11 ms·
ACLU of California Statement: White Supremacist Violence Is Not Free Speech
- zorpner 9y agoGood for them for breaking with e.g. the Virginia ACLU over this, just doubled my recurring donation. Direct calls for violence by heavily armed mobs are not protected speech or assembly.
- grdvnkootcvj 9y agotell that to the democrats!
- grdvnkootcvj 9y agotell that to the democrats!
- Joeri 9y agoSo, of I understand this correctly, it's not the message they consider not to be free speech but the (inciting of) violence. I'm all for free speech, but for some messages there's just no context in which they ever become anything but harmful, and maybe dogmatically clinging to free speech isn't the best way to approach things. Then again, it can be a slippery slope towards thought police, so maybe it's best to leave the judging of those messages to social pressure.
- dmitrygr 9y agomaybe it's best to leave the judging of those messages to social pressure. I REALLY hope that that's a joke. Social pressures brought you ACTUAL Nazi Germany and ACTUAL Communist revolutions in multiple countries. Scary...
- wooter 9y agoabsolutely not. all of those ACTUAL horrible situations involved gross disdain for 1st Amendment principles
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tunesmith 9y agoI think the Supreme Court has ruled on similar questions, in that there's a distinction between how the "speech" is intended and how it is construed. For instance, someone waving a nazi flag might feel to me like an incitement to violence, while to them it might feel like an expression of free speech, with no intention to incite violence. In that sense it would be protected speech, despite how I feel. So the question becomes how do you determine if someone is intending to incite violence? They might say they are only wanting to express their first amendment rights (and perhaps their second amendment rights at the same time), while actually just intending to incite violence. Even pretending that none of the neonazi protesters in Charlottesville threw the first punch, I think a lot of the quotes from Charlottesville indicated that many of them were on the wrong side of that line, and were seeking to incite.
- Deestan 9y ago> For instance, someone waving a nazi flag might feel to me like an incitement to violence, while to them it might feel like an expression of free speech, with no intention to incite violence. Disregarding how you both feel about it, waving a nazi flag legitimizes and strengthens an inherently violent ideology of ethnic cleansing. Intent - real or pretend - doesn't matter.
- bloobloobloo 9y agoNeat. Curious to hear your position on waving Communist and Jewish flags.
- PhasmaFelis 9y agoIs Jewishness "an inherently violent ideology of ethnic cleansing"? For that matter, is Communism? Marxist-Leninist governments don't have a great track record, but there are plenty of individual pacifist hippie commies; the ideology of common ownership of production is not inherently violent and racist like Nazism and the Klan are.
- 9y ago
- userbinator 9y agoThe statement could've been even stronger and yet remain neutral: "violence is not speech."
- vanderZwan 9y agoWhich would defeat the point, because then we'd be stuck with arguments over what is and isn't violence.
- ptaipale 9y agoNow it seems to make everyone stuck with arguments about why violence by some people is ok and violence by others is not. I think it should simply be that no one has justification for violence or intimidation.
- banned1 9y agoCarrying baseball bats and hitting cars or people, as well as throwing water bottles or paint balloons at people, or breaking windows of businesses or houses, is violence, as is using a vehicle as a weapon. It's not too complicated.
- SwellJoe 9y agoYou've conflated property damage with violence against people. I don't believe the two should be legally or morally judged the same, even if we may agree that both are crimes.
- banned1 9y agoWhen a baseball bat hits a human's head, it's not the baseball bat (the property) that gets hurt.
- SwellJoe 9y agoYou said, "hitting cars", and "breaking windows of businesses or houses". Cars and windows are not people. Our criminal justice system should, and usually does, distinguish between property crimes and crimes against people. I believe discussions about protest and violence and property damage should do the same, even if you believe both are criminal and should be punished.
- jumanchiss 9y agoAntifa's Violence is definitely Free Speech.
- gedy 9y ago> We ... take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence. So does this apply to Antifa, BlackBloc, et al as well?
- yahna 9y agoYes. Why is it that people feel the need to bring this up? Are you that sensitive towards criticism of Nazis? You know if you want to stop people associating the right with Nazis you really just have to deal with your damn Nazi problem.
- tunesmith 9y agoI'm guessing that if members of those groups are practicing violence, they aren't arguing that their violence is free speech - they are aware they are breaking the law, but believe they are justified (in the context of some higher purpose) in doing so.
- danso 9y agoAntifa generally doesn't apply for protesting permits as I understand it, so maybe this is a question that ACLU hasn't had to deal with? edit: Being downvoted by people who might not have read the counter-protesters' permit: https://www.scribd.com/document/356483336/2017-Public-Demonstration-Unity-and-Love-Free-Speech-August-12-2017Certificate-of-Approval#from_embed https://www.scribd.com/document/356483336/2017-Public-Demons...
- gkoberger 9y agoThey had a permit this past weekend: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/16/president-trumps-false-claim-that-counter-demonstrators-lacked-a-permit/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/... I can't speak for other protests.
- danso 9y agoMaybe this is getting into a No True Scotsman argument, but that permit was not for what's often considered to be antifa. Being a counter-protester is not automatically antifa. From the link you posted: > Walt Heinecke, a professor at the University of Virginia, told Moyer that he received a “special events certificate of approval” for events at McGuffey Park and Justice Park — sites blocks from Emancipation Park, where white nationalists had a permit for a Saturday rally. Antifa, the group that is more commonly associated with things like Richard Spencer in the face, seems to be more informal: https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/26/14369388/richard-spencer-punched-alt-right-trump https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/26/14369388/richard-sp... Edit: Another example of what's associated with antifa: punching journalists http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4785564/Reporter-punched-face-Charlottesville-rally.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4785564/Reporter-pun...
- matt_wulfeck 9y agoIf they're using violence then they're already breaking the law, so it's not really a free speech question. This is he ACLU preparing itself not to defend these groups while trying not to loom publically like a hypocrite. Unfortunately free speech and constitutional rights are one of those things where you take the good with the bad.
- ece 9y agoOr they are just making their position clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action Trump is being sued for inciting violence as well: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/04/a_case_against_trump_for_inciting_violence_goes_to_trial.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc... Inciting violence should be a clear line, and I'm glad the ACLU of California is making it clear that it is. As far as past cases go, this doesn't seem to be contradictory or different, but I don't know if it is.
- rhizome 9y agoMy interpretation is that it's to head off racist gun nuts hiding their 2A behind the 1A. So if something pops off, the ACLU isn't going to fig leaf a defense for them.
- PeanutCurry 9y agoWithout meaning to make any greater point, being sued isn't the same as being found guilty but is often treated as being 'close enough' in the media.
- ece 9y agoContext: So the ACLU of VA filed against having the rally moved to a park away from downtown Charlottesville, and the Judge agreed going against the City. Yeah, this probably wasn't the best call in retrospect. Something other ACLU chapters can correct. https://acluva.org/20108/aclu-of-virginia-response-to-governors-allegations-that-aclu-is-responsible-for-violence-in-charlottesville/ https://acluva.org/20108/aclu-of-virginia-response-to-govern... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/aclu-first-amendment-trump-charlottesville.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/aclu-first-amendm... https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/equality-justice-and-first-amendment https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/equality-justice-and-f...
- noncoml 9y agoA slightly bit off topic, but as a European I would love to hear some intelligent, well thought, non provoking theories on why is America going through so much turmoil and polarization the last few years. Or has it always been like this?
- gedy 9y ago> “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” ― H.L. Mencken, 1918
- johncole 9y agoHistorically these groups and thoughts ebb and flow, along with demographic and economic changes. And historicaly speaking, right now, the level of political violence in the US is quite low. Compared to other periods like the 10s the 30s and the 60s this is super mild. This is how a healthy democracy works. We talk, we fight politically, we write articles in the Atlantic, we move forward.
- contergan 9y agoHN is a terrible place for such discussions, as opinions that go against popular narrative are often censored. You are probably better off searching for answers elsewhere.
- usibam 9y agoHN is a terrible place to have such discussions, as opinions that go against the popular narrative are censored and the poster shadowbanned. You're better off searching for answers elsewhere.
- liberte82 9y agoThere is plenty of voice for the alt-right on this forum, the top rated comment in this thread for example. Stop playing victim.
- dmitrygr 9y ago
- mychael 9y agoSensible people across the political spectrum agree that violence != speech. Who exactly are they arguing against here? Perhaps a strawman?
- icelancer 9y ago>Who exactly are they arguing against here? Perhaps a strawman? Yes, but the strawman that they are being beat over the head with by those with a certain political bent.
- ProfessorLayton 9y agoOnce again I argue that people are genuinely or disingenuously conflating two different terms for the sake of a "slippery slope" or free speech argument. Violence against certain groups based on their race is not just violence, but a hate crime [1]. It is not a free speech issue. Society has already ruled that attacking certain groups based on certain protected status is not ok and will be prosecuted accordingly. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_Unite...
- 2bitencryption 9y agoWhat if not attacking, but instead simply utilizing freedom of expression? What if a hundred neo-Nazis filed to hold a rally, and showed up with signs saying "Jews get out!" and chanting "We've thought about it a lot and decided we really don't like Jews!" is the expression of that idea a hate crime that can be prosecuted? or the expression of peaceful protest and first amendment rights? does a punch need to be thrown before it's a hate crime? (of course, these magical, peaceful neo-Nazis probably don't exist. from the video I've seen, the ones at that rally were out for blood)
- nippples 9y agoNo violence is free speech. Not from white supremacists, not from antifa, not from communists, not from BLM. What you had in Charlottesville is two group of thugs looking for a fight meeting and getting the fight they all wanted. Pretending there are good guys in this conflict is stupid.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago"White Supremacist Violence..." Obviously by definition. But this just begs the more important question: Does ACLU still believe speech by white supremacists should be permitted? I've heard a saying along the lines of: your rights only as good as you permit your worst enemy.
- boobsbr 9y agohttp://begthequestion.info/ http://begthequestion.info/
- em3rgent0rdr 9y agosee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question: In modern vernacular usage, "to beg the question" frequently appears to mean "to raise the question" (as in, "This begs the question, whether...") or "to dodge a question"
- oval-atom 9y agoI really wonder if all this turmoil could have been avoided if members in Congress actually knew the laws that they passed, and Law Enforcement would actually enforce the laws. This has just led to a lot of hysteria. For example, Pelosi, who is desperately trying to maintain relevance, going all Pelosium on the National Park Service to cancel a permit for a conservative “white supremacist” group Patriot Prayer’s pro-Trump for fear of violence. The problem is, they are not white supremacists, all but one of the speakers is ‘white’, and the organizer is not ‘white’. Unless Pelosi is outstandingly ignorant, if not, is she just trying to suppress Freedom of Speech? Side Note: I will sit and flip from one news channel to another, and from what I observe, I think I know why unemployment is down. These news broadcasts cannot get enough contributors, analysts, and so-called experts on to fill up the screen. Where do they find these people? More importantly, do they get paid and how much? Because if the money is good, if there is a list, I want on it.
- gnicholas 9y agoA legal analysis by First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, as well as a (vacuous) response by the ACLU: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/16/odd-statement-from-the-aclu-of-california-white-supremacist-violence-is-not-free-speech/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- wooter 9y agoquite absurd. ill be forgoing my next few donations. (sad that i have to qualify this but i hate nazi's and am not even white)
- Aoyagi 9y agoNo violence, or calling for violence is free speech. It would be nice if all sides remembered that.
- wooter 9y agoi am venezuelan. i hope the non-socialist opposition rises up and takes back their country from a violent, oppressive dictatorship with violence if need be. then i hope they use violence to institute justice for those who have committed crimes against their fellow citizens with impunity for a decade. can i fly my Venezuelan flag upside down? shall i be arrested?
- retox 9y agoWords are not violence. My rights don't end where your feelings begin.
- gexla 9y agoThis seems like a non-statement. It's obvious that violence isn't protected under freedom of speech. There are no arguments on that point. > If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution. Why even add "white supremacists" to that statement? It would be true of any group. You could replace "white supremacists" with "Underpants Gnomes" and this would still be true. Crack some skulls ??? Profit! > The First Amendment should never be used as a shield or sword to justify violence. Does "shield" in this case refer to the protesters who were resisting the Unite the Right rally?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]