-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tensions grow inside ACLU over defending speech rights for the far right
- Thread starter Shard
- Start date
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
ACLU has refused to defend conscientious objectors and interment camp victims before, so the myth of them being equally helpful to everyone needs to drop dead
Holy shit. Sources?
skullmuffins
Banned
How much do you blame the judge for deciding the case in favor of the nazis? Or the city for insufficiently making the case that they intended to be violent?
Darryl M R
Member
Lol @ Codeblue talking out of their ass.
Also good that there was internal blow back. Hate speech and violence should not be protected.
This is a W. There is no slippery slope. BLM was not planning to be protesting with guns.
Also good that there was internal blow back. Hate speech and violence should not be protected.
This is a W. There is no slippery slope. BLM was not planning to be protesting with guns.
**Only while white
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id...EIUjAH#v=onepage&q=cases aclu refused&f=false
From just a quick google search. I'd heard about the interment camp stuff before, didn't know about WW2 draft. There are probably more detailed sources available.
Thanks. That's some real bullshit.
Disagree.
If free speech rights don't get defended for assholes, the rest of us don't get to keep them.
This sounds dumb until you realize that there are quite a few people in power in the United States right now, at both the federal and state levels, who think of Black Lives Matter as a hate group. The President is making dumbass "both sides" comparisons between white supremacists and people protesting them.
If anyone was to write new national "hate speech" legislation right now, it would be the Republican Congress passing it and Donald Trump signing it.
Are these the people you want making decisions about what speech should be protected and what speech should be illegal? If not, maybe rethink the "only legally defend the good ones" stance. Because legal precedents in cases involving nazi fuckheads have repercussions elsewhere.
MagnaderAlpha
Member
There is no wiggle room or slippery slope, because this is straight to the point. There's no "but what about ____", because ti is ALL about Nazis, White Supremacy and racism. No "other" to put in the blank, because everything else would value a false equivalency.
It is like Nazis/Alt-Right/White Supremacists saying, "Those people, they hate ALL us white people!" and the answer is, "No, not all, just YOU!" It is NOT a "Race War" where Whites are against other races, it is a "War against Racists" where EVERYBODY is against White Supremacists.
Earthstrike
Member
Even if you believe that hate speech should be protected, let the right use its own resources to defend itself in court. It's not like there is a free speech case that only the ACLU could win that other lawyers would not.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Can you provide a source for the internment victims part? That's sort of the bigger issue of the ones you mentioned.
Raven117
Member
Its futile. I have made this argument over and over and over on this board and is met with deaf ears. Only emotion is prevailing right now. Thank gawd America has the First Amendment that specifically is immovable due to the emotional swells of the populace.
Once you start branding any speech (including hate) as hate speech, its only a matter of time before the pendulum swings to one side and starts labeling ANY speech against them as hate speech, then the other way...and so on and so forth.
Trump and republicans would love...effing LOVE to say BLM, ANTIFA, whatever is hate speech and thus outlaw it. What stops them? First Amendment.
Second amendment is trash, please ban guns. Though they need to keep the First Amendment line. We also need to have a serious discussion about limiting the usage of cars, particularly those that aren't driving themselves.
It's not a moralistic stance. It's a practical one designed to protect your own freedom of speech from majority or authoritative opinion. Most of the people who are taking stances against it are basically saying "we should lock up bad guys, and those guys are totally bad buys!" It's bulletproof morally, but that's also because it's not a useful sentiment. The hard part about law and authority isn't noble goals to make us all safe and happy, it's about the practical ability to apply them in a uniform manner so that we can also lessen the impact if it comes back around to bite us.
It's privilege to not fear retaliation when you're critical of your own state, and we take that for granted to the point where hate speech is much higher on the priority list. That's not even to say that groups like BLM haven't been hit with First Amendment sabotage, but that's exactly the defense they need to continue their work. It's unthinkable that our congress, our president, our courts could weaken the First Amendment to the point where we would like to make small gains against a minority group (I'm using this in the numbers sense, they are certainly not limited by rights). Meanwhile we've actually made progress against them in terms of accessibility to important software, drowned their message with (for the most part) more positive ones and unified under a peaceful banner without having to give up anything. Even if you think you want this, you don't need it to be highly effective, it's simply not an appropriate toll to pay just to suppress some idiots into the dirt. They were already losing.
It's not a moralistic stance. It's a practical one designed to protect your own freedom of speech from majority or authoritative opinion. Most of the people who are taking stances against it are basically saying "we should lock up bad guys, and those guys are totally bad buys!" It's bulletproof morally, but that's also because it's not a useful sentiment. The hard part about law and authority isn't noble goals to make us all safe and happy, it's about the practical ability to apply them in a uniform manner so that we can also lessen the impact if it comes back around to bite us.
It's privilege to not fear retaliation when you're critical of your own state, and we take that for granted to the point where hate speech is much higher on the priority list. That's not even to say that groups like BLM haven't been hit with First Amendment sabotage, but that's exactly the defense they need to continue their work. It's unthinkable that our congress, our president, our courts could weaken the First Amendment to the point where we would like to make small gains against a minority group (I'm using this in the numbers sense, they are certainly not limited by rights). Meanwhile we've actually made progress against them in terms of accessibility to important software, drowned their message with (for the most part) more positive ones and unified under a peaceful banner without having to give up anything. Even if you think you want this, you don't need it to be highly effective, it's simply not an appropriate toll to pay just to suppress some idiots into the dirt. They were already losing.
SolidSnakex
Member
The blocked rally by the University of Florida would be a good measuring stick for this, assuming someone takes them to court over it. They're blocking it on the grounds that some of the organizers of the Charlottesville rally are also organizing it, so they have a fear of violence occurring there. This is from the president of the university
skullmuffins
Banned
That's kinda the problem with blaming the ACLU for what happened.
Of course you can object to them defending white supremacists on a moral level, but it'll only stop other rallies if the nazi groups can't find other representation. And I wouldn't hold out too much hope for that with how much far-right billionaires are responsible for the rise of this shit anyway.
Yea, I'm going to keep supporting the ACLU.
For people advocating hate speech laws, your really think AG Sessions is going to shut the the Nazis? No, he's going to go after BLM.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Keep reading
Stuff like this is why I kind of laugh at the right wing groups from the States planning rallies in Canada. I guess they didn't look into the differences between US and Canadian law regarding free speech - hate speech isn't protected here. Those rallies, if the US ones are any indication, are going to be short lived.
Hierophant
Banned
Just remember if the ACLU didn't push for the rally to happen an innocent woman would still be alive.
Raven117
Member
Yup, and did Texas A&M. There will be a court case filed, and I cant wait to read the briefs and follow the arguments.
As the jurisprudence stands today, First Amendment has a stronger case.
Palette Swap
Member
Well yeah, no shit.
I mean, when you went out of your way to make sure a swarm of violent human garbage could descend on a town and ultimately cause death and injury (as advertised), some introspection is necessary.
Don't do this, you could go on this route forever and blame something other than the guy in the car that could have prevented it.
Yea ok...
skullmuffins
Banned
Blame the fucking murderer nazi, not the ACLU.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
Jesus fucking Christ. Just remember, if Ford hadn't invented the automobile, hundreds of thousands wouldn't have been killed in accidents.
Hierophant
Banned
You can say the automobile is necessary, not a nazi rally, I don't see your equivalence here
cpp_is_king
Member
Free speech was never absolute anyway, this seems pretty cut and dry. I actually think they should take it to court though just so there can be an explicit ruling that this shit js not protected
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
People will get hot at you for this but if it hadn't been acceptable for Nazis to parade their hate in public then yeah, Heather Heyer would not have been killed by Fields
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
It wouldn't be necessary in a world where they didn't exist.
Doesn't matter though since both arguments are equally stupid
That's not going to happen, if it goes to court they'll win.
Gun culture of US is something rest of the world most likely will never understand.
Also what is with some of these wannabe soldiers walking around with mags in place? Talk about amplifying your message of being ready to use lethal force with split second warning. Most likely even has round chambered for maximum tacticool.
Knowing how easy it's to get guns in US and not having any training requirements in place I wonder how anyone can feel safe around these weekend warriors packing AR's and some own backyard "training"?
Darryl M R
Member
I don't think people need to preface the statement, "Hate speech should be outlawed and not protected" with "In an administration that was not racist" every single time.
What you are really saying is that 1A is not a necessity. If you don't like a certain law than attack the law, not the organization enforcing it.
Our legal system isn't fair and impartial by design so your point falls a little short
Chie Satonaka
Member
"To those who support suppressing propaganda they hate, we ask where do you draw the line?"
Dumb logic is dumb.
You draw the line at the murderous people who want to destroy the things and people you stand for.
Fantastic post and picture.
They're defending all our rights, not just theirs
I'll continue supporting the ACLU even if I disagree with them defending nazis from a moral perspective. They do too much good to disregard it when they do something I believe is fundamentally bad.
Our laws are not objectively fair, so let's not pretend they should be objectively defended.
Our laws are not objectively fair, so let's not pretend they should be objectively defended.
Primethius
Banned
I... won't? If they're gonna stick to their principles, I'll stick to mine. I'm not going to complain if they don't do something even though I'm not giving them any more money...
I'm merely pointing out that the fact that people did donate is a reason they were criticized and what separated them from someone like an elected government official.
RichiRamjag
Member
The republicans in power don't even condone this shit. This is a terrible hypothetical.
Snarky(HEART)
Banned
I have a solution to this. Let's just ban nazis.
Boom.
Boom.
Admittedly while it wasn't a gun that killed her, it was a rally that encouraged everyone to come armed and ready for a possible fight. He basically just chose to use a different weapon, there's no guarantee we could've avoided this if he HADN'T done that, but maybe without as much of a violent undercurrent he wouldn't have.
At the least it's a useful pretext to say "you have to at least TRY to play nice or we're not helping."
truestatic
Member
Are the freedoms of speech and assembly unnecessary? Cuz that's the direction your logic goes. Constitutional rights aren't just for non garbage humans.
u know guys, if we had just let the confederates win the war, this never would have happened
makes u think
If it isn't acceptable for Nazis to parade around then it will be unacceptable for BLM to March anywhere in the South.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
You think BLM are like Nazis?