5 ms·

ACLU position on this is also interesting. They actually fought in court for the permit for the rally. "The First Amendment is a critical part of our democracy

by 21 9y ago

ACLU position on this is also interesting. They actually fought in court for the permit for the rally. "The First Amendment is a critical part of our democracy, and it protects vile, hateful, and ignorant speech. For this reason, the ACLU of Virginia defended the white supremacists’ right to march. But we will not be silent in the face of white supremacy. Those who do stand silent enable it. That includes our president." https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-statement-charlottesville-violence-and-demonstrations https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-statement-charlottesville-vio...

mc32 9y ago
That's an interesting position. And I understand it. It's not easy. But it exposes the discomfort they have with defending the first amendment. It's like saying you support the right to an attorney but since someone is a murderer you hope the State Appointed defense attorney is a lackey or they don't appoint any.
- 21 9y ago
  I also wondered a long time about why would an attorney defend someone which clearly seems to be a criminal. My understanding of this is that if someone is an obvious criminal, it will be easy to prove in court, so the attorney will not change the outcome.
  - abhi3 9y ago
    OJ Simpson
  - pfranz 9y ago
    John Adams volunteered to represent British soldiers accused of killing civilians[1]. He made some good arguments about fairness. Even if they're guilty of crimes, it's still not fair to abuse them, pile on more charges, or take shortcuts when gathering facts. They also still need to be sentenced fairly. For example, if the guy who ran over and killed the woman in Charlottesville didn't get fair representation or trial, both sides could rightfully argue "the system is rigged." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams#Counsel_for_the_British:_Boston_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams#Counsel_for_the_Bri...
    - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
      This is the fundamental essence of classic liberalism. Specifically, the meta-level things like strongly preferring that the system is working well over all situations rather than getting the correct result in any particular one. Also, avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, which causes more damage than getting things wrong. It's also the key insight of rule utilitarianism over act utilitarianism.
  - cr1895 9y ago
    >I also wondered a long time about why would an attorney defend someone which clearly seems to be a criminal. Because even the worst criminal deserves his due process rights, a fair trial, etc, etc; this is fundamental to our American society. It is a cornerstone of our judicial system.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      > this is fundamental to our American society Unfortunately, like much of American society, it's a theoretical pipe dream that falls down flat in reality as minorities don't get access to due process, fair trials, etc.
  - didgeoridoo 9y ago
    It's because in the US justice system you are considered innocent until proven guilty. "Proof" requires an adversarial test to ensure you're not only getting one side of the story. Without defense attorneys, nobody could be "proven" guilty because a show trial proves nothing. If you want someone to be eligible for punishment, you should thus WANT them to be defended.
- fenomas 9y ago
  > the discomfort they have with defending the first amendment That's not what it says at all. It says they defended speech that they disagree with. That doesn't mean they were uncomfortable defending it.

by 21 9y ago

mc32 9y ago

That's an interesting position. And I understand it. It's not easy. But it exposes the discomfort they have with defending the first amendment. It's like saying you support the right to an attorney but since someone is a murderer you hope the State Appointed defense attorney is a lackey or they don't appoint any.

21 9y ago
I also wondered a long time about why would an attorney defend someone which clearly seems to be a criminal. My understanding of this is that if someone is an obvious criminal, it will be easy to prove in court, so the attorney will not change the outcome.
- abhi3 9y ago
  OJ Simpson
- pfranz 9y ago
  John Adams volunteered to represent British soldiers accused of killing civilians[1]. He made some good arguments about fairness. Even if they're guilty of crimes, it's still not fair to abuse them, pile on more charges, or take shortcuts when gathering facts. They also still need to be sentenced fairly. For example, if the guy who ran over and killed the woman in Charlottesville didn't get fair representation or trial, both sides could rightfully argue "the system is rigged." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams#Counsel_for_the_British:_Boston_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams#Counsel_for_the_Bri...
  - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
    This is the fundamental essence of classic liberalism. Specifically, the meta-level things like strongly preferring that the system is working well over all situations rather than getting the correct result in any particular one. Also, avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, which causes more damage than getting things wrong. It's also the key insight of rule utilitarianism over act utilitarianism.
- cr1895 9y ago
  >I also wondered a long time about why would an attorney defend someone which clearly seems to be a criminal. Because even the worst criminal deserves his due process rights, a fair trial, etc, etc; this is fundamental to our American society. It is a cornerstone of our judicial system.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > this is fundamental to our American society Unfortunately, like much of American society, it's a theoretical pipe dream that falls down flat in reality as minorities don't get access to due process, fair trials, etc.
- didgeoridoo 9y ago
  It's because in the US justice system you are considered innocent until proven guilty. "Proof" requires an adversarial test to ensure you're not only getting one side of the story. Without defense attorneys, nobody could be "proven" guilty because a show trial proves nothing. If you want someone to be eligible for punishment, you should thus WANT them to be defended.
fenomas 9y ago
> the discomfort they have with defending the first amendment That's not what it says at all. It says they defended speech that they disagree with. That doesn't mean they were uncomfortable defending it.