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 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 -
-
-
Do you know how much harm Weev went on to do after that?
-
I do not. But I also don't think we should be putting people in jail for crimes they don't commit in jurisdictions they're not in.
-
Those are principles worth defending.
-
Yes. The real idiocy of the Weev situation was that they ignored actual crimes against ppl (threats, harassment, & much worse iirc).
-
The principles you mention in the Weev case were ones worth defending for everyone, though. OTOH...
-
....the idea that public organizations that display ads can't refuse hate speech or exclude products full of hate speech is not a good one.
-
Hate speech isn't a legally recognized category, so I'm not sure what you mean. They also refused birth control ads and ads with 1A text.
-
Refusing BC ads is something good to challenge them on. ACLU conflating the two issues is awful.
- 9 more replies
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.