Civil Liberties Body ACLU Will No Longer Defend Gun-Carrying Protest Groups

[SecularMotion]

Source: Newsweek

Since its founding during a period of anti-communist paranoia in 1920, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has served as a reliable line of defense for those who find their constitutional freedoms under threat.

Sometimes, that means fighting for liberal causes: ACLU lawyers were involved in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the two supreme court victories that underpinned women’s right to abortions in modern America. ANd the ACLU was the only major U.S. organization to speak out against the internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans following the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

But sometimes, the group has decided to defend people that its liberal supporters find less palatable. In a 1934 pamphlet, entitled Shall We Defend Free Speech for Nazis in America? the group defended its choice to stand up for German-American Nazis who wanted to hold meetings in the U.S. “Is it not clear that free speech as a practical tactic, not only as an abstract principle, demands the defense of all who are attacked in order to obtain the rights of any ?” its justification read.

In modern America, the ACLU finds itself in a similar bind. With far-right groups like neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan more visible, and white nationalists grouping under its self-defined banner of the "alt-right," it must decide whether it will defend the rights of such groups to demonstrate and spread their often hateful views.

Read more: http://www.newsweek.com/free-speech-hate-speech-aclu-civil-liberties-donald-trump-652050

---

Full title did not fit:Free Speech or Hate Speech? Civil Liberties Body ACLU Will No Longer Defend Gun-Carrying Protest Groups

[Squinch]

1. Finally! Kick!

[Corgigal]

2. Wow, that's a big change

and it must have been hard to decide on this option. However, let them pay for their free speech with all that big income all those winners possess. They didn't have to come armed, but they did and now the game has changed. No one wants blood on their hands.

1st amendment rights, you even screwed that up NAZI's.

[FakeNoose]

5. If you carry a gun to a political rally, how is that "free speech"?

Carrying guns doesn't fit under the "free speech" umbrella as far as I can see.
No reason for the ACLU to feel they should defend these people.

Just sayin'

[cstanleytech]

6. That's because it fits under the 2nd amendment and the only way

to address that is to amend the Constitution.

[FakeNoose]

7. The ACLU only cares about the 1st amendment

They gave up on the 2nd amendment a long time ago. That belongs to the NRA now, they bought it lock, stock and barrel.

Besides that wasn't my point. The cases that the right-wing gun toters are facing have nothing to do with free speech.
That's the point and the reason why the ACLU is bowing out.

But thanks for the update on the 2nd amendment.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. That's not true at all.

The ACLU got involved in a concealed carry issue in Texas in February. Police were arresting people against state law for being armed, and prosecutors were inconsistently charging people, so the ACLU and other groups pushed legislators to amend the law to eliminate the problem.

Concealed carry in a vehicle isn't a free speech issue, and the ACLU intervened anyway. They don't only uphold the First Amendment.



In THIS instance, they are bowing out of protecting shitheads that are using the threat of violence as political speech.
I don't blame them. Most of what I've been seeing in the news is 4th and inches from brandishing. The ACLU is making a judgment call between free speech and threatening speech.

[Downtown Hound]

13. Not really, the constitution already gives us the power to regulate guns

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Well regulated means exactly that, well regulated. Meaning, it's perfectly acceptable to regulate guns, but not completely eliminate them. Banning open carry falls under regulation. We don't need to amend the constitution. We just need to enforce it and start challenging the gun nut claim that any type of gun control is against the constitution. It is not.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. That's an old english term.

Grab a Oxford English Dictionary and look at the documented usages of that 'well regulated' phrase in the 1700's and 1800's.

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

The term is about function, and precision. (Hence; American 'Regulator' clocks) This was all dredged up before the supreme court during Heller and MacDonald cases.


The federal government, and state governments do have the power to 'regulate' (in the sense of limiting/legislation) firearms and who can possess them and when (and there are a shitload of regulations on the books). That power does not flow from the 2nd Amendment. Just as the First Amendment prohibits the government from limiting speech with no 'well regulated' provisio, the government does it all the time, proscribing incitement, threatening speech, hate speech, the infamous 'yelling fire in a crowded room' scenario, etc.

A useful paraphrase;

'A well-read electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.'

[Downtown Hound]

20. Well, if we're going to go by a strict interpretation of what the amendment means based on language

of the time, then I think it's more than fair to interpret it by the types of guns they had available at the time. Muskets for everyone! No more mass shootings!

[AtheistCrusader]

22. That's not going to work out the way you thought. Look up the Girandoni Repeating Rifle.

20 shot semi-auto rifle, used in the 1770's. It was carried on the Lewis and Clark expedition. (By Lewis)

Kill a man or a deer just fine, even though it didn't use gunpowder for propellant.

(Also, strict interpretation of the 1st amendment still applies to your use of a computer and a website, not just moveable-block type press)

[Downtown Hound]

24. Not truly semi-auto, you had to cock it for each shot

At least not semi-auto in he sense that an AR-15 or other similar weapons are. I personally have no problem with people owning guns like that or guns in general. I just think there should be limits on the level of firepower, who can own them, and where we can carry them.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. I'm pretty happy with the state of gun laws in the State of Washington.

I'd be willing to add some more training requirements to the Concealed Pistol License process, but otherwise, we're doing pretty good.

Different states may vary.

That's a fair point on the girandoni, it does operate less like a modern semi-auto, and more like a single-action pistol. Compared to a muzzle-loader, it was a revolutionary leap forward in cyclic rate though.

[Downtown Hound]

28. Definitely a revolutionary design, no argument there

And as far as I'm concerned, Washington State has okay gun laws for me. So does CA, where I live. And anybody who tells you you can't get a gun in this state is a liar. I have several. I still support certain forms of gun control.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Yeah, California is demonized pretty bad nationwide on gun laws or the perception of them.

personally I'd dial back the magazine size limit and the semi-auto ban, but I'd keep the registration and full background check.

NICS is good I guess, but I think it's better to run fingerprints. I'd extend the NFA registration requirements to all semi-autos. Treat them like full-auto, because honestly, for 99.9% of purposes, they function effectively the same. Anyone can pull a trigger just about as fast as the action can cycle.

[Paladin]

3. Good for the ACLU.

Open carry appeals to the worst and ugliest segment of the gun-owning public. If you can't be satisfied with legal concealed carry, if you feel compelled to openly brandish firearms in an effort to threaten and silence your opponents in public, you have no business owning any guns at all.

[bronxiteforever]

4. Hurray! Kick

[obamanut2012]

8. It is about time

[KG]

9. when carrying a gun to these events, you're not there about free speech

[Downtown Hound]

10. As a lifetime supporter of the ACLU, I will not be donating to them anytime soon

for their role in bringing terrorism to Charlottesville. Glad to see they've finally pulled their head out of their ass, but it's going to take awhile to get back into my good graces.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Not the ACLU's fault. They uphold a principle.

The ACLU doesn't engage in special pleading, and that's part of what's so fucking awesome about them.

[Downtown Hound]

15. Apparently they themselves are admitting they made a mistake with this one

They helped these assholes get a permit which led to armed men and homicidal mobs marching through Charlottesville. That's not free speech, and they themselves are admitting that by backing off. They fucked up. And a young woman is dead because of it and because of them.

Yes, it IS their fault. The Nazis never would have gotten their permit if it wasn't for them. And this was a permit for terrorism. Not speech.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. At the time, the permit was for disagreeable speech.

It is not the ACLU's fault the alt-right did something very different. There was nothing on the permit about running down innocent people with a car.

I don't blame the ACLU for what followed. I blame the shitheads that did it.

[Downtown Hound]

17. I blame them too

But I find the ACLU more than a little naive sometimes. Was it really that hard to predict something like this might happen at one of these rallies? Violence is an inherent part of their belief system. They constantly threaten and intimidate their opponents with death threats, threats of rape, violence, murder. At some point I think it's okay to say to some of these groups, you aren't just trying to exercise your rights. You're spreading terrorism. And we're not going to fight for terrorists.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. I appreciated the ALCU not playing favorites.

It was a non-political organization, despite accusations from the political right that they were a 'liberal' (said with invective) organization. I used to delight in rubbing the right's nose in it, by showing them all the court cases the ACLU would undertake that actually helped them. Show them for the ignorant idiots they are.

I think it's unfortunate that the ACLU now has to make a judgment call when deciding if they need to defend a civil right. Hopefully, this remains narrowly limited to refusing to help orgs that only engage in hate speech/threatening speech/actual acts of violence.

[Downtown Hound]

21. So do you think they should fight for Al Qaeda if they

wanted to hold a rally at Ground Zero where they announced their intention to murder all infidels and force everybody to convert to Islam? After all, at least they're not playing favorites.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. If that meant putting al-qaeda within reach of the NYPD, sure. :D

A more reasonable comparison would be the ACLU when it intervened to support a private group attempting to build a mosque on private property within sight of Ground Zero, and the city of new York trying to use land-use and public feedback on the permits to block it.

https://www.aclu.org/aclu-and-nyclu-statement-controversy-over-new-york-city-islamic-center

Defending principle sometimes means doing things or supporting things you don't personally agree with.

We applaud those government officials who have stood up for religious liberty and defended the right of private citizens to build a mosque and community center in lower Manhattan. These officials have rightly understood that we must always — especially in times of controversy — vigilantly uphold our core values, including a faith community’s right to build a house of worship, whether a mosque, a church, or a synagogue. The horrific events of 9/11 call on all of us to keep a close watch over our fundamental freedoms. When we violate one group’s freedom, everyone’s liberty is at stake.

Throughout America’s history, almost every religious group, including Jews, Protestants, Catholics and Muslims, has been the target of discrimination. Tolerance and fairness have generally prevailed, but only after principled voices have transcended the fear and hatred.

The ACLU is a national treasure. The outcome here was bad, with the violence and the murder, but what they did, or their part in it, was pure and principled. The alt-right abused it, murdered people, and shat all over the opportunity. Their loss.

[Downtown Hound]

25. And I strongly disagree with that

We do not need to protect the free speech rights of those that want to kill us and have killed us. That's why we shut down terrorist websites whenever we can. Are you opposed to doing that as well? Or do you think we should give them free reign to recruit and attract new followers over the internet?

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Terrorists are precisely the definition of threatening speech that isn't permissible under the 1st

amendment.

As with the 2nd amendment, there are limits to the first.
You pretty much have to be a total ass to run afoul of the limits on the 1st amendment, but they do exist.

[Downtown Hound]

31. And my argument is that these Neo Nazi groups fall under

under the exact type of threatening speech that is not protected by the first amendment. So if you allow censorship of certain threatening speech, why not this? Ever heard the rhetoric of some of these groups? Every bit as bad as Al Qaeda, and just as dangerous. That's not speech. It's terrorism.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. They've rapidly ramped up their rhetoric and the direct threatening nature of it.

I think the loss of ambiguity has shifted the game, so that makes sense in the light of the ACLU reversing course on it.

[Downtown Hound]

33. Yes, they have.

But long before Charlottesville, and any fool could have seen it was only a matter of time before something like this happened. And the ACLU should have too.

[Nitram]

14. I'm relieved to hear this. I've been advocating they take that stand since last Saturday opened my

eyes to what we are up against here.

[elleng]

26. Appears not to be 'national,'

“We review each request for help on a case-by-case basis, but take the clear position that the 1st Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence,” the statement, from three California ACLU affiliates, said.'

[Blue_Tires]

34. I'm surprised... This is a big turnaround for them