[darawk]

My point is that they are both engaged in protected activities of free association and speech. If the standard is that the government should not surveil people engaged in those activities, then the KKK would have to be exempted too.

Or, alternatively, you could formulate a more nuanced criteria for when the government should or should not surveil people.

[aspenmayer]

The actions of the KKK are not legal if they prevent free exercise of civil rights.[1] The Supreme Court has weighed in on this issue and found the actions of the KKK to be in violation of the law if they impede protected activity, such as protesting or voter registration.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Enforcement_Act

Edit: It should be noted that this statue only applies to actions of representatives of the government[2]. It does not necessarily apply to the general public; the context of this comment chain is vague but implies a context that at least could include the public. I don’t mean to misrepresent the law. I am not a lawyer.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor

[darawk]

That's true, interesting and important. But I don't think it addresses the intent of my point, which was that there are plenty of odious organizations that are abiding by the letter of the law in public, but may well have members or private discussions that are likely to tend into serious criminality or terrorism. The KKK is one example, as are right-wing militias, etc. I think it's important that the government be able to conduct some basic level of surveillance on their activities, even without any direct evidence of a crime, or intent to commit a crime.

[pstuart]

The KKK was designed to be a terrorist organization.

[darawk]

I'm not saying that the KKK is not a terrorist organization. I'm just saying that they are not legally classified as one, because of the first amendment. The courts consider it unconstitutional to label any domestic organization as a 'terrorist organization', in the legal sense.

[aspenmayer]

Could you elaborate on this part?

> The courts consider it unconstitutional to label any domestic organization as a 'terrorist organization', in the legal sense.

I don’t doubt this, but a citation would help me see where you’re coming from, in a legal jurisprudence sense.

[darawk]

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/06/trump-cant-designate-antif...

[FilterSweep]

Are Racial lynchings a protected activity?

To be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were

[darawk]

Of course not. But not every racist group has engaged in lynchings. Do you think the government should refrain from surveilling racist organizations until they do their first lynching?

[FilterSweep]

do you have actual proof not every group is engaging in lynchings or is this conjecture?

[darawk]

Sure. Just to pick one out of a hat, American Renaissance, run by white supremacist Jared Taylor, has never lynched anyone:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/grou...

I can't directly cite the negative of never lynching anyone, of course. But a google search should reveal it. AFAIK Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer has never lynched anyone either. I still hope the FBI is keeping tabs on him, though.

[FilterSweep]

This actually illustrates an interesting point about think tanks.

Amren may have never done a lynching, but the shadowy nature of how think tanks can launder money may implicate an associated group in modern-day lynchings covered up by the police[0].

The Koches, one of the largest financiers of right wing groups was built oil refineries for both Stalin and Hitler(the reich’s second largest refinery). They scrubbed the latter from their corporate history and were never tried at Nuremberg.

As it stands today, an average high school girl attending a BLM protest from twitter is likely surveilled far more heavily than Taylor or Anglin from the revelations in new surveillance articles. And that’s terrifying.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/22/black-vict...

[darawk]

> Amren may have never done a lynching, but the shadowy nature of how think tanks can launder money may implicate an associated group in modern-day lynchings covered up by the police[0].

I agree. But the right would say the same thing about Antifa. Antifa, as a loose organization, has certainly engaged in various forms of violence and crime. Maybe not as much as the far-right groups, but not none, either. If the standard is simply non-zero levels of criminality, than that standard has been met.

> As it stands today, an average high school girl attending a BLM protest from twitter is likely surveilled far more heavily than Taylor or Anglin from the revelations in new surveillance articles. And that’s terrifying.

That's a nice thing to say rhetorically, but it's almost certainly not true. Anglin and Taylor are public figures who have substantial influence. I don't think you seriously believe that the average high school girl in BLM is getting more attention than Andrew Anglin.

If the point you really want to make is that BLM is getting a disproportionate share of attention relative to its violence or criminality, that's something I could agree with.

[aspenmayer]

No, as they are acts and actions designed to reduce free exercise of civil rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Enforcement_Act