From the OP’s link:
It’s easy to handwave and say “Oh, they’re just kids.”
But why is no one calling out their parents or teachers who taught them such crap?
Wait, who is saying “they’re just kids”? The anti-ACLU protestors are very young adults, and consequently somewhat inexperienced and naive, yes. But AFAICT nobody here is saying that they’re “just kids” and therefore not responsible for their own beliefs and actions.
As for who “taught them” this “crap”, my impression of young far-left activists in general is that, as adult student activists, they’re picking up their beliefs from the political circles in which they move. They’re not being drilled in these beliefs by parents or teachers. (In fact, academics in general have been pretty loud in condemning campus violence and student attempts to shut down campus speakers.)
However, as an ACLU member I’m always delighted to see a self-described conservative making common cause with our organization, because many of you folks are not always our biggest fans! 
Could I interest you in making a donation?
(Mods: not sure where this rhetorical solicitation stands in respect of board rules, feel free to remove if contrary to regulations.)
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.
To be honest, what you said is actually something I’ve been trying to figure out how to articulate for a while. You’ve just explained why I say that free speech absolutism isn’t necessarily good. It would be one thing if those who defend Nazis only paid the cost themselves, but, as you point out, disadvantaged groups also pay the cost.
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.)
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.” Just like I want an NRA that says “maybe we could have some restrictions on gun ownership, as long as they aren’t too onerous.”
Not that I would stop a free speech event by the ACLU. That’s just stupid. Bad messaging, and going against the very thing that allows you to protest in the first place. You can have reasonable disagreements without trying to stop the whole thing.
And would you describe that as smart behavior today?
See? You are making RTF’s point.
.
Let’s not. I am for reparations. I also believe the traditional devotion to checks and balances is wrongheaded. I don’t see why either of those ideas are heinous. Given how poorly our government represents us it’s no surprise the window of discourse is heavily weighted in favor of elite interests. And most of our elites are white. That’s not going to change a lot between now and 2050 so I am not as optimistic as adaher about a broadening of our political discourse. Though, white liberal though I may be, I would welcome it.
The ACLU has been defending “hate-speech” for decades. Remember the whole business with the KKK wanting to march in Skokie?
And if you feel that way, fine – but I hope you realize that would require amending the Constitution.
Then you fail to understand what the ACLU is all about.
(Quite frankly, I was more disgusted by their support of NAMBLA, but that’s me)
Excuse, but how do we know the difference between an official BLM sanctioned action and some jumped up locals who have sanctioned themselves? What is the address of the BLM Central Committee, who is the chair, who is the official spokesperson? Have they recognition from the local chapter of Antifas?
Their address is right around the corner from “If it looks like a Nazi and talks like a Nazi, then it is a Nazi.”
Do you not understand the premise of free speech protections?
Kinda my point, actually. Back in the day, there were about twenty? thirty?..different official, bona fide Ku Klux Klans. And we have to be careful, these so-called “Nazis” may actually be white nationalists, not white supremacists. Some of them are good people too, just not quite as many.
He does, but he disagrees with it. Where people are wicked he knows they have no right to express their hateful lies.
Call it the Holy Office of BigT.
These people are stupid and they should feel stupid.
What’s Black Lives Matter supposed to be about, again? What are their goals?
Apparently they’re an anti-free speech group, and their goal is to eliminate public sympathy for themselves. Good job, guys.
The BLM protest WAS free speech just not the kind of speech the college was expecting. 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. You can question their tactics, of course.
Or you could actually read where he explains that for him the threat to vulnerable communities justifies limiting the ability of their would-be oppressors to promote doing so. Are you aware that the ACLU has said it will no longer defend hate groups that engage in armed protest? It seems they themselves agree with the overall premise here that lives matter more.
Fairly much the same justification of the original Holy Office, including the Congregation of the Index, in suppressing free speech on specious grounds.
I’m angry that the ACLU was blinded in thinking that ensuring a NAZI/white power protest would merely result in free speech. BLM should keep reminding the ACLU that NAZIism is a violent ideology. BLM should do it rudely even.
After the attack on the baseball game, so is Liberalism. Better shut them up, too.
Liberalism isn’t Nazism. Not even close.
The definition of Nazism is the inability to peacefully exist with others of inferior ilk. The ACLU ensured the Nazi gathering at Charlottesville and (surprise, surprise) an edged-out Nazi committed a terrorist attack killing a young woman.
To hell with NAZIs and all who meekly empower them. BLM are right to make this point over and over again. Non-violent resistance isn’t passive resistance.
This is one of the examples of why I am not such a big fan of protests anymore.
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.
Which dictionary do you get that from? Webster’s, for instance, defines it as “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.”
Trying to take away the civil rights of others because you think they are inferior isn’t limited to Nazis, notice that you’re doing the same thing. The only difference is who gets defined as inferior.