4 ms·

This has been said for the history of the ACLU. And there are difficult balances there: do you defend the Nazi March? What if that March includes armed marchers

This has been said for the history of the ACLU. And there are difficult balances there: do you defend the Nazi March? What if that March includes armed marchers aiming guns at others? Is aiming a gun speech? Or speech the ACLU has interest in defending? Does it maximize the freedom for marchers, counter marchers, or citizens? The ACLU had to come to terms with consequences, and harder answers. After defending and enabling a march where people died, the ACLU had to answer whether it was responsible...and it was. So the organization is a bit different, but I am not so sure that the ACLU could have continued. It had avoided really hard problems, and then had to come to terms with it. I prefer it this way: it is messy and tricky and also much less likely to be a disaster.

HideousKojima 6y ago
Aiming guns at people is already illegal under brandishing laws. The ACLU has refused to support any armed demonstration
- whatshisface 6y ago
  That's an interesting example of how partisan-seeming biases can develop inadvertently. There may be an objective reason why the ACLU doesn't support armed demonstrations, but there's only one side that likes to bring guns to their protests, so in practice this only cancels support for one side. Reminds me of the "anyone is equally free to marry a person of the opposite gender" response to gay people having the same rights. The ACLU may or may not want to support armed demonstrations, but if they want "docket diversity," they'd pragmatically have to loosen that rule, perhaps to "we don't support demonstrations where weapons were fired," or even, "we defend demonstrators in all cases except when they admit to specifically trying to shoot someone," or something like that.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    > There may be an objective reason why the ACLU doesn't support armed demonstrations, but there's only one side that likes to bring guns to their protests, so in practice this only cancels support for one side. is this true? I can think of at least one recent event in kenosha where people on both "sides" had guns.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      It's mostly true... so far. Although some elements of antifa are perfectly willing to use projectile weapons. Those are less dangerous than guns, but they aren't nothing.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    > but there's only one side that likes to bring guns to their protests NFAC [1], Pro-BLM Protestors in Austin [2] and that was after a protestor brandished his AK at an uber driver and the uber driver shot him (so we had armed protestors before that as well). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Fucking_Around_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Fucking_Around_Coalition [2] https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/protests/austin-protests-police-dps-troopers-increasing/269-1f15b131-142e-4407-b2bc-387189b0372f https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/protests/austin-prot...
  - bmelton 6y ago
    > There may be an objective reason why the ACLU doesn't support armed demonstrations They flatly do not believe that firearm ownership is an individual right, rather that it is a collective right. This used to be plainly displayed on their website, but I'm having troubles finding it now, and perhaps that narrative has been challenged internally as certain chapters of the ACLU (Nevada comes to mind) have begun recognizing it as an individual right. Moreover, arms rights challenges that could spur ACLU action haven't ever really come to fruition, such as a ban on arms sales to individuals on the no-fly list for example.
bumby 6y ago
>do you defend the Nazi March In the past they would [1]. I'm not convinced they would do so today. [1] https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp...
- bmelton 6y ago
  They did recently (2017/2018) defend Milo Yiannopoulis' right to advertise his event in the DC metro, but after pushback related to that, they've softened their stance in a lot of ways, carving out exceptions, for example they have stated they would not defend the right of "hate groups" to march if they were armed, and stated in a memo[1] that they should no longer defend the right to speech against marginalized groups. [1] http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf?mod=article_inline http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACL...
  - bumby 6y ago
    Thank you, that was enlightening. Among their considerations, "the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values;" It sounds like maybe they've adjusted their "unwavering commitment to the principle of free speech" "That’s because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they’re going to be preserved for everyone." [1] https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech

HideousKojima 6y ago

Aiming guns at people is already illegal under brandishing laws. The ACLU has refused to support any armed demonstration

whatshisface 6y ago
That's an interesting example of how partisan-seeming biases can develop inadvertently. There may be an objective reason why the ACLU doesn't support armed demonstrations, but there's only one side that likes to bring guns to their protests, so in practice this only cancels support for one side. Reminds me of the "anyone is equally free to marry a person of the opposite gender" response to gay people having the same rights. The ACLU may or may not want to support armed demonstrations, but if they want "docket diversity," they'd pragmatically have to loosen that rule, perhaps to "we don't support demonstrations where weapons were fired," or even, "we defend demonstrators in all cases except when they admit to specifically trying to shoot someone," or something like that.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > There may be an objective reason why the ACLU doesn't support armed demonstrations, but there's only one side that likes to bring guns to their protests, so in practice this only cancels support for one side. is this true? I can think of at least one recent event in kenosha where people on both "sides" had guns.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    It's mostly true... so far. Although some elements of antifa are perfectly willing to use projectile weapons. Those are less dangerous than guns, but they aren't nothing.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  > but there's only one side that likes to bring guns to their protests NFAC [1], Pro-BLM Protestors in Austin [2] and that was after a protestor brandished his AK at an uber driver and the uber driver shot him (so we had armed protestors before that as well). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Fucking_Around_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Fucking_Around_Coalition [2] https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/protests/austin-protests-police-dps-troopers-increasing/269-1f15b131-142e-4407-b2bc-387189b0372f https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/protests/austin-prot...
- bmelton 6y ago
  > There may be an objective reason why the ACLU doesn't support armed demonstrations They flatly do not believe that firearm ownership is an individual right, rather that it is a collective right. This used to be plainly displayed on their website, but I'm having troubles finding it now, and perhaps that narrative has been challenged internally as certain chapters of the ACLU (Nevada comes to mind) have begun recognizing it as an individual right. Moreover, arms rights challenges that could spur ACLU action haven't ever really come to fruition, such as a ban on arms sales to individuals on the no-fly list for example.

bumby 6y ago

>do you defend the Nazi March In the past they would [1]. I'm not convinced they would do so today. [1] https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp...

bmelton 6y ago
They did recently (2017/2018) defend Milo Yiannopoulis' right to advertise his event in the DC metro, but after pushback related to that, they've softened their stance in a lot of ways, carving out exceptions, for example they have stated they would not defend the right of "hate groups" to march if they were armed, and stated in a memo[1] that they should no longer defend the right to speech against marginalized groups. [1] http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf?mod=article_inline http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACL...
- bumby 6y ago
  Thank you, that was enlightening. Among their considerations, "the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values;" It sounds like maybe they've adjusted their "unwavering commitment to the principle of free speech" "That’s because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they’re going to be preserved for everyone." [1] https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech