Black Lives Matter's newest enemy? The ACLU!

[Derec]

Black Lives Matter Students Shut Down the ACLU's Campus Free Speech Event Because 'Liberalism Is White Supremacy'

Students affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement crashed an event at the College of William & Mary, rushed the stage, and prevented the invited guest—the American Civil Liberties Union's Claire Gastañaga, a W & M alum—from speaking.
Ironically, Gastañaga had intended to speak on the subject, "Students and the First Amendment."
[..]
It was the last remark she was able to make before protesters drowned her out with cries of, "ACLU, you protect Hitler, too." They also chanted, "the oppressed are not impressed," "shame, shame, shame, shame," (an ode to the Faith Militant's treatment of Cersei Lannister in Game of Thrones, though why anyone would want to be associated with the religious fanatics in that particular conflict is beyond me), "blood on your hands," "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution," and, uh, "liberalism is white supremacy."

Unfortunately, it does not seem that College of William and Mary will do anything to discipline the students who interrupted the speech. That means that they will be emboldened to the same thing again and again.

 

[dismal]

"ACLU, you protect Hitler, too."

I thought Hitler was dead?

 

[TSwizzle]

Watching the video really is laugh out loud funny. What a bunch of maroons.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Liberalism != white supremacy. That's stupid.

However, 100% free speech may defend genocidal maniacs which I think is the point.

University's statement:

Silencing certain voices in order to advance the cause of others is not acceptable in our community.

So, we shouldn't silence pro-genocide political parties, even if they win elections, such as the Presidential election?

 

[J842P]

Liberalism != white supremacy. That's stupid.

However, 100% free speech may defend genocidal maniacs which I think is the point.

University's statement:

Silencing certain voices in order to advance the cause of others is not acceptable in our community.

So, we shouldn't silence pro-genocide political parties, even if they win elections, such as the Presidential election?

Promoting genocide falls firmly within the bounds of actively advocating for violence, which generally isn't protected under the 1st amendment. Hate speech is.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I know that when I stood up for free speech at Berkeley against Antifa, I was accused of being a Fascist, or at least a Fascism Supporter.

Free speech is a fascist value? ACLU is fascist or fascist supporter? It makes as much sense as everything else that's been going on lately.

 

[Elixir]

I know that when I stood up for free speech at Berkeley against Antifa, I was accused of being a Fascist, or at least a Fascism Supporter.

Free speech is a fascist value? ACLU is fascist or fascist supporter? It makes as much sense as everything else that's been going on lately.

Yeah, it really sucks. When I advocated for yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, I was accused of being an anarchist.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Liberalism != white supremacy. That's stupid.

However, 100% free speech may defend genocidal maniacs which I think is the point.

University's statement:


So, we shouldn't silence pro-genocide political parties, even if they win elections, such as the Presidential election?

Promoting genocide falls firmly within the bounds of actively advocating for violence, which generally isn't protected under the 1st amendment. Hate speech is.

Okay, then let's go with that. However, there was a lot of noise from Libertarians, maybe some on this forum about how those Nazi guys in Charlottesville ought to have free speech.

 

[J842P]

Promoting genocide falls firmly within the bounds of actively advocating for violence, which generally isn't protected under the 1st amendment. Hate speech is.

Okay, then let's go with that. However, there was a lot of noise from Libertarians, maybe some on this forum about how those Nazi guys in Charlottesville ought to have free speech.

Yes, again, if you are *actively calling for genocide* then that isn't necessarily protected. But the Nazi's in Charlottesville didn't do that, so as long as they don't cross the line of actively promoting/inciting violence, then the speech is protected. This was settled in Skokie. Do people not learn basic civics anymore?

But yeah, white supremacists are allowed to be white supremacists, and they are allowed to wave their insignias around. They are not allowed to incite violence directly.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Okay, then let's go with that. However, there was a lot of noise from Libertarians, maybe some on this forum about how those Nazi guys in Charlottesville ought to have free speech.

Yes, again, if you are *actively calling for genocide* then that isn't necessarily protected. But the Nazi's in Charlottesville didn't do that, so as long as they don't cross the line of actively promoting/inciting violence, then the speech is protected. This was settled in Skokie. Do people not learn basic civics anymore?

But yeah, white supremacists are allowed to be white supremacists, and they are allowed to wave their insignias around. They are not allowed to incite violence directly.

You seem to be making this into a legal question of current laws.

Let's look at an example. One guy said something like I'm here to (1) restore my republican values, (2) killing jews, and (3) support free trade. Yes, the killing jews part was somewhat grammatically challenged. So that's legal is what you're saying, but what's not legal is saying "Let go kill the Jews." But I think that the Nazi Party itself promotes genocide, even if out in the open they merely abstractly support killing jews, behind the scenes they do more than that.

BUT what I wrote is that 100% free speech supports genocidal maniacs and so if you're saying that you are for the former but against the latter, then you're not in support of 100% free speech.

 

[BH]

Liberalism != white supremacy. That's stupid.

However, 100% free speech may defend genocidal maniacs which I think is the point.

University's statement:


So, we shouldn't silence pro-genocide political parties, even if they win elections, such as the Presidential election?

Promoting genocide falls firmly within the bounds of actively advocating for violence, which generally isn't protected under the 1st amendment. Hate speech is.

Just curious, would it be legal to advocate for the law to be changed where you could do to minorities what Hitler did? You are not advocating for illegal violence but legal violence.

 

[Mumbles]

Figured that would come up eventually. I'm an ACLU member, but I do wish they wouldn't defend people like those "Unite the right" humans, who obviously *did* gather to be violent.

 

[J842P]

Figured that would come up eventually. I'm an ACLU member, but I do wish they wouldn't defend people like those "Unite the right" humans, who obviously *did* gather to be violent.

Look, this is like the whole assassination squad thing. Yeah, I may feel ok giving Obama the power to unilaterally decide to assassinate American abroad with no trial, but Obama won't always be in office, and once you open the door to "people who obviously gathered to be violent", you are going to get hoisted by your own petard. Do you think that the Trump administration wouldn't use this as a pretext to shutdown BLM protests preemptively? No, their has to be very strict and narrow guidelines about what sort of speech is not permissible.

 

[J842P]

Yes, again, if you are *actively calling for genocide* then that isn't necessarily protected. But the Nazi's in Charlottesville didn't do that, so as long as they don't cross the line of actively promoting/inciting violence, then the speech is protected. This was settled in Skokie. Do people not learn basic civics anymore?

But yeah, white supremacists are allowed to be white supremacists, and they are allowed to wave their insignias around. They are not allowed to incite violence directly.

You seem to be making this into a legal question of current laws.

Let's look at an example. One guy said something like I'm here to (1) restore my republican values, (2) killing jews, and (3) support free trade. Yes, the killing jews part was somewhat grammatically challenged. So that's legal is what you're saying, but what's not legal is saying "Let go kill the Jews." But I think that the Nazi Party itself promotes genocide, even if out in the open they merely abstractly support killing jews, behind the scenes they do more than that.

BUT what I wrote is that 100% free speech supports genocidal maniacs and so if you're saying that you are for the former but against the latter, then you're not in support of 100% free speech.

If one person said something to the effect that they are there to kill someone, then that person can be investigated for threatening to kill people. If a group openly speaks about planning to kill jews, then that is conspiracy to commit murder. But the Unite the Right people should have been allowed to assemble and march and wave around their flags. Their political speech should not be interdicted.

But fundamentally, no, I don't think that 100% free speech supports genocidal maniacs, even if we took a completely absolutist position. I think a 100% absolutist position on free speech is preferable to, say, an interdiction on hate speech, on the whole.

 

[untermensche]

I think first of all we should change the name of black lives matter to dark matter.

 

[J842P]

Promoting genocide falls firmly within the bounds of actively advocating for violence, which generally isn't protected under the 1st amendment. Hate speech is.

Just curious, would it be legal to advocate for the law to be changed where you could do to minorities what Hitler did? You are not advocating for illegal violence but legal violence.

I'm not a lawyer, but I assume that's legal.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You seem to be making this into a legal question of current laws.

Let's look at an example. One guy said something like I'm here to (1) restore my republican values, (2) killing jews, and (3) support free trade. Yes, the killing jews part was somewhat grammatically challenged. So that's legal is what you're saying, but what's not legal is saying "Let go kill the Jews." But I think that the Nazi Party itself promotes genocide, even if out in the open they merely abstractly support killing jews, behind the scenes they do more than that.

BUT what I wrote is that 100% free speech supports genocidal maniacs and so if you're saying that you are for the former but against the latter, then you're not in support of 100% free speech.

If one person said something to the effect that they are there to kill someone, then that person can be investigated for threatening to kill people. If a group openly speaks about planning to kill jews, then that is conspiracy to commit murder. But the Unite the Right people should have been allowed to assemble and march and wave around their flags. Their political speech should not be interdicted.

But fundamentally, no, I don't think that 100% free speech supports genocidal maniacs, even if we took a completely absolutist position. I think a 100% absolutist position on free speech is preferable to, say, an interdiction on hate speech, on the whole.

Hate speech and genocidal speech are not the same thing. In some European countries Nazi party is illegal, just like al Qaeda is illegal here...making Nazis illegal and KKK illegal as terrorist organizations, just like al Qaeda.

ETA: I will add that the original post I wrote was in reference to shouting people down which is what these specific members did to ACLU:

So, we shouldn't silence pro-genocide political parties, even if they win elections, such as the Presidential election?

The "should" or "should not" question was not about current laws but instead what we should do--to include shouting down or changing laws wrt to party membership in the same way we illegalize al Qaeda.

So if the Nazis took over, what would be your plan? I think there comes a time when you have to take action physically but before that point in time you have to take different actions.

 

[Mumbles]

Figured that would come up eventually. I'm an ACLU member, but I do wish they wouldn't defend people like those "Unite the right" humans, who obviously *did* gather to be violent.

Look, this is like the whole assassination squad thing. Yeah, I may feel ok giving Obama the power to unilaterally decide to assassinate American abroad with no trial, but Obama won't always be in office, and once you open the door to "people who obviously gathered to be violent", you are going to get hoisted by your own petard. Do you think that the Trump administration wouldn't use this as a pretext to shutdown BLM protests preemptively? No, their has to be very strict and narrow guidelines about what sort of speech is not permissible.

Think Toupee Fiasco wouldn't do it anyway? The man's obviously a white supremacist. And in any case, many local police regularly abuse protesters - or in Ferguson and Baltimore, black people who *aren't* protesting at all.

 

[dismal]

Promoting genocide falls firmly within the bounds of actively advocating for violence, which generally isn't protected under the 1st amendment. Hate speech is.

Okay, then let's go with that. However, there was a lot of noise from Libertarians, maybe some on this forum about how those Nazi guys in Charlottesville ought to have free speech.

Anyone with a slight clue about what free speech is thinks Nazis guys are entitled to it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Okay, then let's go with that. However, there was a lot of noise from Libertarians, maybe some on this forum about how those Nazi guys in Charlottesville ought to have free speech.

Anyone with a slight clue about what free speech is thinks Nazis guys are entitled to it.

See, but you're qualifying what free speech is, you are not actually defending the absolutist concept of free speech.