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

51–60 of 163 posts

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

#51

Post by nopatternhere »

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.

Antifa are anti-capitalist as well. https://www.facebook.com/pg/AntifaAustralia/about/ shows "Promote the workers struggle against capitalism and it's puppet, fascism." They might be called Antica or some similarly silly name, but there would still be a nutty leftist movement against capitalism. In many ways, and incredibly ironically, anti-facism is the most marketable calling card.

> I don't understand the need to equate the two sides

I assume it is because they are all violent loonies? Or maybe because of the looting at Stanford? I dunno if that is the reason, to be honest. Maybe it is just one of those "but your guys are bad too" things?

> that Antifa started any of the violence

I personally don't believe that the sum total of people who are actively members or even share much of an ideology in groups like Antifa or white supremacy or the alt-right or even ISIS is anything but a rounding error on 0% out of 330 million yanks - let alone the 1 billion in the collective west. I mean, does anyone think these groups COLLECTIVELY have anywhere near 3,300,000 people? These are just umbrella terms the media can use to give something more punch.

BTW, I tried to look into who antifa were, and https://www.google.com/search?q=antifa shows a bunch of people talking about Antifa, but not a lot of insider info/manifestos/articles. If I were to guess, they are mostly rich, angry college-aged kids who think it is cool to "fight the man" - which is pretty much what all those groups are, including ISIS.

I vote we stop talking about any of them, and simply call them X-nutters. "neo-nutters", "prog-nutters", "Islamist nutters" etc etc.

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

#52

Post by 2bitencryption »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #43

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]…

What if not attacking, but instead simply utilizing freedom of expression?

What if a hundred neo-Nazis filed to hold a rally, and showed up with signs saying "Jews get out!" and chanting "We've thought about it a lot and decided we really don't like Jews!"

is the expression of that idea a hate crime that can be prosecuted? or the expression of peaceful protest and first amendment rights?

does a punch need to be thrown before it's a hate crime?

(of course, these magical, peaceful neo-Nazis probably don't exist. from the video I've seen, the ones at that rally were out for blood)

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

#53

Post by overflowstack »

SwellJoe wrote: post #44
adekok wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Racism and hate speech are not indications of future violence.

You can go to any internet space and find thousands of hateful and racist people. The chances of any of them committing violence is extremely low.

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

#54

Post by nippples »

No violence is free speech. Not from white supremacists, not from antifa, not from communists, not from BLM.

What you had in Charlottesville is two group of thugs looking for a fight meeting and getting the fight they all wanted.

Pretending there are good guys in this conflict is stupid.

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

#55

Post by SwellJoe »

overflowstack wrote: post #49
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…

> 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.

History teaches otherwise.

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

#56

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#57

Post by cc81 »

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

If Antifa in the US is the similar to the ones in Sweden they will be initiating violence at protests like this. They are usually very prepared and have a lot of experience how to do it. Using violence to fight fascism is what they do even though they usually use non lethal methods.

In Sweden they consist of small autonomous groups that harass nazi sympathizer by vandalizing their homes, putting their address on the internet and calling relatives, neighbors and their work etc. Sometimes they have also physically assaulted nazis. In protests they usually throw stones, pepper spray, smoke bombs, urine etc and sometimes try and brawl with their opponents using clubs etc.

But I don't know at all what happened at this rally in the US but I would be incredibly surprised if you had one of the biggest white supremacy rally is in a long time in the US and Antifa did NOT try and physically stop it.

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

#58

Post by SwellJoe »

overflowstack wrote: post #53
SwellJoe wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Racism and hate speech are not indications of future violence. You can go to any internet space and find thousands of hateful and racist people. The chances of any of them committing violence is extremely low.

Right wing extremists are responsible for more terrorist attacks on US soil than any other group.

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

#59

Post by overflowstack »

SwellJoe wrote: post #55
overflowstack wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

History teaches otherwise.

Do you have examples of right wing violence at modern day right wing protests that don't have counter protesters?

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

#60

Post by 2bitencryption »

shpongled wrote: post #35
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…

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…

I've always liked how the Yale professor put it when confronted by a student in that controversy over censoring Halloween constumes:

"I stand behind free speech, yes I do."

"Even when it's offensive?"

"Even when it's offensive -- ESPECIALLY when it's offensive."

Post reply on HN