送交者: URRight 于 September 19, 2017 21:12:33:[新观察/xgc2000.org]
回答: 扯蛋！3K党现在就存在，每年都开代表大会 由 紫金山 于 September 19, 2017 02:42:12:
Is the Ku Klux Klan a legally allowed entity today? Why are they allowed? If no, when was it outlawed? What caused it to be outlawed, and why wasn't it outlawed earlier?
The KKK today is largely defunct. It's nowhere near as powerful as it was in the 1960s, and it's certainly not even close to the power that the Klan of the 1920s wielded (the Klan of the 1920s was known as the "Invisible Empire" because of the immense power it wielded in American politics).
Membership estimates of the Klan are difficult to come up with, because the entity we refer to as the "Ku Klux Klan" is actually referring to a handful of local chapters located primarily in the Southeastern and Midwestern United States. In other words, they're not some centralized organization with various chapters throughout the country. Rather, they're largely decentralized chapters of the Klan that don't really communicate with each other. The Ku Klux Klan is just a blanket term to refer to various groups that peddle views that can be generally characterized as racist/anti-Semitic.
To answer your question, the KKK is a legally allowed entity today. And frankly, they're very much a fringe group. However, during the era of Reconstruction in U.S. history (ca. 1865-1877), Congress passed what are sometimes referred to as the "Ku Klux Klan Acts" (known formally as the Enforcement Acts). Among other things, these acts enabled the Justice Department to prosecute Klan leaders and members in order to discourage the terrorist activities that the Klan was conducting at the time against newly free d slaves and their white allies. By the early 1870s, the Klan had largely been broken up as a result of these acts. But the organization itself was never outlawed, no.
Groups like the KKK push the envelope for free speech in this country. If they started openly advocating for violence and terrorist activities, they would be liable to prosecution. But so long as they don't actually outright advocate these things, then they are perfectly within their legal rights. Just a decade or so ago the Supreme Court ruled that cross-burning was a constitutionally acceptable form of speech, so long as there was no intent to intimidate (see: Virginia v. Black for more detail).