Support NeoGAF

[skullmuffins]

How come Nazi protesting rallies aren't considered "hate speech," which we have laws against? Wouldn't the ideology behind Nazism and white supremacy be inherently hateful?

Like, the reasoning.

We don't have laws against hate speech. It is 100% constitutional to stand in a public area and advocate for an ideology that involves the deaths of minorities, gay people, jews, you-name-it, as long as you aren't calling for imminent lawless action.

Telling a crowd to go and lynch someone standing right there would be illegal, but basically being a nazi, waving a swastika flag, and saying we need to make America a nation of white people... isn't.

 

[BertramCooper]

What is the ACLU doing to make up for yesterday? Or are they continuing to double down? I don't think there's an answer that is both "good" and "realistic" regarding hate speech laws in this country, but people died yesterday and the ACLU were complicit in giving those people a platform. So I repeat: what are they doing to make up for yesterday?

They will "make up" for yesterday by doing what they always do - by fighting for the rights of people like Gavin Grimm.

 

[Kinsei]

I don't know why someone hasn't floated a constitutional amendment to ban Nazi-related hate speech, symbolism, and imagery.

The ACLU, which I support, should get on lobbying for that.

The ACLU would fight tooth and nail against such an amendment.

 

[WedgeX]

The KKK/altirighters/nazis came armed with guns, bats, sticks and shields. They organized to fight. The right to peaceably assemble should not have been bent and abused to allow them to continue to gather.

 

[Psychoward]

It bears mentioning that the reason why the city wanted to relocate the site of the protest, a motion the ACLU fought against, was public safety concerns.

Yep

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

The ACLU would fight tooth and nail against such an amendment.

The ACLU's premise is that it advocates for a wide-ranging, liberal interpretation of the First Amendment.

Cool, I get that.

So let's update our constitution to reject a niche, narrow area of worthless and valueless speech in a way that doesn't conflict with the First Amendment.

 

[SyenceLabb]

This is turning into another "US sucks! Europe rules" thread.

 

[shnurgleton]

I saw pictures of a Nazi flag and people doing the Nazi salute. So I would assume that those people supported Nazi ideals. I would disagree that everyone at the rally was a Nazi.

If you march with Nazis, you are a Nazi.

That being said, the ACLU must do its job.

 

[Kenai]

They will "make up" for yesterday by doing what they always do - by fighting for the rights of people like Gavin Grimm.

So they aren't going to actually do anything, and pretend like they had nothing to do with it?

 

[Psychoward]

They will "make up" for yesterday by doing what they always do - by fighting for the rights of people like Gavin Grimm.

Yet not acknowledging they fucked up in this instance. Cool.

 

[Kthulhu]

People need to seriously consider the ramifications of a political protest being shut down in court being legal precedent.

lol @ folks so eager to hand over their rights to the Republican controlled government.

This. So long as our political climate is the way it is now and has been for the past several decades, we can't take the risk of allowing the GOP to enforce hate speech laws.

 

[BertramCooper]

The ACLU's premise is that it advocates for a wide-ranging, liberal interpretation of the First Amendment.

Cool, I get that.

So let's update our constitution to reject a niche, narrow area of worthless and valueless speech in a way that doesn't conflict with the First Amendment.

And then let's watch our constitution later get updated to also reject meaningful and valuable forms of free speech.

Yet not acknowledging they fucked up in this instance. Cool.

I'm not saying the ACLU hasn't fucked up at all here. But I will continue to support them proudly because their overarching objectives continue to be sound and admirable.

 

[Crossing Eden]

This is turning into another "US sucks! Europe rules" thread.

Because in terms of hate speech, the US is doing worse than the places that voted for Brexit. It's a straight up joke.

 

[Snarky(HEART)]

"Please I am deserving of equal rights."

"Okay, but slavery."

"Fuck you no slavery"

"Okay then Jim Crow, lynchings, and the KKK"

"Haha Civil rights!"

"Ah ah not so fast. The war on drugs!"

"....Obama?"

"Police Brutality, More War on drugs, private prisons, fuck you education, the alt-right, also Trump."

"Fine, then I'll fight back."

"No! Law and order!"

"But the police and the law and the government all hate us and don't want to work for us."

"Then work together to change the laws! Protest!"

"Okay! Let's protest!"

"Oh sorry, the Naz- I mean white nationalists protested too and hurt your people."

"Fuck them! Let's fight for our rights then!"

"No! Violence is not the answer! You have to change the system. Keep protesting. Oh! And donate to organizations that defend the rights of minorities! Like the ACLU!"

"Oh okay! I'll donate to the ACLU"

"Oh, sorry, the ACLU used your donation money to help another Nazi rally."

"...."

 

[Mammoth Jones]

The thing is, those on the right are saying this exact thing about radical islamic terrorists and immigrants.

Immigrants aren't a terrorist organization.

Anyone here support the right for ISIS and Al-qaeda to assemble and advocate their positions? I do not view the KKK and Nazis as any different.

 

[Weckum]

This is turning into another "US sucks! Europe rules" thread.

It's sort of ironic actually, because usually it's the other way around when the UK or one of the other European countries try to limit free speech.

Both arguments have their pros and cons sadly, and in the US case nazis marchig in the street is probably the biggest con I can imagine.

 

[Oersted]

but because the ACLU wants to uphold the law, which means that even nazi shitheads get to spout their shit.

The law might be failing when it comes to Nazis.

 

[nynt9]

People need to seriously consider the ramifications of a political protest being shut down in court being legal precedent.



This. So long as our political climate is the way it is now and has been for the past several decades, we can't take the risk of allowing the GOP to enforce hate speech laws.

Yeah, we should be worried about this hypothetical instead of actual nazis assembling, killing and beating up people right now.

 

[Psychoward]

This is turning into another "US sucks! Europe rules" thread.

I mean that's mighty reductionist and shows poor reading comprehension but I don't see the flaws in acknowledging some countries handle things better than the US? Is saying Europe has better gun laws than the US saying that same playground statement?

 

[ebullientprism]

Glenn Greenwald is often right? Haha you lost me OP also fuck the ACLU of Virginia.

Excellent counterpoints. Thread off to a good start.

 

[Psychoward]

Excellent counterpoints. Thread off to a good start.

There have been 3 pages now but you still decided to go for that and say the thread is off to a good "start".

 

[JeTmAn81]

The ACLU will always be in the right when they're defending the fundamental American right to free speech. Holding reprehensible views doesn't make your rights disappear.

 

[SyenceLabb]

Because in terms of hate speech, the US is doing worse than the places that voted for Brexit. It's a straight up joke.

It's not a joke. US has many problems, but telling the government to legislate speech won't solve anything. It would only be symbolic at best, and at worst it would have too many undesired consequences. Creating a law that bans Nazi speech won't magically make Nazis disappear. It's too knee-jerk.

 

[BertramCooper]

I mean that's mighty reductionist and shows poor reading comprehension but I don't see the flaws in acknowledging some countries handle things better than the US? Is saying Europe has better gun laws than the US saying that same playground statement?

And I'd say the U.S. tends to handle things like letting Muslims dress however they wish to dress better than certain European countries.

Let's kindly not overlook some of the downsides of the way European nations handle free speech matters.

 

[Crossing Eden]

It's not a joke. US has many problems, but telling the government to legislate speech won't solve anything.

Yes it would.

 

[Kthulhu]

Yeah, we should be worried about this hypothetical instead of actual nazis assembling, killing and beating up people right now.

Was it the ACLU that killed and beat people? No, it wasn't.

It's one thing if you disagree that the ACLU defending their right to free speech was the right thing to do, but it's ridiculous to say that they are responsible. The neo nazis were the ones that chose to kill and beat people.

 

[Caturro]

I don't understand, to this day the US Naturalization application and exam requires that you inform them whether you are a communist sympathizer or against the capitalist system. America has a history of suppressing leftist ideas and, to this day, there are laws limiting people to hold public positions if they hold these beliefs. Where the fuck has ACLU been as far as those limitations of freedom of speech go?

Is it ok to allow government to suppress communists but not Nazis?

 

[ErichWK]

I support the ACLU in this

 

[AmayaPapaya]

No one should get mad at the ACLU for doing its job. Just a month or so ago, people were praising them because they sued the Trump administration for something. They do great things that are more important. Defending Milo doesn't even mean anything. The dudes career is dead. No reason to hurt the ACLU for defending his rights when they are sometimes the only people defending justice.

Also, in regards to restricting Nazi free speech, Germany and other places can do it because they have strong educational support structures and national movements against these things. In the US, we just don't have that. 30-40% of the country thinks of people like Robert Lee as a hero, and the confederate flag as heritage. A Texas school book, just a few years ago, called slaves, "workers". The failure of reconstruction is no more evident than with the number of people and Fox defending the Neo Nazis against the "evil" BLM protesters!!!! Even after they killed people. Sorry, but if you restrict their speech, you are just going to embolden them. Unlike other countries, they don't just have just little groups they can run to when they get hurt, they have states and cities, where their hatred will fester and grow and become worse. People are already comparing BLM to Nazis, and the first thing to happen to BLM after a law that restricts Nazi speech, would be a law in Alabama restricting BLM there for the same reason. I just dont think its a safe path and doesn't do much to curb anything unless there is a real support structure to ensure people get the right message. Like a second reconstruction.

 

[kmax]

The ACLU's premise is that it advocates for a wide-ranging, liberal interpretation of the First Amendment.

Cool, I get that.

So let's update our constitution to reject a niche, narrow area of worthless and valueless speech in a way that doesn't conflict with the First Amendment.

.

 

[Psychoward]

Was it the ACLU that killed and beat people? No, it wasn't.

It's one thing if you disagree that the ACLU defending their right to free speech was the right thing to do, but it's ridiculous to say that they are responsible. The neo nazis were the ones that chose to kill and beat people.

The ACLU fought the city to not move the protest due to safety concerns, doubled down even when the people who showed up were neo-nazis with rifles and body armor and after the driver ran over people the ACLU VA twitter victim blamed them.

The ACLU isn't solely responsible no, I've donated to them in the past and recently and have the documents to prove it - card and all - but there's no denying the VA chapter messed up this weekend.

 

[mlclmtckr]

The ACLU's premise is that it advocates for a wide-ranging, liberal interpretation of the First Amendment.

Cool, I get that.

So let's update our constitution to reject a niche, narrow area of worthless and valueless speech in a way that doesn't conflict with the First Amendment.

The actual ACLU response to that would be some long-winded form of "but then we become the Nazis."

 

[Mammoth Jones]

The ACLU will always be in the right when they're defending the fundamental American right to free speech. Holding reprehensible views doesn't make your rights disappear.

I support free speech but inciting violence isn't protected even in the US. And that's the sole purpose of the KKK and Nazis. But they're White organizations so they get a pass. White privilege strikes again.

No one would tolerate a god damn ISIS march in the US. No one on the left or right or "moderate" (*wink*) would tolerate that shit and go on about protecting free speech.

 

[D4Danger]

This is turning into another "US sucks! Europe rules" thread.

When we had a Nazi problem we kicked their fucking ass

 

[Balphon]

And got absolutely irrelevant in record time. They can't even get 10% anymore. As soon as everyone was aware that they contained nazi elements that they wouldn't drop they started tanking.

The NPD exists too. Hate speech laws don't erase nazis, but they're doing a good job on containing the spreading of such ideology.

I'm not sure how heartened I would be that only 9% rather than 14% of the public is willing to express support for ethno-nationalism. Hell, 9% is better than David Duke did in his last election.

Of course, that was the same day Trump was elected, so I really have no way of gauging how much support people like Spencer actually have.

 

[Kenai]

And I'd say the U.S. tends to handle things like letting Muslims dress however they wish to dress better than certain European countries.

Let's kindly not overlook some of the downsides of the way Europeans nations handle free speech matters.

I mean, I in general am for what the ACLU does in spite of what happened. But ya''ll need to understand: even the best intentions can turn out poorly, and can have horrible consequences. So when the ACLU proceeds to march on like there wasn't (deadly) fallout as a result of the Neo-Nazi actions correlating word for word with what they practice and preach, and they aren't going to take any of that into consideration for the future, put a single safeguard in place, admit a single fault, then I am reminded of the definition of insanity.

 

[skullmuffins]

Just gonna say that Nazis don't need to gather in public to spread their ideology or hurt people because of it. White supremacists murdered several people already earlier this year outside of theoretically constitutionally protected rallies.

People these days are radicalizing 100% online, using websites that could, if they wanted, crack down on people spreading white supremacy. Without infringing on anyone's rights. Yet they choose not to. You don't have a right to free speech on Reddit. Stopping this rally wouldn't have suppressed the spread of hate movements.

 

[Toxi]

No one should get mad at the ACLU for doing its job. Just a month or so ago, people were praising them because they sued the Trump administration for something. They do great things that are more important. Defending Milo doesn't even mean anything. The dudes career is dead. No reason to hurt the ACLU for defending his rights when they are sometimes the only people defending justice.

I really don't give a shit about defending Milo's ability to put up a bus sign.

I do give a shit about defending people's ability to assemble with weapons in a public location and rally around a violent ideology, even when told it will predictably end in violence. People got hurt on Saturday, and that didn't need to happen.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

"Please I am deserving of equal rights."

"Okay, but slavery."

"Fuck you no slavery"

"Okay then Jim Crow, lynchings, and the KKK"

"Haha Civil rights!"

"Ah ah not so fast. The war on drugs!"

"....Obama?"

"Police Brutality, More War on drugs, private prisons, fuck you education, the alt-right, also Trump."

"Fine, then I'll fight back."

"No! Law and order!"

"But the police and the law and the government all hate us and don't want to work for us."

"Then work together to change the laws! Protest!"

"Okay! Let's protest!"

"Oh sorry, the Naz- I mean white nationalists protested too and hurt your people."

"Fuck them! Let's fight for our rights then!"

"No! Violence is not the answer! You have to change the system. Keep protesting. Oh! And donate to organizations that defend the rights of minorities! Like the ACLU!"

"Oh okay! I'll donate to the ACLU"

"Oh, sorry, the ACLU used your donation money to help another Nazi rally."

"...."

System working as intended.

 

[shawnbuddy]

The ACLU is the rare organization that remains dedicated to a principle and is brave enough to defend that principle knowing the defense will draw criticism or that it might have to defend people who are wrong about other things. I feel that the rights the ACLU defends are important, so I support the organization.

 

[Lord Fagan]

Naw. It's hate speech. First Amendment doesn't protect that noise.

Dressing in the armor of a warrior, carrying live arms, waving the flags of genocidal cultures, and provoking civilians and law enforcement with charged words and lit torches isn't assembling peaceably.

Greenwald likes to sell newspapers. That's great, but there's ways to do that that doesn't embolden fascists.

 

[nynt9]

Was it the ACLU that killed and beat people? No, it wasn't.

It's one thing if you disagree that the ACLU defending their right to free speech was the right thing to do, but it's ridiculous to say that they are responsible. The neo nazis were the ones that chose to kill and beat people.

They're complicit in this. They chose to defend Nazis. They could have just spent their resources elsewhere, but they went out of their way to seek this as a cause. They're not the only ones responsible, but they have blood on their hands as well.

No principle is worth defending blindly with no respect to its consequences. You need to make an intelligent decision when choosing to uphold it.

See this:

The ACLU fought the city to not move the protest due to safety concerns, doubled down even when the people who showed up were neo-nazis with rifles and body armor and after the driver ran over people the ACLU VA twitter victim blamed them.

The ACLU isn't solely responsible no, I've donated to them in the past and recently and have the documents to prove it - card and all - but there's no denying the VA chapter messed up this weekend.

 

[FZeroRacer]

The ACLU fought the city to not move the protest due to safety concerns, doubled down even when the people who showed up were neo-nazis with rifles and body armor and after the driver ran over people the ACLU VA twitter victim blamed them.

The ACLU isn't solely responsible no, I've donated to them in the past and recently and have the documents to prove it - card and all - but there's no denying the VA chapter messed up this weekend.

Absolutely this. The ACLU fucked up hard and rather than admit they fucked up they're doubling down.

I can understand that the ACLU has done a lot in the past but they'll never see a single cent from me.

 

[Toxi]

after the driver ran over people the ACLU VA twitter victim blamed them.

To be fair, the organization deleted the tweet and apologized for spreading lies.

 

[Lynn616]

They're complicit in this. They chose to defend Nazis. They could have just spent their resources elsewhere, but they went out of their way to seek this as a cause. They're not the only ones responsible, but they have blood on their hands as well.

No they chose to defend the rights of a group of people. If that group was doing or saying anything illegal then the ACLU would not have sided with them. ACLU did nothing wrong.

 

[Wamb0wneD]

Exactly. People are incredibly short sighted.

If you give up your rights in order to get rid of groups you don't like, as soon as the next administration (or current in this case) comes along they can use those same laws to oppress you.

Short sighted in terms of not being able to look across their borders? Yes. Most of Western Europe has such laws, none of them have alt-righters as their president/chancellor/ whatever. These laws have worked for like 70 years and more, no matter who came into power. Because there are ways to prevent them from being abused. Strange stuff i know.

 

[BertramCooper]

It's pretty naive to think a seemingly narrow restriction against free speech isn't capable of being completely exploited by a future administration acting in bad faith.

Worse still, such exploitation could be thoroughly enshrined in jurisprudence if the federal courts happen to be in support of said administration acting in bad faith.

Do we really want to grant a future Trump-like administration any power whatsoever to restrict free speech?

If you seriously want to start writing any free speech restrictions into our constitution, you better have a pretty great crystal ball on hand to make sure it won't go horribly, horribly wrong in the future.

 

[Kthulhu]

The ACLU fought the city to not move the protest due to safety concerns, doubled down even when the people who showed up were neo-nazis with rifles and body armor and after the driver ran over people the ACLU VA twitter victim blamed them.

The ACLU isn't solely responsible no, I've donated to them in the past and recently and have the documents to prove it - card and all - but there's no denying the VA chapter messed up this weekend.

I didn't hear about that part. The tweet was definitely a dumb decision. What do you mean when you say they doubled down?

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I support free speech but inciting violence isn't protected even in the US. And that's the sole purpose of the KKK and Nazis. But they're White organizations so they get a pass. White privilege strikes again.

No one would tolerate a god damn ISIS march in the US. No one on the left or right or "moderate" (*wink*) would tolerate that shit and go on about protecting free speech.

The problem here is that right wingers say groups like antifa and blm are terrorists inciting violence too.

 

[BertramCooper]

Short sighted in terms of not being able to look across their borders? Yes. Most of Western Europe has such laws, none of them have alt-righters as their president/chancellor/ whatever. THese laws have worked for like 70 years and more, no matter who came into power. Because there are ways to prevent them from being abused. Strange stuff i know.

I hope you realize how short of a time period 70 years is, relative to the enormity of human history.