Gretchen Fritchie
Thompson
Mentorship
26 November 2006
Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kansas City (1987)
In Our Defense
Leaders of the Ku Klux Klan organization in Kansas City, Dennis Mahon and J. Allan
Moran, were denied the right to create their own television show on the local public
television channel. This channel was available to everyone on a first-come, first-serve
basis, and was free of any editorial control from the cable company, American
Cablevision. Their television shows would be called “Klansas City Cable” and would
broadcast episodes presented racial intolerant beliefs. Kansas City denied this television
show because of the racial turmoil already going on in their city.
Kansas City was one of the most segregated school districts in the country during this
time, and was made up of 95% African Americans. Despite these obvious local problems,
Moran and Mahon brought this to the Supreme Court on the basis that they had been
denied their right to free speech.
The constitutional question in this case of 1987 is, by denying KKK access to this
public access cable channel, did Kansas City violate the free speech clause of the First
Amendment?
The obvious answer here is yes, and for many reasons. We were introduced to the
“clear and present danger” test in 1969. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), a case that also
involved the KKK, set the precedent that problems involving free speech were only
unconstitutional if they presented a clear and present danger. Each case could only be
considered if a) it is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and b) it is
likely to incite or produce such action. Through using this test, we are not given enough
proof that the KKK public channel directs or produces dangerous action. Even though
there is turmoil in Kansas City, the content in the broadcast does not promote violent
action, it only promotes a belief.
Texas v. Johnson (1989) involved burning the American Flag in public, and the
Supreme Court decided that this action was constitutional because it was purely political.
The exact same principle presents itself in this case. By burning the American Flag, a
person is showing his/her discontentment for the country, and by airing a public
television station, the KKK is simply presenting their discontentment for the present
society. They should not be denied their right to present discontentment.
A common sense factor in this case is that this cable station is public; therefore
everyone has their right to utilize it to promote their beliefs. If Kansas City’s prominent
Christian group decided that they wanted to create their own station to promote their
beliefs, they would have gotten all the means necessary because most people in the city
agree with their beliefs. What about the members of the Kansas City Jewish community?
They wouldn’t agree with the beliefs, but they wouldn’t protest against the channel, they
simply would not watch it. If someone does not believe in the ideals that the KKK is
broadcasting, they can keep away from the channel.
Another idea is counter speech. If Revered Cleary is so intent on quieting the KKK, the
smart alternative would be to simply get revenge. Cleary can create his own station that
goes against Ku Klux Klan beliefs, and the citizens of the city can decide for themselves
which channel they want to watch.