ACLU of California Statement: White Supremacist Violence Is Not Free Speech | Hacker News Reader

ACLU of California Statement: White Supremacist Violence Is Not Free Speech

aclunc.org

59 pointsjdp23145 comments

> We ... take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence.

So does this apply to Antifa, BlackBloc, et al as well?

This post doesn't blacklist any specific organizations, but rather any case that involve violence. The ACLU will likely continue[1] to defend peaceful white supremacists. The ban will go for any situation or organization that involves violence.

As for Antifa, I've been unable to find any videos/pictures/unbiased reports that Antifa started any of the violence this past weekend. I don't understand the need to equate the two sides. If the KKK didn't exist, Antifa wouldn't exist. If Antifa didn't exist, the KKK still would.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/19/a-...

Thanks, I'm referring to events such as the Berkeley Riots [1] where the violence was at least partly incited by Antifa.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Berkeley_protests

If Antifa in the US is the similar to the ones in Sweden they will be initiating violence at protests like this. They are usually very prepared and have a lot of experience how to do it. Using violence to fight fascism is what they do even though they usually use non lethal methods.

In Sweden they consist of small autonomous groups that harass nazi sympathizer by vandalizing their homes, putting their address on the internet and calling relatives, neighbors and their work etc. Sometimes they have also physically assaulted nazis. In protests they usually throw stones, pepper spray, smoke bombs, urine etc and sometimes try and brawl with their opponents using clubs etc.

But I don't know at all what happened at this rally in the US but I would be incredibly surprised if you had one of the biggest white supremacy rally is in a long time in the US and Antifa did NOT try and physically stop it.

Antifa in the US use potentially deadly violence against people they target. There is a growing body of lawsuits and criminal convictions that will most likely have them declared as domestic terrorists at some point.

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/05/24/berkeley-college-prof...

Protesting against fascism is all good but violence has to be denounced on all sides with no exceptions.

From what I gather Antifa in the US is extremely diverse in tactics, priorities (beyond the very broad “combat fascism/racism”), and, well, pretty much everything else. Which isn't surprising since it's small autonomous groups in at least two separate looser national organizations (“loose affiliation groups” may be more accurate than “organizations”).

Obviously, the more extreme elements get the most press coverage.

I don't understand fighting fascism with fascism.

Exactly. I believe the best way to fight fascism is to have open dialogue and expose repugnant ideas to the court of public opinion. This requires free speech. The initiation of force outside of self defence is amoral.

You could believe this, but that doesn't make it the proper way.

To be honest, we don't know how to stop these ideas. The nazi party came into power with less than 40% approval and gained that power that nearly destroyed the world.

It's scary to say but there are theories floating around from hundreds of years ago that were made by different philosophers about the nature of these.

For example, the paradox of tolerance is one of these theories.

I'm not saying we should be violent, I'm just saying we have absolutely no idea how to deal with this.

"The nazi party came into power with less than 40% approval and gained that power that nearly destroyed the world."

The Nazis first attacked and destroyed the free press and other free-speech institutions. Robust legal protections for free speech, and a culture of vigorously defending it, will prevent tyrants from gaining and maintaining power.

There is no 'paradox of tolerance'. The intolerant are intolerant, no matter which side they are on. Peaceful racists should have their say. We are all free to disagree and shun them. This isn't ivory tower. This is part and parcel of a free and open society.

I fear though that "Peaceful Racists" will spread to all conservatives. That > 60 million people could legitimately vote for a racist, xenophobic and sexist bigot seem to point out that these people are OK with racism, even if they're not active participants. Which is extremely disturbing.

From what I've read, anti-semitism, while it existed, wasn't mainstream in Germany as well. But the Nazis were "Peaceful Racists" at first (they changed pretty quickly) and seized power. I genuinely fear the same might happen in the US ...

If you fear that racism will spread to all conservatives than you really need to engage with them in respectful dialogue to test your hypothesis.

For example, you might be surprised to learn that the Democratic party was the party of slavery in the South and that the Nazi party used the Jim Crow laws as inspiration for their racist segregation and treatment of Jews. As shocking as this statement sounds, the Nazi party shares its ideological roots with the Democratic party. If you don't believe me please fact check it.

Lastly, I'd recommend reading Thomas Sowell and Dinesh D’Souza for a better understanding of what is conservatism.

The association of Nazis with conservatives, who defend JUDEO-Christian values, is dishonest to say the least.

What JUDEO-Christian values are you talking about? Those espoused by Donald Trump? Good Sir, conservatives voted for Trump DESPITE him being a manifestation of everything OPPOSITE to the values you speak of (liar, doesn't pay his debt, treats everyone else poorly, assaults women etc.). And if not for those values, what do conservatives stand for, really? Just a party of opposition/trolling liberals?

So who is being dishonest?

Let's drop the sham that not all conservatives will go down the terrible path of Nazism/White Supremacy in this current political climate. If not a certainty, from how Trump has been able to get away with one amazingly blatant political scandal after another, it shows just how its terrifyingly possible for that to happen. There is a path from A to B, and to ignore it is dangerous, disingenuous and dishonest

I never mentioned Trump, so your little rant makes no sense.

I'm talking about western values: private property, freedom of speech, the right to live.

These are historically conservative causes. These are judeo-christian values. How can a conservative be a Jew-hating Nazi while at the same time defending their values? It's a contradiction, it makes no sense.

In fact it's the left that is pretty much anti-Israel and pro-Palestine (like Hitler btw).

This is exactly what I mean by the paradox of tolerance. If we're tolerant towards intolerance, we're going to be outed.

If you refuse to recognize my existence as an equal human being deserving civil rights, you give up your right to be treated in a civil manner by me. Violence has absolutely no place in arguments between people, but if one party's only intention is to wipe out the other simply for being different, it means the second party is driven to use all options, including violence.

One may give up right to be treated in a civil manner by you. That part's fine. You don't need to be civil towards people who are repugnant.

But it still does not give you justification for violence or threats. No, you are not "driven" to violence. If you are violent, violence is your decision for which you are responsible.

(We are not talking about self defense situation, we're talking about going to someone else's non-violent demonstration to stop it by force).

And in defense of others?

It is not necessarily fascism just because they use violence. They view it as Nazis work towards a a violent society where certain minorities will be oppressed or even killed. So using violence to stop that is warranted just like it is for example warranted for the state to use violence to capture and hold a person that is preparing a terrorist attack.

I disagree of course as even though I really dislike Nazis political violence is something that is really dangerous for our democracy. For example in in town in Sweden one Antifa group jumped and beat up a libertarian politician just because he was seen as promoting politics that was hostile towards workers. Generally that is not something Antifa does but when you start using political violence is easy to use those methods more and more. Or inspire other groups that they should do it as well.

Americans are legally armed and have the right to defend themselves under the constitution. This ideology that Antifa is going to use physical violence to stop people in America from exercising there constitutional rights to free speech is one of the most dangerous ideas I have seen in some time.

These people in Antifa are going to get themselves killed and the people who use deadly force to protect themselves will walk away with out any charges. Its a miracle that there has not been any deaths up to this point.

I can't think of a better advertisement for Nazis than "we will protect you from Antifa"

Antifa does realize they are creating thier own adversaries, right?

red shirts vs brown shirts =( and the rest of us get shafted

I don't think you understand what fascism is.

There is nothing fascist in beating up Nazis.

Please do not condone the use of violence against (insert bad people) on HN. That is totally beyond any legitimate conversation and is illegal and morally repugnant.

I just said that there is nothing inherently fascist in beating up Nazis. That is not what you claim I said (that I condone violence).

I think your statement is very short and in the flow of the thread reads poorly if your intention was to say that committing violence can be done by people other then fascists.

It reads as an implicit moralization. But your correct that it is not an explicit statement. So if that was not your intention then I rescind my accusation.

Noting that something does not meet the definition of “fascism” isn't condoning it.

Correct. The ACLU is saying they would not defend Antifa if they were arrested for speech inciting violence.

The ACLU of California is carefully avoiding saying this, and it would be incredibly controversial if they did. After the Berkeley violence where masked antifa grabbed peaceful students they thought might be going to Milo's talk, pepper-sprayed them and beat them with weapons, the student newspaper ran a number of pieces supporting this and calling for future violence. I've seen numerous people on social media blaming the violence in Charlottesville on not taking the Berkeley approach, calling for this to happen at future events, and comparing antifa violence to Allied soldiers fighting the Nazis - including from respectable people in tech I follow who aren't usually political. More mainstream news organisations like CNN shy away from direct calls for violence in their flattering profiles, but they still run them.

The idea that antifa violence is wrong seems to be a fringe one in non-right-wing political circles. When the father of the woman murdered in Charlottesville called for peace and forgiveness from all, it was fascinating watching people online try and word their disapproval in ways that didn't seem too disrespectful.

> If the KKK didn't exist, Antifa wouldn't exist. If Antifa didn't exist, the KKK still would.

Not true. Antifa aren't just anti-racist protestors, they're a loose collection of Communist and Anarcho-communist groups. If fascism never existed those groups just rally under a different name.

The spectrum of Antifa is very wide, not just Communists. The only thing common about the various groups that make up Antifa is that we hate Nazis and other racist/fascist ideology and their supporters. Some of us promote and use violence to protect society from them, some of us do not.

> If the KKK didn't exist, Antifa wouldn't exist

The Anti-Fascist movement is, as the name suggests, concerned with more than the KKK, but, more broadly, it's sole uniting purpose would be absent without fascist, neo-fascist, and related violent racist movements.

No,the "anti-fascist" movement has other uniting purposes. For instance, opposing capitalism or market economy.

There was nothing fascist, neo-fascist or racist about the G20 meeting in Hamburg. The black-clad antifas still attacked it with lots of force and violence.

They were quite happy to dress up in Nike and take photos with iPhones, though.

> No,the "anti-fascist" movement has other uniting purposes. For instance, opposing capitalism or market economy.

While Antifa membership is largely drawn from the an anarchocommunist community and some other radical anticapitalism groups, anticapitalism is not it's purpose. As some American Antifa members pointed out in response to criticism that Antifa did not organize against Obama in the US:

“To criticize antifa for not mobilizing against Obama is to misunderstand the movement: anti-fascism is not a comprehensive critique of hierarchical society in and of itself. Anti-fascist work is done as a piece of, and not a replacement for, a larger radical vision. […] Mobilizing large radical movements against neoliberal (or populist) capitalism is not the focus of anti-fascism; this is the work of the anarchist and anti-capitalist movements as a whole.”

https://anarchistnews.org/content/what-do-us-antifascists-ac...

> If the KKK didn't exist, Antifa wouldn't exist.

Not true. In my country, KKK does not exist. Antifa still exists and occasionally tries to find excuses for violence.

Mostly it's just tagging graffiti though, and LARPing a revolution.

>If the KKK didn't exist, Antifa wouldn't exist.

Why would you say that? Antifa (and the organizations it descends from) have existed and acted, sometimes violently, in many situations unrelated to the KKK or white supremacists.

For example, as we saw in Berkeley not long ago, they'll show up to violently protest Milo Yiannopolous by chasing down people in the street and using sticks to beat them unconscious.

(For the video, watch the first 2 minutes of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAqBxMZ-Zs0)

Of course they call Milo a Nazi. But calling Milo, the gay Greek half-Jew with a black boyfriend, a white supremacist just indicates that they're willing to stretch the definition to demonize anyone they don't like. If the KKK didn't exist, they'd stretch the definition as needed to recreate the KKK in their own minds.

"Milo is gay and dates a Black man" is a weird thing to say, to defend him from charges of being a Nazi sympathizer.

Or child sexual assault apologist.

I mean, the man has a body of work to be judged by. And he has been.

There were the tweets of an NYT reporter, Solberg or Stolberg I think. NYT is not very far to the right.

You could also look up the case of Berkeley antifa Eric Clanton, although he was not in Charlottesville- that would have violated the terms of his parole for the upcoming trial of his: 4 counts of assault with a deadly weapon at a previous rally in CA.

None? http://www.unz.com/article/narrative-collapse-is-charlottesv...

I looked at some of the other articles on that site and would encourage others to do the same, before deciding whether to trust its contents. It appears to be a right wing propaganda rag with a very loose definition of "truth".

Do you have examples of ACLU defending antifa or black bloc events? They haven't, to my knowledge, but that's not even the most important difference.

Antifa isn't a group or organization that holds rallies, and black bloc isn't a group at all (it's a tactic). Antifa shows up when right wing violence is expected. It is a direct response to white supremacist violence; remove white supremacist violence from the world, and you remove antifa from the world. They cease to show up, or show up in a different capacity, usually as peaceful protestors.

Antifa is a desperate last line of defense against white supremacist violence, and not an organization (or, organizations since it is very loosely affiliated bunch of groups with often wildly different ideas about tactics and practices) that seeks violence.

To compare Neo-Nazis to antifa is an irresponsible false equivalence. You can criticize antifa tactics (and, reasonably so, in many cases) without misleading people. There's enough misinformation coming from Fox News and Breitbart about what antifa is and does and why.

Maybe the LA Times is better:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-charlottesville-witnesse...

With witness testimony of antifa violence.

In my own home town, I've seen the militant left engage in violent protest of "bad people". The "bad people" weren't actually doing anything other than talking. But OMFG we all know they're evil, right? So violent suppression of their free speech is a Good Thing.

While I live in a generally left country, and am generally somewhat leftist myself, I find the tactics of the authoritarian left to be abhorrent. If someone can't talk reasonably with people on "the other side", they don't deserve my respect or support.

I don't understand how one can read that and come away with the gist of it being that antifa caused the violence in Charlottesville.

The only people saying that are members of right wing extremist organizations that have, as their guiding principle, the genocide of non-white people. These are groups that planned and trained to wage war against counter-protestors, and for weeks leading up to the event posted to their social media about their weapons, smashing people's heads, etc.

I've read a number of reports of the events in Charlottesville, and the overwhelming feeling I came away with was that antifa saved lives, in this case. One can reasonably criticize other times antifa has shown up; Berkeley, for example. But, I'm on team antifa in Charlottesville. I sure as hell don't want to be on the side of the Nazis who murdered someone.

More eyewitness testimony about antifa in Charlottesville:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...

Edit: I think it's really important to recognize that violence is what Neo-Nazis are about. They are not rallying to express opinions, they are rallying to recruit and build a network of impressionable young men who will commit violent acts in pursuit of their goals. They were there specifically to find more people like James Alex Fields. To frame it as a peaceful political rally gone bad is to wholly misunderstand the threat Neo-Nazi organizations pose to our democracy.

> But, I'm on team antifa in Charlottesville. I sure as hell don't want to be on the side of the Nazis who murdered someone.

Which is a thinly-veiled ad homimen directed at me.

The truth is that in my experience, the authoritarian left (antifa included) have engaged in violent suppression of speech they find distasteful. As a result, I believe that they are amoral cultists.

because you acknowledge that we should attempt respectful dialogue with the other side (being better than them), he just insinuated you are being an apologist for the 1 psycopath that murdered someone. he just did exactly what you criticized the left for and you get the downvotes... sorry my dude

Yup. Ad hominems on HN are OK, so long as it's against people who don't support the violence left.

Racism and hate speech are not indications of future violence.

You can go to any internet space and find thousands of hateful and racist people. The chances of any of them committing violence is extremely low.

Right wing extremists are responsible for more terrorist attacks on US soil than any other group.

You're absolutely right, but that's also beside the point. The KKK probably directly killed more people in the 60s - Not just black people and jews, but people who disagreed with them, people who agreed with them but were caught in crossfire or misidentified. That organization is vile and despicable, and as much as it is still possible within the bounds of justice to prosecute and lock up those responsible for such reprehensible acts, I completely agree.

These terrorist acts, while pertinent to the current conversation, are not the same. We've (hopefully) moved on from the violence of our forebears, and the rise of white nationalism should be treated as a new occurrence. I hope it is one. The argument that it

The police should be on hand at these 'demonstrations'. Many of them are actually violent. Many more have peaceful if disgusting protestors, and a few truly vile people that will incite incidents - And these get out of hand very quick. Police should be quick to stamp out these brawls. They need to immediately arrest the criminals who instigate violent acts.

The important things to recognize are a) that the violence is instigated on both sides, and b) making yourself a target for violence is not an effective way of rooting out violence. They're correlated - Black Block members often toe the line in attempt to provoke. That's simply escalation. It make the Nazis think they're right and makes it easier for them to radicalize others - Because they're "being provoked", so why shouldn't they "fight back"?

Escalation only makes it worse. As the old adage goes - "Don't wrestle with pigs; You both get dirty and the pig likes it". Antifa is wrestling with pigs. You can't fight Nazi's by fighting them with fists - They like that. You need to fight them by being better than them, and quite frankly, when they're winning you need to re-evaluate if you really are.

Source?

Here are a few:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us...

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-mil...

http://www.npr.org/2015/06/24/417192057/right-wing-extremist...

http://www.newsweek.com/right-wing-extremism-islamist-terror...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/16/...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics...

I have only checked the first link however the NYT article from 2015 states

"48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, including the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C., compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists, according to a count by New America, a Washington research center."

The pulse nightclub shooting alone killed 49 people. That is more than the entirety of the post 9/11 number white supremacist murders up to 2015 with a single event from 2016.

I said "more terrorist attacks", which is accurate. I didn't make any claims about how deadly those terrorist attacks were. That Neo-Nazis aren't always good at terrorism is hardly a ringing endorsement or a thing to hold up as proof that we shouldn't be dealing with Neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations.

Then again, the Oklahoma City bombing was the deadliest terror attack on US soil in our lifetimes prior to 9/11, and was committed by a right wing extremist. It is sort of arbitrary to draw the line at 9/11 (though maybe reasonable since it was such a devastating attack, and kinda blows the curve for any sort of accounting of other kinds of terror).

Generally we discard 9/11 from such discussions as it blows death toll comparisons out the window. Going post 9/11 stays both relevant to current times and removes the absolute worst events in both cases (Ok city, and 9/11).

Doing comparisons without these cases we get similar numbers for both factions within some wide margin of error. Looking at this from a per capita perspective though we have Muslim Americans that make up around 1% of the population by my googling having a similar terrorism death toll as the 32% of the population that is right wing white Americans (white Americans being 64% of the population. This would make that faction 32 times more dangerous per capita than the white right wing.

I don't know that it's fair to place Neo-Nazis in the same set as moderate Republicans (i.e. all "right wing" people in the US). I feel like there's a particular kind of person that joins extremist organizations and commits terrorist acts, and Muslim extremists have more in common with Neo-Nazi terrorists than they do with moderate Muslims. Likewise, I suspect (hope) moderate Republicans have more in common with moderate Muslims than they do with right wing extremists.

But, the way so many have jumped to defend Neo-Nazis or redirect blame for their violence has me pretty shook. I don't really know how to process someone looking at Charlottesville and saying, "it's the fault of the left". It doesn't even make sense, much less help the nation heal, and a lot of people with a lot of influence are doing it.

It's pretty much terrifying that we have a president that is among the ranks of Neo-Nazi apologists, and that a large percentage of GOP leadership has said nothing. Maybe I'm giving moderate Republicans too much credit. Neo-Nazi leaders certainly feel vindicated by what's been coming out of a lot of mainstream Republican talking heads lately.

> Then again, the Oklahoma City bombing was the deadliest terror attack on US soil in our lifetimes prior to 9/11, and was committed by a right wing extremist.

Timothy McVeigh? Why do you consider him right-wing?

Because everybody else did, including Timothy McVeigh.

Some quotes:

"McVeigh was reprimanded by the military for purchasing a "White Power" T-shirt at a Ku Klux Klan protest"

"he spoke daily to his co-worker Carl Lebron, Jr. about his loathing for government. Deciding that the Buffalo area was too liberal, he left his job and began driving around the country, seeking out his old friends from the Army."

A letter he wrote to a newspaper:

"Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate "promises," they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight. [...] Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn't come to that. But it might."

"McVeigh introduced his sister to anti-government literature"

"For the five months following the Waco siege, McVeigh worked at gun shows and handed out free cards printed up with Lon Horiuchi's name and address, "in the hope that somebody in the Patriot movement would assassinate the sharpshooter." (Note "Patriot movement" was the way right wing extremist groups were re-branded in the 90s, just as alt-right and some other names have been used since.)

He made his meager living selling copies of The Turner Diaries (a novel that fantasizes about an armed revolution against the US government, and genocide of blacks, Jews, and gays: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turner_Diaries) among other right wing literature at gun shows.

I don't see how he can be considered anything but right wing, and pretty extreme right wing, at that.

Source for all of the above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

so? do you want to forgo the civil rights of muslims on a similar basis? of course not.

Comparing Neo-Nazis to Muslims is incredible, and it says something ugly about your beliefs about Neo-Nazis and about Muslims.

If, instead, you mean, civil rights for members of Muslim extremist organizations, then your comparison would be reasonable. So, you tell me. Should Al Qaeda be given permits for rallies across the US to recruit people to commit acts of terror?

We aren't talking about people who merely say racist things. No one is suggesting racists should have their speech curtailed, as repugnant as that speech may be. We are discussing groups that have as their stated goal the violent overthrow of the US government and imposition of a white ethno-state. It's not a secret that's what they stand for and what they are recruiting for. They talk about it pretty openly, and it can be confirmed by spending even a little time in their online or real world spaces.

It is false equivalence, and gross, to compare Neo-Nazis to Muslims. There is no similarity there. There are violent extremists that are Muslims, but it is not the stated purpose of the religion or the majority of the people (or even a notable percentage) who practice that religion. Neo-Nazis, the groups represented by the Unite The Right rally, are violent extremists, both in word and deed, and it isn't a secret or small percentage of their numbers. It is why the organizations exist.

i never drew an equivalence between muslims and nazi's but go ahead and get offended if you want

In all honesty, I got the same impression from your comment. Please try to be more careful with your wording; its hard to communicate true intention on an internet forum.

I'm not sure how else to interpret it. What did you mean, if not how I interpreted your words?

I don't know what his source was, but Googling "right wing terrorism" turns up this Politifact article [1], which cites this GAO report to Congress [2].

[1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/16/...

[2] http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf

> Antifa shows up when right wing violence is expected.

Right wing violence is not expected until Antifa show up. If Antifa don't show up, there is no expected violence.

History teaches otherwise.

Do you have examples of right wing violence at modern day right wing protests that don't have counter protesters?

Why would you want white supremacist rallies to not be counter-protested? If there's a white supremacist rally going without protest anywhere in this country, I will be horribly disappointed in my fellow Americans.

Nazis must be protested, everywhere they show their angry entitled faces. Sometimes they become violent when criticized. Violence is core to Nazi beliefs, so it's not surprising when they become violent. Antifa is a defensive tool against that violence, to make it safer for others to protest against Nazis.

Sometimes, antifa goes too far, perhaps. But, you're never going to make me feel sympathy for people who literally actively seek the death and degradation of millions of Americans.

If one wants their counter protest to be accepted at face value, maybe the organizers should institute a buffer zone. It seems like proximity foments violence, one way or the other.

I think that's a reasonable approach, and there has been criticism of police (on "many sides") that police in Charlottesville didn't do enough to protect peaceful protestors. In this case, it seems that all of the serious injuries were inflicted by Neo-Nazis on peaceful counter-protesters, but there have been cases where antifa has inflicted injury, perhaps even without provocation.

Charlottesville police seemed underprepared for this event, in general. Many, many, reports from a wide variety of people noted a complete lack of police presence in a number of situations where violence occurred, or that police were present but merely observed violence taking place.

This leads to a lot of mistrust of police, and also makes it harder for protesters who might like to remain non-violent to do so. If you see someone being beaten up by Nazis and police aren't stopping it, the only decent thing for an able-bodied person to do is to try to stop it.

> Charlottesville police seemed underprepared for this event, in general.

Core problem seems to be that lots of the Nazis (and to a lesser extent, some of the protesters) were heavily armed. It's easy for police to break up a protest where no one is armed, but they sure as hell won't mace a group of heavily armed people, no matter if Nazi, Antifa or whatever.

I'm guessing that if members of those groups are practicing violence, they aren't arguing that their violence is free speech - they are aware they are breaking the law, but believe they are justified (in the context of some higher purpose) in doing so.

Antifa generally doesn't apply for protesting permits as I understand it, so maybe this is a question that ACLU hasn't had to deal with?

edit: Being downvoted by people who might not have read the counter-protesters' permit: https://www.scribd.com/document/356483336/2017-Public-Demons...

They had a permit this past weekend: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/...

I can't speak for other protests.

Maybe this is getting into a No True Scotsman argument, but that permit was not for what's often considered to be antifa. Being a counter-protester is not automatically antifa. From the link you posted:

> Walt Heinecke, a professor at the University of Virginia, told Moyer that he received a “special events certificate of approval” for events at McGuffey Park and Justice Park — sites blocks from Emancipation Park, where white nationalists had a permit for a Saturday rally.

Antifa, the group that is more commonly associated with things like Richard Spencer in the face, seems to be more informal: https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/26/14369388/richard-sp...

Edit: Another example of what's associated with antifa: punching journalists http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4785564/Reporter-pun...

This is the wrong question to be asking, antifa and blackboc by definition only show up at fascist and racist rallies.

This is what this statement is about: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/nyregion/aclu-free-speech...

You mean that the G20 meeting of state heads in Hamburg was a "fascist and racist rally"?

Antifa and the extreme left do apply that kind of rhetoric in their critique of "capitalism", but I find it quite extreme and not to be taken seriously.

Still, the black block trashed the city and attacked people with deadly force (it's a wonder no one was killed.)

There is a point between a peaceful environmental or justice or equality protest and something as inherently violent as fascism or racism which was the mix in Charlottesville. Historically, fascism has always had an aspect of violence, and the same with racism. You simply cannot make the same case with either antifa or even black block, they are reactionary to fascism and oppression, if not racism respectively.

Black bloc has its roots opposing police violence, and this is consistent through their history, so I should have said "fascist, racist and anti-oppression rally"

Riots in Hamburg were not anti-oppression. They were anti-people and anti-city.

The use of violence as a tactic while wrong isn't the same as violence-dependent ideologies like fascism and racism.

Both should be opposed in effective ways.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/how-to-make-fun-o...

To me, antifa looks very much like a violence-dependent ideology.

Violence in defense is also not the same as violence in offense. Defending yourself or your group is the right thing to do, but you can overreact and be counterproductive to your goals. Fascism and racism have no qualms about using offensive violence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/us/antifa-left-wing-facti...

The G20 riots had absolutely no element of "violence in defense". Same applies to many cases.

I find it obscure how people go on justifying violence when it just happens to feel good with the political agenda.

Violence doesn't work for a political agenda. It never has.

I am distinguishing between the historically offensive violent ideologies of nazis and racists, with the historically reactionary use of violence-as-a-tactic for antifa and black bloc.

The latters use of violence should be stopped, since it isn't helping in furthering the lefts political agenda. We wouldn't be talking about them at all if not for the rise of Hitler in the 1930s and Trump now.

These groups are not all the same level of threats to society. We need to focus on stopping the violence on all sides through better protesting permits apparently, and stopping the fascists and racists from gaining more political power.

Once again I argue that people are genuinely or disingenuously conflating two different terms for the sake of a "slippery slope" or free speech argument.

Violence against certain groups based on their race is not just violence, but a hate crime [1].

It is not a free speech issue. Society has already ruled that attacking certain groups based on certain protected status is not ok and will be prosecuted accordingly.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_Unite...

What if not attacking, but instead simply utilizing freedom of expression?

What if a hundred neo-Nazis filed to hold a rally, and showed up with signs saying "Jews get out!" and chanting "We've thought about it a lot and decided we really don't like Jews!"

is the expression of that idea a hate crime that can be prosecuted? or the expression of peaceful protest and first amendment rights?

does a punch need to be thrown before it's a hate crime?

(of course, these magical, peaceful neo-Nazis probably don't exist. from the video I've seen, the ones at that rally were out for blood)

This seems like a non-statement. It's obvious that violence isn't protected under freedom of speech. There are no arguments on that point.

> If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution.

Why even add "white supremacists" to that statement? It would be true of any group. You could replace "white supremacists" with "Underpants Gnomes" and this would still be true.

Crack some skulls

???

Profit!

> The First Amendment should never be used as a shield or sword to justify violence.

Does "shield" in this case refer to the protesters who were resisting the Unite the Right rally?

If they're using violence then they're already breaking the law, so it's not really a free speech question.

This is he ACLU preparing itself not to defend these groups while trying not to loom publically like a hypocrite. Unfortunately free speech and constitutional rights are one of those things where you take the good with the bad.

I think it's a perfectly fine statement to make, because they were criticized for supporting White Supremacists' protests as free speech, and they're making the distinction that they support the right to protest, but that their subsequent violence, after the ACLU made its original support, is not something they support.

You'd think that this is obvious, but plenty of people would have extrapolated incorrectly given that people never read primary sources or check timelines themselves.

Or they are just making their position clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

Trump is being sued for inciting violence as well: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...

Inciting violence should be a clear line, and I'm glad the ACLU of California is making it clear that it is. As far as past cases go, this doesn't seem to be contradictory or different, but I don't know if it is.

Without meaning to make any greater point, being sued isn't the same as being found guilty but is often treated as being 'close enough' in the media.

Context: So the ACLU of VA filed against having the rally moved to a park away from downtown Charlottesville, and the Judge agreed going against the City. Yeah, this probably wasn't the best call in retrospect. Something other ACLU chapters can correct.

https://acluva.org/20108/aclu-of-virginia-response-to-govern...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/aclu-first-amendm...

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/equality-justice-and-f...

My interpretation is that it's to head off racist gun nuts hiding their 2A behind the 1A. So if something pops off, the ACLU isn't going to fig leaf a defense for them.

So, of I understand this correctly, it's not the message they consider not to be free speech but the (inciting of) violence.

I'm all for free speech, but for some messages there's just no context in which they ever become anything but harmful, and maybe dogmatically clinging to free speech isn't the best way to approach things. Then again, it can be a slippery slope towards thought police, so maybe it's best to leave the judging of those messages to social pressure.

  maybe it's best to leave the judging of those messages to social pressure.

I REALLY hope that that's a joke. Social pressures brought you ACTUAL Nazi Germany and ACTUAL Communist revolutions in multiple countries. Scary...

absolutely not. all of those ACTUAL horrible situations involved gross disdain for 1st Amendment principles

I think the Supreme Court has ruled on similar questions, in that there's a distinction between how the "speech" is intended and how it is construed. For instance, someone waving a nazi flag might feel to me like an incitement to violence, while to them it might feel like an expression of free speech, with no intention to incite violence. In that sense it would be protected speech, despite how I feel.

So the question becomes how do you determine if someone is intending to incite violence? They might say they are only wanting to express their first amendment rights (and perhaps their second amendment rights at the same time), while actually just intending to incite violence. Even pretending that none of the neonazi protesters in Charlottesville threw the first punch, I think a lot of the quotes from Charlottesville indicated that many of them were on the wrong side of that line, and were seeking to incite.

The Supreme Court DID rule on this very issue, back in 1977 [1], where the ACLU defended the American Nazi Party's right to march through a primarily Jewish neighborhood. The Court ruled that the Nazi uniform and swastika are not "fighting words".

Regardless - I've always said that free speech is allowing speech that we hate or disagree with. Once we started banning speech that is "offensive", we have started down a path of legal and social precedence that we will never be able to recover from.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...

I've always liked how the Yale professor put it when confronted by a student in that controversy over censoring Halloween constumes:

"I stand behind free speech, yes I do."

"Even when it's offensive?"

"Even when it's offensive -- ESPECIALLY when it's offensive."

> For instance, someone waving a nazi flag might feel to me like an incitement to violence, while to them it might feel like an expression of free speech, with no intention to incite violence.

Disregarding how you both feel about it, waving a nazi flag legitimizes and strengthens an inherently violent ideology of ethnic cleansing.

Intent - real or pretend - doesn't matter.

It is worrisome that you are not horrified by what you just said. YOUR view of what is and isn't "inherently violent" is your rule? What of people who view this differently?

You DO know that the Nazi party of Germany was democratically elected right? It did plenty of good for plenty of innocent people who simply lived in Germany at the time.

Also, you know, by your logic almost ANY flag shouldn't be waved. All countries have been to horrible wars and killed aplenty.

Yes they were elected, but it wasn't democracy that lead to the events that followed and so I don't think this is a very fair argument you make. It might be true that Nazi rule benefited many at a particular point in time but I don't think many who lived through the period would argue that Nazi rule was net positive for Germany.

I have been stuck for a while on trying to identify terms for being "inside an argument" versus "outside an argument".

Here, you are outside my argument, and from that perspective I have trouble disagreeing with you.

But inside the argument, I am correct (or "technically correct" from your perspective), and you are wrong - meaning, the Supreme Court, the American view consistent with the 1st amendment - that is more in alignment with my argument.

But I feel like I remember there being a set of academic terms that refer to each of our perspectives. Being inside vs outside the argument. Does anyone know?

And there's also the (very American) question of when "technically correct" is no longer correct anyway, like when being lawful is unjust, and civil disobedience is called for - oftentimes accepted by history (MLK's civil disobedience, boycotts, shutting down roads, etc) - a good example from this week is the perspective of the protesters who tore down that statue, and the perspective of the very long line of people who are seeking to turn themselves in to (falsely) confess.

Neat. Curious to hear your position on waving Communist and Jewish flags.

Is Jewishness "an inherently violent ideology of ethnic cleansing"?

For that matter, is Communism? Marxist-Leninist governments don't have a great track record, but there are plenty of individual pacifist hippie commies; the ideology of common ownership of production is not inherently violent and racist like Nazism and the Klan are.

The bar at King's College Cambridge used to have a hammer-and-sicle on the wall for years. If the authorities removed it the students would repaint it. All good clean fun.

It eventually got taken down for good after increasing numbers of students from eastern Europe came to the college and pointed out that, to them, it was just as oppressive a symbol as the swastika.

Really this all should have got sorted out around the time of the Spanish Civil War; actual capital-C Communism is too tied up in Stalinism to be trusted any more.

Of course, plenty of people are happy to label their enemies as "communist" for supporting basic reasonable non-Stalinist things like universal healthcare. So the fact that someone is labelled a communist by their enemies, especially in America, means almost nothing.

I'm sure not all Jews condone the ethnic cleansing going on in the West Bank and Gaza. But I kinda think some people see the Israeli flag in the same light as Jews see the Nazi flag. And yes, I am speaking as a Jewish man.

You might want to check your Russian History, particularly Stalin's era, to examine the violence inherent to the ideology of common ownership, when applied Soviet style. Scholars debate on whether he killed 8 million or 60 million...

If anyone is after anything on the topic, please try The Court of the Red Czar or The Young Stalin. Both by Simon Sebag Montefiore. Ironically a Jew with interesting views on Zionism and an excellent history of Jerusalem. The Radio New Zealand interview with him below covers his views on Zionism briefly.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/...

I really wonder if all this turmoil could have been avoided if members in Congress actually knew the laws that they passed, and Law Enforcement would actually enforce the laws. This has just led to a lot of hysteria. For example, Pelosi, who is desperately trying to maintain relevance, going all Pelosium on the National Park Service to cancel a permit for a conservative “white supremacist” group Patriot Prayer’s pro-Trump for fear of violence. The problem is, they are not white supremacists, all but one of the speakers is ‘white’, and the organizer is not ‘white’. Unless Pelosi is outstandingly ignorant, if not, is she just trying to suppress Freedom of Speech? Side Note: I will sit and flip from one news channel to another, and from what I observe, I think I know why unemployment is down. These news broadcasts cannot get enough contributors, analysts, and so-called experts on to fill up the screen. Where do they find these people? More importantly, do they get paid and how much? Because if the money is good, if there is a list, I want on it.

Good for them for breaking with e.g. the Virginia ACLU over this, just doubled my recurring donation. Direct calls for violence by heavily armed mobs are not protected speech or assembly.

Sensible people across the political spectrum agree that violence != speech. Who exactly are they arguing against here? Perhaps a strawman?

>Who exactly are they arguing against here? Perhaps a strawman?

Yes, but the strawman that they are being beat over the head with by those with a certain political bent.

The statement could've been even stronger and yet remain neutral: "violence is not speech."

Inciting violence can be speech though, and is included in the statement. There's nothing to be neutral about, it's already the law.

Which would defeat the point, because then we'd be stuck with arguments over what is and isn't violence.

Carrying baseball bats and hitting cars or people, as well as throwing water bottles or paint balloons at people, or breaking windows of businesses or houses, is violence, as is using a vehicle as a weapon. It's not too complicated.

You've conflated property damage with violence against people. I don't believe the two should be legally or morally judged the same, even if we may agree that both are crimes.

When a baseball bat hits a human's head, it's not the baseball bat (the property) that gets hurt.

You said, "hitting cars", and "breaking windows of businesses or houses".

Cars and windows are not people.

Our criminal justice system should, and usually does, distinguish between property crimes and crimes against people. I believe discussions about protest and violence and property damage should do the same, even if you believe both are criminal and should be punished.

There are often people inside cars, and those people are justifiably horrified when they are under attack.

Also, even when people are not in the cars, it is a "popular" hate crime to intimidate people by selectively destroying their property.

"We can do this to your car; we can do it to your home, too, even when you're inside" is the message.

Hitting people in the head with bike locks is not speech either.

On that, we are agreed. And, that is clearly violence against a person, by my definition and pretty much everybody else's.

Now it seems to make everyone stuck with arguments about why violence by some people is ok and violence by others is not.

I think it should simply be that no one has justification for violence or intimidation.

No violence is free speech. Not from white supremacists, not from antifa, not from communists, not from BLM.

What you had in Charlottesville is two group of thugs looking for a fight meeting and getting the fight they all wanted.

Pretending there are good guys in this conflict is stupid.

A slightly bit off topic, but as a European I would love to hear some intelligent, well thought, non provoking theories on why is America going through so much turmoil and polarization the last few years.

Or has it always been like this?

Historically these groups and thoughts ebb and flow, along with demographic and economic changes. And historicaly speaking, right now, the level of political violence in the US is quite low. Compared to other periods like the 10s the 30s and the 60s this is super mild. This is how a healthy democracy works. We talk, we fight politically, we write articles in the Atlantic, we move forward.

Far too many factors playing together, really.

Failure of the war in the Middle East? Economic hollowing out of rural/middle America? Property prices? Russian influence? Far-right propaganda media organisations?

Some of today's issues are simply re-opening of issues that were never really properly settled at the civil war. Black people have never really been given the same level of equality and freedom that nonblack people have in America, and every generation has a go at doing something about it.

One of my childhood memories is (from the UK) watching a burning city on TV with the sound off, assuming it somewhere in the middle east, and later getting home and discovering that it was Los Angeles. Rodney King riots.

> “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

― H.L. Mencken, 1918

Two party political systems almost always eventually lead to extreme polarization. There's been multiple studies showing this. Once polarization happens, the center quickly fades and fringes collect more and more of the populace. You're seeing the end stages of this trend now.

HN is a terrible place to have such discussions, as opinions that go against the popular narrative are censored and the poster shadowbanned.

You're better off searching for answers elsewhere.

There is plenty of voice for the alt-right on this forum, the top rated comment in this thread for example. Stop playing victim.

"White Supremacist Violence..."

Obviously by definition. But this just begs the more important question:

Does ACLU still believe speech by white supremacists should be permitted?

I've heard a saying along the lines of: your rights only as good as you permit your worst enemy.

http://begthequestion.info/

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question:

In modern vernacular usage, "to beg the question" frequently appears to mean "to raise the question" (as in, "This begs the question, whether...") or "to dodge a question"

No violence, or calling for violence is free speech. It would be nice if all sides remembered that.

i am venezuelan. i hope the non-socialist opposition rises up and takes back their country from a violent, oppressive dictatorship with violence if need be. then i hope they use violence to institute justice for those who have committed crimes against their fellow citizens with impunity for a decade. can i fly my Venezuelan flag upside down? shall i be arrested?

A legal analysis by First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, as well as a (vacuous) response by the ACLU: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

quite absurd. ill be forgoing my next few donations. (sad that i have to qualify this but i hate nazi's and am not even white)

Words are not violence.

My rights don't end where your feelings begin.

Is driving over people violence?

Yes, but advocating for the (peaceful) establishment of entho-states is not. Even if it makes me think less of them.

How does one peacefully establish an ethno-state?

What a ridiculous question.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com