> We ... take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence.<p>So does this apply to Antifa, BlackBloc, et al as well?
Once again I argue that people are genuinely or disingenuously conflating two different terms for the sake of a "slippery slope" or free speech argument.<p>Violence against certain groups based on their race is not just violence, but a <i>hate crime</i> [1].<p>It is not a free speech issue. Society has already ruled that attacking certain groups based on certain protected status is not ok and will be prosecuted accordingly.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_Unite...</a>
This seems like a non-statement. It's obvious that violence isn't protected under freedom of speech. There are no arguments on that point.<p>> If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution.<p>Why even add "white supremacists" to that statement? It would be true of any group. You could replace "white supremacists" with "Underpants Gnomes" and this would still be true.<p>Crack some skulls<p>???<p>Profit!<p>> The First Amendment should never be used as a shield or sword to justify violence.<p>Does "shield" in this case refer to the protesters who were resisting the Unite the Right rally?
If they're using violence then they're already breaking the law, so it's not really a free speech question.<p>This is he ACLU preparing itself not to defend these groups while trying not to loom publically like a hypocrite. Unfortunately free speech and constitutional rights are one of those things where you take the good with the bad.
So, of I understand this correctly, it's not the message they consider not to be free speech but the (inciting of) violence.<p>I'm all for free speech, but for some messages there's just no context in which they ever become anything but harmful, and maybe dogmatically clinging to free speech isn't the best way to approach things. Then again, it can be a slippery slope towards thought police, so maybe it's best to leave the judging of those messages to social pressure.
I really wonder if all this turmoil could have been avoided if members in Congress actually knew the laws that they passed, and Law Enforcement would actually enforce the laws. This has just led to a lot of hysteria. For example, Pelosi, who is desperately trying to maintain relevance, going all Pelosium on the National Park Service to cancel a permit for a conservative “white supremacist” group Patriot Prayer’s pro-Trump for fear of violence. The problem is, they are not white supremacists, all but one of the speakers is ‘white’, and the organizer is not ‘white’. Unless Pelosi is outstandingly ignorant, if not, is she just trying to suppress Freedom of Speech? Side Note: I will sit and flip from one news channel to another, and from what I observe, I think I know why unemployment is down. These news broadcasts cannot get enough contributors, analysts, and so-called experts on to fill up the screen. Where do they find these people? More importantly, do they get paid and how much? Because if the money is good, if there is a list, I want on it.
Good for them for breaking with e.g. the Virginia ACLU over this, just doubled my recurring donation. Direct calls for violence by heavily armed mobs are not protected speech or assembly.
No violence is free speech. Not from white supremacists, not from antifa, not from communists, not from BLM.<p>What you had in Charlottesville is two group of thugs looking for a fight meeting and getting the fight they all wanted.<p>Pretending there are good guys in this conflict is stupid.
A slightly bit off topic, but as a European I would love to hear some intelligent, well thought, non provoking theories on why is America going through so much turmoil and polarization the last few years.<p>Or has it always been like this?
"White Supremacist Violence..."<p>Obviously by definition. But this just begs the more important question:<p>Does ACLU still believe speech by white supremacists should be permitted?<p>I've heard a saying along the lines of: your rights only as good as you permit your worst enemy.
A legal analysis by First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, as well as a (vacuous) response by the ACLU: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/16/odd-statement-from-the-aclu-of-california-white-supremacist-violence-is-not-free-speech/" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...</a>