Do Terrorist Cells/Hate Groups Have Rights?

[Jubby]

I bring this up in light of an article I read regarding the International Keystone Knights requesting to Adopt-A-Highway. There is opposition to this since the IKK are a part of the Ku Klux Klan.

Should former/current hate groups, KKK or neo-nazis to name two, be prevented from doing seemingly harmless things such as this example of community service?

A few links for those who may not be familiar:
The current article mentioned above
Wikipedia Ku Klux Klan overview
Wikipedia Adopt a Highway overview

I personally think it is counter to the continually accepting culture of acceptance and this example is ridiclous.

What do you think and how little/far would you go to leave/restrict the groups? Do they have/deserve equal rights?

 

[Pupik]

If they want to put their money into inadvertently helping prisoners put their idle hands and minds towards a path of better behavior and trust, so as to get out of the prison system, then I'm all for it. They get cleaner roadsides in return.

The drawbacks? People would think that everyone within a community is in support a said sponsor's few miles of right-of-way, which would lead to more protest and complaint. Citizens around the area usually don't get much say in the matter, because usually there's no conflict with a memorial, civic group, or company doing something that's usually a big win-win for all. The potential for more defaced/missing signage is another cost or burden to taxpayers/sponsors (depending on how the contract is written, naturally.

At what point one considers a racist bunch of misguided hillbillies a "terrorist group" is totally up for debate; something tells me a terrorist group isn't going to suddenly think that less beer bottles, tire carcasses, and trucker bombs are going to advance their agenda and put a happier face on their plight because their name's on a road sign.

 

[Carbonox]

I wouldn't call that a terrorist group if they actually want to help the community with no hidden evil thoughts. However, in politics, I believe that any extremist or, even better said, violent group shouldn't have any rights whatsoever because, like I said in my freedom of speech thread, they would take those rights away from other people if they got power.

 

[ShobThaBob]

There is only one morality and logic dictates that anybody who thinks differently is wrong. I define morality as the protection of life, liberty and property. Danoff will probably have his own definition but the point is the same - anything which illegitimately violates any person's natural rights is immoral. Moral actions aren't necessarily kind or polite either, but they are fair and not contradictory.

The problem with 'natural' rights is that everyone (even philosophers) have their own definition of what exactly that entails. To suggest that there is only one morality is pretty absurd and ignorant of other cultures mindset and values. Even the way you worded it says it all "I define morality." Other people define morality as other things, and their cultures/laws show that. I also firmly believe that while life is one of the most important things to uphold in a society, naturally, it is as far from a right as we could possibly get. Nature is unforgiving and doesn't care about much anything at all.

 

[Danoff]

Look here for the human rights thread:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77925

Just because a lion doesn't acknowledge your rights doesn't mean you don't have them - it means the lion is an animal with no rights.

 

[ShobThaBob]

My belief is that rights do not exist in nature and are a construction of society and what that society values. Since they're granted by society, of course society can take them away.

 

[Danoff]

My belief is that rights do not exist in nature and are a construction of society and what that society values. Since they're granted by society, of course society can take them away.

Simpler to just say you don't believe in rights.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Simpler to just say you don't believe in rights.

Well, I don't exactly have to believe in legal rights. Their existence is made known to us every day. The law upholds and (attempts) to protect them.