WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court let stand on Monday a ruling that the Ku Klux Klan white supremacist group can take part in Missouri's "Adopt-A-Highway" program in which volunteers pick up trash along the road and the state puts up a sign thanking the group.

Without comment, the high court rejected Missouri's appeal of a U.S. appeals court ruling that declared the state had violated the Klan's constitutional free-speech rights by rejecting its request to adopt a portion of a highway.

Missouri cited the Klan's history of violence and said the group's application showed it "denies membership on the basis of race, color or national origin."

The original Klan was founded after the Civil War in 1865 by former Confederate soldiers to oppose federal reconstruction efforts. Later versions of the Klan violently opposed the civil-rights movement of the 1960s.

In Mississippi last week, suspected local Klan leader Edgar Ray Killen was charged with the 1964 murders of three civil-rights workers, one of the most notorious civil rights-era crimes in the United States. He pleaded not guilty.

Under the highway cleanup program, volunteers agree to collect litter at least twice every six months and put it in bags that state employees pick up. The state puts up signs acknowledging the help at both ends of the section of the highway the group has adopted.

Missouri appealed to the Supreme Court. It said it wanted "to avoid giving motorists the mistaken impression that the state has anything good to say about a horrific, racist group."

State officials warned of problems if the Klan succeeds in forcing the state to allow them into the program.

"Given the KKK's reputation as a hate group, it is reasonable to anticipate that taunts, jeers, insults or objects would be hurled at KKK members picking up trash near the road," they said.

The officials said some people might intentionally dump trash along the road to create more work for Klan members. "The Klan's involvement could lead to more trash along the highway, completely defeating the purpose of the program."

Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Vermont all supported the appeal.

The high court's rejection of Missouri's appeal marked the second time it had considered the issue. It denied a similar appeal by the state in 2001.
********

Thoughts?

1. What were the legal issues before the court? Ie. What were the grounds for appeal.

2. What was the relevant law? Sections of legislation, precedents etc.

The article is short on details how the case was decided. It gives a nice background on the moral and social context, but little about the legal backround (which is ultimately how the cases are, and should be, decided). All it says is that the KKK felt their 1st Amendment rights were being impeded.

In other words... I'd like to see the Opinion of the Court before having any thoughts on the matter.

Well, if Fraternities, who reject girls, and Sororities, who reject boys, can adopt a highway, then racial groups are given leeway. I don't condone the KKK adopting a highway, I don't condone their existence, but I accept it as a reality of free speech.

To cliche:

It's the speech you hate the 1st amendment protects, not the speech you love.

My problem lies in the idea that a religious group, racist group, or even a sexually insidious group, like NAMBLA, can adopt a highway, but god forbid we stick the Ten Commandments in a Court house or allow a nativity scene on someone's lawn.

It should be all or none.

I think it is all or none for the most part. This is a situation where if the government disallows the KKK they are advocating someone else's speech by giving them a forum yet denying it to the KKK. The same is true if the Ten Commandments are posted in public schools. If that is allowed then Christianity is being endorsed by the government. In this case the free speech issue is exclusion, at least to me. In the Commandments issue, the freedom of religion issue is one of inclusion.

Why is the state pimping out its highways to begin with?

This isn't a freedom of speech issue. Let's not be retarded. The state shouldn't be doing any business with the KKK. But since this is John Ashcroft's state, I'm not surprised.

Not to get off on a tangent, but there is no such thing as "freedom of religion". Church and State is an issue of the State establishing or controlling a religion. I've never, once, read anything about freedom of religion.

As far as the all or none comment concerning inclusion of the KKK, they are, in most cases, a protestant religious group. The Klan itself has a religious core "value"... couldn't that be exploited by the courts as a reason not to allow it? Because highways are state run/funded facilities, and in most cases, are subsidized by federal funding, wouldn't that create a conflict of interests vis-a-vis the establishment clause, as it is applied to the ten commandments in a court house?

I just read that and realized I either need to go back to sleep, or get more coffee. Ignore me.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

ok fine, the free exercise of religion.

This would be discriminating against the speech of the KKK by not including them but including say, GLAD or the Jackson Chapter of the Freemasons, or the First Baptist Church of Biloxi. Having these organizations keep a highway clean is not endorsing their speech. Denying them based on their speech is excluding. Putting up the Ten Commandments is endorsing them. Does endorsing equal establishment? I say yes. It at least establishes a theological view that exludes those who don't believe in a religion at all or even those who have a religion, just not one that accepts the Ten Commandments.

I don't understand why adopting a highway equals speech.



Hey look, you agree with me!

It doesn't. But denying them the ability to based on speech brings the First Amendment into it.

This is an excellent legal analysis, Davo. Way to see the common thread.

I agree fully with the court's decision. If people are unhappy about seeing the name of the Ku Klux Klan on a signpost on a state highway, then perhaps they ought to deal with the fact that the Ku Klux Klan continues to exist in their community in this day and age, and not focus on the fact that are making a charitable donation that is recognized on that signpost.

--PunkDavid

Black people and others who dislike what the KKK stands for ought to make sure that's the dirtiest highway in the nation.

Ha, that's awesome. I'd be littering that stretch of highway like nobody's business if I was unfortunate enough to live in Missouri.

I don't like the KKK, but as long as they're not breaking any laws, they have a right to pick up other people's garbage if they want to.

That was actually one of Missouri's arguments against allowing the Klan to have the sign, etc.

Wow. I'm no fan of the Klan, but on what grounds should they be denied the ability to adopt a chunk of highway? And littering because they paid money to the state? Nice.

How many people here would be against the Rainbow Coalition sponsoring a section of the highway? How about the NAACP? The people in the Klan think they're doing the right thing. I don't agree, but if they want to put up some cash, fine.

good points. if i was a highway patrol officer, i'd park my ass behind a sign on that stretch of highway and ticket every litterer that drove by. make even more money for the state.

if you disagree with an action/decision, don't break another law and make your own area look like a dump. organize yourselves to lawfully rid yourself of the klan (if possible) or start a group opposing the klan and adopt the next available stretch of highway.

would you rather the klan members quit cleaning up the highway and spend more time doing whatever they do when they get together otherwise?

The KKK on several instances has been referred to as a "terrorist group". So, um, I suppose Al Qaeda could adopt a highway?

I mean if you're going to have the streets run red with the blood of the infidel, you should at least clean it up.

I posted this in one of the terror threads, but i didn't want to derail it.

If the US is in a war on terror, why aren't white supermist groups and the KKK being arrested and charged as terrorists? Why are they even allowed to march on main streets in the first place and allowed to meet as they please?

Cuz' they hate Arabs.

The stretch of highway that this is all about is only about 30 miles from my house. There's another stretch just across the state line in AR. I've taken people down there to see the sign that didn't believe me. Just one of the many reasons I'm leaving this state soon...only to return on holidays..unless I can talk my family into leaving. A bit of advise to you all.............don't ever come here.