
U.S. rights group rethinks defending hate groups protesting with guns - dredmorbius
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-protests-aclu-idUSKCN1AY06L
======
itsdrewmiller
While technically this may be the ACLU trying to set limits on acceptable free
speech, they seem like pretty reasonable ones. In a world where they have
ensured your first amendment right to be a huge racist in public, is it really
critical you have a gun on you at that exact moment?

~~~
refurb
I didn't know that constitutional rights can't be combined!

Will the ACLU also refuse to defend your freedom of speech if the gov't is
unlawfully seizing your property at the same time?

~~~
vacri
If the government is unlawfully seizing your property, why aren't you at your
property defending it with your gun, rather than engaging in a rally downtown?

Besides, it's pretty clear that their issue is the 'intent on committing
violence' bit, not the 'freedom of odious speech' bit. You're free to start
your own civil liberties legal team though, and I'm sure the ACLU will give
some pointers on how to set up.

Edit: more on point: 2nd Amendment advocates talk a big game about defending
the 1st Amendment with it. How many times have we seen the 1st actually
defended by citizens exercising the 2nd? Or any of the rest of the bill of
rights? When has the US government backed down on a course of action because
of armed citizens? Anything recently?

~~~
refurb
I'it's not defending the 1st amendment, but I'd say Ruby Ridge is a good
example of some defending their rights via the 2nd amendment.

Of course that didn't stop the gov't from killing the man's unarmed, innocent
wife.

~~~
vacri
The 2nd amendment didn't work for them. They got their 'victory' (money <<
couple of dead people) through the courts later on.

------
unityByFreedom
The title does not accurately represent what the ACLU said,

> ACLU: "We’ve had people with odious views, all manner of bigots. But not
> people who want to carry weapons and _are intent on committing violence_ "

That last bit is important. From the Vice report,

> CANTWELL: "a lot more people are gonna die before we're done here" [1] [2]

This is the kind of statement that gets you arrested for inciting a riot.

[1]
[https://youtu.be/P54sP0Nlngg?t=20m51s](https://youtu.be/P54sP0Nlngg?t=20m51s)

[2] [http://archive.is/eNUmW](http://archive.is/eNUmW)

~~~
gmiller123456
Seems like the ACLU could have left off the part about "people who want to
carry weapons" and just went with "people who are intent on committing
violence" if they wanted to be clear about it.

I think the quote below shows this is specifically about carrying firearms,
regardless of intent.

>"If a protest group insists, ‘No, we want to be able to >carry loaded
firearms,’ well, we don’t have to represent >them. They can find someone
else," the newspaper quoted > Anthony Romero, the ACLU’s executive director
since >2001, as saying.

~~~
unityByFreedom
Can't it be both? Guns + intent to be violent = no ACLU support

------
1_2__4
I'm a big ACLU supporter but they've always held the position that gun rights
are collective, not individual, and generally been in favor of restrictions on
private ownership. I'm not super surprised they're taking this position.

~~~
humanrebar
They've always been selective about which civil liberties count.

In fact, they sometimes like to reach beyond what counts as civil liberties
into broader "social justice" issues:

[https://www.aclu.org/issues/disability-rights/tell-senate-
sa...](https://www.aclu.org/issues/disability-rights/tell-senate-save-our-
health-care?redirect=feature/tell-senate-save-our-health-care)

