Posted on 08/19/2017 8:26:23 AM PDT by EdnaMode
The American Civil Liberties Union has a long history of defending the First Amendment rights of groups on both the far left and the far right. This commitment led the organization to successfully sue the city of Charlottesville, Va., last week on behalf of a white supremacist rally organizer. The rally ended with a Nazi sympathizer plowing his car into a crowd, killing a counterprotester and injuring many.
After the A.C.L.U. was excoriated for its stance, it responded that “preventing the government from controlling speech is absolutely necessary to the promotion of equality.” Of course that’s true. The hope is that by successfully defending hate groups, its legal victories will fortify free-speech rights across the board: A rising tide lifts all boats, as it goes.
While admirable in theory, this approach implies that the country is on a level playing field, that at some point it overcame its history of racial discrimination to achieve a real democracy, the cornerstone of which is freedom of expression.
I volunteered with the A.C.L.U. as a law student in 2011, and I respect much of its work. But it should rethink how it understands free speech. By insisting on a narrow reading of the First Amendment, the organization provides free legal support to hate-based causes. More troubling, the legal gains on which the A.C.L.U. rests its colorblind logic have never secured real freedom or even safety for all.
For marginalized communities, the power of expression is impoverished for reasons that have little to do with the First Amendment. Numerous other factors in the public sphere chill their voices but amplify others.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Get out of my country, Park. You’re not wanted here.
except for freedom of the press of course
I find this article racist, sexist, and homophobic and I’m offended. The author should be fired and The NY Times should be fined, condemned, and shunned.
The rights were not granted in the constitution, they were recognized in the constitution as the natural possession of mankind. Government only exists to protect that right.
The second amendment ensures people like the writer never prevail in their efforts to enslave. Se has no idea what she is messing with.
What’s that old saying, if you grab a tiger by the tail, you better have a plan for dealing with the teeth.
I can recall as a young university student reading comments from Alan Dershowitz in which he said that a good assignment on learning and understanding free speech is to have for example a Jewish person defend a Holocaust denier’s right to discuss and express their views without threat of being shut down just because that individual has views as such. Even though many of us here will often not see eye to eye with him on a number of fronts, Mr. Dershowitz could and should very effectively school these persons at the Times about an important fundamental such as this.
As usual, the Leftist NYT misses the point of free speech. Free speech was specifically put in the 1st Amendment to protect political speech. But Leftists like the NYT staff and editors are incapable of intellectually arguing their positions and must either destroy the character of conservatives or stop them from speaking. The NYTs would have fit well in the Nazi and Communist systems as supporters of those governments.
Dear NY Times. The FIrst Amendment is not determined by the ACLU. On the downside, it is determined by 9 lifetime political appointees.
except for freedom of the liberal left-wing press of course (FIXED)
In the name of freedom, the left propels the country toward fascism. The Bolsheviks promised to remove the peoples chains, then replaced them with their own. Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Ho, Castro and Chavez promised freedom and prosperity, then delivered slavery, poverty and untold suffering. Humanity appears incapable of learning the lessons of history. They want the government to take charge, then foolishly expect it to rule with benevolence, compassion and efficiency. The truth is, that has NEVER happened.
The 1st Amendment applies to Congress.
Maybe the Democrat controlled cities and states could pass laws to limit the speech that they do not like.
Maybe the laws would pass Constitutional muster, maybe not, but in the meantime the Democrats could declare the speech of their political opponents illegal and solidify their control.
What say you, Dems? Come on, you know you want it. Go for it!
The left has no idea what this means:
“I disagree with what you are saying, but I’ll fight for your right to say it.”
“The NYTs would have fit well in the Nazi and Communist systems as supporters of those governments.”
Just for saying that, the next time you watch the James Bond movie “The Spy Who Loved Me”, think about the actor who played the baddie Karl Stromberg. In real life, the late Curd Jurgens was a journalist (later became an actor) who dared to publicly oppose the Nazis in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. He was marched off to an internment camp in Hungary in 1944 as a “political unreliable”.
I wonder what the NYT people would make of a term like that, “political unreliable”.
OK...we close the NYT due to it’s biased reporting.
Ironic- The NYTs exercising their first amendment rights to call for abolishing the first amendment- I say arrest the article writer for saying something i don’t like- My feelings are more important than their feelings- 2 Can play at this game!
The 14th amendment expanded that to the States. Since 1868, a state may not pass a law suppressing free speech.
Don’t doubt that there are conversations going on right now within the ACLU exactly along these lines.
“a well-funded machinery ready to harass journalists and academics has arisen in the space beyond First Amendment litigation. If you challenge hateful speech, gird yourself for death threats and for your family to be harassed.
Left-wing academics across the country face this kind of speech suppression, yet they do not benefit from a strong, uniform legal response. Several black professors have been threatened with lynching, shooting or rape for denouncing white supremacy.”
I had to chuckle at this part in disbelief. I would like to see the specific evidence of these cases alleging harassment of left wing academics. You are far more likely nowadays to hear about conservatives being harassed or bullied or fired or forced out of universities for their beliefs. I guess this would probably never figure in the Times’ view of matters, given that they were Walter Duranty’s employer for many years and gave a good deal of moral support to Castro later on.
“K-Sue Park is a housing attorney and the Critical Race Studies fellow at the U.C.L.A. School of Law.”
Holy crap! Did he get his law degree at Costco?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.