Censorship and Federalism

The US Supreme Court has served as the referee of the American constitutional rights arena since 1778. Today, the Supreme Court continues to review decisions and decide whether or not America is upholding its constitutional promises. This display of checks and balances is what makes federalism truly unique. The fact that a state can make a decision, a person can disagree, and the supreme court makes a final verdict, is the definition of federalism. In the article presented, the KKK would like to adopt a highway; awe, how cute of you Ku Klux Klan! The Klan, however, had some obvious struggles. The state of Missouri was sued by Michael Cuffley, a Klansman, for denying their "Adopt a Highway" application. Missouri released a statement stating that the reasons for the decline included the fact that the Klan does not adhere to state nondiscrimination laws, the violent history of the Klan make them not the most lovable candidates, and that Missouri law does not allow discriminatory acts on state owned property. The Klan quickly sued on the premise that their freedom of speech was being denied and hence, their message was being censored. The Supreme Court found the verdict in favor of the Klan. The Supreme Court had flipped the script on Missouri, which had originally argued that they do not associate with groups that discriminate. The Court, however, accused Missouri of discriminating against the Klan because of their social and political beliefs, which is violating the first amendment.

Cuffley vs. Mickes (Missouri) is monumental in the battle for censorship. Although not the most favorable of groups, the Court was in favor of the Klan because nobody's beliefs, no matter how heinous, can be censored. If we as American's began to censor everything that we thought was bad, then who is to judge what is good and what isn't? That would be a ridiculous task because everyone has different opinions and doing so would be against every mindset that the founding fathers had when making the Bill of Rights. The anti-federalists fought to have a Bill of Rights because they were scared that the big bad government would suppress them just as the King of England had tried to do. The radical Klan members, although preaching moral daggers, have the right to speak their minds and let their ideas be heard. Imagine if the world flipped upside down, and the Ku Klux Klan was in charge of America, how important would it be for "radical" voices to be heard then? It is unfathomable how important freedom of speech truly is.

Austin Cline, the author of the article, sums it up perfectly when he writes that "the Ku Klux Klan is not the most sympathetic of defendants, but that lack of sympathy is precisely what makes them an important test case: if our free speech protections mean anything, they have to extend even to groups whose views are abhorrent. Once such protections are clearly extended to them, however, everyone less extreme is automatically covered." Interesting, however, how federalism plays into such a decision. One would imagine that it is extremely easy censor the KKK without any sort of backlash, but in a federalist government it is easy for the Klan members to see something as unconstitutional and appeal to the Supreme Court. Only in a federalist system can the state governments make a decision, only to have it revoked by the courts. This federalist system is what truly makes America great, however. If it was not in place, then interest groups or anyone could be censored without any sort of way of truly fighting back.