3 ms·

Again - I disagree with the view that they "gave up" their values, and I don't want to live in a world where every political ideology needs its own non-profit,

by geofft 7y ago

Again - I disagree with the view that they "gave up" their values, and I don't want to live in a world where every political ideology needs its own non-profit, either. I think the ACLU can and should be an organization that defends the right to freedom of speech of everyone regardless of political affiliation. I'm arguing that their lawsuit in Charlottesville didn't actually serve the goals of protecting civil rights or defending principles which are important to protect other people's civil rights. I'm arguing that the Charlottesville case was different from the Illinois Nazis case - Unite the Right wasn't primarily about speech, it was about violence, and the speech acts that Kessler et al. wanted to do would have worked just fine in the other park, which would have been logistically easier from a public safety perspective. I'm arguing that if Charlottesville's original decision had stood and established precedent that somehow later applied to a "good guy" protest, that would be okay, because of the specific facts of the Charlottesville case. I'm arguing that the ACLU was right to take on the Illinois Nazis case, and would be right to take it on again today. You don't need to convince me of that. (If the ACLU has somehow managed to get itself into a position where it's not willing to do that anymore and it hasn't convinced people like me that it's learned its lesson from Unite the Right, then they're truly incompetent.) It is of course a little difficult to separate the idea of protecting civil rights from political ideology: the idea that civil rights are worth protecting is a political ideology itself! But I think the broader point, which I agree with, is that you should be willing to protect the civil rights of people who do not think that civil rights are worth protecting.

dmix 7y ago
> Unite the Right wasn't primarily about speech, it was about violence This is easy to say with retrospect. How many other major protests in history would you have compromised had you known there would be violence? Any embedded provocateur could easily kill any protest. Any extremist portion of any political group, no matter how small, could kill the mainstream purpose of the wider legitimate group. I'd much rather we strongly defend their right to protest in public spaces, regardless of ideology, and instead we react to any planned or actual violence (which is already illegal). Including targeting individuals who have that as part of their agenda. Not attacking the larger groups at the point of their freedom of assembly. Which is all ACLU ever protected them from when they defend their right to protest in one city park instead of one far away from downtown. I'd love to see where Unite the Right people fought for the right to commit violence in court and where ACLU had any part of that...
- geofft 7y ago
  I think it was clear in advance of Unite the Right that many of the groups actively invited by the organizer were interested in violence. This wasn't embedded provocateurs or out-of-control extremists. Furthermore, Charlottesville didn't deny Unite the Right a permit - they just offered them a permit at a different location than what they wanted. Obviously the organizer didn't go to court and say, "I would like the right to commit violence, can you please give me that right because free speech." But he did go to court and say "Me and my militia buddies who are hoping for a civil war and are bringing their guns would like to hold a rally at this crowded location where police can't keep things under control, and the city said that we can hold a rally at this less-crowded location instead, can we have our original location please?" and the ACLU defended that. I think we're too far off-topic to argue about whether my view of Unite the Right is true or not - but I think I've set out a coherent position about principles (and, in particular, if my view is wrong on the facts, then I am in favor of the ACLU's support on principle.) I think you'll find that I am, in fact, opposed to most riots and do not believe there is an unalienable civil right to riot. I do believe in the right of people to protest even if there's a violent faction you can't do anything about. (And, in particular, I don't believe that information in retrospect about the violence of a given protest is relevant. I would still hold the same position if nobody had died or even been injured at Charlottesville, because of the information we knew beforehand. That is, my position rests on it the ACLU having been wrong at the time they filed the suit, not after the fact, which is a good part of why I don't think they've learned anything from it.)
  - dmix 7y ago
    > This wasn't embedded provocateurs or out-of-control extremists. I never said it was. And that completely misses the point on why it's important. (surprise: you don't have to defend Charlottesville to defend the ACLU) You're basically providing anyone an easy tool to kill any protest before it gets off the ground. Any protest where antifa plays a role would be DOA (and having attending my fair share that's at least ~50% of the major ones)... do you think all the human rights, union, indigenous, etc groups control which protests Antifa shows up at? Should they have to self-regulate their protests so no one shows up wearing all-black is allowed to participate? Anyway you're free to stop supporting ACLU if you prefer a political-driven legal group. I'm sure they exist. ACLU lost 30,000 members after Spokane but was still a force to be reckoned with for decades. I'm just saddened to see this short-term thinking also infecting lawyer groups and famous rights-defending academic institutions. I'm not surprised to see it in the media, Reddit, and elsewhere where higher values aren't embedded in their purpose. The courts should always be the last line of defence and at a minimum should be immune from politics. Without politically neutral legal defence groups the world will be far worse off than the benefits of stopping a few nazis from protesting.

by geofft 7y ago

dmix 7y ago

> Unite the Right wasn't primarily about speech, it was about violence This is easy to say with retrospect. How many other major protests in history would you have compromised had you known there would be violence? Any embedded provocateur could easily kill any protest. Any extremist portion of any political group, no matter how small, could kill the mainstream purpose of the wider legitimate group. I'd much rather we strongly defend their right to protest in public spaces, regardless of ideology, and instead we react to any planned or actual violence (which is already illegal). Including targeting individuals who have that as part of their agenda. Not attacking the larger groups at the point of their freedom of assembly. Which is all ACLU ever protected them from when they defend their right to protest in one city park instead of one far away from downtown. I'd love to see where Unite the Right people fought for the right to commit violence in court and where ACLU had any part of that...

geofft 7y ago
I think it was clear in advance of Unite the Right that many of the groups actively invited by the organizer were interested in violence. This wasn't embedded provocateurs or out-of-control extremists. Furthermore, Charlottesville didn't deny Unite the Right a permit - they just offered them a permit at a different location than what they wanted. Obviously the organizer didn't go to court and say, "I would like the right to commit violence, can you please give me that right because free speech." But he did go to court and say "Me and my militia buddies who are hoping for a civil war and are bringing their guns would like to hold a rally at this crowded location where police can't keep things under control, and the city said that we can hold a rally at this less-crowded location instead, can we have our original location please?" and the ACLU defended that. I think we're too far off-topic to argue about whether my view of Unite the Right is true or not - but I think I've set out a coherent position about principles (and, in particular, if my view is wrong on the facts, then I am in favor of the ACLU's support on principle.) I think you'll find that I am, in fact, opposed to most riots and do not believe there is an unalienable civil right to riot. I do believe in the right of people to protest even if there's a violent faction you can't do anything about. (And, in particular, I don't believe that information in retrospect about the violence of a given protest is relevant. I would still hold the same position if nobody had died or even been injured at Charlottesville, because of the information we knew beforehand. That is, my position rests on it the ACLU having been wrong at the time they filed the suit, not after the fact, which is a good part of why I don't think they've learned anything from it.)
- dmix 7y ago
  > This wasn't embedded provocateurs or out-of-control extremists. I never said it was. And that completely misses the point on why it's important. (surprise: you don't have to defend Charlottesville to defend the ACLU) You're basically providing anyone an easy tool to kill any protest before it gets off the ground. Any protest where antifa plays a role would be DOA (and having attending my fair share that's at least ~50% of the major ones)... do you think all the human rights, union, indigenous, etc groups control which protests Antifa shows up at? Should they have to self-regulate their protests so no one shows up wearing all-black is allowed to participate? Anyway you're free to stop supporting ACLU if you prefer a political-driven legal group. I'm sure they exist. ACLU lost 30,000 members after Spokane but was still a force to be reckoned with for decades. I'm just saddened to see this short-term thinking also infecting lawyer groups and famous rights-defending academic institutions. I'm not surprised to see it in the media, Reddit, and elsewhere where higher values aren't embedded in their purpose. The courts should always be the last line of defence and at a minimum should be immune from politics. Without politically neutral legal defence groups the world will be far worse off than the benefits of stopping a few nazis from protesting.