Support NeoGAF

[Audioboxer]

A bit disheartening to see people say they're stopping donating to one of the causes that spend a lot of time defending the rights and liberties of the people many say they want to be defended (the needy, the minorities, the downtrodden, etc). However, it's not called the (Only Americans I like Civil Liberties Union) and never has been. There is plenty of articles on their own site that should have caught your eye before opening your wallets. Retracting now is obviously 100% your choice, but I would suggest further reading in the future before donating to any cause, given the post below took about 5 minutes of Googling/research.

Milo's wet fart rise to fame is mostly around University campuses, right? Well, read this article, especially the Q&A

The First Amendment to the Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Restrictions on speech by public colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. Such restrictions deprive students of their right to invite speech they wish to hear, debate speech with which they disagree, and protest speech they find bigoted or offensive. An open society depends on liberal education, and the whole enterprise of liberal education is founded on the principle of free speech.

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When we grant the government the power to suppress controversial ideas, we are all subject to censorship by the state. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. Where racist, misogynist, homophobic, and transphobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech — not less — is the answer most consistent with our constitutional values.

But the right to free speech is not just about the law; it's also a vital part of our civic education. As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote in 1943 about the role of schools in our society: ”That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes." Remarkably, Justice Jackson was referring to grade school students. Inculcating constitutional values — in particular, the value of free expression — should be nothing less than a core mission of any college or university.

To be clear, the First Amendment does not protect behavior on campus that crosses the line into targeted harassment or threats, or that creates a pervasively hostile environment for vulnerable students. But merely offensive or bigoted speech does not rise to that level, and determining when conduct crosses that line is a legal question that requires examination on a case-by-case basis. Restricting such speech may be attractive to college administrators as a quick fix to address campus tensions. But real social change comes from hard work to address the underlying causes of inequality and bigotry, not from purified discourse. The ACLU believes that instead of symbolic gestures to silence ugly viewpoints, colleges and universities have to step up their efforts to recruit diverse faculty, students, and administrators; increase resources for student counseling; and raise awareness about bigotry and its history.

https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus

”Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom."

—U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut

Freedom of speech, the press, association, assembly, and petition: This set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. It is the foundation of a vibrant democracy, and without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither away.

The fight for freedom of speech has been a bedrock of the ACLU's mission since the organization was founded in 1920, driven by the need to protect the constitutional rights of conscientious objectors and anti-war protesters. The organization's work quickly spread to combating censorship, securing the right to assembly, and promoting free speech in schools.

Over the years, the ACLU has frequently represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBT activists, and flag burners. That's because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they're going to be preserved for everyone.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech

Their main article on free speech, including examples. Another must read.

Acknowledging that speech may sometimes provoke and offend, the San Diego ACLU filed a lawsuit today against UCSD administrators to enforce core First Amendment rules against targeting the press or taking action based on the viewpoint of speech.

The Koala publishes a satirical newspaper that routinely provokes outrage and offense. In response to a Koala article mocking ”trigger warnings" and ”safe spaces," UCSD's student government eliminated all funding for student media.

The student government violated the First Amendment in two ways. First, it targeted the student press by stripping it of revenue that remains available to support other student speech. Second, it retaliated against the editorial viewpoint of The Koala, an action that is not immunized by inflicting collateral damage on all student media.

”However offensive and outrageous The Koala may be, its authors are writing about topical issues of public concern, and it is classic protected speech," said David Loy, legal director of the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties. ”No matter how offended I may be, it is still much worse to give government the power to decide what speech to censor. Once granted, that power will inevitably stifle protest and dissent."

https://www.aclu.org/news/defending...-enforce-first-amendment-rights-student-press

A specific case and example.

Then below are ACLU lawyers and staff popping up on other websites. There's many out there. Take note of the consistent statements around "free speech for all" and forms of "sometimes defending speech we don't like has to be done".

The ACLU is a multi-issue organization because we believe that freedom, equality, and justice—for all—are interconnected. Although some contend that free speech is in tension with equality, we believe that free speech—for all—is the cornerstone of today's fight for racial equality.

We have made a great deal of progress on both the free speech and equality fronts in the last century. But we still cannot be complacent about our First Amendment rights. Unpopular speech still draws censorious reactions—sometimes from private individuals (protesting students at Missouri have received death threats), and sometimes from the state actors who are actually bound by the First Amendment. The ACLU has recently challenged an attempt to shut down protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and an attempted prosecution of organizers of a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest at the Mall of America. We won both cases, but we did have to go to court to force the issue.

And the point of the current campus protests is that even a diverse society is not equal when some of its members are excluded and burdened by persistent taunts and demeaning treatment.

http://time.com/4120362/aclu-president-free-speech/

And so we come up against the great conundrum: Do we silence outrageous, hateful voices or let them have their say in the name of free speech? The American Civil Liberties Union's Lee Rowland told me that much of what Yiannopoulos says is ”absolutely hateful and despicable — but those adjectives don't remove his speech from the Constitution's protection."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...5efb7ccfb0d_story.html?utm_term=.ab05c2e09ed2

So either people genuinely had poorly researched ideas into who they were donating their money to, which is a bit mind-boggling when so much information is on the ACLU's website. Especially including the first two main articles I posted on University speech and free speech in general. Or the media has whipped everyone into a frenzy solely focussing on Milo to which the ACLU had to release a blog about it

Most likely, a combination of both, people not knowing what they were really donating to and Milo being in the news with ACLU in the headline causing moral panic and confusion as to why the ACLU would ever defend someone who is a cunt. The point is all the information has been there, for years, as to why they would, so the onus is on the end-reader/donator to have known that.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

European countries that have exceptions for hate speech in their free speech legislation do pretty well at preserving free speech

 

[Audioboxer]

European countries that have exceptions for hate speech in their free speech legislation do pretty well at preserving free speech

The ACLU isn't in Europe though, so while what you said is true those frustrations should be aimed at the American Government, not the ACLU, which some people seem to be doing.

I'm in support of some added protections for hate speech, alongside what America already has which is protection against incitement to cause violence/harm/another crime. However, even in countries with added speech codes, it's not without teething problems.

"Nazi pug guy" is a story around a guy who is a bit of a wanker, but is now tied up in the UK court system costing tax payer money and could face jail time. Read this article written by a comedian with some good points ~ http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-curious-case-of-the-nazi-pug/20057 (website is trash though before anyone says, general outline here if you don't want to read the comedians thoughts ~ https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/09/nazi-salute-dog-man-faces-hate-crime-charge-scotland). Youtube to pull it/Twitter to suspend an account/etc? Fine, private firms with their own T&Cs. Facing social ramifications for uploading such a video like being fired from your job and people criticising you on the street/online/from your friends and family? Fine, actions/speech have many (deserved) consequences. The Government rolling out a legal case with a potential for jail time? Well, tax payers will have to pay for that to have an asshole edgelord behind bars for however long the sentence is. The video ironically isn't pulled from YouTube, so in effect, you could now see someone in jail for a year or something (8~12 months is common) for a video that at this time of posting is still online. It's called "M8 Yer Dugs A Nazi" if anyone wants to find it.

Which also links to this article http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2012/10/11/16301/another_man_jailed_over_sick_joke

This especially

Barry Thew has been imprisoned for eight months after wearing a T-shirt on the day PCs Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes were murdered in Manchester.

The 39-year-old walked through the town centre or Radcliffe, Greater Manchester, displaying the slogans: ‘One less pig — perfect justice' and ‘Kill a cop for fun.com ha ha.'

Horrible timing, wanker, degrading message, lacking in moral compassion and so on? Yes. Should the police maybe have intervened and spoken to him/mentioned it was threatening and offensive to the general public? Yes. 8 months in jail? Uncertain on that given costs involved and social ramifications. If I saw someone wearing that on a t-shirt I'd think they were a moron and it's never something I'd do. To go from criticising them, mocking them, calling them some unflattering descriptors for what they're wearing to the Government arresting and jailing is a jump that should at least be debated.

More on it here, including a picture http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...shirt-fiona-bone-nicola-hughes_n_1957427.html

As always around behaviour/statements like some of the above, morally reprehensible? Yes. But, as any comedian will tell you political satire, criticism, mockery and so on should always have protections against the Government simply deciding it's going to shut it all down and in some cases jail. Even when it's highly offensive, upsetting, crude, distasteful and so on. We've got a UK government trying to usher in an era of a big brother state, going after things like porn and passing privacy spying bills. A right-wing Conservative UK government at that. Dissenting/offensive/satirical speech? Some Governments around the world do a damn good job of locking people up for that. So yeah, there's always balancing acts around 'hate speech' laws. America might be at the top of the totem pole for free speech being as open as it can be, but let me finish on this, some people in countries where they would be locked up, chased down and possibly even worse just for writing a blog will probably be salivating and praying for the day they have American civil liberties around speech. The balance maybe lies somewhere in the middle, but most would rather be where America currently is, being highly free, rather than being further towards the other side where big brother Governments intervene non-stop in the pursuit to shutdown all dissent/satire/mockery/offence.

Besides the fringe cases involving jail time, the saddest thing going on in modern discourse is the vacuum/void that has been created as many left-wing or liberal thinkers are acting scared to even have a mildly nuanced discussion around free speech. Worried that the second they chime in they'll be met with waves of "you're just defending bigotry" and variations of "fuck you you're a piece of shit". That then leads to this rise of right-wing voices that have completely saturated the market online and in public discourse around speech. Go back not too many years ago and it was the left lambasting the conservative right for trying to non-stop police speech/dissent/criticism/etc. I mean look at the ACLU, an organisation that's been doing what it has been for tens of years, and look at the reaction online and across social media because Milo was involved in one case. The void of public discourse from reasonable voices out of fear, laziness, ill-educated stances or whatever it is, is what is letting the trolls, right-wing and others "take over". Unfortunately for the few on "their side" that can be moderate (opposed to trolling/offensive/hateful/etc), they're like a broken clock around some of these debates. Right twice a day. Even me saying that will have some rushing to say I'm now right-wing or worse which couldn't be further from the case. I'm just getting increasingly frustrated that the educated and nuanced discussions around speech online are being saturated with right-wing views as many on the left either stay quiet (understandably at times to protect their careers/interests or just avoid online backlash) or are afraid of the current "eat their own" phenomenon when places/people, like the ACLU, take stances/reasonable approaches that at the very worst should just involve discussion/debate. Not the accusations that the ACLU is "pro-Milo" or whatever some journalists end up writing to get readers all uptight, anxious and worried.

 

[Condom]

Advertising for a book that advocates for a discriminatory ideology is allowed by the first amendment. As is any controversial political advertising. That is what the ACLU is defending here. They're not defending Milo in any way shape or form.

Their analysis is faulty (see my post) and they directly addressed his case with this faulty analysis and used that as (part of) their argument for the defending of his right. I'd say they are definitely defending him and are wrong at the same time.

If this is legally sound or not is only slightly relevant to this discussion.

 

[stuminus3]

America, you need to stop teaching your children free speech über alles and start teaching them context.

 

[Stinkles]

All of the arguments have been had and I will continue to support the ACLU but given Milo has done serious harm to the public view of freedom of speech - as well as his very deliberate yells of "FIRE in a crowded theater " it seems mildly counter to the ACLU mission. Like Greenpeace holding a monster truck rally.

 

[Guileless]

America, you need to stop teaching your children free speech über alles and start teaching them context.

The current taboos on types of speech that you happen to agree with today are not going to last forever.

 

[slit]

European countries that have exceptions for hate speech in their free speech legislation do pretty well at preserving free speech

Irrelevant. What works in Europe won't necessarily work in the U.S.

 

[Toxi]

ACLU is doing the right thing.

A guy punched Milo in the face. There's no reason someone else can't do similar. The ACLU is just doing its job as they vowed to do in the legal world.

Defend a piece of shit and his right to speak. That's the right thing to do as much as I hate it. That doesn't mean an everyday normal person can't do something on their end to stop him from speaking.

That was Richard Spencer.

 

[slit]

I don't understand those that are surprised. The ACLU has always defended people who have horrible viewpoints. This is nothing new.

 

[sflufan]

That was Richard Spencer.

Eh - that's the thing about Nazis, they all end up looking alike!

 

[Dyson Industries]

lol


in case you forgot here are your posts in the other most recent free speech thread

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=245792306&postcount=1066

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=245793956&postcount=1084

Ah, one of those. Thanks.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

All of the arguments have been had and I will continue to support the ACLU but given Milo has done serious harm to the public view of freedom of speech - as well as his very deliberate yells of "FIRE in a crowded theater " it seems mildly counter to the ACLU mission. Like Greenpeace holding a monster truck rally.

It's more like greenpeace advocating to preserve the habitat of some disgusting bug just as hard as they do for the cuddly pandas.

Admittedly, Greenpeace probably doesn't stick that at the top of their brochures, and the ACLU is spinning this suit with many different plaintiffs and a legal principle at stake that's not even about the offensiveness of the speech as "look at how principled we are, defending Milo."

I suppose they think that's best for their public image and fundraising - either because making the point that even Milo's speech should be protected is an important one, or because their reputation as a nonpartisan organization is valuable, or because they have some hope of attracting some conservative donors, or because their liberal donors admire their conspicuous even-handedness. Whatever it is, I assume that it's part of a conscious strategy.

 

[benjipwns]

Yep not like the good old public-respecting American political system

"America isn't perfect" is an observation, not a solution to problems, sorry.

In fairness, they think this because it happened and a lot of people died as a result!

In fairness, I already aligned our anti-free speech/anti-ACLU advocates here with those regimes:

I would think that whole part where extensive state censorship and propaganda was a key component in their whole program of organizing a collective "correct thought" backed by force at every level of society (in the name of protecting society from subversive views, races and other groups) should have ensured the opposite goal be pursued by any liberal democratic society trying to be serious about it.

So, you're just posting contradictory bullshit for the sake of it, huh? I guess that's consistent at least.

No, not at all. I'm not sure why I would do that. You may find this shocking to discover, but some people oppose the state suppressing freedom of speech. Even on the grounds of superstitious fear.

The whole "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" schtick is fucking idiotic and dangerous and should not be used in every single scenario, especially when dealing with Nazis. There is absolutely nothing rational about defending people who literally want to kill everyone that isn't white/not a Nazi and want to run a fascist dictatorship.

I doubt the "we had to adopt fascism to stop it" method will be more successful than legally disallowing the state from adopting those policies.

We already trust the government to make the distinction between political and apolitical speech

We do?

 

[superdeluxe]

Good for the ACLU

 

[BocoDragon]

ITT the shockingly large percentage of millennials who don't care about free speech anymore.

Freedom of speech is one of the greatest principles of modern society, and always involved defending peoples' right to abhorrent speech.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

 

[benjipwns]

Besides the fringe cases involving jail time, the saddest thing going on in modern discourse is the vacuum/void that has been created as many left-wing or liberal thinkers are acting scared to even have a mildly nuanced discussion around free speech. Worried that the second they chime in they'll be met with waves of "you're just defending bigotry" and variations of "fuck you you're a piece of shit". ... I'm just getting increasingly frustrated that the educated and nuanced discussions around speech online are being saturated with right-wing views as many on the left either stay quiet (understandably at times to protect their careers/interests or just avoid online backlash) or are afraid of the current "eat their own" phenomenon when places/people, like the ACLU, take stances/reasonable approaches that at the very worst should just involve discussion/debate. Not the accusations that the ACLU is "pro-Milo" or whatever some journalists end up writing to get readers all uptight, anxious and worried.

Define "modern" for me: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

The uncertainty of chance in this distinction does not cancel the historical objectivity, but it necessitates freedom of thought and expression as preconditions of finding the way to freedom--it necessitates tolerance. However, this tolerance cannot be indiscriminate and equal with respect to the contents of expression, neither in word nor in deed; it cannot protect false words and wrong deeds which demonstrate that they contradict and counteract the' possibilities of liberation. Such indiscriminate tolerance is justified in harmless debates, in conversation, in academic discussion; it is indispensable in the scientific enterprise, in private religion. But society cannot be indiscriminate where the pacification of existence, where freedom and happiness themselves are at stake: here, certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed, certain behavior cannot be permitted without making tolerance an instrument for the continuation of servitude.

suggested that the distinction between true and false tolerance, between progress and regression can be made rationally on empirical grounds. The real possibilities of human freedom are relative to the attained stage of civilization. They depend on the material and intellectual resources available at the respective stage, and they are quantifiable and calculable to a high degree. So are, at the stage of advanced industrial society, the most rational ways of using these resources and distributing the social product with priority on the satisfaction of vital needs and with a minimum of toil and injustice. In other words, it is possible to define the direction in which prevailing institutions, policies, opinions would have to be changed in order to improve the chance of a peace which is not identical with cold war and a little hot war, and a satisfaction of needs which does not feed on poverty, oppression, and exploitation. Consequently, it is also possible to identify policies, opinions, movements which would promote this chance, and those which would do the opposite. Suppression of the regressive ones is a prerequisite for the strengthening of the progressive ones.

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: ... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole society is in the situation of the theater audience when somebody cries: 'fire'. It is a situation in which the total catastrophe could be triggered off any moment, not only by a technical error, but also by a rational miscalculation of risks, or by a rash speech of one of the leaders. In past and different circumstances, the speeches of the Fascist and Nazi leaders were the immediate prologue to the massacre. The distance between the propaganda and the action, between the organization and its release on the people had become too short. But the spreading of the word could have been stopped before it was too late: if democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future leaders started their campaign, mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a World War.

The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs. Different opinions and 'philosophies' can no longer compete peacefully for adherence and persuasion on rational grounds: the 'marketplace of ideas' is organized and delimited by those who determine the national and the individual interest. In this society, for which the ideologists have proclaimed the 'end of ideology', the false consciousness has become the general consciousness--from the government down to its last objects. The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped: their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities. It should be evident by now that the exercise of civil rights by those who don't have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise, and that liberation of the Damned of the Earth presupposes suppression not only of their old but also of their new masters.

Withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements before they can become active; intolerance even toward thought, opinion, and word, and finally, intolerance in the opposite direction, that is, toward the self-styled conservatives, to the political Right--these anti-democratic notions respond to the actual development of the democratic society which has destroyed the basis for universal tolerance. The conditions under which tolerance can again become a liberating and humanizing force have still to be created. When tolerance mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society, when it serves to neutralize opposition and to render men immune against other and better forms of life, then tolerance has been perverted. And when this perversion starts in the mind of the individual, in his consciousness, his needs, when heteronomous interests occupy him before he can experience his servitude, then the efforts to counteract his dehumanization must begin at the place of entrance, there where the false consciousness takes form (or rather: is systematically formed)--it must begin with stopping the words and images which feed this consciousness. To be sure, this is censorship, even precensorship, but openly directed against the more or less hidden censorship that permeates the free media. Where the false consciousness has become prevalent in national and popular behavior, it translates itself almost immediately into practice: the safe distance between ideology and reality, repressive thought and repressive action, between the word of destruction and the deed of destruction is dangerously shortened. Thus, the break through the false consciousness may provide the Archimedean point for a larger emancipation--at an infinitesimally small spot, to be sure, but it is on the enlargement of such small spots that the chance of change depends.

These same conditions render the critique of such tolerance abstract and academic, and the proposition that the balance between tolerance toward the Right and toward the Left would have to be radically redressed in order to restore the liberating function of tolerance becomes only an unrealistic speculation. Indeed, such a redressing seems to be tantamount to the establishment of a "right of resistance" to the point of subversion. There is not, there cannot be any such right for any group or individual against a constitutional government sustained by a majority of the population. But I believe that there is a "natural right" of resistance for oppressed and overpowered minorities to use extralegal means if the legal ones have proved to be inadequate. Law and order are always and everywhere the law and order which protect the established hierarchy; it is nonsensical to invoke the absolute authority of this law and this order against those who suffer from it and struggle against it--not for personal advantages and revenge, but for their share of humanity. There is no other judge over them than the constituted authorities, the police, and their own conscience. If they use violence, they do not start a new chain of violence but try to break an established one. Since they will be punished, they know the risk, and when they are willing to take it, no third person, and least of all the educator and intellectual, has the right to preach them abstention.

 

[decisions]

This is the right thing for the ACLU to do. Nice to see some actions based on principle and not party from an organization that has actually has some power/influence.

 

[mlclmtckr]

"America isn't perfect" is an observation, not a solution to problems, sorry.

Why are you doing this? We could actually have an interesting argument about free speech absolutism and American-style speech protection vs European-style hate speech laws but instead it seems like you're being intentionally* dense and confrontational just for its own sake. Do you really think that countries that currently have hate speech laws are actually in danger of sliding into fascism? Moreso than the USA?

*or maybe unintentionally idk

 

[Prodigal Son]

Good on the aclu. principled.

 

[stuminus3]

The current taboos on types of speech that you happen to agree with today are not going to last forever.

Hate speech is not a "taboo"...

 

[benjipwns]

Why are you doing this? We could actually have an interesting argument about free speech absolutism and American-style speech protection vs European-style hate speech laws but instead it seems like you're being intentionally* dense and confrontational just for its own sake. Do you really think that countries that currently have hate speech laws are actually in danger of sliding into fascism? Moreso than the USA?

*or maybe unintentionally idk

I have had the mindnumbing debates with people who oppose freedom of speech on here (not to mention elsewhere) time and again, probably multiple times this year already, so what's the point of another? People who want to grind it out under the heel of the state aren't going to convince me it's worth destroying liberty for the illusion of safety from what they treat like magic.

Modern states already subscribe to many if not most of the core tenets and practices of fascism, but with a smile they tell you it's for your own good/the only way. Fascism was always the logical endpoint of the anti-Communist Progressive Movement. The only thing surprising is when modern states don't go further to expand the loopholes they've declared in the law to suppress minorities' freedom of speech, press, assembly and petition. But resources are limited so priorities have to be defined.

There's no "interesting argument" to be held with me comparing and contrasting whether the multiple American and the multiple European governments methods in pursing suppression of the freedom of speech is the superior.

If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

 

[pigeon]

Props on the irony of using Silent Cal to defend free speech

 

[superdeluxe]

Seems like people need to do better research before donating money

 

[Dongs Macabre]

.

 

[Audioboxer]

Define "modern" for me: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

Current day discourse? My point wasn't these battles haven't been going on for ages (obviously they have, debate is how societies hash things out, and speech has always been contested), more that today I personally think I'm witnessing what I said above. When I was younger I do remember it more being right-wing conservatives furiously going after criticism of God, video games, music, TV shows, comedy, political satire and the list goes on. Often whatever was edgy/taboo/offensive or satirical was lauded as immoral/wrong/needed to be censored or the "think of the children" red carpet was constantly rolled out. The issue of contention was it wasn't just Soccer mums, Jack Thompson and Pastor Tim hitting back with criticism/protest, but also people wanting the Government and all industries involved to censor/restrict and even make content/speech illegal. Freedom of speech is in place to try and prevent the Government overstepping boundaries. Those boundaries can be up for debate, but most prosperous societies value freedom of speech rather importantly, or as above you can start looking around the world at pretty restrictive and oppressive Government regimes (arresting, jailing and chasing after dissent/satire/offence). You as an adult can self-censor your life all you want, boycotting, protesting and refusing to listen to, watch or play things you find offensive. When you start trying to get the Government to make that decision on behalf of other people then that is when we get a battle around free speech.

The left and right will always trade blows around freedom of speech, no arguments from me there. Authoritarian stances can pop up on either side and as of right now the void being created in public discourse partly due to the collective left's approach is allowing the right to absolutely saturate discussion online. It's as if talking about free speech in an educated and nuanced way is "uncool" if you're on the left because it's something those trolls and right-wingers do. Then compound to that reasons I give above like people being scared to say it's okay to be offensive at times because a mob might descend on them to accuse them of "supporting hate". As if the only two outcomes of free speech are hate and non-hate. Reductionism at its finest.

I should probably just have said "the saddest thing going on in current day discourse". It's opinion paragraph, that is all. I will say that does seem like an interesting piece you've dropped off from a quick skim, so I'll take 15 or 20 minutes to read it thoroughly.

edit: More likely you'd need a few cups of coffee and an hour or two to try and parse and take in all of this paper. Challenge probably accepted, but it's definitely not your run of the mill 500 world blog piece.

 

[Earthbound64]

All this thread is telling me is that people withdrawing donations from ACLU should really consider researching into what causes they are actually supporting before, you know, supporting them, instead of jumping on the anti-Trump bandwagon just because.

Agreed. People always seem so eager to jump on-board with stuff, without actually looking into the full context of what it entails.

 

[Xe4]

Their analysis is faulty (see my post) and they directly addressed his case with this faulty analysis and used that as (part of) their argument for the defending of his right. I'd say they are definitely defending him and are wrong at the same time.

If this is legally sound or not is only slightly relevant to this discussion.

I already quoted your post, which I fail to see how it points out the ACLU's faulty logic. You're attacking them with a strawman anyhow. The ACLU never said it was about peoples feelings getting hurt or whatever, they are specifically targeting DC's refusal to allow controversial political statements on public transit. Milo just happens to be one of those people.

So they are not "deliberately" defending him, but a wide range of political viewpoints (not that they'd even be wrong if they did defend him), and they are not wrong in doing so. Again, this is what the ACLU does, and has been doing for years and years now.

 

[avaya]

The US constitution is genuinely a piece of shit document that should have been updated decades ago.

 

[KHarvey16]

The US constitution is genuinely a piece of shit document that should have been updated decades ago.

Hyperbole is fun

 

[mlclmtckr]

There's no "interesting argument" to be held with me comparing and contrasting whether the multiple American and the multiple European governments methods in pursing suppression of the freedom of speech is the superior.

Yeah holy shit you're not kidding. I could have assumed the surface level reiteration of Schoolhouse Rock-level civics education mixed in with such a strong dose of American exceptionalism without you having to type all that out.

 

[Regulus Tera]

The US constitution is genuinely a piece of shit document that should have been updated decades ago.

If you are gonna go after the bill of rights you really should be focusing on the 2nd Amendment instead of the 1st. That one has a more direct impact on the every day life of the common American.

Spoiler

Also, oh yes, the thing you are suggesting are called Amendments.

 

[shoelacer]

The fuck is going on in this thread? Jesus Christ almighty

 

[Ferrio]

The fuck is going on in this thread? Jesus Christ almighty

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Hate speech is not a "taboo"...

The point is that the left isn't always going to hold the same values that it does. This entire conversation would be infuriating to a member of, say, ACT UP in the 1990s. The left was in favor of free speech until it wasn't.

And, look, I'm sure that you can think of something on the left that you don't like - if for no other reason than because some of them are mutually contradictory. Imagine a world where saying anything positive about the state of Israel was hate speech, or anything negative about Israel was hate speech. Imagine a world where the TERFs manage to convince most of the world that trans women are anti-feminist, and implying that they're women is hate speech, or where essentialist trans activists succeed in driving out drag queens and other non-trans GNC folk. Eventually it's gonna be your turn to get your speech censored.

Or we could have the debates in the open and proceed accordingly like a rational movement.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Good luck.

Don't think they will win though. The WMATA ban isn't discriminatory. It reaches across all sectors and viewpoints.

 

[Haly]

Good luck.

Don't think they will win though. The WMATA ban isn't discriminatory. It reaches across all sectors and viewpoints.

It's actually "reaching across all sectors and viewpoints" that's the crux of the issue. They are actually more empowered to selectively discriminate but supposedly they can't uphold a blanket "whatever we say goes" policy.

 

[KHarvey16]

I think the fact the Milo ad was approved at first could even be used to demonstrate the standard was not applied consistently. The ACLU had theirs denied outright.

 

[stuminus3]

And, look, I'm sure that you can think of something on the left that you don't like - if for no other reason than because some of them are mutually contradictory. Imagine a world where saying anything positive about the state of Israel was hate speech, or anything negative about Israel was hate speech. Imagine a world where the TERFs manage to convince most of the world that trans women are anti-feminist, and implying that they're women is hate speech, or where essentialist trans activists succeed in driving out drag queens and other non-trans GNC folk. Eventually it's gonna be your turn to get your speech censored.

I don't believe the conversation is this difficult and I don't believe in slippery slopes. A lot of semantics over an Orwellian nightmare that doesn't exist. Context and common sense is only the way forward.

 

[faisal233]

Condemning the ACLU and free speech, and calling for laws to censor hate speech, when Sessions is AG is something else.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...wants-to-stop-leaks-by-targeting-journalists/

At a press conference Friday morning, Attorney General Jeff Sessions outlined the Trump administration’s plans to crackdown on leaks—including possible legal action targeting journalists. Sessions claimed that the administration has seen as many leaks of classified information in the last six months as there were in the previous three years combined and described leakers as rogue criminals “sell[ing] out the country.” In response to the leaks, he suggested the department will move to expand the use media subpoenas.

The DOJ is already going to use existing laws to try to intimidate and censor journalist. Now take away 1A and suddenly the DOJ will responsibly use its powers? LOL.

 

[benjipwns]

Yeah holy shit you're not kidding. I could have assumed the surface level reiteration of Schoolhouse Rock-level civics education mixed in with such a strong dose of American exceptionalism without you having to type all that out.

Yes, you certainly could have assumed lots of things. But you know what assuming does.

Americans are not inherently more exceptional than any other people. Certainly not collectively so. Many of the greatest Americans in history have been first or second generation immigrants and/or individuals who ran counter to predominant local thought. The "revolutionary fathers" that Coolidge mentions were men now believed to be operating with the support of less than a third of the non-enslaved population. Especially the ones from New England.

Schoolhouse Rock is a terrible level of civics education. And even worse musical programming. Much as you would expect from the product of an ad agency executives' proposal to a young Michael Eisner.

Anyway, I was disagreeing with your non-sequitur regarding America as part of a notion that I was suggesting America protects free speech while Europe suppresses it. There are multiple states among the continents and they all suppress freedom of speech, including the United States. The First Amendment forbidding Congress notwithstanding.

Spoiler

The American state is certainly exceptional in its ability to destroy the lives of people on the planet, it's hard to argue a state has ever had more sheer power. The time factor alone I would think boosts it far past any state that's ever existed. Sometimes even for good, like after the great Tsunami a few years back.

 

[benjipwns]

Yes, in a way this thread really is about the dangers of subsidizing public transportation with stolen labor.

 

[nynt9]

Condemning the ACLU and free speech, and calling for laws to censor hate speech, when Sessions is AG is something else.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...wants-to-stop-leaks-by-targeting-journalists/



The DOJ is already going to use existing laws to try to intimidate and censor journalist. Now take away 1A and suddenly the DOJ will responsibly use its powers? LOL.

Somehow I missed this post, good point. This is a way more important breach of free speech.

Also, I'm wondering, do people who were on the side of absolute free speech for all, regardless of how deplorable the speech is, still feel similarly about this situation after yesterday's events?

 

[TumblingHippo]

Having friends with people from different countries puts into perspective their thoughts on how the USA handles its (our) free speech laws. They are often baffled that we go so far in defending free speech of hate groups.

I used to look up to the ACLU's idea of if the worst speech is protected, all speech is protected. Now, I don't see that anymore. All I see is that while the worst speech is protected, other speech still gets stifled and minorities get the boot while the worst gets protected by the cops.

Maybe it'll take baby steps, but our first business should be that any symbols of hate groups like the KKK and Nazis get banned altogether, and public demonstrations of them be forbidden. It'll suck finding the right way to go about it, but we as a nation need to try.

 

[nynt9]

Having friends with people from different countries puts into perspective their thoughts on how the USA handles its (our) free speech laws. They are often baffled that we go so far in defending free speech of hate groups.

I used to look up to the ACLU's idea of if the worst speech is protected, all speech is protected. Now, I don't see that anymore. All I see is that while the worst speech is protected, other speech still gets stifled and minorities get the boot while the worst gets protected by the cops.

Maybe it'll take baby steps, but our first business should be that any symbols of hate groups like the KKK and Nazis get banned altogether, and public demonstrations of them be forbidden. It'll suck finding the right way to go about it, but we as a nation need to try.

Indeed. The "I'll defend your right to speech no matter how hard I disagree" is nice and all, but when that speech is about killing people and limiting their speech, then it's just stupid. Following every principle to the letter with no room for interpretation in real life situations is not realistic.

Also yeah, other countries can limit hate speech and Nazism and they've somehow not devolved into Orwellian hellholes. Go figure.

 

[Mesousa]

ACLU has lost the people who would defend them.

 

[.J.]

Just going to leave this link. While I find the white supremacists reprehensible, I think from a big picture standpoint I side with the ACLU on this one and will continue to do so. Tensions are high in here, and I don't think I'm going to change anyone's mind, but I encourage folks to read Greenwald's arguments on the matter: https://theintercept.com/2017/08/13...-nazis-free-speech-rights-in-charlottesville/

 

[PBalfredo]

Also, I'm wondering, do people who were on the side of absolute free speech for all, regardless of how deplorable the speech is, still feel similarly about this situation after yesterday's events?

Yes. What the ACLU is doing is still the best way to protect the freedom of speech, which is of tantamount important in an age of Trump. Trump would love to curtail free speech, which absolutely cannot be allowed to happen.

In many of the Charlotteville threads there have been calls for the US to adapt European-style laws that limit free speech. I don't doubt the validity of those laws when done in good faith, but I don't trust our government of good faith, not in this administration. Not with congress of full of Republicans of the same ilk as those who took hate crime laws and twisted it into the "Blue Lives Matter" law for Louisiana. Not with Donald Trump giving white supremacists the wink and the nod. Not with Fox News telling the Republican base that BLM is a hate movement equal to the neo-nazi marchers at Charlotteville. And certainly not with Sessions as the AG.

Any law that this administration would pass to restrict free speech and assembly would not be reserved for white nationalist fucks. It would undoubtedly be used against other groups this administration finds bothersome, like BLM. If the right to free speech was curtailed for both neo-nazi assemblies like at Charlotteville and BLM, it would be a net loss for us. The white nationalists assembled around maintaining their precious little Confederate monument, but if forced to disperse, at the end of the day they would still have their privilege, still have sympathizers in the white house, and just go back to using their coded language and recruiting youth on Reddit. Groups like BLM need to be out and loud to get their message out to an apathetic public, in hopes of instigating change that is literally a matter of life or death.

 

[elrechazado]

Good luck.

Don't think they will win though. The WMATA ban isn't discriminatory. It reaches across all sectors and viewpoints.

The ability to restrict on the basis of the content is the definition of viewpoint discrimination. They didn't say " no ads". That would have been perfectly acceptable.

 

[pigeon]

Somehow I missed this post, good point. This is a way more important breach of free speech.

Also, I'm wondering, do people who were on the side of absolute free speech for all, regardless of how deplorable the speech is, still feel similarly about this situation after yesterday's events?

Personally I've never been on that side of the fence, but as somebody who thinks the ACLU is fine with this particular lawsuit because Milo's speech here is anodyne and utilitarian rather than hateful and inflammatory, I still think that.