• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

"Historical" is the operative word there. Could you please indicate the year for each of those. Today's ACLU is little if anything to do with civil liberties.
Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

The ACLU has one mission. Defend the Bill of Rights. They will defend it regardless of who is assaulting it. Given that Trump, his government and Red State governments have been making a full scale non stop attack on those rights, it only comes to reason that it would look one sided to a conservative.

They aren't trying to be balanced. They are being consistent with their mission.
 
It's fascinating how USAians expouse "free speech" while their Rapist-in-Chief and his cronies;
  1. force a private company to suspend Jimmy Kimmel for comments he made about the alleged killer of Kirk.
  2. repeatedly threaten media networks with losing their broadcast licences if they dare to say things Trump doesn’t like.
  3. vowed to prosecute “hate speech” that is actually fully protected under the USAian constitution
  4. declared "antifa" a "terrorist organisation" in an indiscriminate attack on a political belief
  5. tried to force journalists covering the Pentagon to accept to restrictions on their reporting or have their access revoked.
The silence is deafening.
 
It was the ACLU who first made me realise there had to be a limit to free speech back in my idealistic youth (i.e. about 50 years ago) when they defended the right of American Nazis to celebrate Hitler's birthday by marching through Jewish areas of a major American city - past the homes of concentration camp survivors. That's when I realised that sometimes rights conflict, and sometimes it's the right to free speech that has to come second (e.g. when it conflicts with the right of concentration camp survivors to live the rest of their lives free from fear and intimidation).
 
It was the ACLU who first made me realise there had to be a limit to free speech back in my idealistic youth (i.e. about 50 years ago) when they defended the right of American Nazis to celebrate Hitler's birthday by marching through Jewish areas of a major American city - past the homes of concentration camp survivors. That's when I realised that sometimes rights conflict, and sometimes it's the right to free speech that has to come second (e.g. when it conflicts with the right of concentration camp survivors to live the rest of their lives free from fear and intimidation).
And I still agree with them. Yes, rights conflict. But unless there is a specific threat, then protecting free speech must take priority. And don't get me wrong. I think NAZI's are vile.
 
The New York Times article was written by a reporter, I think, a Michael Powell.

It sounds like after the incident at Charlottesville, since part of the A.C.L.U. defended the right of those you would call "white supremacists" to be there and protest, they starting being infiltrated by those with leftist ideologies who seemingly started putting their politics before first amendment rights.

This was the mention of the Charlottesville stuff in the article:

"In August 2017, officials in Charlottesville, Va., rescinded a permit for far-right groups to rally downtown in support of a statue to the Confederate general Robert E. Lee. Officials instead relocated the demonstration to outside the city’s core.

The A.C.L.U. of Virginia argued that this violated the free speech rights of the far-right groups and won, preserving the right for the group to parade downtown. With too few police officers who reacted too passively, the demonstration turned ugly and violent; in addition to fistfights, the far right loosed anti-Semitic and racist chants and a right-wing demonstrator plowed his car into counterprotesters, killing a woman. Dozens were injured in the tumult."

If you search for the article on Google, I typed "article" and pasted its link into the search bar, you can then go to it from Google and read it for free. That worked for me, at least.
 
And I still agree with them. Yes, rights conflict. But unless there is a
specific threat,then protecting free speech must take priority. And don't get me wrong. I think NAZI's are vile.
There is - Nazis want to (and manged it in the past) to kill their fellow citizens if they are Jewish, that should not be protected speech, that should be criminal.
 
There is - Nazis want to (and manged it in the past) to kill their fellow citizens if they are Jewish, that should not be protected speech, that should be crcriminal.
I understand the sentiment. But I'm always concerned about limiting freedom of speech. Here we have Trump calling critics of him as using hate speech. This is tricky.
 
I understand the sentiment. But I'm always concerned about limiting freedom of speech. Here we have Trump calling critics of him as using hate speech. This is tricky.

it’s tricky but perhaps evident that there’s a problem. although i think the problem is much more broad than speech, i think considering lying as being a protected form of free expression is at the root of the problem.

i know what’s next is “who’s to say what’s a lie and what’s not” as if it’s impossible. i don’t think it is.
 
Really? What about the multiple times the ACLU represented NAZIs?
Or when they represented Americans for Prosperity and Thomas More Society in 2021?
Or another time they filed Amicus briefs supporting Americans for Prosperity alongside the CATO Institute?
Or another when the ACLU filed a brief in the Supreme Court supporting the free speech rights of the conservative Christian group, Camp Constitution which was denied permission to fly a Christian flag at Boston's City Hall?
Or another when The ACLU won an appeal on behalf of a conservative student magazine that was denied funding after publishing a satirical story?

There are many more historical precedents where the ACLU has supported conservative organizations because their Constitutional rights were infringe upon.
In the past, ACLU did some good stuff. Some bits of it still do some good in limited arenas. On the other hand, ACLU has also acted to BLOCK FOIA requests regarding prison demographics.
 
Citation please.
 
Last edited:

Those citations refer to the ACLU suing to protect private medical information. Did you post the right links?
 
US comedians defend decision to play in Saudi Arabia: ‘They’re paying me enough to look the other way’

Not only do they not need the money, but many of the comics billed have spent the last decade-plus fashioning themselves as the vanguard of free speech, decrying backlash to bigoted jokes as tantamount to the very sort of state repression they are now endorsing.

Chappelle released multiple Netflix specials containing transphobic jokes, declaring himself “team Terf”. Afterwards he defended the material to a room full of schoolchildren: “The more you say I can’t say something, the more urgent it is for me to say it,” he said. Jeff Ross once described the celebrity roast as “one of the last bastions of free speech”, and speculated a few years ago that his friend Norm Macdonald died because he did not want to live in a world where “everyone’s trying to cancel everybody.” Andrew Schulz, who has used racist and anti-transgender language in the recent past, recently criticized the right for abandoning its values as “the party that ended cancel culture, the party that is keeping free speech alive”. After Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Whitney Cummings posted: “If you are happy someone was publicly executed because they don’t share your beliefs congrats you’re the Taliban.” (Incidentally, Human Rights Watch notes that the Saudi regime executed a journalist in June “because of his peaceful speech and commentary.”)

Just another reminder that the anti-cancel culture crowd never held any actual principles. They just wanted to be bullies and bigots without consequences.
 
these hack guys aren’t funny. they don’t get laughs anymore, they get cheers of agreement when they say something ◊◊◊◊◊◊. they confused that with being funny. and the fact they all released 3 netflix “specials” and podcast six hours a day means you’re not going to hear an original thought in any of their sets.

if it’s not blindingly obvious they were playing you guys the whole time, it probably should have been when theo von and tony hinchcliffe had jd vance on talking about how cool of a guy he is. joe rogan became friends with peter thiel, thinks we need jesus in our lives, and they were all invited to trump’s inauguration.

but it’s these oil guys just buying all the western entertainment and having them do it there is wild. they’re just like buying sports and comedy. it’s weird.
 
oh because there’s a teams of course. they are to be eradicated

two things can be true at once. it’s his prerogative to share this and try and convince others of his view. and if he slipped in the bathtub i wouldn’t be too bothered. don’t like it? free speech
 

Back
Top Bottom