Some do, although IIRC I haven’t seen any of the self-identified conservatives who are concern-trolling in this thread about “liberals trying to destroy the ACLU” claiming to do so. (I don’t know the OP’s political affiliation but I think he said that he does support the ACLU.)
Most conservatives, however, actively oppose the ACLU because of its generally liberal pro-civil-liberties stances on issues like capital punishment, criminal law and policing reforms, immigrants’ rights, LGBT rights, prisoners’ rights, voting rights, etc. Heck, back in 1988 presidential candidate George H. W. Bush attacked his Democratic rival Michael Dukakis for being a “card-carrying ACLU member” as though that were the very nadir of anti-Americanism (with strong echoes of the “card-carrying Communist” rhetoric of the McCarthy era).
So AFAICT no, the majority of American conservatives do not support the ACLU, financially or in any other way. They may temporarily pretend to admire the ACLU when it defends free-speech rights for fascist/racist hate groups, and when they can use it as a stick to beat anti-free-speech leftists with, but that’s not the same thing as genuine support.
How does the example of Frederick Douglass prove your claim that “until quite recently, black people in America didn’t actually have freedom of speech in any sense” (italics added)?
IAN iiandyiiii and cannot speak for him, but I interpreted his remark about Douglass as pointing up the connection between freedom of speech and the protection of unwelcome speech.
In other words, just because you can get away with saying it in front of a small sympathetic subset of the public doesn’t necessarily mean you have freedom of speech. If in most venues the public would be able to get away with beating or killing you for saying it, you don’t in fact have freedom of speech.
I don’t understand your question about “proving” iiandyiiii’s claim about freedom of speech. AFAICT, he was arguing that Douglass’s situation was an example of the denial of freedom of speech to black people in America, not a proof of it.
Still haven’t found a copy of that letter. I personally can imagine agreeing or disagreeing with it. OP is unproven so far.
In other news, Charlottesville just filed a lawsuit against “Unite the Right” militia groups for “unlawful paramilitary activity.” [INDENT][INDENT]From TPM article
The lawsuit explicitly notes that both peaceable right to assemble and gun ownership are protected activities, but that serving as “members of a fighting force” unsanctioned by the government is not. …
“The Alt-Right Defendants did not come to Charlottesville merely to espouse their controversial ideas in a public park. They came to coerce and terrorize.” [/INDENT][/INDENT] IANAL, but ISTM that armed and coercive invasion is not properly considered protected speech.
I don’t think there’s a private cause of action in Virginia law for this, but frankly I’m kinda hoping the Facebook braggadocio of the Nazis is enough to provide the hook for a win.
Win what, Bricker? Sorry, I’m not understanding what you mean or what connection it has to suggested modifications on the ACLU’s position on protecting First Amendment rights.
Great, so every case of “I advocate X” that is prosecutable hate speech gets changed to “I advocate not-X” with a wink added. What progress! :rolleyes:
I’m not really out to reinforce right wing memes. I’m gonna guess that roughly half the stuff in that thread, I’d agree is “stupid bullshit”, and half I would support as a legitimate progressive action.
Yes, I was a teenager then, but a very politically aware one, and I was infuriated by Bush’s dirty politics (I believe he even went to a flag factory to make the accusation, which is just so nauseating).
My political affiliation is Democratic. The only Republican I ever voted for was in a local sheriff’s race, because the Democratic sheriff was implicated in a case of police brutality against a black man, which I had led a protest against.
However, I’m a Democrat of the Jon Chait/Sam Harris variety. I don’t have much patience for the Bernie Sanders wing, or all the campus/Twitter PC Maoists who make the perfect the enemy of the good and take an authoritarian tack against free speech.
QFT. You’re reminding me that I once got a letter read on O’Reilly’s show, in which I took him on over that very issue (he argued that it was somehow unethical for lawyers to defend “bad guys” or whatever he called them). I wondered if he had gotten equally agitated over the prosecutorial conduct in Tulia, Texas. (He indignantly insisted in response to my letter that he had indeed, but I watched the show regularly back then and I don’t remember him doing so.)