# 200 idiotic ACLU staffers are trying to destroy this invaluable organization **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2017, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452 "2017-10-10T08:54:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/101 "2017-10-11T01:00:23Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Couldn’t agree more. > > The blindness of these kind of “lefties” is infuriating. There seems to be a brewing civil war in the left among the more libertarian leftists and the ones who support social engineering and who support illiberal techniques to achieve this (shouting people down, opposing people protesting or marching, etc). As long as the constitution and checks and balances hold up, nazis aren’t going to pose a threat to us. If anything, driving them underground will just make them more desirable. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/102 "2017-10-11T01:21:32Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > There seems to be a brewing civil war in the left among the more libertarian leftists and the ones who support social engineering and who support illiberal techniques to achieve this (shouting people down, opposing people protesting or marching, etc). Thus why socialist progressive draw a distinction between them and “liberals,” I believe. > [@](#): > > As long as the constitution and checks and balances hold up, nazis aren’t going to pose a threat to us. If anything, driving them underground will just make them more desirable. Given today’s media landscape, as I mentioned before, is there any such thing as “underground” anymore? We have YouTube personalities with hundreds of thousands of subscribers spouting white supremacist beliefs. Then there’s the major websites with the ear of the president doing the same… ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/103 "2017-10-11T01:35:57Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The point I’m making is that the distinction between whether some verbal articulation is protected or not protected is a distinction that, in theory, can be changed with a stroke of the pen. So when you go on about how all constitutionally protected speech should be treated equally, I’m making a rather obvious point that the meaning of the phrase isn’t exactly ironclad. “A stroke of the pen” is a rather dismissive way to refer to definitions that have been and continued to be subjected to a **hell** of a lot of scrutiny. Sure, the definition of what counts as constitutionally protected speech has changed in the past and may change again, but that doesn’t mean that the interpretation of the phrase currently recognized by the courts is subject to any old whim, or that the ACLU can freely reinterpret it with no undesirable juridical consequences. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Corporations are under fairly serious pressure not just to make profits and avoid harm, but also make socially responsible change that doesn’t necessarily relate to their core missions. Sure, but that’s not the same thing as modifying or abandoning the core mission **itself** for the sake of social change. Fertility clinics, for example, may be exhorted to be more energy efficient or more inclusive in hiring or more socially responsible in various other ways while engaging in their business. But that’s different from telling them that they should actually **stop trying to fix fertility problems** (or should fix them only for a particular subset of reproductively challenged couples, or whatever) because of the threat of overpopulation. Arguing that the **core mission itself** is problematic is not the same thing as saying “you should also make socially responsible change that doesn’t necessarily relate to your core mission”. > [@Ravenman](#): > > As I said before, just because he ACLU makes lots of contributions to our society in areas X, Y, and Z, doesn’t mean they should automatically get a free pass if their actions in area K end up causing harm to issue A. Again, you keep unjustifiably presenting these things as **separate** , as though “areas X, Y, and Z” are fundamentally different from “area K” and “issue A”. The ACLU’s activities don’t compartmentalize neatly like that. When it’s the “actions in area K” that make “lots of contributions to our society in areas X, Y, and Z” **and also** “end up causing harm to issue A”, you can’t just airily decree that they need to change what they’re doing in K. Again, what we’re talking about here is a basic core mission that intrinsically involves certain benefits as well as certain harms. Saying that they just need to keep the benefits while abstaining from the harms is a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s going on. > [@Ravenman](#): > > You aren’t arguing a centrist postion. Yes, I am: on this spectrum of opinion I’m in between the free-speech absolutists who disregard or dismiss the negative consequences of free speech and the advocates of free-speech restriction who disregard or dismiss the negative consequences of limiting free speech. > [@Ravenman](#): > > And you’re kind of a dick to think that someone like me who thinks this question ought to be taken seriously, and not just dismissed because you already have an opinion on it, isn’t thinking clearly. No, the problem with your lack of clarity is your shaky logic and inaccurate analogies, not your basic position of challenging free-speech absolutism. There are plenty of clear and rational arguments to be made against free-speech absolutism, but so far you’re not doing a great job of making any. > [@Ravenman](#): > > And you smell good compared to that flower that reeks of rotting flesh. Fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/104 "2017-10-11T01:55:41Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > The shortsightedness of left-wingers who want less protection for “hate speech” baffles me. Don’t they _know_ that they’ll be the first ones targeted under these laws? Nazis will keep on being Nazis without any real sanction, but BLM protestors will be rounded up for hate speech against the police on _day 1_. That will happen with or without groups like the ACLU. The success of an ACLU is dependent largely on the functioning of other institutions that recognize the values that ACLU protects. If, however, we have an extremist right wing government that dominates the presidency, the congress, and the judiciary, then it won’t matter what ACLU’s values are because they’ll be beaten down in the courts. Ordinary people like you and me and your next door neighbor are mothers who decide to give birth to fascism, or to terminate its pregnancy at the ballot box. Not a damn thing ACLU can do one way or the other. FWIW, I am a supporter of the ACLU but to BigT’s point, I don’t think that slippery slope arguments are always valid or appropriate. Other societies have restrictions on hate speech and they are just as free as we are in a lot of ways. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/105 "2017-10-11T02:00:44Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > As a Jew and an ACLU member, I am happy to have my membership dues helping to protect the rights of Nazis. See, I think this is a rational opinion. You’re not necessarily defending the speech. You could even argue that the speech should be limited in some way, and yet at the same time, there is more than just free speech that ACLU defends. ACLU defends equal protection under the law, the right to be treated fairly under the Constitution, the right to a free press, to peaceably assemble. It’s not just whether to allow hate speech or not – if you wanna have that discussion, we can have it and it still won’t detract from the valuable work that ACLU does. ACLU defends the right of people to be controversial within the law. Hate speech, like it or not, is allowed by law. That is what ACLU is defending, and that’s not an insignificant thing. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/106 "2017-10-11T02:25:17Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > No, the problem with your lack of clarity is your shaky logic and inaccurate analogies, not your basic position of challenging free-speech absolutism. There are plenty of clear and rational arguments to be made against free-speech absolutism, but so far you’re not doing a great job of making any. Serious question: do you actually know what my opinion is on the matter? Because I’m pretty sure you don’t, if you are talking about my “shaky logic.” ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/107 "2017-10-11T02:39:10Z")
I don’t agree in the slightest. It is not rational to treat the law like some fixed thing we have to accept. Nor is it rational to treat permissive laws as restrictive laws. Freedom of speech is the law, but it does NOT mandate that you take up every case where it is violated. We as human beings can decide if defending the freedom of speech in a particular situation is actually worth it. As much as people want to divorce themselves from the consequences, you just can’t. You can’t point to “freedom of speech” and then bear no responsibility. When you defend the evil speech of an evil organization, you are helping them. What you have to do is argue that helping them is worth it because it accomplishes something better. It will always be a balancing act. It was when we came up with the various forms of defamation. It was when we created false advertising laws and election laws. We restrict in fraud and causing violence (although we then went back on that last one). We have always had to have a conversation where the need for the freedom of speech hits the consequences of evil speech, and what the consequences will be. And we must continue to have it, and not let the ACLU become like the NRA, an absolutist organization that does not care at all about the consequences. They NEED to be discussing things like this. This conversation should be ongoing forever. If you want to say that Nazi speech needs to be preserved for the greater good, fine. Make that argument. (Same with other rights.) But appealing to the law is just begging the question. The law and how we react to it is the actual question at hand. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/108 "2017-10-11T02:57:40Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Freedom of speech is the law No, it’s not, it’s a right. Do even know the difference? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/109 "2017-10-11T03:10:18Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I don’t agree in the slightest. It is not rational to treat the law like some fixed thing we have to accept. Nor is it rational to treat permissive laws as restrictive laws. Freedom of speech is the law, but it does NOT mandate that you take up every case where it is violated. We as human beings can decide if defending the freedom of speech in a particular situation is actually worth it. > > As much as people want to divorce themselves from the consequences, you just can’t. You can’t point to “freedom of speech” and then bear no responsibility. When you defend the evil speech of an evil organization, you are helping them. What you have to do is argue that helping them is worth it because it accomplishes something better. > > It will always be a balancing act. It was when we came up with the various forms of defamation. It was when we created false advertising laws and election laws. We restrict in fraud and causing violence (although we then went back on that last one). We have always had to have a conversation where the need for the freedom of speech hits the consequences of evil speech, and what the consequences will be. > > And we must continue to have it, and not let the ACLU become like the NRA, an absolutist organization that does not care at all about the consequences. They NEED to be discussing things like this. This conversation should be ongoing forever. > > If you want to say that Nazi speech needs to be preserved for the greater good, fine. Make that argument. (Same with other rights.) But appealing to the law is just begging the question. The law and how we react to it is the actual question at hand. BigT the problem with your analysis is it always stops a few steps short. And why is this in the Pit? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/110 "2017-10-11T03:26:23Z")
I think that this question could have been much more simple: A demonstration whose members are carrying firearms and other weapons and using words that imply support for violence, and are accompanied by others who have threatened violence or is part of a social or political movement that espouses violence against other people, particularly minorities or disadvantaged people, is not a pure act of expression that is entitled to absolute protection of the First Amendment. I’m all for the ACLU defending Westboro. But if Westboro became a large movement that actually threatened violence, no. Charlottesville is not parallel to Skokie. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/111 "2017-10-11T03:46:54Z")
**BPC** , post #52 is truly awesome. Enthusiastically cosigned. I’m still not seeing many people grapple with the politics and PR of this, regardless of what you think about the principle. Defending racist dirtbags gives the ACLU cover to do mostly progressive work while preserving deniability/credibility. In fact, defending truly loathsome fringe groups might even be argued to be a copout, an all too easy way of maintaining this cover. If they were really about defending the principle everywhere, they’d be sticking up for the likes of the Koch brothers. > [@Kimstu](#): > > What objections? As has been pointed out repeatedly, **we don’t actually know what these staffers’ objections are** , except for the one sentence that was quoted in the [original article](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/aclu-charlottesville-white-supremacists.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0). It’s rather nitpicky to say all we know is the one sentence, unless you think the NY Times reporter took that part out of context and misrepresented the overall thrust of the letter. But I also heard more about it from one of those who signed, interviewed on the [podcast I mentioned.](https://play.radiopublic.com/the-daily-GMB3yp/ep/s1!f00c4620f8d9aa00d81049ae452eb82a292ede40) The gist was that her black friends were giving her tons of shit, like “how could you represent those people?” and she really felt the heat. My response would be that she should go join a different organization. > [@coffeecat](#): > > As a Jew and an ACLU member, I am happy to have my membership dues helping to protect the rights of Nazis. Nice. You should listen to that podcast: they talk to the Jewish lawyer who took the Skokie case. He talks about how he learned the values of protecting everyone’s speech rights from his parents, but then when he took the case there were many Jewish people very angry at him, some even getting violent. > [@Kimstu](#): > > By the way, **SlackerInc** , how long have you been a member of our “invaluable organization”? :dubious: Why are you dubious? As it happens, I suppose you’re technically correct as I’m not what Bush 41 called a “card-carrying member” of the organization (although my mother and grandfather have been, going all the way back to the 1930s). But I’ve donated money to them several times, which ought to count for something. > [@Pippers](#): > > Canada is a perfect example of freedom of speech within reason. I completely disagree. I was appalled to learn that, for instance, Canadians would drive across the border to get newspapers reporting on sensational murder trials because the judge had ordered the news media gagged. “Secret tribunals” are not a thing we want to have. Sure, it seems innocuous enough in Canada, but that can hardly be counted on if it becomes a trend elsewhere. BTW, my mother and sister are naturalized Canadian citizens. (My father is long dead, so I’m the last surviving member of our nuclear family without a maple leaf on my passport.) > [@Ravenman](#): > > For as many times as I see the term “slippery slope” mentioned in general discourse, I would bet that more than 70% of the time it is used in the sense of “a real phenomenon that forces us not to be reasonable on one issue because it will surely lead to disaster later on unreasonable issues,” as opposed to my understanding of the term, “a fallacious argument meant to scare the hell out of the opposition instead of debating in good faith.” How this phrase became so closely associated with the former rather than the latter is very sad. I think it’s sad that someone way back when managed to get “slippery slope” classified as a _prima facie_ fallacy, full stop. It may well be true that most of the slippery slopes people warn about are overblown at best; but that doesn’t mean that slippery slopes don’t exist at all. > [@Ravenman](#): > > So what? I agree with the outcome of that case, and think that the precedent it overturns was ghastly. Then I guess you’re not one of those who needs to read it. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Mansplaining Barnette This inane, vacuous comment shows you to be every bit as much of a clueless douchebag as the guy in my apartment building with the monster truck complete with MAGA sticker. (Other than what you presumably do in the actual voting booth, which I am grateful for.) Now, a roundup of posts I want to praise for their acuity: > [@Velocity](#): > > These 200 staffers are basically saying that the ACLU should stop being the ACLU. > [@billfish678](#): > > Free speech kinda sucks…but all the alternatives are worse… > > I find it amusing that so many people think they will ALWAYS be on the “right side” of socially appropriate speech and therefore have no serious doubts about punishing severely or limiting speech they do NOT agree with. > [@AHunter3](#): > > Where I’m flexible on it (although I’m not very, and I guess that shows) is that access to loud expensive reaches-the-public “free” speech isn’t free, and therefore access isn’t equal. I don’t know where, exactly, I would draw the line but somewhere between shouting “Lynch the President! Follow me!” (or “Lynch the wicked abortionist! Follow me!” for that matter) on the one hand and “I think the practitioners of the evil religion Christianity are an abomination in the eyes of God and should be barred from voting, owning property, being outdoors where people have to see them, and, especially, reproducing their foul kind”. (or insert some other group identity and express the same sentiment) on the other. The former is a direct incitement to do violence and I don’t think free speech should encompass it as legal, whereas the latter is a horrid sentiment but if I were something akin to a Supreme Court justice and were ruling on the matter I’d say free speech covers it because it urges within-the-system action, however horrid I find it, against a group of people. > > Your mileage may vary a bit. > [@Velocity](#): > > Because “hate speech” is a catch-all term under which just about anything can be wedged - all depending on who is in power at the moment. > > You don’t think that many people on the political right would consider Black Lives Matter, feminists, Bernie Bros, gun-control lobbyists, etc. to be “hate groups” or promoting “hate speech?” All great. One more that I love, but not quotable in the usual way (because the board won’t seem to automatically quote quoted material). **Kimstu** quoted the national legal director of the ACLU as follows: > [@](#): > > If we defended speech only when we agreed with it, on what ground would we ask others to tolerate speech they oppose? On what ground indeed? :dubious: ETA: > [@Acsenray](#): > > I’m all for the ACLU defending Westboro. But if Westboro became a large movement that actually threatened violence, no. > > Charlottesville is not parallel to Skokie. Because Nazis weren’t at that time a large movement that actually threatened violence. So as long as extremists are neutered and widely ridiculed or ignored, they can speak. Who decides when they cross the threshold? And who decides which hard left groups are extremists for that matter? Should James Baldwin not have had the right to darkly promise “The Fire Next Time”? (Uh oh, here’s that slope again.) ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/112 "2017-10-11T04:16:38Z")
Did James Baldwin organize a demonstration of armed people who threatened to create a violent confrontation? Do you agree that a threat should not be protected as free expression? I think it could be very simple and perfectly justifiable for the ACLU to say that they won’t defend people who show up to a demonstration carrying weapons or anything other than signs and banners. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/113 "2017-10-11T04:45:35Z")
Legally carrying weapons is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/114 "2017-10-11T05:06:28Z")
As long as they don’t brandish them, I would have to agree. I would prefer we had much stronger gun control but since we don’t then this type of exception would be a loophole protecting only liberals. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/115 "2017-10-11T05:19:40Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > As much as people want to divorce themselves from the consequences, you just can’t. You can’t point to “freedom of speech” and then bear no responsibility. When you defend the evil speech of an evil organization, you are helping them. What you have to do is argue that helping them is worth it because it accomplishes something better. How many times in history has restricting unpopular political speech been the right thing to do? How many cases can you name where it went well? What’s our prior going into this? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/116 "2017-10-11T05:29:32Z")
Reading these last few posts, I think another gap in agreement in this whole debate is the nature of white supremacist beliefs, whether its merely an “unpopular policial opinions” or a direct call to violent and racist acts. If you think the former, and that only direct physical violence can be called violence, then I understand where you’re coming from. If you think the latter, and that purely political acts can themselves be violence, then I understand where you’re coming from. I think it also factors into what you believe of another factor, how much an existential threat the status quo is for minorities, the disabled, the poor, etc. Myself, I just have a visceral reaction. “We should raise income taxes across the board” doesn’t to me compare to “we need to genocide entire races, or, barring that, pass laws to make their living hell”. The former feels more like an “unpopular political opinion” than the latter. I dunno, maybe it’s too late. Maybe Trump and the Republicans have already normalized the advancement of white supremacy if genocide is just another political opinion like gerrymandering and the capital gains tax. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/117 "2017-10-11T06:31:11Z")
Because who gets to decide what constitute “dangerous speech”? THAT’S the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/118 "2017-10-11T06:51:28Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Reading these last few posts, I think another gap in agreement in this whole debate is the nature of white supremacist beliefs, whether its merely an “unpopular policial opinions” or a direct call to violent and racist acts. If you think the former, and that only direct physical violence can be called violence, then I understand where you’re coming from. If you think the latter, and that purely political acts can themselves be violence, then I understand where you’re coming from. I think it also factors into what you believe of another factor, how much an existential threat the status quo is for minorities, the disabled, the poor, etc. > > Myself, I just have a visceral reaction. “We should raise income taxes across the board” doesn’t to me compare to “we need to genocide entire races, or, barring that, pass laws to make their living hell”. The former feels more like an “unpopular political opinion” than the latter. > > I dunno, maybe it’s too late. Maybe Trump and the Republicans have already normalized the advancement of white supremacy if genocide is just another political opinion like gerrymandering and the capital gains tax. I guess the problem here is that we have a pretty decent legal standard for where free speech crosses the line into calls to violence - immediate, specific, etc. - and these chucklefucks just don’t fit it. Now, you could make the case that we should add calls to genocide to this list. That sounds, by and large, reasonable. We’d need to strictly (and I do mean _strictly_) define it, but actual calls to violent action against a race could very easily belong to the list of “things that just aren’t free speech”. But the fact that it necessarily needs to be strictly defined seriously limits its usefulness. How many legitimate calls to genocide were there at Charlottesville? The closest thing to a call for genocide I’ve seen from the entire alt-right edifice is “Is black genocide right?”, an article which skirts the line but doesn’t exactly come out and say, “Yes, we should kill all black people” and so would probably not even fall under this exception. Never mind what most people are complaining about - bog-standard white supremacist rhetoric is not typically genocidal these days. That very fact makes cracking down on what they’re saying without causing serious negative consequences down the line really difficult. 😕 (In case I haven’t made it entirely clear enough: fuck that article, fuck the alt right, and fuck white supremacy.) ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/119 "2017-10-11T06:53:08Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Reading these last few posts, I think another gap in agreement in this whole debate is the nature of white supremacist beliefs, whether its merely an “unpopular policial opinions” or a direct call to violent and racist acts. If you think the former, and that only direct physical violence can be called violence, then I understand where you’re coming from. If you think the latter, and that purely political acts can themselves be violence, then I understand where you’re coming from. I think it also factors into what you believe of another factor, how much an existential threat the status quo is for minorities, the disabled, the poor, etc. > > Myself, I just have a visceral reaction. “We should raise income taxes across the board” doesn’t to me compare to “we need to genocide entire races, or, barring that, pass laws to make their living hell”. The former feels more like an “unpopular political opinion” than the latter. > > I dunno, maybe it’s too late. Maybe Trump and the Republicans have already normalized the advancement of white supremacy if genocide is just another political opinion like gerrymandering and the capital gains tax. No. It’s about entrusting the government, police, and other power sources with the ability to shut people up and jail them. If you think so-called hate speech rules and laws will only be used on the most odious forms of speech you are mistaken. Even this own board stretches the definition of hate speech randomly or to score cheap points in a debate. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/120 "2017-10-11T06:56:07Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > No. It’s about entrusting the government, police, and other power sources with the ability to shut people up and jail them. > > If you think so-called hate speech rules and laws will only be used on the most odious forms of speech you are mistaken. Even this own board stretches the definition of hate speech randomly or to score cheap points in a debate. This is my problem. It’s the classic “punch a nazi” problem - the people advocating for punching nazis are typically not the ones also saying, “Okay, but let’s be very very clear on who counts as a nazi, and super careful we don’t punch people who don’t deserve it”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452.md?page=7)