11–20 of 163 posts
> We ... take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence. So does this apply to Antifa, BlackBloc, et al as well?
> We ... take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence. So does this apply to Antifa, BlackBloc, et al as well?
edit: Being downvoted by people who might not have read the counter-protesters' permit: https://www.scribd.com/document/356483336/2017-Public-Demons...
> We ... take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence. So does this apply to Antifa, BlackBloc, et al as well?
As for Antifa, I've been unable to find any videos/pictures/unbiased reports that Antifa started any of the violence this past weekend. I don't understand the need to equate the two sides. If the KKK didn't exist, Antifa wouldn't exist. If Antifa didn't exist, the KKK still would.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/19/a-...
> We ... take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence. So does this apply to Antifa, BlackBloc, et al as well?
Antifa generally doesn't apply for protesting permits as I understand it, so maybe this is a question that ACLU hasn't had to deal with? edit: Being downvoted by people who might not have read the counter-protesters' permit: https://www.scribd.com/document/356483336/2017-Public-Demons...
I can't speak for other protests.
The statement could've been even stronger and yet remain neutral: "violence is not speech."
Which would defeat the point, because then we'd be stuck with arguments over what is and isn't violence.
I think it should simply be that no one has justification for violence or intimidation.
The statement could've been even stronger and yet remain neutral: "violence is not speech."
Which would defeat the point, because then we'd be stuck with arguments over what is and isn't violence.
> We ... take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence. So does this apply to Antifa, BlackBloc, et al as well?
Antifa isn't a group or organization that holds rallies, and black bloc isn't a group at all (it's a tactic). Antifa shows up when right wing violence is expected. It is a direct response to white supremacist violence; remove white supremacist violence from the world, and you remove antifa from the world. They cease to show up, or show up in a different capacity, usually as peaceful protestors.
Antifa is a desperate last line of defense against white supremacist violence, and not an organization (or, organizations since it is very loosely affiliated bunch of groups with often wildly different ideas about tactics and practices) that seeks violence.
To compare Neo-Nazis to antifa is an irresponsible false equivalence. You can criticize antifa tactics (and, reasonably so, in many cases) without misleading people. There's enough misinformation coming from Fox News and Breitbart about what antifa is and does and why.
> We ... take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence. So does this apply to Antifa, BlackBloc, et al as well?
This post doesn't blacklist any specific organizations, but rather any case that involve violence. The ACLU will likely continue[1] to defend peaceful white supremacists. The ban will go for any situation or organization that involves violence. As for Antifa, I've been unable to find any videos/pictures/unbiased reports that Antifa started any of the violence this past weekend. I don't understand the need to equate t…
This is he ACLU preparing itself not to defend these groups while trying not to loom publically like a hypocrite. Unfortunately free speech and constitutional rights are one of those things where you take the good with the bad.
Or has it always been like this?