Yes, Let’s Rethink Free Speech

[Livnthedream]

A New York Times op-ed is right, and the ACLU is wrong

In the New York Times, UCLA’s K-Sue Park proposes that “the A.C.L.U. Needs to Rethink Free Speech”:

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.

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.

Park is correct. It is high time that the ACLU moved onto the right side of History and abandoned the “narrow reading” of the First Amendment that is the result of 50 years of unanimous Supreme Court precedent. In lieu, it must focus on working toward more diverse and productive ends, such as giving Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump the robust censorship powers that they so richly and urgently deserve. The United States federal government is now run at every level by Republicans. So, indeed, are the lion’s share of the governors’ mansions, statehouses, and localities. If the ACLU really knuckles down, it can ensure that these figures — and not pernicious “neutral” principle — determine the edges and contours of America’s civil society.

Don’t bore me with your objections. Park is a smart woman, and she knows what “hate” is. We all do. Hate is hate. It is not speech; it’s hate. Sometimes hate is violence, even when no action is attached. How do I know, you might ask? I know because hate is, by definition, hateful, and that means it’s not speech. And why isn’t it speech? Because it’s hate, and hate isn’t speech. This is basic common sense, rejected only by haters.

The ACLU insists that “preventing the government from controlling speech is absolutely necessary to the promotion of equality.” But more sensible thinkers grasp that quite the opposite is true. As Park notes, any defense of the status quo “perpetuates a misguided theory that all radical views are equal.” They’re not, and, in consequence, an arbiter is necessary. At first, that should be the ACLU, which should simply let some censorship be – or, even better, start endorsing it. And eventually, having been freed up by the ACLU’s backing away from what Park notes correctly is “only First Amendment case law,” the government itself should assume that role. Then, and only then, will some space have been cleared for the wise.

We have an array of differing views in this country, but I think we can all agree that nobody could be better suited to that oversight role than Jeff Sessions, President Donald Trump, and the thousands upon thousands of state-level Republicans who have been recently swept into office by the infallible will of the people. Furthermore, we should all be able to unite around the appealing chance to hand more power over to the police. Donald Trump is a man marked out for his wisdom, scholarship, and judicious temperament. But, exquisite as his judgment is, he is able to direct prosecutions only on a macro level. To make the scheme work in practice, America’s police officers must enjoy the legal opportunity to determine what — and who — sits outside of the law’s protection. By insisting upon a consistent application of the First Amendment — and, most problematically, by defending “the legal gains on which [it] rests its colorblind logic” — the ACLU is depriving our cops of this vital first-line oversight role. In the wake of Charlottesville, that must change. As Park makes clear, it was the ACLU’s insidious monomania that “led the organization to successfully sue the city of Charlottesville, Va.,” which, had it been left to its own devices, would likely have made the right call.

That this has to be said in 2017 is truly remarkable. The United States did not fight two global conflicts and a bloody civil war to permit the Bill of Rights to flourish. Nor did countless Americans expend their time, blood, and energy to allow unpopular people to speak without the vigorous superintendence of whoever temporarily commands the public’s support. On the contrary: Those battles were fought for one reason, and one reason only: To permit Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump to shape our society as they in their eternal prudence see fit. If that dream is finally to be realized, the ACLU must dismount its high horse and get the hell out of the way.

[Deleted]

we should redefine the first amendment. Anything that is hateful, especially to Trump, should be censored.

[Mister Cheese]

Let's not redefine free speech. That's a slippery slope.

[Elba]

The 1A is silly. It's the reason American political climate is so toxic. It allowed the Republicans to become far right extremists. It should be abolished.

[Deleted]

The 1A is silly. It's the reason American political climate is so toxic. It allowed the Republicans to become far right extremists. It should be abolished.

It also allows people to become far-left extremists.

[Mistame]

That article is stupid. Case in point:

I know because hate is, by definition, hateful, and that means it’s not speech. And why isn’t it speech? Because it’s hate, and hate isn’t speech. This is basic common sense, rejected only by haters.

Logical fallacy, "You're bad if you disagree", etc. Also, "hate speech" is speech and that is why it's protected. The First Amendment exists to protect dissent, not "feelings".

[The Oblivion]

lets not. anyone who thinks free speech is bad, is insane. only loonies advocate limiting speech.

[Darkeon]

Free Speech is good and I want it to stay. But only the type of speech I agree with. The other type let's just punch the people saying it.
- Far Left.

[Deleted]

That article is stupid. Case in point:



Logical fallacy, "You're bad if you disagree", etc. Also, "hate speech" is speech and that is why it's protected. The First Amendment exists to protect dissent, not "feelings".

I made the same mistake as you. I mixed the real article with the satirical one

[Livnthedream]

That article is stupid. Case in point:

Did you miss the satire part of the address?

[Very Tired]

You'd think an ideology that's so bigoted and flawed would be easy to refute and shut down... And yet, some people seem dead set on denying free speech on what should be an easy argument to win.

[Video Games]

The 1A is silly. It's the reason American political climate is so toxic. It allowed the Republicans to become far right extremists. It should be abolished.

On topic, I don't think anything really needs to change regarding free speech.

[Mittens]

The 1A is silly. It's the reason American political climate is so toxic. It allowed the Republicans to become far right extremists. It should be abolished.

The 1A is not silly and the existence of tribalism is unrelated to it.

[Mister Cheese]

Did you miss the satire part of the address?

This really badly done satire if it is. And doesn't get its message across very well.

[The Oblivion]

On topic, I don't think anything really needs to change regarding free speech.

at this point, he is so predictable, we could have a bot post for him spouting his favorite flavor of nonsense.

[Livnthedream]

This really badly done satire if it is. And doesn't get its message across very well.

Then I think you have a horrible reading comprehension problem. Try clicking the link to the original piece so you can follow the links. That may help.

[JohnBrown1917]

Oh dear, we really needed another thread on it.


Ill just say it again, incitement to violence/genocide/murder has no reason to be legal, and its not where i'm from.

[Ahovv]

Seems most people didn't actually read it.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh dear, we really needed another thread on it.


Ill just say it again, incitement to violence/genocide/murder has no reason to be legal, and its not where i'm from.

...Who has actually argued against that?

[Elba]

On topic, I don't think anything really needs to change regarding free speech.

What's your point?

[JohnBrown1917]

lets not. anyone who thinks free speech is bad, is insane. only loonies advocate limiting speech.

Its already limited, can you libel somebody? Make a threat?

- - - Updated - - -

Seems most people didn't actually read it.

- - - Updated - - -



...Who has actually argued against that?

Those who don't want any limits on free speech?