAACP sponsors I expect you will be hunted for a hate crime.

Yep. Absolutely.

That was a good argument by the state that they fear highway workers might be mistaken for KKK members and harmed.
I can pretty much accept their not wanting the KKK on that basis.
Can't the ability to cause harm trump freedom of speach?
It does in the "Fire!" in a crowded environment case.

Quoted: I'm no fan of the Klan by any measure, but the fact remains that they have the same rights as any other political group. Telling them they can't sponsor a road because some might be offended is rediculous.

+1


Truth as I see it, we ought to have a few MORE distasteful things out there.


Better tastelessness than political correctness.


Tasteless I can live with.

They have as much of a right to do this as any group--the price of freedom is that your enemies have it also.

Its the new Friendlier kkk.

This might actually encourage litter.

Quoted: This might actually encourage litter.

I NEVER condone littering, I hate it...really pisses me off but I can see this being the worst piece of hiway in the state after a very short time from folks that would not normally do it.

Quoted: Its the new Friendlier kkk.

Yeah.

They're changing the color of their sheets to a pretty pastel Martha Sewart pattern to show that they're a kinder and gentler hate organization.

Quoted: I'm no fan of the Klan by any measure, but the fact remains that they have the same rights as any other political group. Telling them they can't sponsor a road because some might be offended is rediculous.

couldnt be said better.

+1

Quoted: Quoted: So they pick up trash.  What's the harm? Yeah - this is really because they want to help society

Who care why they do it?  They have the right.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So they pick up trash.  What's the harm? Yeah - this is really because they want to help society   Who care why they do it?  They have the right.

I'm not disputing they have the "right" I'm just not happy about it.


By the same token, I suppose you'd have to support the right of NAMBLA to sponsor a stretch of road that just happens to run in front of an elementary school, right?   But I sure wouldn't be happy about it.

Quoted: That was a good argument by the state that they fear highway workers might be mistaken for KKK members and harmed. I can pretty much accept their not wanting the KKK on that basis. Can't the ability to cause harm trump freedom of speach? It does in the "Fire!" in a crowded environment case.

If harm comes to be, who is actually the criminals?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So they pick up trash.  What's the harm? Yeah - this is really because they want to help society   Who care why they do it?  They have the right. I'm not disputing they have the "right" I'm just not happy about it. By the same token, I suppose you'd have to support the right of NAMBLA to sponsor a stretch of road that just happens to run in front of an elementary school, right?   But I sure wouldn't be happy about it.

I would love that.  I call those pieces of trash target practice.

Quoted: Rights are a helluva thing.  I hate the Klan, but I hate the (much more fascist) Liberals more.  I'll call this one a draw.  hehe

When you said that, I started hearing Clint Eastwood as William Muny in "Unforgiven."
"Rights are a helluva thing.  You not only give them to the good people, but to the ones you wanna kill also."

Quoted: Quoted: This might actually encourage litter. I NEVER condone littering, I hate it...really pisses me off but I can see this being the worst piece of hiway in the state after a very short time from folks that would not normally do it.

Agreed.

But I'll also say that the litterbugs would be considered ignorant dildos by me.

So, the Klan is getting back to it's roots?  Are these NeoKlansmen?

-HS

Quoted: So they pick up trash.  What's the harm?

The real question is if they'll mistakenly pick up other members.

Also, will they be picking up trash wearing their hoods? Or are the hoods reserved for events with police protection?

A KKK chapter sought permission to pick up trash along the road, but was turned down because the program is not open to groups that discriminate based on race or those that courts have said have a history of violence.

So Missouri would turn down the Nation of Islam, etc also?  Doubt it.  

It will be interesting to see how much more litter that stretch of road will attract now, and whether they will actually maintain it.  I suspect it is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

Good works?

Huh, next thing ya know, they'll be as well-respected as freemasons.


<---has no use for the KKK.

Quoted: Its the new Friendlier kkk.

Quoted: I'm no fan of the Klan by any measure, but the fact remains that they have the same rights as any other political group. Telling them they can't sponsor a road because some might be offended is rediculous.

You think to clearly for members to appricate it. +1