3 ms·
If speech promotes oppression of others (e.g. "put them in chains") should an organization devoted to liberty defend it? How can you not see that the only answ
by kthejoker2 8y ago
If speech promotes oppression of others (e.g. "put them in chains") should an organization devoted to liberty defend it?
How can you not see that the only answer to this is yes, unequivocally and absolutely yes?
Because there is absolutely, 100% no way to define what speech "promotes oppression" that isn't a slippery slope to thoughtcrime and totalitarianism. Period.
The ACLU of Brandenberg v Ohio understood this.
- notacoward 8y agoYou know that "slippery slope" is a fallacy, right? The slope you talk about is no slipperier than the one that leads straight from talking about slavery to actual slavery. The Trumpian "Period" doesn't change that. Also, note that I mentioned opposition, not censorship. The ACLU has no power to censor anyway. You're still free to spout whatever anti-liberty nonsense you want. The ACLU is free to devote their finite resources to cases and causes that don't have that complication. They're not your slaves, or any other first-amendment absolutist's. As I said, liberty comes in many forms - not just yours.
- kthejoker2 8y agoMy comment was about an "organization devoted to liberty", not the ACLU. They can of course do as they please, but they won't be able to call themselves that any more.
- notacoward 8y agoThey're not the American First Amendment Union. You want that, go start it yourself. Their mandate is broader, often involving complex interactions of different rights, and sometimes the rights that members of America's most privileged group consider important do not seem that way to others.
- candiodari 8y agoMaybe it’s worth pointing out that the governments the other groups live under are ... not just lacking in the free speech department...