The US Constitution is an old document and clearly times have changed and it needs some careful and thoughtful amendments to remain a valid and useful document for our nation.
The ACLU should recognize what other nations have done with regard to Free Speech and prohibiting “hate speech”. The US needs to join the international community and at least ban all things Nazi (Nazi flags, Nazi swatstikas, Nazi salutes, Nazi chants, etc…). The ACLU needs some common sense - this is not 1776 this is 2017 and a very different world.
While we clearly need to protect free speech, we also need to recognize that hate speech that incites violence or leads to discrimination against other fellow human beings should not be tolerated or protected by the vale of free speech.
Duh.
That’s the point of the gun rights movement. It’s the reason why they delude themselves into thinking guns represent automatic membership in the conservative movement.
Liberals, they believe, are namby pamby whiners, obsessed with people’s feelings, too afraid to touch a gun. Well guess what, conservatives. Liberals created the Second Amendment. Liberals also kicked the ass of the British superpower and the Nazi monster.
You want a piece of us?
I would change fire arms to weapons. Bats and clubs don’t exactly fit with peaceably assemble either.
Banning Nazi symbols would be counter-productive. It would simply drive more support to the neo-Nazis by providing evidence for their narrative of persecution by the PC-brigade. I think it would also be nearly impossible to do. Not a lawyer, but I think that would require a constitutional amendment. And, it would ineffective. Groups would just come up with a new symbol and then tell us all online that new symbol=old symbol. It could even be something as simple as a swastika with a missing arm, or displayed backwards.
It is far more effective, I think, to take video of every one of these public gatherings and name-and-shame the participants. Sunlight and all of that.
The ACLU should commit to defending journalists who get sued for failing to say a man “allegedly” did something which he was seen doing by hundreds of people, several of whom recorded it on video.
Good. It’s about time.
As a private group, the ACLU is certainly within its rights to decide who it will, and will not, represent. But if carrying guns is legal, I find it hard to draw a principled–as opposed to a policy–line between fascists with guns and those without.
Well, I disagree. Having a Nazi flag, doing a Nazi salute, etc., seems well within the realm of protected free speech, and there´s nothing that has happened technologically or otherwise I can see that has changed that.
OTOH, I think that not defending the first amendment rights of weaponized thugs (in the non-racist usage) makes sense to me: Defending the right of free speech of one group that is trying to physically deny by intimidation that same right for another group seems counterproductive. .
Yeah. I have mixed emotions here. While I applaud drawing the line at guns, and while I have absolutely loathed some of the people and groups the ACLU has defended over the years, I recognize the value of having an evenhanded, “good for the goose, good for the gander” approach.
I dunno. I gotta think about this some more.
Indeed, it ain’t simple. You quickly get into a lot of murky areas. We’re all in favor of “free speech.” But is spending money on the candidate of your choice “speech?” Is burning the flag “speech?” Is legally carrying firearms around “speech?”
Trump: Why is this a surprise? Liberals just do not like my White supporters. Nazis, White Supremacists, KKK etc need equal footing in society.
Agree totally.
It is a well reasoned line to draw…
IMHO, No.
If the right to free speech is for everyone, the amount of money an individual has should not provide them more “speech”
IMHO, yes. It is making a political point. That said there could be safety concerns and perhaps while I believe it to be protected speech it is not appropriate for all times/locations.
IMHO, No.
That is protected by (bogus) interpretation of a different amendment. I agree with the ACLU that the open carry is intended to intimidate and curtail the free expression of 1st amendment rights.
The problem with “hate speech” laws is that they too easily become a tool for the government to suppress opposition.
Speech that incites rioting or violence is already a federal crime and a crime in many states. As for your second category, many, if not most, of the comments here about Trump, his family, and members of his administration would fall into this category (despite the qualification of “fellow human beings”). Suppression of speech, unless it meets the “clear and present danger” test, is just not a good idea.
If the protest is legal, the ACLU should protect it. I hate what these people have to say, and I’m terrified of open carry laws, but if the government providing permits has not outlawed carrying weapons at rallies then the ACLU should take the side of the protesters. That’s what they are for, and we should not blame the ACLU because we elected morons who pass stupid laws.
Fix the laws and it won’t be an issue.
Meanwhile GOP state legislatures, A/K/A ALEC, are passing laws making it legal to commit vehicular homicide on people protesting fascism. It’s amazing how badly the First Amendment can be distorted to promote political party strategy. Amazing, but not surprising considering what they did to the Second Amendment.
So you favor limiting the First Amendment.
Good to know.
No.
Yes (SCOTUS agrees)
No.
What about the Second Amendment? Should we limit that?