[Athens]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/01/29...eut/index.html

[demograph68]

The Oregon county put up the two signs at a cost to taxpayers of about $500

That is pathetic.

[chris v]

There was a KKK chapter somewhere in the south that did the adopt-a-highway thing several years back, and there was a similar uproar. If the group isn't illegal, then they get to participate in the program, I suppose. The KKK weren't any good about taking care of their section of road, though, and it was widely noted after just a few months that they had the trashiest section of highway in the state.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by chris v:
There was a KKK chapter somewhere in the south that did the adopt-a-highway thing several years back, and there was a similar uproar. If the group isn't illegal, then they get to participate in the program, I suppose. The KKK weren't any good about taking care of their section of road, though, and it was widely noted after just a few months that they had the trashiest section of highway in the state.

I think they same type of thing is going to happen here as well.

[mitchell_pgh]

It's a free country and people have the right to assemble peacefully. You don't have to agree with what they believe in, but we must protect their rights.

[vmarks]

The other thing the state can do is assign the group a less than well-traveled piece of road. In some states it's adopt-a-road instead of specifically a highway- and dead-end roads work nicely for groups that the state would prefer to not call attention to.

There was a similar episode with a women's underclothing shop adopting a road- the state wasn't enthused about having signs proclaiming the road was adopted by "The Bra Patch".

Assigning a less traveled road isn't censorship, it fulfills the requirement of treating groups equally (outside of random assignment of road) in that they all get some road that needs cleanup, and it doesn't highlight groups that would otherwise be embarrassing for one reason or another.

Sometimes in the name of equality and freedom we end up having to do things we don't like, such as paying for signs with the name of a group we deplore on them. But if we're willing to buy signs for other groups, we must pay for the groups we deplore as well- if we can arbitrarily decide which groups to pay for and which to decline to pay for, then the rule of law becomes a mockery.

After all, if you rule out one group, what's to say someone else won't rule out your favored group at a later date?

[icydanger]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The other thing the state can do is assign the group a less than well-traveled piece of road. In some states it's adopt-a-road instead of specifically a highway- and dead-end roads work nicely for groups that the state would prefer to not call attention to.

There was a similar episode with a women's underclothing shop adopting a road- the state wasn't enthused about having signs proclaiming the road was adopted by "The Bra Patch".

Assigning a less traveled road isn't censorship, it fulfills the requirement of treating groups equally (outside of random assignment of road) in that they all get some road that needs cleanup, and it doesn't highlight groups that would otherwise be embarrassing for one reason or another.

Sometimes in the name of equality and freedom we end up having to do things we don't like, such as paying for signs with the name of a group we deplore on them. But if we're willing to buy signs for other groups, we must pay for the groups we deplore as well- if we can arbitrarily decide which groups to pay for and which to decline to pay for, then the rule of law becomes a mockery.

After all, if you rule out one group, what's to say someone else won't rule out your favored group at a later date?

akhhh i see... ruling out the nazis is *arbitrarily deciding which groups to pay for

[vmarks]

If you can arbitrarily rule out Nazis, what prevents the NAACP from being ruled out next?

I'd rather not take the chance that a good group be arbitrarily ruled out in the future because of actions made against an evil group today.

I bristle at having to pay for their signs just like you do: To be equal, we shouldn't pay for any group's signs- if they want the signs thanking them for volunteering, maybe every group should have to pay for their own sign if they want it posted?

[Millennium]

The best thing about freedom of speech -that anyone can speak their minds- is also the worst thing about it. The KKK may be fiends, but kudos to the Adopt-A-Highway program for realizing that even they are deserving of protection.

I have seen entire Adopt-A-Highway programs shut down, rather than allow the KKK to put up a sign. This is a shame, but it's another valid way of doing this. What isn't valid is to punish a group for what it believes.

Unfortunately, there are groups out there who believe that an arbitrary concept of "dignity" is more important than the freedom to make it meaningful. The KKK are one such group, but so are those who would criminalize them; the only difference is the definition of dignity being used: one uses race and one uses inoffensiveness.