Ok, so she and others should suck it up and let people walk all over them becuse paticular people think they have more religios rights than others. Pick your battles, costing the city money? What about the people who decided it would be a good idea to try and defend it.

And now, she’s being treated like dirt by some poeple who took offence in her comunity and genraly getting the short end of the stick.

I'm curious... a while back in my town, the city decreed that a certain church wasn't legally permitted to set up their yearly nativity scene in the park, because it was government owned property, and thus couldn't be affiliated with religion in any way. The nativitey scene was set up, maintained, and paid for by the church.

This is also the same park that was allowed to host a KKK rally.

What are you people's opinions on this matter? Because I think it somewhat relates.

Here's the problem with that position of your argument. I'm going to generalize two of your points here:

1. Obviously nobody else was hurt by it since she is the first one to say anything.

2. She 'created the problem' by saying something.

Think that maybe she was the first to say something because others feared the same public reaction that she's now facing? You even describe that as "doing the smart thing." In the 1700s, the "smart thing" to do was to go along with British rule. Deciding not to go along is what led to this nation having the exact freedom that you're decrying.

Isn't the KKK illegal !?

Well, it isn't a religion. If the local white power hate club wants to use state property, the city can't refuse it due to the seperation of church and state. They can and should however refuse it on the KKK being a bunch a hate spreading assholes.

This sort of came up locally with a Ten Commandments display in a city park, originally purchased by the local Eagles Club. The city lost the ruling and the display was to be removed. The city council skirted the issue by selling that chunk of land to the club, but then subsequently bought it back because of the legal costs that were going to be incurred (sound familiar?). We've had a similar fight about a lighted cross and star atop a hill on public land. The village did successfully sell that plot of land to the Lion's Club, who had long maintained the cross and star.

Myself, I don't care about having displays or activities in those areas, so long as the permit process is followed along with the other basic rules for that type of space.

Where it concerns me is in those places where government and the people make decisions affecting the public. So while I don't mind a nativity scene (private funding) on generic city property, I have a huge issue with things like the Ten Commandments on display in places like courthouses and city administration buildings, where local laws are created and enforced, and where the displays are posted in areas such that encountering the display is all but unavoidable.

It sounds a bit odd to me. I don't see how a community would be prohibited from renting out community space (a hall, part of a park, etc.) to a religious fair. There may have been more sides to the issue (arguments about money perhaps). But I'm no expert in US communal law. Wouldn't it at least have been possible to rent the space to a neutral 3rd party which then rents it to the church?

Regarding the KKK rally, I don't think it can be forbidden as long as the association is legal, though there are of course other ways that can (and should) be used to fight against racist agendas.

That's a load of crap in my opinion. But again, with regards to the KKK, I say screw the constitution. I don't care if they fall under the first amendment, they're a bunch of bigots and murderers. This again falls under my rights vs. well being argument. Yes, they may have the right to spew their bullshit everywhere, as does NAMBLA, but should they? No. They should be dealt with.
This has nothing to do with religious rights, or the constitution, or her bravery. It's about intelligence. I think she made a really stupid and unnecessary decision, that's all.

Freedom of expression. As long as they aren't actually doing anything illegal (and racism isn't illegal, just effectively banned :3), there's no grounds for their group to be made illegal. They have as much right to their views and beliefs as anyone else does, regardless of how wacked out those beliefs are.

The line is crossed at the point where it becomes incitement to violence, and the KKK regularly crosses this line. Incitement to violence is not protected by the First Amendment.

What I'm not so clear on is how US law handles provocation. I know that provocation is considered a mitigating circumstance with murder cases, but how it is treated in cases of battery and assault I cannot say. I only know that if a KKK member starts abusing a person of colour, and that person loses his temper and breaks the racist bastard's nose (yay!), it's classed as "provoked battery" and treated less severely. I know civil lawsuits are often thrown out on this basis.

So the moral of the story is: If you want to stretch the First Amendment to its limits, go right ahead, but don't come crying to us if it comes to bite you on the ass.

I know racism is a very sensitive subject in the past few decades in America, and rightly so. I'm not sure how provocation is treated legally, but I'm sure that cases involving racism are treated extra harshly. But again, I think there should be a limit to the first amendment. When someone starts advocating violence like the KKK, or unspeakable acts like NAMBLA, I think the government should intervene. They really should have no right to advocate such things.

Anyway, here's a somewhat similar issue. I don't come down on one side or the other, but it seems like ti blurs the lines between separation of church and state.
http://news.yahoo.com/contraception-mandate-outrages-religious-groups-152617278.html

The issue of racism is a prominent and sensitive one in Germany too. While the stigma of the Second World War is gradually starting to fade away as that generation also becomes to die out, there are a number of issues that continue to raise their ugly heads repeatedly. Obviously, given our history, the German government comes down very hard on anything that could even be construed as being racist and is very keen on mincing words when it comes to criticising other countries' governments, particularly Israel.

Of course, while I'd be glad to see every Nazi bastard six feet under or rotting in a jail cell, some of the measures that the German government takes to prevent racism and a repeat of the Third Reich are themselves borderline political repression.

I'm speaking in a purely legal sense...please don't take this to mean that I'm supporting or advocating the KKK.

But as far as I know (and I'm really not a legal expert), they're protected under freedom of speech up until they actually do something illegal. And to be perfectly honest, I don't think I'd want it any other way. It's too easy to push that sort of thing too far. At first, maybe exceptions are being made for terrorists or hate groups...but once a leading power gets the freedom to adjust its core laws as it wishes, there's no telling what sort of crap might happen. It's a realy shame, but that's part of the price of freedom of speech. You have to take the bathwater with the baby.

I know that's the fear when it comes to changing the first amendment, or any rights for that matter. People say that if a government starts censoring violent talk, they'll just keep going. I've never given much belief to that argument...until this year. The way our congress is, and the bills they've tried to pass (and I'm not talking about Obama's stuff) makes me wonder if there's anyone sane left in our leadership. So I guess it's probably best to take the racists and terrorists and wait until they do something violent than stop them at simple speech.

I would rather have this stuff out there. I mean, we can plug our ears and go "LALALALALALA!" 'til we're blue in the face but it won't do bupkis to change the underlying attitude. So yeah, government repression isn't a very good thing. Repress this stuff long and hard enough and we'll find that so-called hate groups, who mostly just voice an opinion and burn the occasional cross, eventually turn into terror cells.

However, I'm bothered more by the "screw the Constitution for the common good" attitude than I am of some boneheads walking around in sheets and pointy hats. One can do real harm, while the other gives me something to laugh at.

Yeah, what he ^ said.

The constitution is just words on a piece of paper, written by fallible men who had no idea the diversity and intricacies the world would produce. If you'd rather defend that than human lives and health, than whatever. That's why I don't like libertarianism, it puts peoples rights above the people themselves.