THE KU KLUX KLAN AND THE LAW

Florian BOURDET Athénaïs TURLIER

CONTENTS FIRST PART : Ku Klux Klan historical background

1. Creation

- Ku Klux Klan’s first formation during the Reconstruction Era

- Ku Klux Klan’s second formation during the First World War

2. KKK’s Ideologies

- Original Klan’s ideologies

- The Ideology of the Third Klan

SECOND PART : The wedding KKK – Law

1. The Law against the KKK

-The Civil Rights Act, or the Ku Klux Klan Act, 1871

- United States v. Price, et al. Supreme Court Decision (also known as the "Mississippi Burning" incident) 1967

- Greensboro Massacre, 1979

2. The Law in favour of the KKK

- Freedom of speech

- Freedom of reunion

THIRD PART : The KKK today, in our culture

In April 1865, at the end of the Civil War, about 4 million African American slaves were freed thanks to the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, ratified in December 1865. Six young veterans of the Confederate Army who had lost their property during the war met in the town of Pulaski : Captain John C. Lester, Major James R. Crowe, John D. Kennedy, Calvin Jones, Richard R. Reed, and Frank O. McCord.

Yet this group was not initially based on hatred and violent behavior. Actually, they created an organization whose primary goal was to fight the difficulties of postwar reconstruction in Tennessee.

According to historian Wyn Craig Wade, Ku Klux Klan was “devoid of practical, humanitarian, or political significance”. The members “had fun, made mischief and played pranks from the public” (The Fiery Cross).

The club, being gradually developed, was called “Ku Klux”, deriving from the Greek word “Kuklos, which means “a band” or “a circle”.Then, the word “Klan” was inspired from gaellic word “Clan”, in order to make a name that could sound an alliteration and which stands from the members’s Scotch-Irish descent.

In April 1867, former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forest was elected the first Grand Wizard as the supreme leader of the whole movement. The members’action, developing in what they called “The invisible Empire” in Nashville, Tennessee, spread violence, destruction and especially terror on African Americans and Republicans.

In spite of their violent behavior, they gained popularity as they managed to gather 550,000 members in the Klan. Yet, in 1868, Tennesse Governor William Gannaway Brownlow passed an anti-KKK act to contain the Klan’s violent acts.

This new established law punished any connection with a 500 dollars fine and imprisonment for up to five years. As a consequence, Grand Wizard General Forest ordered the Ku Klux Klan to be disbanded as he argued the club was “being perverted from its original honorable patriotic purposes, becoming injurious instead of subservient to the public peace”. Yet, U.S President Ulysses S. Grant implemented radical policies so as to banish Ku Klux Klan terrorism as they intimidated specifically the black Americans. Indeed, the Enforcement Acts were introduced in 1870 and 1871 to punish eveyone who violated their rights.

Furthermore, Congress passed in April 19871 the Civil Rights Act, notably known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, which enabled the governement to chase away terrorist groups and to banish Ku Klux Klan conspiracies and wearing disguises. Militia was used to enforce this law in the Southern States. Eventually, the KKK members were prosecuted and tried as criminals or terrorists for their crimes in Federal Court, whose juries were mainly composed of black judges. Subsequently, he 1874 Civil Rights Act dismantled the KKK groups.

FIRST PART : KU KLUX KLAN Historical bakground

The Ku Klux Klan was first created during the Reconstruction Era at the end of the Civil War (1861-1865). Then, he was reconstitued during the First World

War.

Ku Klux Klan’s first formation during the Reconstruction Era

Ku Klux Klan’s second formation during the First

World War

Forty-six years after the original Ku Klux Klan was officially dissolved by the Grand Wizard Bedford

Forrest, Colonel William Joseph Simmons restored the Klan in 1915. Simmons, who had worked as a farmer, uttered that “some divine inspiration” led

him to bring back the Ku Klux Klan. He took advantage of two events to make people interested anew in the original Klan : the murder and rape of

Mary Phagan by a Jewish named Leo Franck and the release in 1915 of The Birth of a Nation by D.W

Griffith.

On the one hand, U.S. Congressman Thomas E. Watson who heard about Mary Phagan case argued

the Ku Klux Klan could restore law and order. On the other hand, The Birth of a Nation movie, based

on Thomas Dixon’s novel The Clansman, praised the Ku Klux Klan as a heroic organization which

protected white people from aggressive and vicious blacks. Despite such a racist portrayal of African

Americans, this controversial movie became a hit, which was a good opportunity for Simmons to associate advertisments of his new Klan to the movie’s promotion. He wanted to imitate the

original Klan by organizing ceremonies, procedures and designing costumes.

In September 1921, the New York World paper estimated that the Klan had 500,000 members in 45

states and pointed out 152 alleged crimes committed by its members. In October 1921, the

Congressionnal committee carried out an investigation and accused the KKK of being the advocator of violence and religious intolerance.

Simmons, however, claimed before the Congress that the Klan was fraternal and benevolent. It

enabled him to make the KKK even more famous by the media’s attention to his congressional hearing.

Then, between 1922 and 1925, the Ku Klux Klan became an influential political force with five

million KKK members.

William Joseph Simmons

It can be seen in the Lester and Wilson's (1905) book:« We want peace, but this cannot be till justice returns. We want and will have justice, but this cannot be till the bleeding fight for freedom is fought. Until then the Moloch of Iniquity will have his victims, even if the Michael of Justice must have his martyrs. » From now on Ku Klux Klan has changed drastically; from the militia and supporters of the people in need to the radicals which later were identified with terrorist organization which inevitably led the Klan to disbandment.

The picture : The second Klan brought the burning cross.They mainly felt as being Protestants.

Original Klan’s ideologies

As said when describing its history, the Klan was created after the Secession War, to protest against the Freed Black Men and against the fact that these men could soon be part of the US society. It definitly shows the basis of the Klan’s ideology.

At the beginning the organization was supposed to be a counterbalance for the revolutionists. It was also a type of law and order vigilant group. The purpose of a Klan had developed into a paramilitary force used to oppose the Republican governments that were set up in the old Confederate States and to ban former slaves to have rights to vote.Originally Ku Klux Klan was a non-violent organization that was in opposition to shedding human blood, the violent acts happened only in last resort. “It is true that some negroes were killed by the Ku Klux, but in every instance, it was because they offered violent resistance”.

It indicates that Klan previously tried to warm African-Americans to prevent them from wrong doing and warn them to turn into the proper manner. But if “the negro would make an attack on the Ku Klux who were then forced to kill him in self-defense”. Numerous crimes were committed in the name of Klan,  in which many of them were done by people who did not actually belonged to the KKK, however, some of those people were not part of this organization. Theoretically none of those crimes towards African-Americans were done by the true members, but Klansmen were easy to identify due to their white cloaks. In time the Klan began to take over violent actions claiming that the Government actions and more privileges for the former slaves forced organization to take more radical actions making them the same as the bogus clans.

The majority of Klansmen had little to say about religion in their charges against Jews. Similarly to Henry Ford and other foremost anti-semantic contemporaries, the Klan emphasized economic and social themes with regard to anti-Jew sentiments, as it accused Jews of “dominating international capitalism, particularly the world's finances”.

Although they were blamed by “the more avid evangelicals in the Klan’s ranks (…) for the crucifixion of Christ. In addition to its negative attitude towards the Jewish community in the United States, the Klan retained its notoriously stereotypical approach towards African Americans and immigrants as a means to “rationalize their exclusionary practices”. 

Klan leaders, however, objected to claim that their organization was brought to life “to promote religious intolerance and to intimidate blacks”. “If the Klan was to secure members on an anti-Roman Catholic, anti-Jew, and anti-Negro appeal, they did not want such members.”

Klan leaders, therefore, insisted on creating the more positive outlook of their movement, arguably in order “to attract new members and supporters”. One of the methods of achieving so was seeking “issues that they could exploit”.Obviously, it would not mean refraining from already established beliefs of “racism, religious bigotry, and xenophobia”, but rather adjusting them to appear more politically correct, which, in turn, might have effected in perceiving Klan’s ideals as slightly contradictory.“Selective and active intolerance is necessary to defend liberty”.

Hence, the Klan members argued that it was vital for the future of the country that younger generations of Americans should be instructed during their education how to lead lives of decent men according to the religious backbone. At the same time, the Klan was in strong favor of the 1920s Prohibition, as it encouraged its members to avoid drinking alcohol of any kind and praised a life of sobriety.

Created after the Second World War, it’s the beginning of the end for the official Klan. It mainly protests against the « Civil Rights Movements ».

The Klan arose a third time during the 1960s to oppose the civil rights movement and to preserve segregation in the face of unfavorable court rulings. The Klan's bombings, murders and other attacks took a great many lives, including, among others, four young girls killed while preparing for Sunday services at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham.

Since the 1970s the Klan has been greatly weakened by internal conflicts, court cases, a seemingly endless series of splits and government infiltration. While some factions have preserved an openly racist and militant approach, others have tried to enter the mainstream, cloaking their racism as mere "civil rights for whites."Even if the following phrase appeared years after the first Klan, it perfectly defines the first and main ideology of the Klan : the supremacy of the “ White Race”.

This is the « Fourteen words » phrase : We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children.

To resume and conclude about the global ideology of the Klan, it may be right to say that The Ku Klux Klan is a racist, anti-Semitic movement with a commitment to extreme violence to achieve its goals of racial segregation and white supremacy.At first, the Ku Klux Klan focused its anger and violence on African-Americans, on white Americans who stood up for them, and against the federal government which supported their rights. Subsequent incarnations of the Klan, which typically emerged in times of rapid social change, added more categories to its enemies list, including Jews, Catholics (less so after the 1970s), homosexuals, and different groups of immigrants.

In most of these cases, these perceived enemies were minority groups that came into direct economic competition with the lower- and working-class whites that formed the core of the Klan in most of its incarnations.Even with the act, the KKK still exists, or groups describing themselves as the legacy, also influenced by nazism.

The Ideology of the

Third Klan

The Civil Rights Act or the Ku Klux Klan Act, 1871

Sec. 1 Be it enacted, “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, (...) are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude.”

This act remains applicable to every native American, with no distinction of race or color : it banishes slavery or any other servitude.  Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, “That any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right secured or protected by this act, (...) at any time been held in a condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, (...) or by reason of his color or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be punished by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court.”

Any person who deprives a U.S. citizen from his rights protected by his state’s law or by the federal government is guilty of misdemeanor. Thus, this person would be charged with a fine or sentenced to jail in accordance with this act.  Sec. 3 And be it further enacted, That the district courts of the United States, … shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offenses committed against the provisions of this act, and also, concurrently with the circuit courts of the United States, of all causes, civil and criminal, affecting persons who are denied or cannot enforce in the courts or judicial tribunals of the State or locality where they may be any of the rights secured to them by the first section of this act.”This act proclaims the district courts’judicial competence to judge the crimes ans offenses committed under the provisions of the Civil Rights Act.

The Civil Rights Act of 1871 is a United States federal law that prohibits ethnic violence against Black Americans. The Act was passed to protect them from the Ku Klux Klan by providing a civil remedy for abuses which were committed in the Southern States.

Second part : The KKK and the Law’s wedding

The Law against the KKK1. United States v. Price, et al. Supreme Court Decision also known as the "Mississippi Burning" case, 1967

This case is the result of the Civil Rights Division’s 1967 prosecution of individuals charged with the violation of the civil rights of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner in the United States v. Price, et al., also known as the “Mississippi Burning” incident. This decision shows the will from the judges to contain firmly the Ku Klux Klan’s action as its ideologies do not respect the Civil Rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.It was a criminal trial where the United States charged a group of 18 men with conspiring in a Ku Klux Klan plot to murder three young civil rights workers : Michael Schwerner, Jmaes Chaney and Andrew Goodman  in Philadelphia, Mississippi  on June 21, 1964 .

What were the facts ? 

Sam Bowers, the Imperial Wizard of the White Knights of the Klu Klux Klan of Mississippi, sent word in May, 1964 to the Klansmen of Lauderdale and Neshoba counties that it was time to "activate Plan 4."  Plan 4 provided for "the elimination" of the despised civil rights activist Michael Schwerner, who the Klan called "Goatee" or "Jew-Boy." 

On June 21, 1964, several individuals conspired to murder civil rights while they had arrived in Mississippi to assist in efforts to register African-American voters. Deputy Sheriff Cecil Price approached the civil rights workers while they changed a tire on the car by the side of the road. He arrested the workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, and placed them all in jail in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Once he killed them, he released them in the dark of that night. He removed the three men from their automobile, placed them in an official automobile of the Neshoba County Sheriff's office, and transported them to a place on an unpaved road.

The Supreme Court’s ruling : a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution

“The indictments allege assaults by the accused persons upon the rights of the asserted victims to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. These are among the so-called civil rights statutes which have come to us from Reconstruction days, the period in our history which also produced the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution.”

“The present application of the statutes at issue does not raise fundamental questions of federal-state relationships. We are here concerned with allegations which squarely and indisputably involve state action in direct violation of the mandate of the Fourteenth Amendment -- that no State shall deprive any person of life or liberty without due process of law. This is a direct, traditional concern of the Federal Government.”

Yet the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case. The United States Grand Jury returned it to the Southern District of Mississippi, which condemned Cecile Price guilty of murder in 2005.

2. The Greensboro Massacre, 1979

On November 3th, 1979, black and white demonstrators marched against the Ku Klux Klan in Greensboro, North Carolina. Yet a caravan of Klansmen and Nazis pulled up to the protesters and opened fire. Ten people were wounded from the gunfire and were killed. The day after, warrants had been issued for the fourteenth Klansmen and Nazis involved in the shootings. The day of jury selection, ninety-four African Americans were in the pool. Seventy-eight were dismissed for cause—most said “they were unable to judge a Klan member objectively.”

The defense then ruled out the remaining sixteen African Americans through questioning, creating an all-white jury for the trial. One of those chosen was Octavio Manduley, a Cuban exile who was strongly anti-communist. On December 12, they were each charged with four counts of first-degree murder, one count of felony riot and one count of conspiracy.

In February 1982, a federal grand jury was called to decide if charges could be filed regarding the November 3 violence. A year later, indictments were filed against nine men: Virgil Griffin, Eddie Dawson, David Matthews, Wayne Wood, Jerry Smith, Jack Fowler, Roy Toney, John Pridmore, and Milano Caudle. All the men were charged with conspiracy to violate federal law, conspiracy to violate the civil rights of a person because of their race or religion, and conspiracy to violate the civil rights of a person participating in an integrated activity. Yet the two criminal trials  resulted in the acquittal  of the defendants by all-whites  primarily because no member of the C ommunist Worker's Party would testify.

This captioned photograph from the November 5, 1979,Greensboro Daily News shows three suspects in the November 3, 1979, shootings of five members of the Communist Workers Party (CWP) as they are led to a court appearance. The five CWP members were killed at a "Death to the Klan" rally. All those arrested and charged with the murders were KKK members.

However, a 1985 civil lawsuit led by the Christic Institute and their lead attorney Daniel Sheehan won a verdict in federal civil court against five of the assailants and two police officers. The verdict is one of the few decisions in a Southern court to date against law enforcement officials accused of collusion with Klan violence. 

The survivors won a $350,000 judgment against the city, the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party for violating the civil rights of the demonstrators. However only one plaintiff, Marty Nathan, received his payment.

What stemmed from the trial is that the judges considered the Greensboro police should have enacted stronger measures of prevention prior to the Klansmen’s arrival at the rally. For example, the act of throwing eggs would constitute assault.

Furthermore, any physical act of aggression directed at the protesters would constitute infringement upon their civil right to peacefully assemble. In addition, according to the agreement in the parade permit, transporting firearms to the rally would have been a violation of the law. The police, aware of the Klansmen’s intent on being both armed and in attendance, could detain the Klansmen and search their vehicles for weapons.

Even though this act was enforced, the KKK still exists, or groups describing themselves as the legacy, also influenced by nazism.

II. The Law in favour of the

KKKHow did the KKK manage to interpret the amendments of

the US Constitution for them to be in favour of the Klan ?

A. Freedom of speech

1st Case : Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1968

What were the facts ?

Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."The Klan claimed that this law infringed his right to free expression, protected by the US Constitution.

Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments ?

The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: Speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and It is "likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.

The Klan managed to interprete the Law on his side, alleging whatever he wants, thanks to this freedom of speech, and the Court agreed with this argument.

Everyone could say what he wants indeed.

Ku Klux Klan and Free Speech

2nd Case : Supreme Court Decision in Cuffley v. Mikes, 1999

Does free speech extend even to groups that are unpopular with the generalpublic, including those considered hateful and unacceptable? Should allgroups, whatever their political or religious beliefs, be allowed to participateequally in government programs? Those questions were tested in Cuffley v.Mickes, which pitted the Ku Klux Klan against a state government that didn'twant them to receive the publicity which accompanies participation in anAdopt-A-Highway program. The state lost.

The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan of Missouri, and Michael Cuffley in hiscapacity as its Unit Recruiter filed a lawsuit against the state of Missouri andthe Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission because the Klan'sapplication to participate in the state's Adopt-A-Highway program wasdenied. At first, the state didn't take official action on the application and sought courtapproval to prevent the Klan from participating. This was dismissed and thenthe state acted on the application, denying it and giving the following as itsreasons:

1. The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan do not adhere to all state and federal non discrimination laws in that it discriminates on the basis of race, religion, color and national origin.

2. The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan have a history of unlawfully violent and criminal behavior.

3. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits Missouri Department of Transportation from conferring a benefit to the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan because of the Knights' discriminatory practices, and granting the application would confer such a benefit in contravention of federal law.

After this, the Klan filed a suit in court, alleging that they were being discriminated and that their rights to free speech were being violated.

“...absent a convincing and constitutional reason for the denial, the evidence leaves us with but one conclusion: that the State denied the Klan's application based on the Klan's beliefs and advocacy. For the last fifty years, the Supreme Court has made it clear that such a denial is unconstitutional...”

Even though a person has no "right" to a valuable governmental benefit, and that even though the government may deny the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. The government may deny some benefit or program to a group which advocates the overthrow of the government, but not to a group simply because it advocates racist policies, communist policies, theocratic policies.Cuffley v. Mickes reinforces the principle on which the government may not deny a benefit to a person or group on a basis that infringes on their constitutionally protected interests - especially their interest in freedom of speech. If the government could deny a benefit to a person because of their constitutionally protected speech or associations, their exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to "produce a result which it could not command directly." Such interference with constitutional rights is impermissible.

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.

Court Decision

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Klan, stating that they had been treated differently from other applicants from the very beginning of the process. The statewide coordinator for the program even admitted that this was the case during the legal proceedings. Moreover, it was undisputed that this special treatment was due solely to the Klan's political and social views:

OTHER RELEVANT CASES 1st CASE : SUPREME COURT ALLOWS CROSS

BURNING

The case started when Barry Black led a Ku Klux Klan rally in Carroll County, Virginia on August 22, 1998. There were 25 to 30 people at the gathering that occurred on private property with the permission of the owner, who was in attendance.

Black was convicted of violating a Virginia statute that makes it a felony “for any person … with the intent of intimidating any person or group … to burn … a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place” and specifies that “any such burning … shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group.”

The sheriff of Carroll County learned about the KKK rally and observed the cross burning from the road. After observing the burning, the sheriff asked who was in charge. Black admitted he led the rally, so he was charged with violating Virginia's ban on cross-burning.

The Supreme Court ruled on April 7, 2003, that a state does have the right to ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, but it cannot write a law that stipulates that any cross burning is evidence of an intent to intimidate. The Supreme Court struck down a Virginia cross-burning law as unconstitutional because it was too broad. “The First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation.Thus, just as a State may regulate only that obscenity which is the most obscene. “It is apparent that the provision as so interpreted 'would create an unacceptable risk of the suppression of ideas.' …

The act of burning a cross may mean that a person is engaging in constitutionally proscribable intimidation. But that same act may mean only that the person is engaged in a political speech. The prima facie evidence provision in this statute blurs the line between these two meanings of a burning cross. As interpreted by the jury instruction, the provision chills constitutionally protected political speech because of the possibility that a State will prosecute—and potentially convict—somebody engaging only in lawful political speech at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.”. To explain the decision of the Court in a simple way, we have the right to burn crosses, it’s part of our liberty of expression, protected by the First Amendemnet, but it shall ot be in an intimidating way.The Court rules on the side of the Klan, indeed it’s obvious that they burn crosses with the aim to intimidate, and to show what they’re able to do.

OTHER RELEVANT CASES 2nd CASE : YARNELL v. CUFFLEY, 2001

The Supreme Court cleared the way yesterday for the Ku Klux Klan to "adopt" stretches of state highways, as it turned down appeals brought by Missouri and 28 other states. Nonetheless, when Michael Cuffley, a local Klan leader, asked to join the program, a federal judge in St. Louis said the state could not refuse his request.

Under the First Amendment"s guarantee of freedom of speech, the state cannot exclude certain groups because of their racist views, a U.S. appellate court agreed. "The First Amendment protects everyone,

even those with viewpoints as thoroughly obnoxious as those of the Klan, from viewpoint discrimination by the state,"Judge Pasco Bowman wrote for that court last year. Lawyers for Missouri appealed to the high court. They called it "bizarre" and "highly offensive" for the state to be forced to erect a sign that "essentially dedicates a portion of a public highway to the Klan." They noted that nine other states have turned down similar requests from the Klan.

But without comment, the justices refused yesterday to hear the appeal in the case, Yarnell v. Cuffley. In the Klan case, however, Missouri officials admitted that they were seeking to exclude the local group because of their offensive views. The state lost on the same free speech rationale that the high court adopted in the legal aid case.

3rd Part : The KKK today, in our culture

Even if the Klan is supposed to have disappeared, it stay really present in our minds, we’re not ready to forget it, it printed history. But in today’s culture, the Klan is often turned into ridicule. If some movies spoke about in a very serious way, as « Mississippi Burning » or « History of a Nation », most of our movies or fictions make laughts of the Klan.

Let’s start by a controversial series, called « South Park », if it’s often rude, the goal of the creators is to make fun, talking about serious things. In an episode, there is a controversy about the flag of the city, showing hites acclaming a Black, which is hanged.

The question of changing this flag will divide the city, and the opponents of ths changing, who want to keep on their flag a Black being hnged, will be compared to members of the KKK.

THE KU KLUX KLAN DEPICTED IN SOUTH PARK SERIES

The story of the movie (if there is really one) is not focused only on the Klan, but makes a reference.After a « Rap Battle », a challenger puts his hood over his head, to appear « cool » accordong to him, and « young ». He salutes the public, with his left arm, and this directly a reference to th KKK salute and way to dress. The joke doesn’y stop here, the public is majoritary composed of Blacks, who do not really appreciate… And the challenger is kicked off the challenge.

Second movie, a humorous one, it’s « Scary Movie » 3.

More recently, and it will be the last reference, it’s in a Tarantino movie, « Django », in which members of what really look like the KKK are turned into ridicule, described as unable to see with their hoods.

The Ku Klux Klan ridiculed by Django in Django Unchained, by Quentin Tarantino, 2013.