ACLU stopped defending free speech

Hello friends wordentertainmen, on this occasion the admin wants to share an article entitled ACLU stopped defending free speech, we have made good, quality and useful articles for you to read and take information in. hopefully the post content is about which we write you can understand. Alright, happy reading.

I had a boss who called herself an ACLU conservative. I considered her to be a fool. She meant a conservative for free speech, which is redundant. But the ACLU, which marketed itself as a champion of free speech, always had an ulterior motive.

In the 21st century, we see the plan reveal itself as the organization increasingly shows its Marxist roots.

The New York Times published, "Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the ACLU Faces an Identity Crisis.

"An organization that has defended the First Amendment rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan is split by an internal debate over whether supporting progressive causes is more important."

I would argue that the argument within the ACLU is to finally come out of the closet and push Marxism directly.

The NYT story said, "A law professor argued that the free speech rights of the far right were not worthy of defense by the ACLU and that Black people experienced offensive speech far more viscerally than white allies. In the hallway outside, an ACLU 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 have news for Goldberger. Jews will be the first group that Marxists get rid of.

Hate speech is the excuse that ACLU staffers use to refuse to defend free speech in the 21st century. Marxists define hate speech as anything that offends them.

Wendy Kaminer reported, "Civil libertarians were shocked but not entirely surprised when ACLU attorney Chase Strangio called for the cancellation of a book that offended him. Strangio, ACLU deputy director for transgender justice, tweeted support for ‘stopping the circulation’ of Abigail Shrier’s critique of ‘the transgender craze’. He later deleted the tweet, calling it a joke, but it clearly reflected his views: Strangio had previously announced his personal hostility to the speech rights of ‘horrible’ people, lamenting the ACLU’s defense of provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos’s right to advertise on a public transit system." 

Strangio pushed the envelope. The envelope pushed back. He brushed it off as a joke.

Kaminer also reported, "The ACLU has a handy, legalistic excuse for ignoring the rise of cancel culture, on and off campus: it doesn’t violate the First Amendment, which only protects us from de jure censorship – state-sponsored interference with speech. As ACLU attorney Chase Strangio tweeted, in defence of his earlier (now deleted) tweet advocating the cancellation of a book he deplored, ‘I can’t violate the First Amendment because I am not the government’."

True, but free speech is not confined to what the government permits.

Strangio called for censorship in his tweet, which he now says was a joke. The ACLU once opposed Hollywood censorship. Now it is ignores Twitter banning conservatives.

In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the ACLU defended neo-Nazi and KKK groups to show the organization had no ideology. These groups were tiny and powerless. I remember an overblown argument over whether to allow klansmen to rally in Cleveland on the day the new stadium and the new Cleveland Browns debuted. The black mayor, Michael White, went out of his way to protect them.

All 12 of them.

Two decades later, hundreds protesting the removal of Confederate statues in Charlottesville, Virginia, got a permit to rally at a city park. The ACLU defended them, initially. 

After the police failed to protect the protesters from a larger mob of protesters, a riot ensued.

The ACLU condemned only one side, saying, "We condemn the voices of white supremacy heard in Charlottesville today, and all violence. Our hearts are with those killed and injured.

"Participants like KKK leader David Duke made it clear why white supremacists took to the streets of Charlottesville — they applaud President Trump’s policies and wish to intimidate Americans who are working for equality and liberty in the United States. We, like counter-protesters & others around our country, won't be intimidated. We work daily to fight systems & policies of white supremacy.

"The First Amendment is a critical part of our democracy, and it protects vile, hateful, and ignorant speech. For this reason, the ACLU of Virginia defended the white supremacists’ right to march. But we will not be silent in the face of white supremacy. Those who do stand silent enable it. That includes our president."

Free speech for everyone except those the ACLU labels white supremacists.

By the way, the statement reminded me that the ACLU has been silent about censors at Facebook and Twitter. As the ACLU said, "Those who do stand silent enable it."

And the president was not silent about the riot. He condemned the violence and the white supremacists.

He said, "To anyone who acted criminally in this weekend's racist violence: You will be held fully accountable. Justice will be delivered."

He also said, "Those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."

By the way, Donald Trump publicly rebuked David Duke in 2000. He cited Duke's influence as one of the reasons he left the Reform Party. 

But what are facts to Marxists?

By promoting itself as a champion of free speech in the 20th century, the ACLU fancies itself as the sole arbiter of free speech in the 21st century. 

NYT wrote, "In 2015, University of Missouri students protested racism and established an encampment in a campus quad. When a student journalist tried to take photos and talk to protesters, students and a communications professor physically blocked the reporter from doing so. The ACLU of Missouri applauded the 'courageous' leadership of student activists and faculty members, and two national ACLU officials wrote columns about the protests. They did not mention First Amendment rights."

The Times failed to detail what happened. Professor Melissa Click, who was part of the journalism school, tried to stop a campus reporter. Click turned to some black students and said, "I could use a little muscle." 

There was some justice. Enrollment plummeted. And the university fired Click.

NYT reported, "Four years later at the University of Connecticut, two white students walking home late at night loudly repeated a racial slur. In the ensuing uproar, the university police arrested and charged the students with ridicule on account of race."

The arrest was outrageous. The students' behavior was bad but not criminal. The ACLU failed to defend their free speech rights.

Instead, NYT said, "The ACLU of Connecticut demanded that the university hire 10 Black faculty and staff members and require a freshman course on ending racism on campus. It made no mention of the arrests, other than to opine that the police force is 'an inherently white supremacist institution.'"

Only in the Candyland of leftist politics does "an inherently white supremacist institution" arrest white people for hurling racial epithets.

But that is where is the ACLU lives. Candyland. Anyone who disagrees is a white supremacist.

That's the article: ACLU stopped defending free speech

Thank you for visiting my blog, hopefully it can be useful for all of you. Don't forget to share this article with your friends so they also know the interesting info, see you in other article posts.

You are now reading the article ACLU stopped defending free speech with link address https://wordentertainmen.blogspot.com/2021/06/aclu-stopped-defending-free-speech.html