KKK Denied by DOT to Adopt Highway: Agree?

Fef 2012/06/12 22:05:35
Add Photos & Videos
Georgia has rejected an application from the Ku Klux Klan to adopt a one-mile stretch of highway in North Georgia, setting up a likely legal battle over whether the white supremacist group can receive state recognition to clean up litter.

setting legal battle white supremacist group receive recognition clean litter

Read More: http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • ★misfit★ Resp 2012/06/15 03:29:53
    How is adopting a highway free speech?
  • Resp ★misfit★ 2012/06/15 04:01:25
    Isn't that why you object to them being able to Adopt-A-Highway?
  • ★misfit★ Resp 2012/06/15 04:07:02
    Nope. They can say whatever they want, I just don't think we need to dignify it by recognizing them as a legitimate organization.
  • Resp ★misfit★ 2012/06/15 04:09:05
    We?? You can't speak for the public.
  • ★misfit★ Resp 2012/06/15 04:15:05
    I can't speak for the public, but I can speak for my own opinion, which is what this question is asking for. Or perhaps I should rephrase that as: "I just don't think THE STATE OF GEORGIA IS OBLIGATED to dignify it by recognizing them as a legitimate organization."
  • Resp ★misfit★ 2012/06/15 13:10:39
    The state is not obligated to dignify ANYONE as a legitimate organization. But they are obligated to treat everyone the same.

    We don't have a right to not be offended.
  • ★misfit★ Resp 2012/06/15 14:21:12
    Are they really obligated to treat everyone the same? What about if a pedophile club wanted to adopt a highway? I'm genuinely curious what the law says about this.
  • Resp ★misfit★ 2012/06/16 03:14:54
    A "Pedophile" club?
  • ★misfit★ Resp 2012/06/16 22:32:33 (edited)
    Yes. I'm just making an analogy. How would you feel if a group whose focus was molesting children wanted to adopt a highway?
  • Resp ★misfit★ 2012/06/17 20:43:15
    I may disagree with it but they would be allowed. I'm sorry.


    Case closed.
  • ★misfit★ Resp 2012/06/17 21:33:40
    Okay. I just wanted to make sure your reasoning was consistent.
  • kcoat 2012/06/13 03:19:51
  • Resp kcoat 2012/06/15 03:10:34
    You don't have to look at or agree with everything that is "publicized."
  • 3052457 2012/06/13 02:27:48
  • Your Favorite Nerd 2012/06/13 02:23:44
    Your Favorite Nerd
    They can if they wanna. I don't see anything wrong...
  • DM Twin 2012/06/13 02:19:32
    DM Twin
    What they stand for is egregious....
  • The Gov... DM Twin 2012/06/13 03:57:39
  • DM Twin The Gov... 2012/06/13 05:26:57
    DM Twin
    Nothing.. I'm thinking about driving down the road and seeing a sign " This section of freeway adopted by the Ku Klux Klan ".....

    That is Offensive .
  • Resp DM Twin 2012/06/13 05:59:22
    Being offensive is not a legal test. To some people the sky is offensive. The term is meaningless and not statutory.
  • DM Twin Resp 2012/06/13 07:20:35
    DM Twin
  • Sparky DM Twin 2012/06/13 13:39:14
  • Resp DM Twin 2012/06/13 15:09:14
    And I suggest you drive on a different road. See how that works?
  • The Gov... DM Twin 2012/06/13 13:20:48
  • Sparky DM Twin 2012/06/13 13:38:40
  • Dynasty Fighter 2012/06/13 02:06:55 (edited)
    Dynasty Fighter
    racists group of people
  • Resp Dynasty... 2012/06/13 06:00:14
    What if the New Black Panthers wanted to Adopt A Highway? Would they be as racist?
  • Lester 2012/06/13 01:52:35
    There is no constitutional right to adopt a highway. Given the KKK's beliefs, the DOT decision is perfectly reasonable.
  • Resp Lester 2012/06/13 06:02:08 (edited)
    The DOT decision is reasonable but discriminatory.

    The entire program is not constitutional. But discrimination is unconstitutional. And you cannot exclude the KKK because one disagrees with their politics or their ideas. If others can adopt a highway than the KKK should be able to also.
  • Lester Resp 2012/06/13 16:45:50 (edited)
    Yes, it is discriminatory, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. All sorts of discrimination is constitutional: 10 yr olds can't join the military, I'm not old enough to get social security, foreign nationals can't vote, etc. I don't understand what section of the constitution makes it a right to adopt a highway.

    Just to make what I'm saying somewhat clearer, I offer an analogy: the constitution does not grant everyone the right to be on broadcast TV. The FCC has guidelines, and if you aren't within the guidelines, you're excluded. That is the case even though many people consider some of the rules (such as prohibitions on certain obscene words) pretty ridiculous. The Klan certainly has the right to express their views (which they do), but there is no obligation that the government must facilitate spreading their views by allowing them to participate in government programs (such as adopt a highway.)
  • Resp Lester 2012/06/15 03:16:50 (edited)
    Privileges, entitlements, and discrimination are not the same concept. A 10-yr-old CAN join the military when he is old enough.

    Anyone can apply to broadcast on TV. But you cannot be denied if you meet the requirements.

    Also, there are members of many groups who pay taxes to fund government programs. However you cannot arbitrarily exclude a group because you don't like them especially if that group pays the taxes to finance the program.

    The KKK has a right but you have a right to ignore them.
  • Sparky Lester 2012/06/13 13:40:00
  • Resp Sparky 2012/06/13 15:13:06
    The Black Panthers should be allowed to adopt a highway also! Sure! Then the two highway sections can have a race war. Hey, the highway is black and the lines are white or yellow!
  • Lester Sparky 2012/06/13 16:45:39
    I'm not an expert on the Black Panthers, but if they advocate violence or discrimination, then yes I would say the same thing.
  • Resp Lester 2012/06/15 03:29:24
    Lester, in times of war, most governments advocate violence.
  • Lester Resp 2012/06/15 16:08:16
    True, but I was responding to a different point: Do I believe different groups (KKK and Black Panthers) should be treated the same way for the same behavior? I do.

    The issue of speech regarding war is a complex. If you support violence against a foreign government during wartime: that's legal. If you support violence against the US government at any time: that's illegal by the Smith Act.The rule seems to be that American society as a whole can declare certain types of violence legal through the normal congressional legislative process. Individuals or groups (such as KKK or Black Panthers) don't have that authority.
  • Sodaz56 2012/06/13 01:13:32
    I don't care about what they do as long as they aren't doing anything rasict.
  • Resp Sodaz56 2012/06/13 15:13:44 (edited)
    What if they only pick up the Black garbage? Or use black garbage bags instead of white garbage bags?
  • Resp Sodaz56 2012/06/15 03:17:59
    That's right! Don't do anything "rasict", Don't be racist either!
  • TruBluTopaz 2012/06/13 00:49:20
    I don't think any racist organization should be allowed to clean up their image by doing this kind of thing. And that includes the KKK, the New Black Panthers, Nation of Islam. Aryan Nation, La Raza Unida, LULAC and any other such organization that bears a reference to race in their name.
  • JohnT TruBluT... 2012/06/13 04:06:28 (edited)
    Bravo you are one Texan I think that walks tall.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.


2016/02/06 00:29:47

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals