Concerning the Ku Klux Klan march {front page, Oct. 29} and The Post's pertinent editorial Oct. 30:

I disagree with The Post's "best way to shame the hooded haters" because it is doubtful that the Kooky Kluckers can be shamed.

Demonstrations by the KKK and others of that ilk would cease if all elements of the society, the law, the media and the public would simply ignore them. Without notice and publicity, such groups would wither and die.

HADLEY D. CRESS Harrisonburg, Va.

Is there a reason that any city or jurisdiction, having given a special-interest group the right to hold a demonstration, is responsible for providing police protection to that group? In granting the Ku Klux Klan the right to march in Washington, it seems that the Klan members' right to free speech has been protected. Why is it then that the city has to provide some 2,000 District officers to guarantee that the Klan exercises this right uninterrupted? On the grounds that the organization is highly controversial? If that is the case how, then, is it decided which groups merit what level of protection?

Perhaps in the future, cities should implement a user fee in such instances and charge the cost of excessive protective services to the group in question. At $800,000 -- the cost to the city cited by D.C. Police Chief Isaac Fulwood Jr. -- for 27 Klan members, that works out to $29,629.63 a head.

Can't put a price on protecting the inalienable rights of our citizens? Then perhaps we can begin to spend that much a day to guarantee the rights of all of our citizens, not just the most objectionable ones.