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

41–50 of 163 posts

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

#41

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 attaching 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.

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

#42

Post by icelancer »

mychael wrote: post #28

Sensible people across the political spectrum agree that violence != speech. Who exactly are they arguing against here? Perhaps a strawman?

>Who exactly are they arguing against here? Perhaps a strawman?

Yes, but the strawman that they are being beat over the head with by those with a certain political bent.

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

#43

Post by ProfessorLayton »

Once again I argue that people are genuinely or disingenuously conflating two different terms for the sake of a "slippery slope" or free speech argument.

Violence against certain groups based on their race is not just violence, but a hate crime [1].

It is not a free speech issue. Society has already ruled that attacking certain groups based on certain protected status is not ok and will be prosecuted accordingly.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_Unite...

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

#44

Post by SwellJoe »

adekok wrote: post #31
SwellJoe wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

I don't understand how one can read that and come away with the gist of it being that antifa caused the violence in Charlottesville.

The only people saying that are members of right wing extremist organizations that have, as their guiding principle, the genocide of non-white people. These are groups that planned and trained to wage war against counter-protestors, and for weeks leading up to the event posted to their social media about their weapons, smashing people's heads, etc.

I've read a number of reports of the events in Charlottesville, and the overwhelming feeling I came away with was that antifa saved lives, in this case. One can reasonably criticize other times antifa has shown up; Berkeley, for example. But, I'm on team antifa in Charlottesville. I sure as hell don't want to be on the side of the Nazis who murdered someone.

More eyewitness testimony about antifa in Charlottesville:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...

Edit: I think it's really important to recognize that violence is what Neo-Nazis are about. They are not rallying to express opinions, they are rallying to recruit and build a network of impressionable young men who will commit violent acts in pursuit of their goals. They were there specifically to find more people like James Alex Fields. To frame it as a peaceful political rally gone bad is to wholly misunderstand the threat Neo-Nazi organizations pose to our democracy.

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

#45

Post by grdvnkootcvj »

zorpner wrote: post #2

Good for them for breaking with e.g. the Virginia ACLU over this, just doubled my recurring donation. Direct calls for violence by heavily armed mobs are not protected speech or assembly.

tell that to the democrats!

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

#46

Post by grdvnkootcvj »

zorpner wrote: post #2

Good for them for breaking with e.g. the Virginia ACLU over this, just doubled my recurring donation. Direct calls for violence by heavily armed mobs are not protected speech or assembly.

tell that to the democrats!

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

#47

Post by contergan »

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?

HN is a terrible place for such discussions, as opinions that go against popular narrative are often censored.

You are probably better off searching for answers elsewhere.

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

#48

Post by usibam »

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?

HN is a terrible place to have such discussions, as opinions that go against the popular narrative are censored and the poster shadowbanned.

You're better off searching for answers elsewhere.

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

#49

Post by overflowstack »

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…

> Antifa shows up when right wing violence is expected.

Right wing violence is not expected until Antifa show up. If Antifa don't show up, there is no expected violence.

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

#50

Post by ptaipale »

SwellJoe wrote: post #30
banned1 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are often people inside cars, and those people are justifiably horrified when they are under attack.

Also, even when people are not in the cars, it is a "popular" hate crime to intimidate people by selectively destroying their property.

"We can do this to your car; we can do it to your home, too, even when you're inside" is the message.

Post reply on HN