Ladies and Gents, I give you the totally clueless and tone deaf ACLU:
Now they've gone to Court in support of the NRA as well as Trump.
How dare a Federal Court impose a gag order on Trump. How dare the NY Dept. of Financial Svcs advise banks should consider the reputational risks of doing business with the NRA.
The ACLU can't see the forest for the trees. I'm glad I'm no longer a member or giving them any of my money.
#nra
#freespeech
#news
@loudermilk They supported the Klan back in the day. This isn't new. They support the liberties of everyone, and that's a good thing.
@loudermilk It's not about supporting "unrestricted speech". It's about supporting the same level of free speech for *everyone*, even if you don't like the message.
If speech is only free when the majority finds the message acceptable, then it isn't free at all.
@LouisIngenthron
I believe I understand. But I'm saying there are higher values than "free speech". If free speech means the spewing of hate and oppressing the innocent, then it should be prohibited.
So an organization dedicated to pursuing free speech in any and all circumstances is failing to realize the higher goal.
@loudermilk In the United States, hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. This is a good thing, for two reasons:
1) "Hate speech" is subjective. "Fuck Nazis" is hate speech. By enabling the government to punish subjective speech, you open the door for authoritarians to punish dissent.
2) I'd rather know who the bigots are than let them fester under the surface. Let them yell out their white nationalist slogans. Then the rest of us can choose to exercise our 1A right to disassociate with them.
@LouisIngenthron
It's an important debate. But we'll have to disagree on this issue.
It seems to me that "speech" is a communication tool. It's important to protect people's right to speak.
But, . . the message, and context of the communication are more important than the tool.
The ACLU is wrong to support Trump's threatening trial witnesses and court officials when he's a criminal defendant.
@loudermilk Except they didn't support "threatening trial witnesses" at all.
They wanted the order to be more specific in its wording ("targeting" is vague) and "exempt public officials from the coverage of its order, except to the extent that it bars speech that threatens or instigates violence against, such persons."
@LouisIngenthron
"supporting the liberties of everyone" is an oversimplification. Life is not that simple. No one has 100% freedom. We have laws, rules, standards which are carefully considered and valuable for the most part.
Who is talking, what they are saying, what liberty is potentially being violated, and under what circumstances -- all need to be considered.
Supporting the unrestricted speech of Trump or the Clan is stupidly, dangerously wrong.