2 ms·
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
by 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 agoThank 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