Waldo Jaquith
If you were wondering "did the ACLU learn anything from August 12, 2017 in Charlottesville?" the answer is that, no, they did not.
Dec 10, 2023 at 2:05amWeb
Show threadWaldo JaquithDec 10, 2023

The NRA is entirely capable of defending themselves. They do not need the ACLU's help. The ACLU is choosing to use their limited resources to help a white nationalist organization that's dedicated to the right of white Americans to murder people of color with impunity.

They could simplify file an amicus brief. They could say a supportive thing in the press. They could say nothing. But, instead, they're all-in, allowing the NRA to save money on lawyers. This is shameful.

Show threadWaldo JaquithDec 10, 2023
The ACLU and I have a history here. I am not soliciting explanations about the ACLU's historical support of white nationalism. I know more about this topic than you.
Show threadPaulAlanLevyDec 10, 2023
@waldoj Yeah, I am with the ACLU on this one
Show threadWaldo JaquithDec 10, 2023
@paulalanlevy I had a feeling you would be. :)
Show threadPaulAlanLevyDec 10, 2023
@waldoj Having joined the ACLU because of Skokie
Show threadWaldo JaquithDec 10, 2023
@paulalanlevy I think they were right to take Skokie!
Show threadKurt WaltersDec 10, 2023
@waldoj @paulalanlevy that's interesting. Is the distinction that the NRA has sufficient resources to hire its own lawyers and the (small) neo-Nazi party from Skokie did not? Or something different?
Show threadWaldo JaquithDec 10, 2023
@kwalters Yes, that’s part of it—they accept very few cases, so why take a case from a wealthy organization with a zillion lawyers? But also I object to the ACLU taking on cases that will facilitate murders. August 12 was a trap to lure in PoC and allies to murder them. The NRA long ago became an organization dedicated to ensuring that murder (of PoC by whites) is legal.
Show threadKurt WaltersDec 10, 2023
@waldoj I hear you on both points. Very hard/fraught question on exactly what line there should be for when speech crosses the line into incitement of sufficiently imminent/likely violence that the govt can limit it. I'd bet your view is the most common one.
Show threadKurt WaltersDec 10, 2023
@waldoj possibly of interest: from a quick scan of the briefs, it looks like the case would determine what government actions can be applied to speech that is 1A-protected, rather than determining the line between (protected) speech and (unprotected) incitement of the speaker (here, NRA).
Show threadKurt WaltersDec 10, 2023

@waldoj looks like the case would determine whether the govt official's alleged pressure on banks to blacklist the group counts as government coercion.

Considering all the forms of indirect govt pressure we can imagine or already see re Israel/Palestine, trans rights, etc, I can definitely see how that's a critical issue. (Granted, it doesn't settle whether this case and this litigant is the one to make that point...)

Show threadWaldo JaquithDec 11, 2023
@kwalters I’d assumed the issue would be legitimate and of genuine larger importance—I’m glad that’s so!
Show threadWaldo JaquithDec 10, 2023
@kwalters (A larger question is whether free expression should include the right to advocate for genocide etc. I’m fairly convinced that it should not.)
Show threadTom RitchfordDec 10, 2023

@paulalanlevy @waldoj And this is why you live in a post-truth society.

Deliberate paid lies will down out hard-won truths every time.

In my darker days, I sometimes believe America deserves Donald Trump, the exemplar of why the idea "free speech is the greatest good regardless of whether it's a deliberate lie" is so bad for society.

Show threadTamamiDec 10, 2023
@waldoj Glad I came across this today. I was making a list for the year-end contributions, and ACLU was on the list. That was just crossed out.
Show threadyour auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦Dec 10, 2023
@waldoj that's thanks to the big fat checks they get from Peter Thiel 🧐
Show threadCassandrichDec 10, 2023
@waldoj Sure they learned something: that war profiteering is very lucrative.
Show threadCassandrichDec 10, 2023
@waldoj The ACLU is a war profiteer. They flip flop giving legal aid to both sides to get double the donations and perpetuate the need for their services rather than actually fortifying civil rights against those who would abolish them.
Show threadClayton O'NeillDec 10, 2023
@dalias @waldoj I’d be shocked if representing the NRA doesn’t lose them way more in donations than it earns them. This sort of thing is why I stopped donating.
Show threadCassandrichDec 10, 2023
@clayton_oneill @waldoj You'd think. But apparently they made money sponsoring the case for nazis to hold a nazi murder rally where nazis proceeded to, as they promised, commit murder.
Show thread0tDec 10, 2023
@waldoj Just like the issue with the univ presidents, if you believe in free speech, then you must accept abhorrent free speech and defend it. It's fine to speak your opinion against it. I agree with the univ presidents. I agree with the ACLU taking on free speech cases. I hate the NRA. Ironically, they are defending your right to speak this very opinion.
Show threadTom RitchfordDec 10, 2023

@0t @waldoj I believe in free speech, but not the perversion of free speech that America has, where paid liars screaming hate speech are not just protected but can use their money to drown out the truth.

> they are defending your right to speak this very opinion.

Allowing paid liars to outscream the rest of us makes that worthless.

Trump is the very exemplar of this philosophy. When he wins, are you going to smile and say, "What a triumph for free and unfettered speech"?

Show thread0tDec 20, 2023
@TomSwirly @waldoj Constitutionally protected speech vs the Citizen's United ruling are not equivalent. Don't conflate the two.