I'm seeing (a few) people tweeting not to donate to the @ACLU in response to https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/08/09/aclu-sues-metro-for-rejecting-controversial-ads-saying-its-policy-violates-the-first-amendment/ … This makes no sense. 1/3
They dismiss real oppression against members of vulnerable populations as "not their job" and reinforce shallow Voltaire BS.
-
-
They defend _individual_ nazis, but rarely individual trans people, or black people, etc. Only fight overt _policies_ affecting latter.
-
I don't have insight into their litigation strategy, but isn't fighting bad policies far more effective than defending individuals?
-
If that's true, then why spend money defending individual nazis?
-
Presumably to fight against a harmful policy. In your view, should lawyers not have defended weev pro bono, for example?
-
They should not have. Plenty of good people have to use public defenders. No reason an awful one should get good defense for free.
-
Okay. I disagree.
-
That's fair, but at least you hopefully see that calls by me and others not to fund ACLU are consistent & as-intended, not random reactions.
-
Indeed, I do. Thank you.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.