It blows me away the people in America can literally march through the streets with rifles and body armour.
It crazy, its fucking crazy!
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
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?My takeaway was defending violent Nazis in the first place was dumb and there was ample evidence to suggest such before they decided to run someone over.
It blows me away the people in America can literally march through the streets with rifles and body armour.**
It crazy, its fucking crazy!
Holy shit. Sources?
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.
You dont defend the rights of nazis or white supremacists period. Ever. When free speech tolerates the intolerate, the intolerate will take away that free speech when theyre in power.
Ah this is a good image, thanks for sharing!
The overly simplistic view of Free Speech needs to be challenged whenever it comes up.
Free speech includes the responsibility to disallow speech that would jeopardize that free speech.
It's a paradox, but that's reality: it's rarely simple.
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.
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.
There's nothing inherently noble about an obsessive commitment to free speech no matter whom it comes from.
There's also nothing noble about defending the rights of professed white supremacists given this country's history.
Someone will defend them, just not the ACLU.
And, whomever does is going to win. The First Amendment and Case law is on their side with this.
That said, the University of Florida remains unwaveringly dedicated to free speech and the spirit of public discourse. However, the First Amendment does not require a public institution to risk imminent violence to students and others.
The likelihood of violence and potential injury not the words or ideas has caused us to take this action.
That's kinda the problem with blaming the ACLU for what happened.Someone will defend them, just not the ACLU.
And, whomever does is going to win. The First Amendment and Case law is on their side with this.
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.
Can you provide a source for the internment victims part? That's sort of the bigger issue of the ones you mentioned.
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
Well yeah, no shit.But, Romero added: At the same time, we believe that even odious hate speech, with which we vehemently disagree, garners the protection of the First Amendment when expressed non-violently. We make decisions on whom we'll represent and in what context on a case-by-case basis. The horrible events in Charlottesville last weekend will certainly inform those decisions going forward.
Just remember if the ACLU didn't push for the rally to happen an innocent woman would still be alive.
Yea ok...Just remember if the ACLU didn't push for the rally to happen an innocent woman would still be alive.
Blame the fucking murderer nazi, not the ACLU.Just remember if the ACLU didn't push for the rally to happen an innocent woman would still be alive.
Just remember if the ACLU didn't push for the rally to happen an innocent woman would still be alive.
You can say the automobile is necessary, not a nazi rally, I don't see your equivalence hereJesus fucking Christ. Just remember, if Ford hadn't invented the automobile, hundreds of thousands wouldn't have been killed in accidents.
Just remember if the ACLU didn't push for the rally to happen an innocent woman would still be alive.
You can say the automobile is necessary, not a nazi rally, I don't see your equivalence here
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
It blows me away the people in America can literally march through the streets with rifles and body armour.
It crazy, its fucking crazy!
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.You can say the automobile is necessary, not a nazi rally, I don't see your equivalence here
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.
"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.
You dont defend the rights of nazis or white supremacists period. Ever. When free speech tolerates the intolerate, the intolerate will take away that free speech when theyre in power.
That's fine but then don't whine if they don't defend speech that you like due to lack of resources.
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.
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.Jesus fucking Christ. Just remember, if Ford hadn't invented the automobile, hundreds of thousands wouldn't have been killed in accidents.
You can say the automobile is necessary, not a nazi rally, I don't see your equivalence here
Just remember if the ACLU didn't push for the rally to happen an innocent woman would still be alive.
If it isn't acceptable for Nazis to parade around then it will be unacceptable for BLM to March anywhere in the South.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
If it isn't acceptable for Nazis to parade around then it will be unacceptable for BLM to March anywhere in the South.