The left is so bent on the destruction of free speech that the ACLU steps in and defends the NRA

[Dizkneelande 1,086]

When the ACLU and NRA are on the same side it's reasonable to say the government  overstepped their authority.
 

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-nra-aclu-new-york-gun-rights-1bf9fb668c25ee50e86609bbe985f18f

[Voltaire 5,203]

Wow, the ACLU use to take on cases of political opponents frequently due to their commitment to free speech. I know there was an internal fight over such things and I'd thought all those people with first amendment principals had gotten old, lost control and were routed out of the organization.

https://archive.is/deO59

Yet here is this case...

[RLLD 4,145]

I will need to read this a bit more......there must be more to know.  The ACLU has been complete focking cowards for years now, why are they suddenly standing up for the rights of people.....

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,866]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I will need to read this a bit more......there must be more to know.  The ACLU has been complete focking cowards for years now, why are they suddenly standing up for the rights of people.....

Right?  Something fishy going on here.  Not sure what.  They haven't been free speech defenders in at least a decade.

[Voltaire 5,203]

This NRA case is the one vestigial counter-example that was mentioned in the article I linked. It may well be the last hurrah for the old timer free speech defenders in the organization.

The younger member in the organization are leftoid activists who intend to hollow it out.

[MDC 7,152]

The ACLU is a great organization. They’ve take up many free speech cases in defense of right wingers over the years. 

[Fireballer 2,639]

11 minutes ago, MDC said:

The ACLU WAS a great organization. They’ve take up many free speech cases in defense of right wingers over the years. 

Fixored

[Voltaire 5,203]

14 minutes ago, MDC said:

The ACLU is a great organization. They’ve take up many free speech cases in defense of right wingers over the years. 

"Over the years" isn't today. The ACLU you're 'talking about is dead.

Whatever was great about them, meaning free speech advocacy, is ending with the old timers exiting. The hardcore leftoids have taken over and this NRA case is the swan song, it will be the last vestigial case of the former ACLU. The free speech faction has lost control of the organization to the activist faction. Please check and see if I'm exaggerating and if I'm not. update your talking points.

[The Real timschochet 6,473]

1 minute ago, Voltaire said:

"Over the years" isn't today.

Whatever was great about them, meaning free speech advocacy, is ending with the old timers exiting. The hardcore leftoids have taken over and this NRA case is the swan song, it will be the last vestigial case of the former ACLU. The free speech faction has lost control of the organization to the activist faction. Please check and see if I'm exaggerating and if I'm not. update your talking points.

You’re exaggerating. I’m proud to give money to the ACLU, 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,966]

ACLU is a Soros controlled organization now. He writes the checks. 

[Dizkneelande 1,086]

8 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

You’re exaggerating. I’m proud to give money to the ACLU, 

We know you are. We are witness to your support of multiple trash heaps daily. 

[The Real timschochet 6,473]

7 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

We know you are. We are witness to your support of multiple trash heaps daily. 

As usual you have no idea what you’re talking about. 

[Voltaire 5,203]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

You’re exaggerating. I’m proud to give money to the ACLU, 

Those Skokie Nazi marchers are/were repugnant to all decent people of conscious, including their ACLU lawyer, who saw their rights being undermined and went to bat for them as a matter of first amendment principal.  Were I a fake lawyer rather than a fake astronaut, I would not have wanted to take the case to defend them, although I do agree that they have a right to a legal defense and that someone should. Somebody else. That the ACLU did so is commendable and further that it was a Jewish lawyer,  from a population that has a worse history with Nazis than any other, was particularly remarkable and I've always respected the guy for it.

Obviously the man is an ACLU legend as well as committed liberal. At his lifetime award ceremony he had some interesting insight into the organization: worth noting:

Quote

 

It was supposed to be the celebration of a grand career, as the American Civil Liberties Union presented a prestigious award to the longtime lawyer David Goldberger. He had argued one of its most famous cases, defending the free speech rights of Nazis in the 1970s to march in Skokie, Ill., home to many Holocaust survivors.

 

Mr. Goldberger, now 79, adored the A.C.L.U. But at his celebratory luncheon in 2017, he listened to one speaker after another and felt a growing unease.

 

A law professor argued that the free speech rights of the far right were not worthy of defense by the A.C.L.U. and that Black people experienced offensive speech far more viscerally than white allies. In the hallway outside, an A.C.L.U. official argued it was perfectly legitimate for his lawyers to decline to defend hate speech.

 

Mr. Goldberger, a Jew who defended the free speech of those whose views he found repugnant, felt profoundly discouraged.

 

“I got the sense it was more important for A.C.L.U. staff to identify with clients and progressive causes than to stand on principle,” he said in a recent interview. “Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind.”

Here are the cases the ACLU highlight for end of year 2023. No doubt you support most all of them because you are a left winger and everything here is in your wheelhouse anyways. No doubt you support them for those reasons. I just want to alert you to the fact that they only do left wing causes anymore and that any charade of even-handedness is completely absent. This NRA case may well be one of the last ones.

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/2023-aclu-our-year-in-stories-eoy-moments

The cut-and-paste Goldberger celebratory luncheon snip is from the NYTimes article I linked above. If you want to read the full thing, here it is again:  https://archive.is/deO59

 

 

[The Real timschochet 6,473]

Just now, Voltaire said:

Those Skokie Nazi marchers are/were repugnant to all decent people of conscious, including their ACLU lawyer, who saw their rights being undermined and went to bat for them as a matter of first amendment principal.  Were I a fake lawyer rather than a fake astronaut, I would not have wanted to take the case to defend them, although I do agree that they have a right to a legal defense and that someone should. Somebody else. That the ACLU did so is commendable and further that it was a Jewish lawyer,  from a population that has a worse history with Nazis than any other, was particularly remarkable and I've always respected the guy for it.

Obviously the man is an ACLU legend as well as committed liberal. At his lifetime award ceremony he had some interesting insight into the organization: worth noting:

Here are the cases the ACLU highlight for end of year 2023. No doubt you support most all of them because you are a left winger and everything here is in your wheelhouse anyways. No doubt you support them for those reasons. I just want to alert you to the fact that they only do left wing causes anymore and that any charade of even-handedness is completely absent. This NRA case may well be one of the last ones.

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/2023-aclu-our-year-in-stories-eoy-moments

The cut-and-paste Goldberger celebratory luncheon snip is from the NYTimes article I linked above. If you want to read the full thing, here it is again:  https://archive.is/deO59

 

 

Im aware of the complaint. (FWIW I don’t regard Skokie as a “right wing cause”.) 

I don’t agree with everything the ACLU does but I’m glad they’re around and that’s why I support them. Can you offer a specific example of a right wing cause you believe the ACLU should have fought for but did not? 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,966]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Im aware of the complaint. (FWIW I don’t regard Skokie as a “right wing cause”.) 

I don’t agree with everything the ACLU does but I’m glad they’re around and that’s why I support them. Can you offer a specific example of a right wing cause you believe the ACLU should have fought for but did not? 

Jan 6

[jonmx 2,424]

7 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Im aware of the complaint. (FWIW I don’t regard Skokie as a “right wing cause”.) 

I don’t agree with everything the ACLU does but I’m glad they’re around and that’s why I support them. Can you offer a specific example of a right wing cause you believe the ACLU should have fought for but did not? 

Abortion protesters prosecuted under racketeering statues and newer laws which specifically target pro-abortion activists.

Whistleblowers like Snowden who exposed large-scale spying of the NSA on American citizen.

January 6th protesters who committed no acts of violence.

Large scale censorship on social media which has been largely directed by government to monopolistic corporations who are supposed to be a platform of free speech which they recieve legal protections as. 

Just a few off the top of my head. 

[Voltaire 5,203]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Im aware of the complaint. (FWIW I don’t regard Skokie as a “right wing cause”.) 

I don’t agree with everything the ACLU does but I’m glad they’re around and that’s why I support them. Can you offer a specific example of a right wing cause you believe the ACLU should have fought for but did not? 

No, Skokie was not a right wing cause but any taint of "Nazis" or KKK makes the decent conservative right cut bait and head for the hills. See Nick Fuentes (we'll get back to him), David Duke, the non-KKK faction of Charlottesville protesters that were only there to voice opposition to the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue, Steve King, Alex Jones, the Q-Anon or Pizzagate conspiracy people.

You can go too far to the right and be persona-non-grata at conservative events. The left doesn't have this issue, well maybe that's finally changing with the emergence of the Hamas terrorist sympathizers in the last month.  Communism has gone mainstream, there are a lot of Che Guevara t-shirts out there. I noticed that Al Sharpton ran for president, the BLM still all live in mansions, that Anthony Anderson doesn't have any problem finding work in Hollywood and that Ibrahim X Kendi still has his foundation at Boston College despite both being a flaming racist.

Trannies are displacing women in sports competitions with the tacit approval of most feminists while a movie that pokes fun of that phenomenon is banned from theatres.

-----
Anyway.... your question of where the ACLU could be helpful on First Amendment protections but is not. Well. Nick Fuentes is on a no-fly list, obviously singled out for his beliefs. These January 6th protestors that never assaulted any officers nor damaged any property, the FBI investigating school board parents and conservative Catholics, government pressure on Big Tech to sensor, the harassment and overzealous removal of anti-abortion protestors.

Any number of things, were they treated even-handedly would maybe restore faith that the ACLU still cared about first amendment prtotections.

[The Real timschochet 6,473]

17 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

No, Skokie was not a right wing cause but any taint of "Nazis" or KKK makes the decent conservative right cut bait and head for the hills. See Nick Fuentes (we'll get back to him), David Duke, the non-KKK faction of Charlottesville protesters that were only there to voice opposition to the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue, Steve King, Alex Jones, the Q-Anon or Pizzagate conspiracy people.

You can go too far to the right and be persona-non-grata at conservative events. The left doesn't have this issue, well maybe that's finally changing with the emergence of the Hamas terrorist sympathizers in the last month.  Communism has gone mainstream, there are a lot of Che Guevara t-shirts out there. I noticed that Al Sharpton ran for president, the BLM still all live in mansions, that Anthony Anderson doesn't have any problem finding work in Hollywood and that Ibrahim X Kendi still has his foundation at Boston College despite both being a flaming racist.

Trannies are displacing women in sports competitions with the tacit approval of most feminists while a movie that pokes fun of that phenomenon is banned from theatres.

-----
Anyway.... your question of where the ACLU could be helpful on First Amendment protections but is not. Well. Nick Fuentes is on a no-fly list, obviously singled out for his beliefs. These January 6th protestors that never assaulted any officers nor damaged any property, the FBI investigating school board parents and conservative Catholics, government pressure on Big Tech to sensor, the harassment and overzealous removal of anti-abortion protestors.

Any number of things, were they treated even-handedly would maybe restore faith that the ACLU still cared about first amendment prtotections.

Thank you. 
 

1. I’ll have to look into the Nick Fuentes issue, don’t know anything about that. 

2. So far as I know anyone who has been prosecuted for Jan 6 either committed an act of violence or at least broke into the Capitol Building illegally with the intent of disrupting the government at work (which is a felony.) There are no freedom of speech issues involved.

3. The FBI investigated parents and others who made threats of violence on school board members. That is the FBI’s proper role. 
 

4. Big tech is a private concern so there are no freedom of speech issues at play. If the government attempted to censor big tech that is a different issue but I don’t think there is any evidence of this. 
 

5. The anti—abortion protestors who get arrested are the ones who harass women and workers who enter abortion clinics. Again this is proper and there are no freedom of speech issues at play. 

[squistion 1,969]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

ACLU is a Soros controlled organization now. He writes the checks. 

Nonsense. The ACLU is not influenced by who is or is not contributing to them. And how much has Soros donated to them?

[jonmx 2,424]

29 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Thank you. 
 

1. I’ll have to look into the Nick Fuentes issue, don’t know anything about that. 

2. So far as I know anyone who has been prosecuted for Jan 6 either committed an act of violence or at least broke into the Capitol Building illegally with the intent of disrupting the government at work (which is a felony.) There are no freedom of speech issues involved.

3. The FBI investigated parents and others who made threats of violence on school board members. That is the FBI’s proper role. 
 

4. Big tech is a private concern so there are no freedom of speech issues at play. If the government attempted to censor big tech that is a different issue but I don’t think there is any evidence of this. 
 

5. The anti—abortion protestors who get arrested are the ones who harass women and workers who enter abortion clinics. Again this is proper and there are no freedom of speech issues at play. 

Tim, you know damn well the government provided spreadsheets on a daily basis to all the social media giants demanding that thousands of posts be removed and certain posters banned.   

The social media platforms also recievd special liability protections under the theory that they are a public square free speech platform.  When they get into the business of targeting specific political viewpoints, that violates the principle on which those protections were granted. 

[The Real timschochet 6,473]

18 minutes ago, jonmx said:

Tim, you know damn well the government provided spreadsheets on a daily basis to all the social media giants demanding that thousands of posts be removed and certain posters banned.   

The social media platforms also recievd special liability protections under the theory that they are a public square free speech platform.  When they get into the business of targeting specific political viewpoints, that violates the principle on which those protections were granted. 

I don’t know anything of the kind. I also believe that hate speech is not protected free speech outside of the privacy of one’s home. Nor is incitement to violence. 

[seafoam1 2,810]

3 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

You’re exaggerating. I’m proud to give money to the ACLU, 

Proof that the ACLU is a liberal shltfest of an organization. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,966]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

Nonsense. The ACLU is not influenced by who is or is not contributing to them. And how much has Soros donated to them?

50 million at least. Probably more at this point. Look it up. No big deal. People usually give that kind of money for zero influence. 

[jonmx 2,424]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t know anything of the kind. I also believe that hate speech is not protected free speech outside of the privacy of one’s home. Nor is incitement to violence. 

That is because the media which you adore hides about 50 percent of the pertinent facts.   What your media tells you are the Twitter files are a nothingburger.  The truth is the Twitter files exposed close ties between government agencies and social media censorship.  

We are not talking about hate speech. We are talking about posters who take positions against the government narrative on a whole bunch of topics.