A man who publicly wore a KKK outfit in Philadelphia has found himself on the frontier of free speech, and I suspect the only reason he is alive is because he is not an actual Klansman, but a black man using a hated symbol to demonstrate a point:
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – In 2013, no one expects to see a man dressed in a Ku Klux Clan robe mid-morning in Center City, Philadelphia.
“I think that’s nonsense,” said one woman on the street.
“He needs to be committed to the jail system,” said another onlooker.
The man, who stood on the corner of 13th and Filbert on Tuesday, is not out to lynch or kill black people. In fact, he is black.
Thirty-five-year-old Sixx King says he’s using the offensive symbol to highlight a serious problem: black on black crime.
“We’re bringing awareness to the black hypocrisy, complacency and apathy in the African-American community,” said King.
According to the FBI, in 2011 more than 7,000 black people were killed. King’s sign reads that the KKK killed 3,446 blacks in 86 years, while black on black murders surpass that number every six months.
“All my anger for my ancestors who went through that terror of a Ku Klux Klan hood and what that symbolizes to me, evoked anger,” said Philadelphia Councilman Curtis Jones Jr. “I was angry!”
I’m fascinated. Especially by the comment that the man “needs to be committed to the jail system.” What people forget about free speech is that the more demonized certain words or expressions become, the more likely it is that the vast majority of people will think of them as evil. And when that happens, the natural human reaction is that if something is bad, people ought to be prevented from doing it. By force if necessary.
Factor in Justice Holmes’ oft-cited legal phraseology about shouting fire in a crowded theater, and jail looks more and more like a downright plausible option. Most police would tend to agree, especially those charged with keeping the peace. The law is well settled in these cases, though. If uniformed Nazis have a right to march in Jewish retirement communities, and Westboro Baptist Church members have a right to scream at funerals that the Sandy Hook shootings were God’s punishment, then certainly Sixx King has a right to wear a Klan outfit. So does anyone else, regardless of the disturbance it might create, or how much it might cost to police.
Is it possible — or will it ever be possible — for symbolic speech to cross that line where it could be construed as inherently likely to cause imminent lawless action? I’m thinking that the use of certain words — especially in conjunction with certain symbols — might very well cause imminent lawless action depending on who used them and what the circumstances. The more people are willing to advocate jail for such things, the more likely it becomes that the First Amendment will be eroded.
MORE: An additional observation from Bill Quick:
The “natural human reaction” seems to swing wildly between abject and mindless submission to authority, and wild demands that liberty be suppressed in order to create some spurious sort of security.
It may be that we are mostly dumb animals still, desirous of nothing more than a safe crib in which to chew our cuds. Liberty itself may be an artifact of a rare and temporary sort of mind, a flame that may blaze bright for a moment or two, but is forever doomed to gutter out as that moment passes and the fire sinks beneath the vast gray wave of fear and stupidity that motivates most men most of the time.
And I thought I was being gloomy….
Thanks!
Comments
4 responses to “More inflammatory than the word “FIRE”?”
Actually, the “fire in a crowded theater” example is one I think is mistaken – as I understand it, there is an absolute First Amendment right to falsely shout “Fire!” in any location, anywhere. What doesn’t exist is the right to avoid the logical consequences of doing so.
In short, someone who uses their right to free speech (by shouting “Fire!” in a crowded building when there is no fire) in a manner a reasonable person would expect to cause injury and death (causing a panicked stampeded for the exits) is liable for those injuries and deaths. Whether the liability is criminal or civil is something for the lawyers to argue over.
The gentleman who used the KKK robes to highlight the ongoing carnage of black-on-black violence knew the risks he took. He presumably accepted that he could suffer some unpleasant consequences from his actions. An actual KKK member would be equally free to wander around in the robes – and equally responsible for the consequences.
The problem comes with the policing, because the police consider themselves charged with preserving public order and safety. So they don’t want to stand by and watch the consequences unfold and hence the temptation is always to engage in prior restraint.
[…] Classical Values » More inflammatory than the word “FIRE”? I’m fascinated. Especially by the comment that the man “needs to be committed to the jail system.” What people forget about free speech is that the more demonized certain words or expressions become, the more likely it is that the vast majority of people will think of them as evil. And when that happens, the natural human reaction is that if something is bad, people ought to be prevented from doing it. By force if necessary. […]
Odd. I remember a gentleman who did something similar – back in the 70’s. He was featured on the front page of The Charlotte Observer. Holding a KKK membership card. His picture was included. Made the KKK a laughingstock for quite some time. And rightly so. Let’s just say that neither white nor even mulatto sufficed to describe the color of his skin.
The content of his character was, IMO (and in the minds of many other readers of the newspaper – we were, quite simply, laughing our a–es off), not in contest. He scored a big one for the Reverend MLK Jr.