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 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 -
-
-
Sure they sometimes do something good. Donate your money to an org that spends all of it on good rather than half on the bad guys.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.