
ACLU of California Statement: White Supremacist Violence Is Not Free Speech - jdp23
https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-california-statement-white-supremacist-violence-not-free-speech
======
gedy
> We ... take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect
> people who incite or engage in violence.

So does this apply to Antifa, BlackBloc, et al as well?

~~~
gkoberger
This post doesn't blacklist any specific organizations, but rather any case
that involve violence. The ACLU will likely continue[1] to defend peaceful
white supremacists. The ban will go for any situation or organization that
involves violence.

As for Antifa, I've been unable to find any videos/pictures/unbiased reports
that Antifa started any of the violence this past weekend. I don't understand
the need to equate the two sides. If the KKK didn't exist, Antifa wouldn't
exist. If Antifa didn't exist, the KKK still would.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2015/06/19/a-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2015/06/19/a-history-of-the-aclu-defending-confederate-veterans-the-
kkk-and-rush-limbaugh/)

~~~
gedy
Thanks, I'm referring to events such as the Berkeley Riots [1] where the
violence was at least partly incited by Antifa.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Berkeley_protests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Berkeley_protests)

~~~
cc81
If Antifa in the US is the similar to the ones in Sweden they will be
initiating violence at protests like this. They are usually very prepared and
have a lot of experience how to do it. Using violence to fight fascism is what
they do even though they usually use non lethal methods.

In Sweden they consist of small autonomous groups that harass nazi sympathizer
by vandalizing their homes, putting their address on the internet and calling
relatives, neighbors and their work etc. Sometimes they have also physically
assaulted nazis. In protests they usually throw stones, pepper spray, smoke
bombs, urine etc and sometimes try and brawl with their opponents using clubs
etc.

But I don't know at all what happened at this rally in the US but I would be
incredibly surprised if you had one of the biggest white supremacy rally is in
a long time in the US and Antifa did NOT try and physically stop it.

~~~
CodeWriter23
I don't understand fighting fascism with fascism.

~~~
icu
Exactly. I believe the best way to fight fascism is to have open dialogue and
expose repugnant ideas to the court of public opinion. This requires free
speech. The initiation of force outside of self defence is amoral.

~~~
aaomidi
You could believe this, but that doesn't make it the proper way.

To be honest, we don't know how to stop these ideas. The nazi party came into
power with less than 40% approval and gained that power that nearly destroyed
the world.

It's scary to say but there are theories floating around from hundreds of
years ago that were made by different philosophers about the nature of these.

For example, the paradox of tolerance is one of these theories.

I'm not saying we should be violent, I'm just saying we have absolutely no
idea how to deal with this.

~~~
rendall
"The nazi party came into power with less than 40% approval and gained that
power that nearly destroyed the world."

The Nazis first attacked and destroyed the free press and other free-speech
institutions. Robust legal protections for free speech, and a culture of
vigorously defending it, will prevent tyrants from gaining and maintaining
power.

There is no 'paradox of tolerance'. The intolerant are intolerant, no matter
which side they are on. Peaceful racists should have their say. We are all
free to disagree and shun them. This isn't ivory tower. This is part and
parcel of a free and open society.

~~~
pm90
I fear though that "Peaceful Racists" will spread to all conservatives. That >
60 million people could legitimately vote for a racist, xenophobic and sexist
bigot seem to point out that these people are OK with racism, even if they're
not active participants. Which is _extremely_ disturbing.

From what I've read, anti-semitism, while it existed, wasn't mainstream in
Germany as well. But the Nazis were "Peaceful Racists" at first (they changed
pretty quickly) and seized power. I genuinely fear the same might happen in
the US ...

~~~
andrenth
The association of Nazis with conservatives, who defend JUDEO-Christian
values, is dishonest to say the least.

~~~
pm90
What JUDEO-Christian values are you talking about? Those espoused by Donald
Trump? Good Sir, conservatives voted for Trump DESPITE him being a
manifestation of everything OPPOSITE to the values you speak of (liar, doesn't
pay his debt, treats everyone else poorly, assaults women etc.). And if not
for those values, what do conservatives stand for, really? Just a party of
opposition/trolling liberals?

So who is being dishonest?

Let's drop the sham that not all conservatives will go down the terrible path
of Nazism/White Supremacy in this current political climate. If not a
certainty, from how Trump has been able to get away with one amazingly blatant
political scandal after another, it shows just how its terrifyingly possible
for that to happen. There is a path from A to B, and to ignore it is
dangerous, disingenuous and _dishonest_

~~~
andrenth
I never mentioned Trump, so your little rant makes no sense.

I'm talking about western values: private property, freedom of speech, the
right to live.

These are historically conservative causes. These are judeo-christian values.
How can a conservative be a Jew-hating Nazi while at the same time defending
their values? It's a contradiction, it makes no sense.

In fact it's the left that is pretty much anti-Israel and pro-Palestine (like
Hitler btw).

------
ProfessorLayton
Once again I argue that people are genuinely or disingenuously conflating two
different terms for the sake of a "slippery slope" or free speech argument.

Violence against certain groups based on their race is not just violence, but
a _hate crime_ [1].

It is not a free speech issue. Society has already ruled that attacking
certain groups based on certain protected status is not ok and will be
prosecuted accordingly.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_Unite...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States)

~~~
2bitencryption
What if not attacking, but instead simply utilizing freedom of expression?

What if a hundred neo-Nazis filed to hold a rally, and showed up with signs
saying "Jews get out!" and chanting "We've thought about it a lot and decided
we really don't like Jews!"

is the expression of that idea a hate crime that can be prosecuted? or the
expression of peaceful protest and first amendment rights?

does a punch need to be thrown before it's a hate crime?

(of course, these magical, peaceful neo-Nazis probably don't exist. from the
video I've seen, the ones at that rally were out for blood)

------
gexla
This seems like a non-statement. It's obvious that violence isn't protected
under freedom of speech. There are no arguments on that point.

> If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the
> intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the
> United States Constitution.

Why even add "white supremacists" to that statement? It would be true of any
group. You could replace "white supremacists" with "Underpants Gnomes" and
this would still be true.

Crack some skulls

???

Profit!

> The First Amendment should never be used as a shield or sword to justify
> violence.

Does "shield" in this case refer to the protesters who were resisting the
Unite the Right rally?

------
matt_wulfeck
If they're using violence then they're already breaking the law, so it's not
really a free speech question.

This is he ACLU preparing itself not to defend these groups while trying not
to loom publically like a hypocrite. Unfortunately free speech and
constitutional rights are one of those things where you take the good with the
bad.

~~~
ece
Or they are just making their position clear:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action)

Trump is being sued for inciting violence as well:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/04/a_case_against_trump_for_inciting_violence_goes_to_trial.html)

Inciting violence should be a clear line, and I'm glad the ACLU of California
is making it clear that it is. As far as past cases go, this doesn't seem to
be contradictory or different, but I don't know if it is.

~~~
PeanutCurry
Without meaning to make any greater point, being sued isn't the same as being
found guilty but is often treated as being 'close enough' in the media.

------
Joeri
So, of I understand this correctly, it's not the message they consider not to
be free speech but the (inciting of) violence.

I'm all for free speech, but for some messages there's just no context in
which they ever become anything but harmful, and maybe dogmatically clinging
to free speech isn't the best way to approach things. Then again, it can be a
slippery slope towards thought police, so maybe it's best to leave the judging
of those messages to social pressure.

~~~
dmitrygr

      maybe it's best to leave the judging of those messages to social pressure.
    

I _REALLY_ hope that that's a joke. Social pressures brought you ACTUAL Nazi
Germany and ACTUAL Communist revolutions in multiple countries. Scary...

~~~
wooter
absolutely not. all of those ACTUAL horrible situations involved gross disdain
for 1st Amendment principles

------
oval-atom
I really wonder if all this turmoil could have been avoided if members in
Congress actually knew the laws that they passed, and Law Enforcement would
actually enforce the laws. This has just led to a lot of hysteria. For
example, Pelosi, who is desperately trying to maintain relevance, going all
Pelosium on the National Park Service to cancel a permit for a conservative
“white supremacist” group Patriot Prayer’s pro-Trump for fear of violence. The
problem is, they are not white supremacists, all but one of the speakers is
‘white’, and the organizer is not ‘white’. Unless Pelosi is outstandingly
ignorant, if not, is she just trying to suppress Freedom of Speech? Side Note:
I will sit and flip from one news channel to another, and from what I observe,
I think I know why unemployment is down. These news broadcasts cannot get
enough contributors, analysts, and so-called experts on to fill up the screen.
Where do they find these people? More importantly, do they get paid and how
much? Because if the money is good, if there is a list, I want on it.

------
zorpner
Good for them for breaking with e.g. the Virginia ACLU over this, just doubled
my recurring donation. Direct calls for violence by heavily armed mobs are not
protected speech or assembly.

------
mychael
Sensible people across the political spectrum agree that violence != speech.
Who exactly are they arguing against here? Perhaps a strawman?

~~~
icelancer
>Who exactly are they arguing against here? Perhaps a strawman?

Yes, but the strawman that they are being beat over the head with by those
with a certain political bent.

------
userbinator
The statement could've been even stronger and yet remain neutral: "violence is
not speech."

~~~
vanderZwan
Which would defeat the point, because then we'd be stuck with arguments over
what is and isn't violence.

~~~
banned1
Carrying baseball bats and hitting cars or people, as well as throwing water
bottles or paint balloons at people, or breaking windows of businesses or
houses, is violence, as is using a vehicle as a weapon. It's not too
complicated.

~~~
SwellJoe
You've conflated property damage with violence against people. I don't believe
the two should be legally or morally judged the same, even if we may agree
that both are crimes.

~~~
banned1
When a baseball bat hits a human's head, it's not the baseball bat (the
property) that gets hurt.

~~~
SwellJoe
You said, "hitting cars", and "breaking windows of businesses or houses".

Cars and windows are not people.

Our criminal justice system should, and usually does, distinguish between
property crimes and crimes against people. I believe discussions about protest
and violence and property damage should do the same, even if you believe both
are criminal and should be punished.

~~~
ptaipale
There are often people inside cars, and those people are justifiably horrified
when they are under attack.

Also, even when people are not in the cars, it is a "popular" hate crime to
intimidate people by selectively destroying their property.

"We can do this to your car; we can do it to your home, too, even when you're
inside" is the message.

------
nippples
No violence is free speech. Not from white supremacists, not from antifa, not
from communists, not from BLM.

What you had in Charlottesville is two group of thugs looking for a fight
meeting and getting the fight they all wanted.

Pretending there are good guys in this conflict is stupid.

------
noncoml
A slightly bit off topic, but as a European I would love to hear some
intelligent, well thought, non provoking theories on why is America going
through so much turmoil and polarization the last few years.

Or has it always been like this?

~~~
usibam
HN is a terrible place to have such discussions, as opinions that go against
the popular narrative are censored and the poster shadowbanned.

You're better off searching for answers elsewhere.

~~~
liberte82
There is plenty of voice for the alt-right on this forum, the top rated
comment in this thread for example. Stop playing victim.

------
em3rgent0rdr
"White Supremacist Violence..."

Obviously by definition. But this just begs the more important question:

Does ACLU still believe speech by white supremacists should be permitted?

I've heard a saying along the lines of: your rights only as good as you permit
your worst enemy.

~~~
boobsbr
[http://begthequestion.info/](http://begthequestion.info/)

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question):

In modern vernacular usage, "to beg the question" frequently appears to mean
"to raise the question" (as in, "This begs the question, whether...") or "to
dodge a question"

------
Aoyagi
No violence, or calling for violence is free speech. It would be nice if all
sides remembered that.

~~~
wooter
i am venezuelan. i hope the non-socialist opposition rises up and takes back
their country from a violent, oppressive dictatorship with violence if need
be. then i hope they use violence to institute justice for those who have
committed crimes against their fellow citizens with impunity for a decade. can
i fly my Venezuelan flag upside down? shall i be arrested?

------
gnicholas
A legal analysis by First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, as well as a
(vacuous) response by the ACLU: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2017/08/16/odd-statement-from-the-aclu-of-california-white-
supremacist-violence-is-not-free-speech/)

~~~
wooter
quite absurd. ill be forgoing my next few donations. (sad that i have to
qualify this but i hate nazi's and am not even white)

------
retox
Words are not violence.

My rights don't end where your feelings begin.

~~~
liberte82
Is driving over people violence?

~~~
thescribe
Yes, but advocating for the (peaceful) establishment of entho-states is not.
Even if it makes me think less of them.

~~~
liberte82
How does one peacefully establish an ethno-state?

