Reason: ACLU “Cowardly” Retreat from Free Speech

They didn't even go that far. They just gave guidelines that they should seriously evaluate the impact of representing those kinds of people, but must also weigh the impact of not representing them.

Their continued retreat from the 2nd amendment is more troubling to me than anything w/r/t free speech in this memo.

 

You don’t believe it to be problematic that a group who claims to promote and protect civil liberties should do so, in all cases, but only those to which they agree?

Or

You don’t think that there should be freedom of speech for anyone who says something which many might find to be offensive and hateful?

Or both?

Did you vote in the poll, already?

 

If it were not for spineless parents unable to force their adult children to move out, then he would not have a show.

 

Does the desire for inclusivity and tolerance supersede the right of free speech?

If so, when?

 

I do think there's an argument to be made that they feel representing certain people enables those people to violate the rights of other citizens. As in, if they represent a neo-Nazi, are they assisting him in the specific intent to violate the civil liberties of American citizens?

Now, the 2nd amendment stuff is more complicated. Can they make the same argument with the NRA and its advocacy (Not that the NRA would ever need their help)? Maybe. A wholesale refusal to support the 2nd amendment in any case? That would be more difficult to defend, as would failing to defend a conservative organization in a different type of constitutional case. Are they doing this or is it just "fake news" from a sketchy magazine?

 

1. Slippery Slope.
2. It’s no more complicated than you obfuscate it to be.

Is the 2nd Amendment a civil liberty? Yes.
Does the ACLU work to promote and protect it as a civil liberty? Many here say, No.

You seem to be saying that you don’t care about the 2nd Amendment, and don’t care that the ACLU doesn’t care about it, either.

Is that fair to say?

 

I am? Point out where that is the case. I did say that it would be difficult to defend a decision not to support someone in that case.

I do say I don't care that they are considering the impact of defending groups like the KKK or Westboro Baptist. Not one bit.

 

I don't see where Unimane seemed to not care abour the secons amendment. In fact, there is indication he does care since he said it would be difficult to defend a wholesale refusal.

There is disagreement on the 2nd amendment. I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but I should be able to open carry? Dunno, seems like there could be some grey that is harder to figure out.

I am all for float carrying anywhere. Same with anyone that takes it seriously and has put in the time and training. So long as they don't break dance and then sloppily paw at their gun when trying to hastily pick it back up.

 

How much can you care if not to support and defend it?

You’re only for those rights to which you personally agree.

And here we are.

 

Should the civil rights of all, legally exercised, be supported, promoted and defended, in all instances?

 

Yelling fire in an open theater or being wreckless with a firearm are dangerous enough to likely harm someone else. I don't think you can really say the same about hate speech. It's obviously mean-spirited, but not inherently dangerous.

 

Bullshit. You always act as if there's no grey area, which is why your poll questions designed to box people in always suck. Should the ACLU defend someone who yells fire in a crowded theater? I mean, free speech and all. How about someone going to the White House and saying he wants to kill the president?

Otherwise, I would expect the ACLU to support the rights of those whom I works otherwise disagree, even despise, with politically. However, drawing the line at representing those that advocate murder or genocide, again, doesn't bother me, in the least.

 

Does “bullshit” mean “I don’t want to answer.”?

Is yelling fire a legally permissible exercising of free speech?

Is threatening the POTUS a legally permissible exercising of free speech?

 

I’m sorry that you feel the poll question is too directly worded.

Should the civil rights of all, legally exercised, be supported, promoted and defended, in all instances?

 

As much as I loathe hate speech I believe strongly in its protection. If we start slicing out exceptions today it is absolutely a slippery slope. We should not be so naive to believe something perfectly mainstream today will not be considered hateful down the line. Danger, Will Robinson.

 

What if they consider certain types of hate speech on a similar level? Why is falling to defend a person for threatening the president different than doing the same in advocating the murder of Jews, threatening interracial couples or pushing literature for a race war?

 

By whom? The government? Or, do you feel the ACLU should be required to defend anyone and everyone? There's a difference. Again, gray area. Even Klansmen have rights, but I don't fault the ACLU for saying they will pass on providing their services on this one. Lawyers do it all the time.

 

You said threatening to kill the President while in the President's residence. That's a pretty big difference than just making a statement. I think it shows a reasonable level of suspicion that the speaker might actually follow through and therefore should be escorted away from the area.

 

The behavior of for profit lawyers isn't really relevant. Plenty of different motivators for those guys and they don't have a specific mission statement guiding them.

That mission statement is to, "defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." (thanks Wikipedia).

One could easily argue they are not living up to that if they are selectively excluding individuals from this defense.

 

It's still illegal elsewhere, too, though.