dagblog - Comments for "Should the ACLU defend racist speech?"

Unreasonable because a small

NCD — Fri, 01 Sep 2017 14:50:48 +0000

Unreasonable because a small town (45k?) with a riot inexperienced city/PD, that was just competent enough to at the last minute realize there were safety issues..

The judge should have allowed the change of venue, safety concerns, documented or not, are paramount.

Official incompetence in this Greek tragedy was rife.

Adrian Chen is very, very

Michael Maiello — Fri, 01 Sep 2017 14:29:47 +0000

In reply to Just finished this one for

Adrian Chen is very, very good.

With you all the way on this.

Michael Maiello — Fri, 01 Sep 2017 14:15:58 +0000

In reply to I'm still on board: G*d bless

With you all the way on this. I am still Charlie Hebdo, even when (maybe especially when) he misbehaves.

Just finished this one for

artappraiser — Fri, 01 Sep 2017 13:53:10 +0000

In reply to Article about new lawsuit

Just finished this one for the Sept.4 New Yorker, and it's mining in the same field. Even more so, as it uses the example of rabble rousing of fascists on the radio in the 1930's "info warfare", dystopian fears, corporate money skewing the situation, etc.: The Fake-News Fallacy: Old fights about radio have lessons for new fights about the Internet.

Article about new lawsuit

artappraiser — Fri, 01 Sep 2017 13:11:26 +0000

In reply to Should the ACLU defend racist speech?

Article about new lawsuit that should interest her and the rest of us interested in the topic

President Trump keeps blocking people on Twitter. Is that legal? @ Boston Globe Aug. 31

ACLU is not the entity involved, though, rather it is the "Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University." that is backing the suit for 7 individuals that Trump had curtailed First Amendment rights by blocking their access to speak freely in a public forum. The DOJ has argued that it would send the First Amendment deep into uncharted waters. But a law professor colleague of hers is quoted as recently changing her mind because of the way Trump has been using the site.

I'm still on board: G*d bless

artappraiser — Fri, 01 Sep 2017 13:08:17 +0000

In reply to Yeah, I don't think that

I'm still on board: G*d bless all political and religious satirists doing smear and ridicule to challenge thought. In a way, it is a little on topic, because the terrorist attack on them was violence instead of speech in return, and there were those who argued they were inciting it.

Yeah, I don't think that

Michael Maiello — Fri, 01 Sep 2017 11:38:39 +0000

In reply to ack! pushing that free speech

Yeah, I don't think that people who said "I am Charlie Hebdo" really understood what they were signing up for. Love it.

Hard to see how this is

Michael Maiello — Fri, 01 Sep 2017 11:37:00 +0000

In reply to If you examine the ACLU

Hard to see how this is unreasonable:

"The city must provide factual evidence to support its attendance estimate and justify revoking the permit to demonstrate in Emancipation Park," said the letter. "While the city relies upon a forecast that 'many thousands' will attend the event, it has not disclosed the sources of the information it is relying on for that estimate and whether such sources have any factual basis. When First Amendment rights are at stake, the city should be transparent about the evidence and information underlying its action so that citizens can be sure that fears of overcrowding are not simply a pretext for censorship and meet the requirement for proof that a compelling government interest underlies its decision."

That old saw predates thr

Michael Maiello — Fri, 01 Sep 2017 11:34:19 +0000

In reply to That old saw is less than 100

That old saw predates thr ACLU!

Agree, obviously, that the ACLU has never earned bipartisan support, but the real benefits of of free speech consistency has been in the courts, not just in the cases they bring but in being able to credibly file briefs that get noticed.

But say they are hopelessly characterized as left wing... maybe the next question for Laura to answer is not whether or not free speech absolutism is properly the goal of the ACLU but whether or not it should be a goal of the modern left. I think so, but I think I'm in the minority, particularly among the kids of Twitter and street protests, who seem quite happy to make compromises on these issues to further other aims.

ack! pushing that free speech

artappraiser — Fri, 01 Sep 2017 06:33:07 +0000

In reply to Should the ACLU defend racist speech?

ack! off-topic but a good place to put it, because: pushing that free speech envelope as far as it will go:

Charlie Hebdo cover suggests Hurricane Harvey victims are neo-Nazis

French hate speech laws, bloody terrorist attacks, nothing deters them.....