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

31–40 of 163 posts

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

#31

Post by adekok »

SwellJoe wrote: post #17
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?

Do you have examples of ACLU defending antifa or black bloc events? They haven't, to my knowledge, but that's not even the most important difference. 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, a…

Maybe the LA Times is better:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-charlottesville-witnesse...

With witness testimony of antifa violence.

In my own home town, I've seen the militant left engage in violent protest of "bad people". The "bad people" weren't actually doing anything other than talking. But OMFG we all know they're evil, right? So violent suppression of their free speech is a Good Thing.

While I live in a generally left country, and am generally somewhat leftist myself, I find the tactics of the authoritarian left to be abhorrent. If someone can't talk reasonably with people on "the other side", they don't deserve my respect or support.

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

#32

Post by Banthum »

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.

Why would you say that? Antifa (and the organizations it descends from) have existed and acted, sometimes violently, in many situations unrelated to the KKK or white supremacists.

For example, as we saw in Berkeley not long ago, they'll show up to violently protest Milo Yiannopolous by chasing down people in the street and using sticks to beat them unconscious.

(For the video, watch the first 2 minutes of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAqBxMZ-Zs0)

Of course they call Milo a Nazi. But calling Milo, the gay Greek half-Jew with a black boyfriend, a white supremacist just indicates that they're willing to stretch the definition to demonize anyone they don't like. If the KKK didn't exist, they'd stretch the definition as needed to recreate the KKK in their own minds.

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

#33

Post by bloobloobloo »

Deestan wrote: post #25
tunesmith wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Neat. Curious to hear your position on waving Communist and Jewish flags.

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

#34

Post by mayank »

gedy wrote: post #18
gkoberger wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks, I'm referring to events such as the Berkeley Riots [1] where the violence was at least partly incited by Antifa. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Berkeley_protests

Correct. The ACLU is saying they would not defend Antifa if they were arrested for speech inciting violence.

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

#35

Post by shpongled »

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…

The Supreme Court DID rule on this very issue, back in 1977 [1], where the ACLU defended the American Nazi Party's right to march through a primarily Jewish neighborhood. The Court ruled that the Nazi uniform and swastika are not "fighting words".

Regardless - I've always said that free speech is allowing speech that we hate or disagree with. Once we started banning speech that is "offensive", we have started down a path of legal and social precedence that we will never be able to recover from.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...

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

#36

Post by vixen99 »

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…

None? http://www.unz.com/article/narrative-collapse-is-charlottesv...

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

#37

Post by hkmurakami »

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.

I think it's a perfectly fine statement to make, because they were criticized for supporting White Supremacists' protests as free speech, and they're making the distinction that they support the right to protest, but that their subsequent violence, after the ACLU made its original support, is not something they support.

You'd think that this is obvious, but plenty of people would have extrapolated incorrectly given that people never read primary sources or check timelines themselves.

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

#38

Post by rhizome »

ece wrote: post #24
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…

My interpretation is that it's to head off racist gun nuts hiding their 2A behind the 1A. So if something pops off, the ACLU isn't going to fig leaf a defense for them.

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

#39

Post by mayank »

userbinator wrote: post #4

The statement could've been even stronger and yet remain neutral: "violence is not speech."

Inciting violence can be speech though, and is included in the statement. There's nothing to be neutral about, it's already the law.

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

#40

Post by grdvnkootcvj »

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…

clearly you're not looking then.. there's video of them attacking the peaceful kkk guys with bats and sticks prior to major fights breaking out. also what are you talking about "antifa wouldn't exist if not for kkk", they have nothing to do with kkk, they're anarchists that have coddled with the leftists like a parasite.
Post reply on HN