ACLU against free speech

[westwall]

If you are referring to the left wing loons of antifa who are anti free speech. I agree with you. On the other hand if you're one of those morons who thinks that freedom of speech only applies to friendly speech, then you are the anti free speech loon you are blathering about.

anti-fa? No, I'm more or less talking about imbeciles who imply the goal and history of the ACLU is to destroy the United States because they have poor reading comprehension skills and conveniently forget that the ACLU has defended first amendment rights of people from across the political spectrum.

No, they rarely support 2nd Amendment cases, which are almost individual type cases. They are only interested in rulings that add to the power of government, or result in the destruction of National Boundaries. Gee.... I wonder why that is?

I'm sorry, I have to ask, are you retarded? The thread title has 'free speech' in it, you replied to a post that mentions the ACLU defending first amendment rights from across the political spectrum and you reply with something about the 2nd amendment? What the hell is that? Try staying on topic.

And also make up your mind at first you tell us the ACLU is trying to destroy the state and now you are telling us they want to give power to government, fucking weird Alex Jones vibes I'm picking up.

The First Amendment is defended by the 2nd Amendment. It appears that it is you who are retarded as you try and deflect from a losing argument. Very well. Flee.

The what? The first amendment is protected by the Constitution first an foremost. You are just ridiculous. Because the ACLU doesn't protect your little pet peeve the exact way you want them to they are then somehow now anti-American. That's just dumb, and ignore the fact that the ACLU has defended the free speech rights of people who are pro 2nd amendment such as Rush Limbaugh.

What a nut you are.

You idiot. Without the 2nd Amendment the COTS is merely a scrap of paper. Let me know how effective that is when a cop is abusing you. Moron.

 

[HappyJoy]

No one, besides perhaps Trump and his "ilk", want to suppress speech. But we also don't want people in religious buildings and colleges to be intimidated.

I think the Left, particularly at colleges, have done an excellent job of suppressing speech. And colleges, of all places, the one place we NEED to be exposing young minds to new and contrary and challenging and "intimidating" ideas. It's the most liberal of all ideals, and the Left has perverted it.

These Democrats agree with me:
.

Calls liberal college students 'regressives' yet uses the words of liberals calling for more free speech as an example of liberals being free speech adverse. Yep, it's Mac again.

 

[HappyJoy]

anti-fa? No, I'm more or less talking about imbeciles who imply the goal and history of the ACLU is to destroy the United States because they have poor reading comprehension skills and conveniently forget that the ACLU has defended first amendment rights of people from across the political spectrum.

No, they rarely support 2nd Amendment cases, which are almost individual type cases. They are only interested in rulings that add to the power of government, or result in the destruction of National Boundaries. Gee.... I wonder why that is?

I'm sorry, I have to ask, are you retarded? The thread title has 'free speech' in it, you replied to a post that mentions the ACLU defending first amendment rights from across the political spectrum and you reply with something about the 2nd amendment? What the hell is that? Try staying on topic.

And also make up your mind at first you tell us the ACLU is trying to destroy the state and now you are telling us they want to give power to government, fucking weird Alex Jones vibes I'm picking up.

The First Amendment is defended by the 2nd Amendment. It appears that it is you who are retarded as you try and deflect from a losing argument. Very well. Flee.

The what? The first amendment is protected by the Constitution first an foremost. You are just ridiculous. Because the ACLU doesn't protect your little pet peeve the exact way you want them to they are then somehow now anti-American. That's just dumb, and ignore the fact that the ACLU has defended the free speech rights of people who are pro 2nd amendment such as Rush Limbaugh.

What a nut you are.

You idiot. Without the 2nd Amendment the COTS is merely a scrap of paper. Let me know how effective that is when a cop is abusing you. Moron.

Well, no actually, I'd say the 2nd is rarely used to defend our first amendment rights. When was the last time that happened?

Also, while you completely change the subject from the 1st to the 2nd amendment because you realized you didn't have much of a point why don't you go and read what the ACLU has to say about the 2nd? I mean, at least do that.

 

[Mac1958]

No one, besides perhaps Trump and his "ilk", want to suppress speech. But we also don't want people in religious buildings and colleges to be intimidated.

I think the Left, particularly at colleges, have done an excellent job of suppressing speech. And colleges, of all places, the one place we NEED to be exposing young minds to new and contrary and challenging and "intimidating" ideas. It's the most liberal of all ideals, and the Left has perverted it.

These Democrats agree with me:
.

Calls liberal college students 'regressives' yet uses the words of liberals calling for more free speech as an example of liberals being free speech adverse. Yep, it's Mac again.

Sure.

Regressives aren't liberal. You're illiberal leftist authoritarians.

Thanks!
.

 

[HappyJoy]

No one, besides perhaps Trump and his "ilk", want to suppress speech. But we also don't want people in religious buildings and colleges to be intimidated.

I think the Left, particularly at colleges, have done an excellent job of suppressing speech. And colleges, of all places, the one place we NEED to be exposing young minds to new and contrary and challenging and "intimidating" ideas. It's the most liberal of all ideals, and the Left has perverted it.

These Democrats agree with me:
.

Calls liberal college students 'regressives' yet uses the words of liberals calling for more free speech as an example of liberals being free speech adverse. Yep, it's Mac again.

Sure.

Regressives aren't liberal. You're illiberal leftist authoritarians.

Thanks!
.

I am? But I agree with all those liberals you posted. I guess that makes me a liberal.

 

[Mac1958]

No one, besides perhaps Trump and his "ilk", want to suppress speech. But we also don't want people in religious buildings and colleges to be intimidated.

I think the Left, particularly at colleges, have done an excellent job of suppressing speech. And colleges, of all places, the one place we NEED to be exposing young minds to new and contrary and challenging and "intimidating" ideas. It's the most liberal of all ideals, and the Left has perverted it.

These Democrats agree with me:
.

Calls liberal college students 'regressives' yet uses the words of liberals calling for more free speech as an example of liberals being free speech adverse. Yep, it's Mac again.

Sure.

Regressives aren't liberal. You're illiberal leftist authoritarians.

Thanks!
.

I am? But I agree with all those liberals you posted.

Sure ya do!
.

 

[bendog]

No one, besides perhaps Trump and his "ilk", want to suppress speech. But we also don't want people in religious buildings and colleges to be intimidated.

I think the Left, particularly at colleges, have done an excellent job of suppressing speech. And colleges, of all places, the one place we NEED to be exposing young minds to new and contrary and challenging and "intimidating" ideas. It's the most liberal of all ideals, and the Left has perverted it.

These Democrats agree with me:
.

There's no lack of free speech on college campuses. Free speech does involve getting heckled and shouted down by idiot children of privilege. The question is whether the message is allowed. There's no doubt an extremely elitist fauxprogressive tilt in academia. On and old board from where a few of us survivors came from, a guy with an economics background posted about how he was told his working class Catholic background wasn't well suited.

My own daughter was less than totally amused by the flout it if you're gay and BLM groups who were dismissive of the pretty blond girl from the South. LOL

 

[westwall]

No, they rarely support 2nd Amendment cases, which are almost individual type cases. They are only interested in rulings that add to the power of government, or result in the destruction of National Boundaries. Gee.... I wonder why that is?

I'm sorry, I have to ask, are you retarded? The thread title has 'free speech' in it, you replied to a post that mentions the ACLU defending first amendment rights from across the political spectrum and you reply with something about the 2nd amendment? What the hell is that? Try staying on topic.

And also make up your mind at first you tell us the ACLU is trying to destroy the state and now you are telling us they want to give power to government, fucking weird Alex Jones vibes I'm picking up.

The First Amendment is defended by the 2nd Amendment. It appears that it is you who are retarded as you try and deflect from a losing argument. Very well. Flee.

The what? The first amendment is protected by the Constitution first an foremost. You are just ridiculous. Because the ACLU doesn't protect your little pet peeve the exact way you want them to they are then somehow now anti-American. That's just dumb, and ignore the fact that the ACLU has defended the free speech rights of people who are pro 2nd amendment such as Rush Limbaugh.

What a nut you are.

You idiot. Without the 2nd Amendment the COTS is merely a scrap of paper. Let me know how effective that is when a cop is abusing you. Moron.

Well, no actually, I'd say the 2nd is rarely used to defend our first amendment rights. When was the last time that happened?

Also, while you completely change the subject from the 1st to the 2nd amendment because you realized you didn't have much of a point why don't you go and read what the ACLU has to say about the 2nd? I mean, at least do that.

The last time I checked, other than the Nevada ACLU, their official position was it is a collective right, which seems sort of retarded as government has the power already, so why it would need a right to have guns seems beyond me. The Nevada ACLU only a few years ago proclaimed it an individual Right.

 

[HappyJoy]

No one, besides perhaps Trump and his "ilk", want to suppress speech. But we also don't want people in religious buildings and colleges to be intimidated.

I think the Left, particularly at colleges, have done an excellent job of suppressing speech. And colleges, of all places, the one place we NEED to be exposing young minds to new and contrary and challenging and "intimidating" ideas. It's the most liberal of all ideals, and the Left has perverted it.

These Democrats agree with me:
.

Calls liberal college students 'regressives' yet uses the words of liberals calling for more free speech as an example of liberals being free speech adverse. Yep, it's Mac again.

Sure.

Regressives aren't liberal. You're illiberal leftist authoritarians.

Thanks!
.

I am? But I agree with all those liberals you posted.

Sure ya do!
.

I do. I believe college campuses have gotten a little out of hand with who they let and don't let speak. I just don't think it's the crime of the century that you do.

 

[HappyJoy]

No one, besides perhaps Trump and his "ilk", want to suppress speech. But we also don't want people in religious buildings and colleges to be intimidated.

I think the Left, particularly at colleges, have done an excellent job of suppressing speech. And colleges, of all places, the one place we NEED to be exposing young minds to new and contrary and challenging and "intimidating" ideas. It's the most liberal of all ideals, and the Left has perverted it.

These Democrats agree with me:
.

There's no lack of free speech on college campuses. Free speech does involve getting heckled and shouted down by idiot children of privilege. The question is whether the message is allowed. There's no doubt an extremely elitist fauxprogressive tilt in academia. On and old board from where a few of us survivors came from, a guy with an economics background posted about how he was told his working class Catholic background wasn't well suited.

My own daughter was less than totally amused by the flout it if you're gay and BLM groups who were dismissive of the pretty blond girl from the South. LOL

I don't have issues with college students shouting back at speakers, that's kind of a part of life. However when many of the speakers are cancelled because of the supposed threat of violence or whatever that it can be an issue. Let the dingbats talk and face the legal consequence for their first amendment rights.

 

[HappyJoy]

I'm sorry, I have to ask, are you retarded? The thread title has 'free speech' in it, you replied to a post that mentions the ACLU defending first amendment rights from across the political spectrum and you reply with something about the 2nd amendment? What the hell is that? Try staying on topic.

And also make up your mind at first you tell us the ACLU is trying to destroy the state and now you are telling us they want to give power to government, fucking weird Alex Jones vibes I'm picking up.

The First Amendment is defended by the 2nd Amendment. It appears that it is you who are retarded as you try and deflect from a losing argument. Very well. Flee.

The what? The first amendment is protected by the Constitution first an foremost. You are just ridiculous. Because the ACLU doesn't protect your little pet peeve the exact way you want them to they are then somehow now anti-American. That's just dumb, and ignore the fact that the ACLU has defended the free speech rights of people who are pro 2nd amendment such as Rush Limbaugh.

What a nut you are.

You idiot. Without the 2nd Amendment the COTS is merely a scrap of paper. Let me know how effective that is when a cop is abusing you. Moron.

Well, no actually, I'd say the 2nd is rarely used to defend our first amendment rights. When was the last time that happened?

Also, while you completely change the subject from the 1st to the 2nd amendment because you realized you didn't have much of a point why don't you go and read what the ACLU has to say about the 2nd? I mean, at least do that.

The last time I checked, other than the Nevada ACLU, their official position was it is a collective right, which seems sort of retarded as government has the power already, so why it would need a right to have guns seems beyond me. The Nevada ACLU only a few years ago proclaimed it an individual Right.

Or you can educate yourself and actually read what they think of gun control rights.

The ACLU's Position on Gun Control

Jesus Christ, way to take this all off topic.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Looks like those Liberals turds at the ACLU have finally admitted they are Leftest assholes.

They are against free speech when it is in conflict with their Leftest agenda of hate and destruction.

Typical for Left Wingers all over the world. Free speech or any or liberty is to be sacrificed for Socialism. or the vile demented Left view of "social justice".


Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Is Wavering on Free Speech

Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Is Wavering on Free Speech

"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed."

The American Civil Liberties Union will weigh its interest in protecting the First Amendment against its other commitments to social justice, racial equality, and women's rights, given the possibility that offensive speech might undermine ACLU goals.

"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed," wrote ACLU staffers in a confidential memo obtained by former board member Wendy Kaminer.


It's hard to see this as anything other than a cowardly retreat from a full-throated defense of the First Amendment. Moving forward, when deciding whether to take a free speech case, the organization will consider "factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur."

The founder of the ACLU's stated goal was the destruction of the USA. So this is not surprising.

OK, at one point. But if you're going to tell a story, tell the whole fucking story . Otherwise, it's propaganda...you know , like the communists use,

In St. Louis, Baldwin had been greatly influenced by the radical social movement of the anarchist Emma Goldman. He joined the Industrial Workers of the World.

In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. Later, however, as more and more information came out about Joseph Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union, Baldwin became more and more disillusioned with communism and called it "A NEW SLAVERY" (capitalized in the original).[5] He condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny, forced labor."[6] In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members.[6Roger Nash Baldwin - Wikipedia

]

It's actually quite easy. Take a look at their history and who they have gone to Court for. Every two bit progressive group gets lavished with money and time. If the group is a right wing group, they are left high and dry. Yes, I am sure you are going to trot out that nazis are right wing canard, but that is false. NAZI's and communists are both left wing. Remember, collective governments are left wing. No government is right wing. You can't have a left wing and a right wing collective government because that means that there is no such thing as an opposite of government. Do you see the logic problem there?

I am well aware of how you fucktards can get away with calling Nazis left wing and then have the temerity to equate them to what is commonly referred to the left in this country today. Yes, if you base the distinction solely on the size and role of government, you can argue that Nazis are left wing.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Left_Wing_vs_Right_Wing

But that dumbs down the conversation by disregarding that the size and role of government is only one factor in the equation that determines the actual nature of the government or the ideology. Nazis and the current US administration both use government to reward a favored few, denigrate minorities, and wage war on others as well as their own people. And while the US administration preaches the right-wing rhetoric of small government, they are selective in what that actually looks like. They want small government when it comes to taxes, social safety net programs, protection for the environment and consumer protection, but are all to eager to impose government on women’s reproductive health, the choices available to people when it comes to who they can marry and freedom of the press. Yes, free speech. So this left-right dichotomy fails your assessment that the ACLU only defends the left, your argument fails pathetically and miserably. Do you see the logical problem there?

 

[bendog]

No one, besides perhaps Trump and his "ilk", want to suppress speech. But we also don't want people in religious buildings and colleges to be intimidated.

I think the Left, particularly at colleges, have done an excellent job of suppressing speech. And colleges, of all places, the one place we NEED to be exposing young minds to new and contrary and challenging and "intimidating" ideas. It's the most liberal of all ideals, and the Left has perverted it.

These Democrats agree with me:
.

There's no lack of free speech on college campuses. Free speech does involve getting heckled and shouted down by idiot children of privilege. The question is whether the message is allowed. There's no doubt an extremely elitist fauxprogressive tilt in academia. On and old board from where a few of us survivors came from, a guy with an economics background posted about how he was told his working class Catholic background wasn't well suited.

My own daughter was less than totally amused by the flout it if you're gay and BLM groups who were dismissive of the pretty blond girl from the South. LOL

I don't have issues with college students shouting back at speakers, that's kind of a part of life. However when many of the speakers are cancelled because of the supposed threat of violence or whatever that it can be an issue. Let the dingbats talk and face the legal consequence for their first amendment rights.

Is it threatened violence or more the anticipation of unpleasantness? Even when idiot children prevent a speaker from coming, the message is delivered. And they are given a message of their intolerance that will possibly affect them later in life.

 

[westwall]

Looks like those Liberals turds at the ACLU have finally admitted they are Leftest assholes.

They are against free speech when it is in conflict with their Leftest agenda of hate and destruction.

Typical for Left Wingers all over the world. Free speech or any or liberty is to be sacrificed for Socialism. or the vile demented Left view of "social justice".


Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Is Wavering on Free Speech

Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Is Wavering on Free Speech

"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed."

The American Civil Liberties Union will weigh its interest in protecting the First Amendment against its other commitments to social justice, racial equality, and women's rights, given the possibility that offensive speech might undermine ACLU goals.

"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed," wrote ACLU staffers in a confidential memo obtained by former board member Wendy Kaminer.


It's hard to see this as anything other than a cowardly retreat from a full-throated defense of the First Amendment. Moving forward, when deciding whether to take a free speech case, the organization will consider "factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur."

The founder of the ACLU's stated goal was the destruction of the USA. So this is not surprising.

OK, at one point. But if you're going to tell a story, tell the whole fucking story . Otherwise, it's propaganda...you know , like the communists use,

In St. Louis, Baldwin had been greatly influenced by the radical social movement of the anarchist Emma Goldman. He joined the Industrial Workers of the World.

In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. Later, however, as more and more information came out about Joseph Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union, Baldwin became more and more disillusioned with communism and called it "A NEW SLAVERY" (capitalized in the original).[5] He condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny, forced labor."[6] In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members.[6Roger Nash Baldwin - Wikipedia

]

It's actually quite easy. Take a look at their history and who they have gone to Court for. Every two bit progressive group gets lavished with money and time. If the group is a right wing group, they are left high and dry. Yes, I am sure you are going to trot out that nazis are right wing canard, but that is false. NAZI's and communists are both left wing. Remember, collective governments are left wing. No government is right wing. You can't have a left wing and a right wing collective government because that means that there is no such thing as an opposite of government. Do you see the logic problem there?

I am well aware of how you fucktards can get away with calling Nazis left wing and then have the temerity to equate them to what is commonly referred to the left in this country today. Yes, if you base the distinction solely on the size and role of government, you can argue that Nazis are left wing.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Left_Wing_vs_Right_Wing

But that dumbs down the conversation by disregarding that the size and role of government is only one factor in the equation that determines the actual nature of the government or the ideology. Nazis and the current US administration both use government to reward a favored few, denigrate minorities, and wage war on others as well as their own people. And while the US administration preaches the right-wing rhetoric of small government, they are selective in what that actually looks like. They want small government when it comes to taxes, social safety net programs, protection for the environment and consumer protection, but are all to eager to impose government on women’s reproductive health, the choices available to people when it comes to who they can marry and freedom of the press. Yes, free speech. So this left-right dichotomy fails your assessment that the ACLU only defends the left, your argument fails pathetically and miserably. Do you see the logical problem there?

Try using your head, instead of listening to the morons who actually taught you that silliness. If total government control is on one side of the political spectrum. What, logically, is on the other side?

 

[HappyJoy]

No one, besides perhaps Trump and his "ilk", want to suppress speech. But we also don't want people in religious buildings and colleges to be intimidated.

I think the Left, particularly at colleges, have done an excellent job of suppressing speech. And colleges, of all places, the one place we NEED to be exposing young minds to new and contrary and challenging and "intimidating" ideas. It's the most liberal of all ideals, and the Left has perverted it.

These Democrats agree with me:
.

There's no lack of free speech on college campuses. Free speech does involve getting heckled and shouted down by idiot children of privilege. The question is whether the message is allowed. There's no doubt an extremely elitist fauxprogressive tilt in academia. On and old board from where a few of us survivors came from, a guy with an economics background posted about how he was told his working class Catholic background wasn't well suited.

My own daughter was less than totally amused by the flout it if you're gay and BLM groups who were dismissive of the pretty blond girl from the South. LOL

I don't have issues with college students shouting back at speakers, that's kind of a part of life. However when many of the speakers are cancelled because of the supposed threat of violence or whatever that it can be an issue. Let the dingbats talk and face the legal consequence for their first amendment rights.

Is it threatened violence or more the anticipation of unpleasantness? Even when idiot children prevent a speaker from coming, the message is delivered. And they are given a message of their intolerance that will possibly affect them later in life.

Yep, violence or some sort of counter protest, the later being one I'm not against however thr college shouldn't just back down and cancel either. But yes, we need to listen to each other, or at least that would be ideal. Then again when that happens we get places like USMB.

 

[westwall]

The First Amendment is defended by the 2nd Amendment. It appears that it is you who are retarded as you try and deflect from a losing argument. Very well. Flee.

The what? The first amendment is protected by the Constitution first an foremost. You are just ridiculous. Because the ACLU doesn't protect your little pet peeve the exact way you want them to they are then somehow now anti-American. That's just dumb, and ignore the fact that the ACLU has defended the free speech rights of people who are pro 2nd amendment such as Rush Limbaugh.

What a nut you are.

You idiot. Without the 2nd Amendment the COTS is merely a scrap of paper. Let me know how effective that is when a cop is abusing you. Moron.

Well, no actually, I'd say the 2nd is rarely used to defend our first amendment rights. When was the last time that happened?

Also, while you completely change the subject from the 1st to the 2nd amendment because you realized you didn't have much of a point why don't you go and read what the ACLU has to say about the 2nd? I mean, at least do that.

The last time I checked, other than the Nevada ACLU, their official position was it is a collective right, which seems sort of retarded as government has the power already, so why it would need a right to have guns seems beyond me. The Nevada ACLU only a few years ago proclaimed it an individual Right.

Or you can educate yourself and actually read what they think of gun control rights.

The ACLU's Position on Gun Control

Jesus Christ, way to take this all off topic.

Yes, the ACLU's position is fundamentally anti gun for civilian ownership. There is ALREADY a SCOTUS ruling on assault weapons, that is the 1934 NFA and they stipulate (look it up, it's a legal term) that assault weapons are the only weapons truly protected under the 2nd Amendment. Thus the ACLU's position is already refuted by a SCOTUS hearing. Thanks for making that plain.

 

[HappyJoy]

Looks like those Liberals turds at the ACLU have finally admitted they are Leftest assholes.

They are against free speech when it is in conflict with their Leftest agenda of hate and destruction.

Typical for Left Wingers all over the world. Free speech or any or liberty is to be sacrificed for Socialism. or the vile demented Left view of "social justice".


Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Is Wavering on Free Speech

Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Is Wavering on Free Speech

"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed."

The American Civil Liberties Union will weigh its interest in protecting the First Amendment against its other commitments to social justice, racial equality, and women's rights, given the possibility that offensive speech might undermine ACLU goals.

"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed," wrote ACLU staffers in a confidential memo obtained by former board member Wendy Kaminer.


It's hard to see this as anything other than a cowardly retreat from a full-throated defense of the First Amendment. Moving forward, when deciding whether to take a free speech case, the organization will consider "factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur."

The founder of the ACLU's stated goal was the destruction of the USA. So this is not surprising.

OK, at one point. But if you're going to tell a story, tell the whole fucking story . Otherwise, it's propaganda...you know , like the communists use,

In St. Louis, Baldwin had been greatly influenced by the radical social movement of the anarchist Emma Goldman. He joined the Industrial Workers of the World.

In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. Later, however, as more and more information came out about Joseph Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union, Baldwin became more and more disillusioned with communism and called it "A NEW SLAVERY" (capitalized in the original).[5] He condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny, forced labor."[6] In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members.[6Roger Nash Baldwin - Wikipedia

]

It's actually quite easy. Take a look at their history and who they have gone to Court for. Every two bit progressive group gets lavished with money and time. If the group is a right wing group, they are left high and dry. Yes, I am sure you are going to trot out that nazis are right wing canard, but that is false. NAZI's and communists are both left wing. Remember, collective governments are left wing. No government is right wing. You can't have a left wing and a right wing collective government because that means that there is no such thing as an opposite of government. Do you see the logic problem there?

I am well aware of how you fucktards can get away with calling Nazis left wing and then have the temerity to equate them to what is commonly referred to the left in this country today. Yes, if you base the distinction solely on the size and role of government, you can argue that Nazis are left wing.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Left_Wing_vs_Right_Wing

But that dumbs down the conversation by disregarding that the size and role of government is only one factor in the equation that determines the actual nature of the government or the ideology. Nazis and the current US administration both use government to reward a favored few, denigrate minorities, and wage war on others as well as their own people. And while the US administration preaches the right-wing rhetoric of small government, they are selective in what that actually looks like. They want small government when it comes to taxes, social safety net programs, protection for the environment and consumer protection, but are all to eager to impose government on women’s reproductive health, the choices available to people when it comes to who they can marry and freedom of the press. Yes, free speech. So this left-right dichotomy fails your assessment that the ACLU only defends the left, your argument fails pathetically and miserably. Do you see the logical problem there?

Try using your head, instead of listening to the morons who actually taught you that silliness. If total government control is on one side of the political spectrum. What, logically, is on the other side?

The political spectrum isn't split between anarchy and authoritarianism just because you want it to be. Both the extreme right and left are authoritarian.

 

[bendog]

The First Amendment is defended by the 2nd Amendment. It appears that it is you who are retarded as you try and deflect from a losing argument. Very well. Flee.

The what? The first amendment is protected by the Constitution first an foremost. You are just ridiculous. Because the ACLU doesn't protect your little pet peeve the exact way you want them to they are then somehow now anti-American. That's just dumb, and ignore the fact that the ACLU has defended the free speech rights of people who are pro 2nd amendment such as Rush Limbaugh.

What a nut you are.

You idiot. Without the 2nd Amendment the COTS is merely a scrap of paper. Let me know how effective that is when a cop is abusing you. Moron.

Well, no actually, I'd say the 2nd is rarely used to defend our first amendment rights. When was the last time that happened?

Also, while you completely change the subject from the 1st to the 2nd amendment because you realized you didn't have much of a point why don't you go and read what the ACLU has to say about the 2nd? I mean, at least do that.

It's ideology over sociology for them. I have no idea what the ACLU says about guns, and I purposefully didn't read the link because to me it's irrelevant. The issue is simply whether the government interferes with a message being messaged. The ACLU opposes that, when it's at its best.

Violence and threats of violence, imo, are not messages that deserve protection from state suppression. MLK jr's message was very powerful because it had no threat of violence, and it was immune from suppression, because when people saw it being suppressed, it changed minds.

The issue of colleges being villages of narrow minds is not really a first amendment issue. Not that it isn't an issue at all.






The last time I checked, other than the Nevada ACLU, their official position was it is a collective right, which seems sort of retarded as government has the power already, so why it would need a right to have guns seems beyond me. The Nevada ACLU only a few years ago proclaimed it an individual Right.

Or you can educate yourself and actually read what they think of gun control rights.

The ACLU's Position on Gun Control

Jesus Christ, way to take this all off topic.

 

[westwall]

The founder of the ACLU's stated goal was the destruction of the USA. So this is not surprising.

OK, at one point. But if you're going to tell a story, tell the whole fucking story . Otherwise, it's propaganda...you know , like the communists use,

In St. Louis, Baldwin had been greatly influenced by the radical social movement of the anarchist Emma Goldman. He joined the Industrial Workers of the World.

In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. Later, however, as more and more information came out about Joseph Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union, Baldwin became more and more disillusioned with communism and called it "A NEW SLAVERY" (capitalized in the original).[5] He condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny, forced labor."[6] In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members.[6Roger Nash Baldwin - Wikipedia

]

It's actually quite easy. Take a look at their history and who they have gone to Court for. Every two bit progressive group gets lavished with money and time. If the group is a right wing group, they are left high and dry. Yes, I am sure you are going to trot out that nazis are right wing canard, but that is false. NAZI's and communists are both left wing. Remember, collective governments are left wing. No government is right wing. You can't have a left wing and a right wing collective government because that means that there is no such thing as an opposite of government. Do you see the logic problem there?

I am well aware of how you fucktards can get away with calling Nazis left wing and then have the temerity to equate them to what is commonly referred to the left in this country today. Yes, if you base the distinction solely on the size and role of government, you can argue that Nazis are left wing.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Left_Wing_vs_Right_Wing

But that dumbs down the conversation by disregarding that the size and role of government is only one factor in the equation that determines the actual nature of the government or the ideology. Nazis and the current US administration both use government to reward a favored few, denigrate minorities, and wage war on others as well as their own people. And while the US administration preaches the right-wing rhetoric of small government, they are selective in what that actually looks like. They want small government when it comes to taxes, social safety net programs, protection for the environment and consumer protection, but are all to eager to impose government on women’s reproductive health, the choices available to people when it comes to who they can marry and freedom of the press. Yes, free speech. So this left-right dichotomy fails your assessment that the ACLU only defends the left, your argument fails pathetically and miserably. Do you see the logical problem there?

Try using your head, instead of listening to the morons who actually taught you that silliness. If total government control is on one side of the political spectrum. What, logically, is on the other side?

The political spectrum isn't split between anarchy and authoritarianism just because you want it to be. Both the extreme right and left are authoritarian.

I hate to break it to you, but yes, it is. One side you have maximum government control. And the opposite is no government control. In other words anarchy. Where a country falls along that line determines how much freedom the citizens enjoy. Totalitarianism is horrible as that leads to mass murder. Anarchy is bad as that leads to strong preying on weak. The best systems are those that maintain a healthy degree of both socialist, AND capitalist philosophies.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Looks like those Liberals turds at the ACLU have finally admitted they are Leftest assholes.

They are against free speech when it is in conflict with their Leftest agenda of hate and destruction.

Typical for Left Wingers all over the world. Free speech or any or liberty is to be sacrificed for Socialism. or the vile demented Left view of "social justice".


Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Is Wavering on Free Speech

Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Is Wavering on Free Speech

"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed."

The American Civil Liberties Union will weigh its interest in protecting the First Amendment against its other commitments to social justice, racial equality, and women's rights, given the possibility that offensive speech might undermine ACLU goals.

"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed," wrote ACLU staffers in a confidential memo obtained by former board member Wendy Kaminer.


It's hard to see this as anything other than a cowardly retreat from a full-throated defense of the First Amendment. Moving forward, when deciding whether to take a free speech case, the organization will consider "factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur."

The founder of the ACLU's stated goal was the destruction of the USA. So this is not surprising.

OK, at one point. But if you're going to tell a story, tell the whole fucking story . Otherwise, it's propaganda...you know , like the communists use,

In St. Louis, Baldwin had been greatly influenced by the radical social movement of the anarchist Emma Goldman. He joined the Industrial Workers of the World.

In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. Later, however, as more and more information came out about Joseph Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union, Baldwin became more and more disillusioned with communism and called it "A NEW SLAVERY" (capitalized in the original).[5] He condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny, forced labor."[6] In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members.[6Roger Nash Baldwin - Wikipedia

]

It's actually quite easy. Take a look at their history and who they have gone to Court for. Every two bit progressive group gets lavished with money and time. If the group is a right wing group, they are left high and dry. Yes, I am sure you are going to trot out that nazis are right wing canard, but that is false. NAZI's and communists are both left wing. Remember, collective governments are left wing. No government is right wing. You can't have a left wing and a right wing collective government because that means that there is no such thing as an opposite of government. Do you see the logic problem there?

I am well aware of how you fucktards can get away with calling Nazis left wing and then have the temerity to equate them to what is commonly referred to the left in this country today. Yes, if you base the distinction solely on the size and role of government, you can argue that Nazis are left wing.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Left_Wing_vs_Right_Wing

But that dumbs down the conversation by disregarding that the size and role of government is only one factor in the equation that determines the actual nature of the government or the ideology. Nazis and the current US administration both use government to reward a favored few, denigrate minorities, and wage war on others as well as their own people. And while the US administration preaches the right-wing rhetoric of small government, they are selective in what that actually looks like. They want small government when it comes to taxes, social safety net programs, protection for the environment and consumer protection, but are all to eager to impose government on women’s reproductive health, the choices available to people when it comes to who they can marry and freedom of the press. Yes, free speech. So this left-right dichotomy fails your assessment that the ACLU only defends the left, your argument fails pathetically and miserably. Do you see the logical problem there?

Try using your head, instead of listening to the morons who actually taught you that silliness. If total government control is on one side of the political spectrum. What, logically, is on the other side?

Try using your head. The answer is anarchy. But no one is talking about total government control vs. no government . That question is just another indication of the ridged, concreate, black vs white and nothing in between way that conservatives view the world.