The fact that this is nothing new is exactly why I'm saying not to donate to the ACLU. They ALWAYS do this.
-
-
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.
-
The principle here is not "they shouldn't be able to refuse ads".
-
The principle is that refusal should be narrow and well-justified, not based on arbitrary biases.
-
I agree. The issue here, as I understand it, is that the WMATA's rule was "controversial" content which is definitely arbitrary.
-
Yes, that's a bad rule. But by including M*lo in the case, they're implying that his content should also be acceptable.
- 5 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.