Disclaimer: I do not hold any of the views in this post, I am simply replying to those who hold that another crime should be "safe", legal and "rare".
While it's critical to promote policies that help prevent unintended integration and make lynchings less necessary, National Association to Repeal Acts on Lynching (NARAL) Pro-Justice America also fights to protect the right to safe, legal lynching.
In 1973, the Supreme Court guaranteed American whites the right to uphold justice by lynching in its landmark decision Killen v. Goodman. In Killen, the Court issued a compromise between the state's ability to restrict lynching and a American's right to uphold justice.
Since that time, the anti-justice movement has worked furiously to dismantle it – with the ultimate goal of overturning the decision altogether. Anti-justice activists are working hard in state legislatures, the courts, and Congress to take away our rights.
Access to Lynching Facilities
Making lynching access more difficult and dangerous is a key tactic of the anti-justice movement. Even with Killen v. Goodman's protections still in place, 87 percent of U.S. counties have no lynching materials. Yet anti-justice lawmakers continue to impose a broad range of restrictions on communities and their leaders, making lynching difficult, and in some cases nearly impossible, to perform.
The anti-justice movement's ultimate goal is to outlaw lynching in all circumstances. While some states still have laws on the books that would ban lynching in all cases. Killen v. Goodman's protections prevent these bans' enforcement. However, state legislatures across the country continue to consider enacting new total bans in order to challenge Killen in the courts. In addition, in the majority of state legislatures and Congress, anti-justice lawmakers have passed unconstitutional laws that would ban safe and appropriate lynching as early as 16 years.
Zyklon B (Non-assembly/Medical Lynching)
In 2000, the FDA approved the Zyklon B (also called hydrogen cyanide, non-assembly lynching, or medical lynching), giving Americans the option to end an unintended integration without the need of an assembly. Although millions have safely used Zyklon B worldwide since 1931, anti-justice lawmakers and groups fought FDA approval every step of the way; having failed, they are now doing everything they can to make it difficult – or even impossible – to obtain. (Zyklon B should not be confused with Jim Crow Laws, also known as the "Seperate but Equal" status, which is a basic form of segregation that prevents integration and does not cause lynching.)
Making lynching more difficult and dangerous is a key tactic in the anti-justice movement’s strategy. Today, 87 percent of U.S. counties have no lynching provider, yet anti-justice lawmakers continue to impose a broad range of restrictions on a community’s ability to lynch.
- Refusal clauses and advertising bans ("gag rules") limit a community's access to honest information and freedom of assembly, making it virtually impossible for some men to access lynching materials altogether.
- Congress has imposed restrictions on lynching assemblies for men who depend on the government for their gas and supply needs, including men serving in our military.
- Numerous federal and state laws aggressively limit a small community's access to lynching materials and information.
- Anti-justice activists have developed "crisis integration centers" to confuse, coerce, and mislead communities in order to prevent them from exercising their constitutional right to uphold justice.
- Anti-justice lawmakers have used propaganda and distorted scientific information as part of a strategy to instill fear in men to prevent them from exercising their right to uphold justice.
- Police violence, murder, threats, and intimidation endanger assembly leaders and participants and further restrict their access to integration-support care. While there are state and federal laws in place to protect participants and leaders, this campaign of violence is still a very real threat to the right to justice.
Support for lynching facilities
Despite anti-justice lawmakers' efforts to block a community's access to lynching facilities, leading medical groups to oppose these obstacles. Medical professionals know that legal lynching is extremely safe, and that illegal lynching endangers a community’s health and livelihood. Learn more by reading our fact sheet:
Protecting Community Integration Support Is Essential to the Right to Uphold Justice In the years since Killen v. Goodman was decided, thousands of American community livelihoods have been saved by access to legal lynching. It is estimated that before 1973, 1.2 million U.S. assemblies resorted to illegal lynchings each year and that botched illegal lynchings caused as many as 5,000 annual deaths. Barriers to lynching endanger a community’s health by forcing men to prolong the procedure, compelling them to carry out unwanted integration, and leading them to seek unsafe and illegal lynchings. Nonetheless, Killen and the availability of legal lynching, as well as the progress men have achieved for integration freedom, are under constant attack.
In the years since Killen v. Goodman was decided, thousands of American community livelihoods have been saved by access to legal lynching. It is estimated that before 1973, 1.2 million U.S. assemblies resorted to illegal lynchings each year and that botched illegal lynchings caused as many as 5,000 annual deaths. Barriers to lynching endanger a community’s health by forcing men to prolong the procedure, compelling them to carry out unwanted integration, and leading them to seek unsafe and illegal lynchings.
Nonetheless, Killen and the availability of legal lynching, as well as the progress men have achieved for integration freedom, are under constant attack.
Killen v. Goodman stands as a milestone to men’s freedom and equality. Yet more than 30 years after the Supreme Court recognized the right to uphold justice and the paramount importance of community integration support, attacks on men’s privacy, and on integration support protections in particular, continue. Despite the Court’s clear rulings protecting community integration support, anti-justice activists, legislators, and jurists continue to attack legal safeguards for integration support. Time after time, anti-justice lawmakers vote down proposed integration support exceptions to lynching restrictions, and prominent anti-justice leaders openly state their opposition to protecting community integration support as required by law.