Reason: ACLU “Cowardly” Retreat from Free Speech

In certain circumstances, yes. What if they determine that defending certain groups enables those groups to violate the individual rights and liberties of others? Do you find it objectionable that they are deciding to review, not even necessarily reject, representing certain groups that advocate hate and violence towards certain people?

 

Maybe I'm just not being imaginative enough here. How does enabling or restricting my free speech affect your free speech?

I don't really care what they do, but I think I don't think it really lives up to their mission statement. They may want to change it.

 

It's also illegal to make specific threats to regular citizens, too, no? Maybe the punishment isn't quite as severe, I don't know.

I think a certain level of specificity (difficult to say how specific, exactly) brings with it more certainty that the speaker is willing to act. You know, threatening a specific church or school or person is a little different than threatening 30 million black people.

 

So, why should the ACLU feel obligated to defend either?

 

Simple -

One has been determined and decided by the SCOTUS as being legal and protected.

The other has been cherry-picked by the ACLU because they do / don’t like it.

Is that a fair differentiation between the two?

 

By whom? Anyone.

Let me ask it another and more personal way...

Do you personally believe that the civil rights of all - including the KKK, gun owners and Westboro Baptist Church - should be supported, promoted and defended, and at all times, when legally exercised?

 

1. Slippery slope
2. Just ask if we mind if they only defend those liberties that they agree with, in those instances when they feel like it’s worth it.

 

Good thing you've always agreed with the decisions of an infallible Supreme Court. By this logic, the ACLU should've been required to support Dred Scott, Plessy, Korematsu, etc. I think you use "Well, it's the law!" as a crutch too much. There's certainly room for the ACLU to determine for themselves whom they can represent based upon their understanding of civil liberties.

There have been numerous examples of the KKK or a neo-Nazi group exhorting their people to commit violence against people and inspire actual acts against people. You're saying you respect them more for defending a group who participates and advocates this than them saying they don't want to do this anymore and enable them. I'm saying I'm fine with them drawing a line in certain circumstances because the world isn't as black and white as you consistently think you can make it.

 

Please cite any post where I have questioned whether or not SCOTUS has the right to determine legality, or failed to support it as the law of the land - even if personally disagreeable.

Cite where I have ever considered SCOTUS as being infallible.*

The law is the underpinng of our entire society, personal freedoms and our way of life. It’s sort of a big deal to me.

The ACLU can do whatever it wants. I don’t have to fund or support it.

Definitely cite a post where I’ve ever called for violence to a social solution, or supported anyone who did.

* Comments I’ve made in regards to any image of or singularly about Justice Scalia cannot count, as it was a crime of passion.

 

Alright, Un, I sincerely ask, again:

Do you personally believe that the civil rights of all - including the KKK, gun owners and Westboro Baptist Church - should be supported, promoted and defended, and at all times, when legally exercised?

 

Next. “This is just the next Amendment the ACLU has decided to retreat from,” is how that reads, following subjects and all that.

 

It was just a joke. I know you are aware free speech isn't in the third amendment.

 

Again, I ask, by whom? Everyone has guarantees from and by the government. Right to a lawyer, free speech, etc. The ACLU is not the government. Why is the ACLU obligated to defend an organization where they feel that, by assisting them, they could directly hurt individuals or groups of people? Furthermore, why would you be bothered by it enough to start a critical thread about it?

 

Well one has already been addressed by law, so it is no longer a liberty. The other hasn't, to my knowledge. So it is still a liberty, and according to their mission statement is something they are intended to defend/preserve.

 

Seems like a major mission change -

What is the ACLU?
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

https://www.aclu.org/faqs

 

Do they define it as a liberty, though? They are well within their purview to determine what they feel is a liberty they wish to defend in court. They are an advocate, not a judge and jury.

 

I couldn't find a specific list of what they consider civil liberties. This is from their website in the section with info on protests...

Can my free speech be restricted because of what I say — even if it is controversial?
No. The First Amendment prohibits restrictions based on the content of speech. However, this does not mean that the Constitution completely protects all types of speech in every circumstance. Police and government officials are allowed to place certain narrowly drawn "time, place and manner" restrictions on the exercise of First Amendment rights — for example, permit requirements for large groups using public parks or limits on the loudness of sound amplifiers. Any such restrictions must apply to all speech regardless of its point of view.

 

By anyone, all of the time.

 

If I am a lawyer or an organization like the ACLU, I have zero interest in defending a member of the KKK or Westboro. I'm not allowed to make that choice? The government is not allowed. So, were I a public defender, then I would, obviously.

 

Do you think that hateful, but otherwise legal speech, should enjoy protection by the First Amendment?