# BLM stops ACLU event: do they have a point? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 4, 2017, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977 "2017-10-04T18:52:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/61 "2017-10-05T13:14:18Z")
Rest assured I will not wait for people to discuss **how** they want to exterminate me before I raise my objections. There is NO civility here, I won’t fake it for the mere appearance of civil discourse. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/62 "2017-10-05T13:17:50Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > Which dictionary do you get that from? Webster’s, for instance, [defines it as](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nazism) “the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the Nazis in Germany from 1933 to 1945 including the totalitarian principle of government, predominance of especially Germanic groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer.” What the hell do you think “body of political and economic doctrines” equals, eh? Inferiors and race traitors get gone or dead. It’s stupid to ignore or obfuscate this. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/63 "2017-10-05T13:30:42Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > Rest assured I will not wait for people to discuss **how** they want to exterminate me before I raise my objections. There is NO civility here, I won’t fake it for the mere appearance of civil discourse. I agree. You should not have to be civil to someone who is trying to kill you. Who at that ACLU speech wa trying to kill black people? ---
**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 5, 2017, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/64 "2017-10-05T13:31:29Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > But will the ACLU keep doing it? Will they continue to defend hate-speech, choosing to push a social cost onto disadvantaged groups who don’t deserve it? Or will they pick and choose their battles based on what does the most good? > > Because if the ACLU points that out, and then continues defending hate speech, I think they’d just come across as saying that they are intentionally hurting these groups. What defines hate speech? Who gets to make that call? See, the reason rights like freedom of speech and freedom of religion are so important is not just because of their value to society. They _are_ valuable, but that’s not the only thing. It’s that in the past, attempts to deny those rights have ended _really poorly_. History is replete with cases where society said, “Let’s ban this religion” or “Let’s quash this free speech”. What percentage of those cases do you think are looked back on _positively_? Not only are these rights important, not only are there great temptations to restrict these rights, but we are collectively _extremely bad_ at determining when it’s actually a good idea to restrict these rights. The ability to restrict speech is incredibly dangerous. It is a _huge_ boon to totalitarians and anyone else whose ideas cannot stand on their own merits. > [@](#): > > It’s a large part of why I am a proponent of the more “European” idea of freedom of speech that sees hate speech as an exception. (I also happen to agree with requirements of factual accuracy in news reporting, too, but that’s a different issue.) Okay, so who gets to define “hate speech”? Is “pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon” hate speech? I know many on the right would think so. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/65 "2017-10-05T13:33:47Z")
Of interest to this thread: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/aclu-charlottesville-white-supremacists.html?\_r=0](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/aclu-charlottesville-white-supremacists.html?_r=0) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/66 "2017-10-05T13:54:39Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Will they continue to defend hate-speech, choosing to push a social cost onto disadvantaged groups who don’t deserve it? Or will they pick and choose their battles based on what does the most good? > > Because if the ACLU points that out, and then continues defending hate speech, I think they’d just come across as saying that they are intentionally hurting these groups. > […] > > I want to see the ACLU say, “Yeah, you have the freedom of speech to be a Nazi. But we’re not going to defend you.” The thing is, though, that if government institutions unconstitutionally prevent Nazis from using the same means to express their views that other groups have access to, then you **don’t** have the freedom of speech to be a Nazi. Just **telling** people that they’ve got a certain right doesn’t mean anything if you’re allowing their right to be infringed. This is why the ACLU has always felt itself bound to stand up in court for the rights of even quite horrible people when those rights are being infringed. > [@2sense](#): > > It looks to me like they weren’t there for a debate but rather to make the statement that the ACLU’s concerns about the speech of people who favor murdering blacks are not that important while blacks are being murdered. I have to say that I don’t see any good way to argue against that premise. Yeah, I think there’s no getting around the fact that freedom of speech comes at a price, and when the people speaking freely are horrible people then the price is mostly paid by the people they’re being horrible to. I think the way forward for the ACLU is to focus more on the 99.999…% of their activity that **doesn’t** involve defending the free-speech rights of horrible people (horrible from the liberal point of view, I mean; I suppose some non-liberals would consider the anthem-kneeler people whose free-speech rights the ACLU is also defending pretty horrible). As I posted earlier, the ACLU does a hell of a lot to stand up for students’ rights, workers’ rights, immigrants’ rights, prisoners’ rights, suspects’ rights, police reform, LGBT rights, and on and on down the list of reliably liberal causes. In the context of that bigger picture, I think it will be easier to see why defending the free-speech rights of hate groups is an unpleasant but necessary concomitant of the ACLU’s overall mission. Another approach I’d recommend is being a bit more nuanced about these issues in campus presentations. There is a widespread atmosphere of establishment tut-tuttery nowadays in academia and the media about anti-free-speech tendencies among liberal students who are pissed off about right-wing types using “free speech” as a shield for trolling with hate speech. While I agree that those tendencies are in the long run not helpful, I don’t think we get anywhere by just tut-tutting about them without acknowledging a legitimate grievance in there. I’d bet, for example, that if the W&M ACLU event had been billed as something like “Is ‘Free Speech’ Code for Hate Speech?” instead of the more lecture-y “Students and the First Amendment”, that would have inclined more BLM supporters to engage in that discussion rather than trying to shut it down. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/67 "2017-10-05T14:04:31Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > We seem to have gone from the admirable context of civil disobedience in the the defense of freedom and morphed into something like China’s cultural revolution where ignorant kids just destroy shit for fun. > [@Scylla](#): > > > [@orcenio](#): > > > > Rest assured I will not wait for people to discuss how they want to exterminate me before I raise my objections. […] > > […] Who at that ACLU speech wa[s] trying to kill black people? :rolleyes: Oh come on, **Scylla** , no fair indulging in alarmist hyperbole yourself and then trying to squelch it in other posters. No, the ACLU is not “trying to kill black people”, and no, current student protest culture is not “something like China’s cultural revolution”. > [@2sense](#): > > Are you aware that the ACLU has said it will no longer defend hate groups that engage in armed protest? That’s not a recent change in ACLU policy, by the way; they’ve held that position since 1934 at least. Unfortunately, the issue of “drilling with arms” seems not to have been adequately considered in the run-up to the Charlottesville case. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/68 "2017-10-05T14:11:30Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I agree. You should not have to be civil to someone who is trying to kill you. > Who at that ACLU speech wa trying to kill black people? The ACLU didn’t kill anyone, but they did give the Nazis the bullets, BLM are right to remind people of this. The result of Charlottesville wasn’t free speech, but violence and death. You can’t wash your hands of that. Violent hate groups are violent people who gather in support of violence. That’s their _raison d’etre_. You can’t blindly accept ‘free speech’ as a fig leaf when one starts killing people. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/69 "2017-10-05T14:18:21Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > Violent hate groups are violent people who gather in support of violence. That’s their _raison d’etre_. You can’t blindly accept ‘free speech’ as a fig leaf when one starts killing people. OK - I accept that principle. All that is now necessary is to define BLM as a violent hate group, and deny them their rights. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/70 "2017-10-05T14:22:29Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > OK - I accept that principle. All that is now necessary is to define BLM as a violent hate group, and deny them their rights. And you’ll get it when they start preaching the extermination/removal of inferiors. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/71 "2017-10-05T14:30:25Z")
Attempted thread summary: youth is wasted on the young. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/72 "2017-10-05T14:34:42Z")
No, I get it when they start engaging in violence to deny the rights of others. They are then a violent hate group, and the government cracks down on them. Or, we could apply the same rule to everyone - say whatever you want, even if it hurts other peoples’ feelings, as long as you don’t engage in violence or make direct, imminent threats against gays, Jews, police, white people, black people, Muslims, Asians, Trump supporters, Sanders supporters, communists, white separatists, or left-handed Rosicrucian Eskimos. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/73 "2017-10-05T14:40:17Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > And you’ll get it when they _ **start preaching** _ the extermination/removal of inferiors. > [@Shodan](#): > > No, I get it when they _ **start engaging** _ in violence to deny the rights of others. They are then a violent hate group, and the government cracks down on them. You, clearly, don’t get it. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/74 "2017-10-05T15:28:50Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > The ACLU didn’t kill anyone, but they did give the Nazis the bullets, BLM are right to remind people of this. The result of Charlottesville wasn’t free speech, but violence and death. > > You can’t wash your hands of that. Violent hate groups are violent people who gather in support of violence. That’s their _raison d’etre_. You can’t blindly accept ‘free speech’ as a fig leaf when one starts killing people. The ACLU is handing out bullets? The terrorist group Antifa are violent people who gather in support of violence. They went to Charlottesville to commit acts of violence and fights broke out between them and the Nazi/Klan. The only black lives matter supporters demand that police officers be burned like bacon. Birds of a feather, as far as I’m concerned. Should the speech of Antifa, the Nazis, only black lives matter, and the Klan be restricted? Are there any other groups you would like to see added to the list? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/75 "2017-10-05T15:30:04Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > You, clearly, don’t get it. Maybe you didn’t explain it well enough? ---
**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 5, 2017, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/76 "2017-10-05T15:35:00Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > You, clearly, don’t get it. No, _you_ don’t get it. Do you _really_ think that the people hurt by weaking free speech protections are, first and foremost, white supremacists? In _this_ administration? Nazis are not an operational threat. Everyone saw their colors at Charlottesville - few in number, and _weak_. Incapable of spreading their ideas through debate, and reduced to violence - and not even _effective_ violence. This movement is an operational threat to our democracy in the same way that the Taliban is. The far greater risk is that we respond to this tiny threat by destroying liberties that are essential to _all_ of us, and especially those under threat. > [@](#): > > The ACLU didn’t kill anyone, but they did give the Nazis the bullets, BLM are right to remind people of this. The result of Charlottesville wasn’t free speech, but violence and death. > **[Sniper Ambush Kills 5 Officers, Injures 7 in Dallas Following Peaceful Protest](https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/protests-in-dallas-over-alton-sterling-death/88950/)** > > Five officers are dead — four Dallas police officers and one Dallas Area Rapid Transit officer — in what authorities called a sniper ambush on police officers at the end of a peaceful protest against nationwide officer-involved shootings Thursday... Leave aside for the moment whether this is really a _fair_ comparison. I don’t think it is; BLM is primarily a peaceful movement, while neo-nazis aren’t. But here we are - BLM held a mostly peaceful rally, then someone from within the movement killed a bunch of people. Just like how, at Charlottesville, neo-nazis held a mostly peaceful rally, then someone from within the movement ran someone over on purpose. How _fucking trivial_ would it be for a motivated party to make this comparison, and use it to strip countless people of their right to peaceable protest under your rules? And how many motivated parties are there in Washington right now who really don’t like BLM? _This is why we don’t strip people of rights_. As [Scott Alexander so eloquently put it](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/): All throughout history, various despots and princes have thought “You know, the last hundred times someone tried to restrict freedom of religion, it went badly. Luckily, my religion happens to be the One True Religion, and I’m totally sure of this, and everyone else will eventually realize this and fall in line, so my plan to restrict freedom of religion will work great!” Every revolution starts with an optimist who says “All previous attempts to kill a bunch of people and seize control of the state have failed to produce a utopia, but luckily my plan is much better and we’re totally going to get to utopia this time.” Or, as Huxley put it: “Only one more indispensable massacre of Capitalists or Communists or Fascists and there we are – there we are – in the Golden Future.” So another way to put it is that rights don’t just say “Doing X has been observed to have bad consequences”, **but also “Doing X has been observed to have bad consequences, even when smart people are quite certain it will have good consequences.** ” The idea that the correct response to people exercising their rights in ways we dislike is to remove their rights is not a good one. The problem with Charlottesville was not “Nazis got to speak and protest freely”. It was “Nazis got violent and murderous”. _That_ is the problem we need to deal with, and guess what: the state has perfectly good tools to deal with that particular problem! ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/77 "2017-10-05T15:35:11Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > The ACLU didn’t kill anyone, but they did give the Nazis the bullets, BLM are right to remind people of this. The result of Charlottesville wasn’t free speech, but violence and death. > > You can’t wash your hands of that. Violent hate groups are violent people who gather in support of violence. That’s their _raison d’etre_. You can’t blindly accept ‘free speech’ as a fig leaf when one starts killing people. I think this misunderstands both the facts and how the law works. As to the facts, the legal dispute was over _where_ these Nazis would protest. It was not over _whether_ they would be permitted to gather. I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that the violence that day would have been any different if they had met further away from the ostensible target of their rally. You seem to be arguing that the City should have denied them the right to protest altogether. If there was enough evidence of the likelihood of violence, that can be justified. But if so, your beef is with the City of Charlottesville. The ACLU had no effect on that question. As to how the law works, it’s not as if the ACLU refusing representation means these groups don’t challenge the law. All it means is that they get shittier lawyers and one of two things happens. Maybe they win (in which case, it doesn’t matter who represented them). Or maybe they lose. It is the losing that is the problem, because it makes a legal precedent. And legal precedent doesn’t care if you’re a Nazi or not. If the law gets worse for free speech, it gets worse for everyone. Except, not actually everyone. It gets worse for the people who (1) need it most; (2) have the fewest resources; and (3) have the lowest social power. Guess who that is? ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/78 "2017-10-05T15:43:23Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > Fairly much the same justification of the original Holy Office, including the Congregation of the Index, in suppressing free speech on specious grounds. Ah, OK. I missed the reference and thus misidentified the type of specious argument you were deploying. It’s not that you were ignoring **BigT** ’s argument outright but instead indulging in a guilt by association fallacy. Thanks for clearing up my mistake. Will you now address your own? ## To be clear, I am disputing the premise that because a line of reasoning was used or misused in one situation with tragic results it shouldn’t be used in any situation. (At least I hope that’s more clear.) > [@Kimstu](#): > > Yeah, I think there’s no getting around the fact that freedom of speech comes at a price, and when the people speaking freely are horrible people then the price is mostly paid by the people they’re being horrible to. I think that in most instances this is acceptable. For me, it’s only when it impairs people’s safety that the price becomes too high. Thanks for the info on the ACLU as well as the insight on the “tut-tuttery”. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/79 "2017-10-05T15:43:49Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > The ACLU is handing out bullets? > > The terrorist group Antifa are violent people who gather in support of violence. They went to Charlottesville to commit acts of violence and fights broke out between them and the Nazi/Klan. The only black lives matter supporters demand that police officers be burned like bacon. Birds of a feather, as far as I’m concerned. Should the speech of Antifa, the Nazis, only black lives matter, and the Klan be restricted? Are there any other groups you would like to see added to the list? There is no such organization as “only black lives matter”. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977/80 "2017-10-05T15:46:00Z")
I have a big problem with BigT’s views here. It almost seems like in the absence of it being legal to pass laws outlawing hate speech, we’ll just make it de facto illegal by imposing too high a social cost on organizations that defend it on 1st amendment grounds. That’s a dangerous tactic, one that would make life very difficult for criminal defense lawyers in general. We don’t want to normalize intimidation of those who take the unpopular side in a legal battle. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blm-stops-aclu-event-do-they-have-a-point/797977.md?page=5)