Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ACLU of California Statement: White Supremacist Violence Is Not Free Speech

aclunc.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 163 posts

Re: ACLU of California Statement: White Supremacist Violence Is Not Free Speech

#21

Post by SwellJoe »

banned1 wrote: post #16
vanderZwan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would defeat the point, because then we'd be stuck with arguments over what is and isn't violence.

Carrying baseball bats and hitting cars or people, as well as throwing water bottles or paint balloons at people, or breaking windows of businesses or houses, is violence, as is using a vehicle as a weapon. It's not too complicated.

You've conflated property damage with violence against people. I don't believe the two should be legally or morally judged the same, even if we may agree that both are crimes.

Re: ACLU of California Statement: White Supremacist Violence Is Not Free Speech

#22

Post by gedy »

noncoml wrote: post #20

A slightly bit off topic, but as a European I would love to hear some intelligent, well thought, non provoking theories on why is America going through so much turmoil and polarization the last few years. Or has it always been like this?

> “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

― H.L. Mencken, 1918

Re: ACLU of California Statement: White Supremacist Violence Is Not Free Speech

#23

Post by banned1 »

SwellJoe wrote: post #21
banned1 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carrying baseball bats and hitting cars or people, as well as throwing water bottles or paint balloons at people, or breaking windows of businesses or houses, is violence, as is using a vehicle as a weapon. It's not too complicated.

You've conflated property damage with violence against people. I don't believe the two should be legally or morally judged the same, even if we may agree that both are crimes.

When a baseball bat hits a human's head, it's not the baseball bat (the property) that gets hurt.

Re: ACLU of California Statement: White Supremacist Violence Is Not Free Speech

#24

Post by ece »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #19

If they're using violence then they're already breaking the law, so it's not really a free speech question. 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 they are just making their position clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

Trump is being sued for inciting violence as well: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...

Inciting violence should be a clear line, and I'm glad the ACLU of California is making it clear that it is. As far as past cases go, this doesn't seem to be contradictory or different, but I don't know if it is.

Re: ACLU of California Statement: White Supremacist Violence Is Not Free Speech

#25

Post by Deestan »

tunesmith wrote: post #8
Joeri wrote: post #3

So, of I understand this correctly, it's not the message they consider not to be free speech but the (inciting of) violence. I'm all for free speech, but for some messages there's just no context in which they ever become anything but harmful, and maybe dogmatically clinging to free speech isn't the best way to approach things. Then again, it can be a slippery slope towards thought police, so maybe it's best to leave…

I think the Supreme Court has ruled on similar questions, in that there's a distinction between how the "speech" is intended and how it is construed. For instance, someone waving a nazi flag might feel to me like an incitement to violence, while to them it might feel like an expression of free speech, with no intention to incite violence. In that sense it would be protected speech, despite how I feel. So the question…

> For instance, someone waving a nazi flag might feel to me like an incitement to violence, while to them it might feel like an expression of free speech, with no intention to incite violence.

Disregarding how you both feel about it, waving a nazi flag legitimizes and strengthens an inherently violent ideology of ethnic cleansing.

Intent - real or pretend - doesn't matter.

Re: ACLU of California Statement: White Supremacist Violence Is Not Free Speech

#26

Post by geowwy »

gkoberger wrote: post #13
gedy wrote: post #7

> 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…

> If the KKK didn't exist, Antifa wouldn't exist. If Antifa didn't exist, the KKK still would.

Not true. Antifa aren't just anti-racist protestors, they're a loose collection of Communist and Anarcho-communist groups. If fascism never existed those groups just rally under a different name.

Re: ACLU of California Statement: White Supremacist Violence Is Not Free Speech

#27

Post by danso »

gkoberger wrote: post #14
danso wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

They had a permit this past weekend: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/... I can't speak for other protests.

Maybe this is getting into a No True Scotsman argument, but that permit was not for what's often considered to be antifa. Being a counter-protester is not automatically antifa. From the link you posted:

> Walt Heinecke, a professor at the University of Virginia, told Moyer that he received a “special events certificate of approval” for events at McGuffey Park and Justice Park — sites blocks from Emancipation Park, where white nationalists had a permit for a Saturday rally.

Antifa, the group that is more commonly associated with things like Richard Spencer in the face, seems to be more informal: https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/26/14369388/richard-sp...

Edit: Another example of what's associated with antifa: punching journalists http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4785564/Reporter-pun...

Re: ACLU of California Statement: White Supremacist Violence Is Not Free Speech

#29

Post by johncole »

noncoml wrote: post #20

A slightly bit off topic, but as a European I would love to hear some intelligent, well thought, non provoking theories on why is America going through so much turmoil and polarization the last few years. Or has it always been like this?

Historically these groups and thoughts ebb and flow, along with demographic and economic changes. And historicaly speaking, right now, the level of political violence in the US is quite low. Compared to other periods like the 10s the 30s and the 60s this is super mild. This is how a healthy democracy works. We talk, we fight politically, we write articles in the Atlantic, we move forward.

Re: ACLU of California Statement: White Supremacist Violence Is Not Free Speech

#30

Post by SwellJoe »

banned1 wrote: post #23
SwellJoe wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've conflated property damage with violence against people. I don't believe the two should be legally or morally judged the same, even if we may agree that both are crimes.

When a baseball bat hits a human's head, it's not the baseball bat (the property) that gets hurt.

You said, "hitting cars", and "breaking windows of businesses or houses".

Cars and windows are not people.

Our criminal justice system should, and usually does, distinguish between property crimes and crimes against people. I believe discussions about protest and violence and property damage should do the same, even if you believe both are criminal and should be punished.

Post reply on HN