I don't have insight into their litigation strategy, but isn't fighting bad policies far more effective than defending individuals?
-
-
Replying to @stevecheckoway @ACLU
If that's true, then why spend money defending individual nazis?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @ACLU
Presumably to fight against a harmful policy. In your view, should lawyers not have defended weev pro bono, for example?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @stevecheckoway @ACLU
They should not have. Plenty of good people have to use public defenders. No reason an awful one should get good defense for free.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Do you know how much harm Weev went on to do after that?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @ACLU
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Those are principles worth defending.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @stevecheckoway @ACLU
Yes. The real idiocy of the Weev situation was that they ignored actual crimes against ppl (threats, harassment, & much worse iirc).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The principles you mention in the Weev case were ones worth defending for everyone, though. OTOH...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
....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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Plastering those things in front of their targets, on the public transit they rely on to get around, is harassment/threat.
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.