6 ms·

While technically this may be the ACLU trying to set limits on acceptable free speech, they seem like pretty reasonable ones. In a world where they have ensure

While technically this may be the ACLU trying to set limits on acceptable free speech, they seem like pretty reasonable ones. In a world where they have ensured your first amendment right to be a huge racist in public, is it really critical you have a gun on you at that exact moment?

refurb 9y ago
I didn't know that constitutional rights can't be combined! Will the ACLU also refuse to defend your freedom of speech if the gov't is unlawfully seizing your property at the same time?
- jcranmer 9y ago
  SCOTUS has long acknowledged that there is a line where freedom of speech ends. Skokie says that merely being a neo-Nazi doesn't cross that line. Brandenburg says that only imminent lawless action crosses that line. What the ACLU is saying is that they do not believe that dressing up as a paramilitary force (complete with live weapons) for a protest can be credibly called an intent to remain on the constitutionally-protected free speech side of the line.
  - soneil 9y ago
    The argument at Skokie hinged on the swastika itself not being "fighting words". That'd indicate to me that these "fighting words" are a pretty relevant concept, and that perhaps showing up armed and declaring "people are going to die before we're done" or "we'll kill them if we have to" crosses this line.
- wyldfire 9y ago
  The headline is a little dramatic. > "We’ve had people with odious views, all manner of bigots. But not people who want to carry weapons and are intent on committing violence," That's a little clearer regarding the intent. It's not the right to keep and bear arms that they necessarily have a problem with, it's the agenda of these people who would be their clients. It's still a shift from what I would expect from the ACLU, but they're free to draw a line somewhere. To be fair, there are limits on free speech and the violence involved might be a useful consideration if there's future litigation over protest permits. Maybe ACLU doesn't want to go to bat for an odious client only to set a new test/precedent that works against other would-be clients. EDIT: sorry, I realize now that your response is to the comment regarding being armed while protesting.
  - refurb 9y ago
    I also noticed that sentence and if they had left it at "intend to cause violence" I'd have no issues. This leads to the next question, will they defend antifa if they show up to protest with bricks in their hands? Or is it just guns that are the problem?
- vacri 9y ago
  If the government is unlawfully seizing your property, why aren't you at your property defending it with your gun, rather than engaging in a rally downtown? Besides, it's pretty clear that their issue is the 'intent on committing violence' bit, not the 'freedom of odious speech' bit. You're free to start your own civil liberties legal team though, and I'm sure the ACLU will give some pointers on how to set up. Edit: more on point: 2nd Amendment advocates talk a big game about defending the 1st Amendment with it. How many times have we seen the 1st actually defended by citizens exercising the 2nd? Or any of the rest of the bill of rights? When has the US government backed down on a course of action because of armed citizens? Anything recently?
  - refurb 9y ago
    I'it's not defending the 1st amendment, but I'd say Ruby Ridge is a good example of some defending their rights via the 2nd amendment. Of course that didn't stop the gov't from killing the man's unarmed, innocent wife.
    - vacri 9y ago
      The 2nd amendment didn't work for them. They got their 'victory' (money << couple of dead people) through the courts later on.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    That's actually a fairly weak rebuttal. If the government is acting in a way you don't like, making a substantial presence known and credibly presenting a large set of allies is useful. Though that need not be an armed response. Case in point from today's headlines: In Durham, NC, a large group of citizens presented themselves as having torn down Slaver Rebellion statues in the city. Something of an "I am Spartacus" moment. (Though that original example ended poorly.)
    - vacri 9y ago
      Why should the ACLU defend the rights of a group intent on causing violence to other citizens? You could argue that their name actually means they should work to prevent that group from getting support, given that that group wants to infringe on the civil liberties of others.
- liberte82 9y ago
  Congress shall make no law ... abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble. It's not at all unreasonable to make the argument that large groups of people bringing guns to protest breaks with the peaceably part, especially given the evidence.
slavik81 9y ago
This reads to me more like abstaining from the issue. Nothing was mentioned about actively campaigning for restrictions. My impression is that ACLU tends to give gun topics a low priority. Gun control is a divisive subject among their supporters, and there already exist well-funded groups dedicated specifically to gun rights.
unityByFreedom 9y ago
> is it really critical you have a gun on you at that exact moment? They also noted they didn't want to support groups intent on violence. [1] I imagine the ACLU will still defend the rights of groups who want to voice their right to carry. That's an important right, in my opinion, and I don't own a gun nor do I ever plan to. [1] https://youtu.be/P54sP0Nlngg?t=20m51s https://youtu.be/P54sP0Nlngg?t=20m51s
gmiller123456 9y ago
>this may be the ACLU trying to set limits on acceptable free speech, they seem like pretty reasonable ones Might be reasonable to you. But for someone who carries concealed frequently, I'd consider a political rally unfortunately well above average for a place I'd actually need a gun to defend myself from violence. It'd be a real shame for them to defend everyone at the rally except me, just because I was carrying.

refurb 9y ago

I didn't know that constitutional rights can't be combined! Will the ACLU also refuse to defend your freedom of speech if the gov't is unlawfully seizing your property at the same time?

jcranmer 9y ago
SCOTUS has long acknowledged that there is a line where freedom of speech ends. Skokie says that merely being a neo-Nazi doesn't cross that line. Brandenburg says that only imminent lawless action crosses that line. What the ACLU is saying is that they do not believe that dressing up as a paramilitary force (complete with live weapons) for a protest can be credibly called an intent to remain on the constitutionally-protected free speech side of the line.
- soneil 9y ago
  The argument at Skokie hinged on the swastika itself not being "fighting words". That'd indicate to me that these "fighting words" are a pretty relevant concept, and that perhaps showing up armed and declaring "people are going to die before we're done" or "we'll kill them if we have to" crosses this line.
wyldfire 9y ago
The headline is a little dramatic. > "We’ve had people with odious views, all manner of bigots. But not people who want to carry weapons and are intent on committing violence," That's a little clearer regarding the intent. It's not the right to keep and bear arms that they necessarily have a problem with, it's the agenda of these people who would be their clients. It's still a shift from what I would expect from the ACLU, but they're free to draw a line somewhere. To be fair, there are limits on free speech and the violence involved might be a useful consideration if there's future litigation over protest permits. Maybe ACLU doesn't want to go to bat for an odious client only to set a new test/precedent that works against other would-be clients. EDIT: sorry, I realize now that your response is to the comment regarding being armed while protesting.
- refurb 9y ago
  I also noticed that sentence and if they had left it at "intend to cause violence" I'd have no issues. This leads to the next question, will they defend antifa if they show up to protest with bricks in their hands? Or is it just guns that are the problem?
vacri 9y ago
If the government is unlawfully seizing your property, why aren't you at your property defending it with your gun, rather than engaging in a rally downtown? Besides, it's pretty clear that their issue is the 'intent on committing violence' bit, not the 'freedom of odious speech' bit. You're free to start your own civil liberties legal team though, and I'm sure the ACLU will give some pointers on how to set up. Edit: more on point: 2nd Amendment advocates talk a big game about defending the 1st Amendment with it. How many times have we seen the 1st actually defended by citizens exercising the 2nd? Or any of the rest of the bill of rights? When has the US government backed down on a course of action because of armed citizens? Anything recently?
- refurb 9y ago
  I'it's not defending the 1st amendment, but I'd say Ruby Ridge is a good example of some defending their rights via the 2nd amendment. Of course that didn't stop the gov't from killing the man's unarmed, innocent wife.
  - vacri 9y ago
    The 2nd amendment didn't work for them. They got their 'victory' (money << couple of dead people) through the courts later on.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  That's actually a fairly weak rebuttal. If the government is acting in a way you don't like, making a substantial presence known and credibly presenting a large set of allies is useful. Though that need not be an armed response. Case in point from today's headlines: In Durham, NC, a large group of citizens presented themselves as having torn down Slaver Rebellion statues in the city. Something of an "I am Spartacus" moment. (Though that original example ended poorly.)
  - vacri 9y ago
    Why should the ACLU defend the rights of a group intent on causing violence to other citizens? You could argue that their name actually means they should work to prevent that group from getting support, given that that group wants to infringe on the civil liberties of others.
liberte82 9y ago
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble. It's not at all unreasonable to make the argument that large groups of people bringing guns to protest breaks with the peaceably part, especially given the evidence.

slavik81 9y ago

This reads to me more like abstaining from the issue. Nothing was mentioned about actively campaigning for restrictions. My impression is that ACLU tends to give gun topics a low priority. Gun control is a divisive subject among their supporters, and there already exist well-funded groups dedicated specifically to gun rights.

unityByFreedom 9y ago

> is it really critical you have a gun on you at that exact moment? They also noted they didn't want to support groups intent on violence. [1] I imagine the ACLU will still defend the rights of groups who want to voice their right to carry. That's an important right, in my opinion, and I don't own a gun nor do I ever plan to. [1] https://youtu.be/P54sP0Nlngg?t=20m51s https://youtu.be/P54sP0Nlngg?t=20m51s

gmiller123456 9y ago

>this may be the ACLU trying to set limits on acceptable free speech, they seem like pretty reasonable ones Might be reasonable to you. But for someone who carries concealed frequently, I'd consider a political rally unfortunately well above average for a place I'd actually need a gun to defend myself from violence. It'd be a real shame for them to defend everyone at the rally except me, just because I was carrying.