Awful. Free speech has never meant only kind, polite, and wise speech. Read #Jefferson, Madison, or Justice William O. Douglass. The #ACLU now rejects both the first & second amendments. #1A #Censorship blocks information & understanding. Democracy requires #freedom of #speech.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's not a slippery slope *fallacy* anymore if we are about to hit bottom...
-
The slippery slope is not so much slippery as it is covered with sharp rocks and poisonous thorns. Who can even tell if there's a bottom when you die from a thousand cuts on the way...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Given what happened post-Charlottesville, and the unexpected strength of the white supremacist movement in the shadows of this country, isn’t it at least reasonable to consider the value of those cases?
-
No. Conflating the violence that occurred with speech is fallacious. People on any side should be punished for violent actions, but not the act of speech. Using that argument would allow the suppression of left speech as many protests lead to violence.
-
One isn’t conflating speech and violence by deciding not to defend a white supremacist in court, pro bono. I think it’s reasonable, given the possibility of other clients who’s speech may also be violated, to limit the resources they commit to representing white supremacists
-
Then you're not defending speech. You're defending preferred groups.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Ultimately the ACLU has no obligation to defend anyone. And it is good that their decision on how they will choose cases has become public. This transparency allows donors to better decide if they should continue supporting them.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I don't think I've ever read a more disingenuous and inflammatory misrepresentation of a position on free speech from you, Steven, than this. The memo is about what happens when different rights come into conflict. It states it's not a panacea or for dictating specific outcomes.
-
From the memo: The ACLU is also committed to freedom of speech and peaceful protest embodied in the 1st Amendment...these rights extend to all, even to the most repugnant speakers including white supremacists and pursuant to ACLU policy we will continue...representing such groups
-
From the memo: In deciding how to use our limited resources, no civil liberties are civil rights value should automatically be privileged over any other. There is no presumption that the First Amendment trumps all other amendments, or vice versa.
-
From the memo: We also recognize that not defending fundamental liberties can come at considerable cost. If the ACLU avoids the defense of controversial speakers, and defends only those with whom it agrees, both the freedom of speech and the ACLU itself may suffer.
-
From the memo: Thus, there are often costs both from defending given speaker and not defending that speaker. Because we are committed to the principle that Free Speech protects everyone, the speaker's viewpoint should NOT be the decisive factor in our decision to defend speech...
-
From the memo: The guidelines and practices outlined here are not a panacea. They do not dictate outcomes of particular cases. In our view, that would be both unwise and inconsistent with ACLU policy.
-
Well, Steven, like you said, that seems so outrageously biased. How could the
#ACLU hope to maintain its credibility when they have well reasoned criteria for defending and promoting individual rights in this country? - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I wonder if they saw the interview with
@jordanbpeterson and@jimjefferies as that’s pretty much the point that Jeffries made that caused Peterson to admit his view that refusing to serve a gay cake was different to refusing to serve black people was wrong and that laws 1/x -
Like the civil rights Act did what Canada were trying to achieve when they brought about the C-16 (though I think that was specifically Toronto) and that laws limiting certain actions etc in order to alleviate injustices to a particular race or group can be a good thing.
-
I’m not a fan of these policies in the long term. Seems like they can contribute to less and less fairness over time. Perhaps with more specific predefined goals these things can be carefully built more fairly.
-
I suppose in the future politicians will be able to take the parts of say bill c-16 that are effective and be able to amend the law/bill so that it is able to deal with the problem without limiting other rights. Protecting the vulnerable should always be a priority in law.
-
Protecting fairness should be of higher priority, though. Protecting the weak is complicated. And made more so by the fact that we actually NEED the weak to become strong — and those paths tend to run counter to protection.
-
Well protecting fairness is what the civil rights act was made to do. The only reason the executive order re: Affirmative Action was signed by LBJ was due to people continuing to discriminate after the law was in effect. I think the weak becoming strong is the best solution 1/x
-
But equally that includes freedoms coming great responsibility. So you have the right to free speech but once expressed, the individual has to accept the responsibility of consequences that follow. I think that when we are dealing with things for the first time in terms 2/x
-
Of things like transgender rights, then the tiny fraction of a percentage of people who are transgender are the “weak” not in personality or character but in terms of their position in society. Eventually the law won’t be used regularly, like most laws to do with discrimination
- 31 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.