ACLU Comment on FBI Raid of Project Veritas Founder
aclu.org
aclu.org
It’s good to see the ACLU stand up for groups that are not “popular”. More and more it seems people only want civil liberties for those they agree with. But since we are all equal under the law (or at least should be), if it can happen to “then” then it can happen to “you”.
If nobody defends the KKK, the steamroller of censorship and oppression will continue until it reaches something you care about.
“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
What they're saying here is analogous to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
How on earth are these accusations relevant for the ACLU to weigh in on while commenting about this attack on the press? "She did wear revealing clothing and some observers thought she was leading the man on. Nevertheless, we condemn the sexual assault..."
> The AG’s report highlighted how Mr. O’Keefe edited his videos to appear as if he was engaging in his ACORN hi-jinks wearing “stereotypical 1970’s pimp garb”, the intent being to suggest that ACORN employees would willingly do business with someone dressed in this manner. However, it turns out that O'Keefe was actually wearing a coat and tie when he entered the ACORN offices. The report also stated that ACORN employees "may be able to bring a private suit against O'Keefe and Giles for recording a confidential conversation.”
The Washington Post and CNN might be reckless and get things wrong, but that doesn't really compare to the intentional dishonesty from Project Veritas.
EDIT: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/washington-po...
In July 2019, a federal judge in Kentucky dismissed the Sandmanns’ suit against The Post, ruling that all of the challenged statements were either opinion, not defamatory or not about Sandmann specifically. But in October, the judge, William O. Bertelsman, reinstated part of the lawsuit, based on a motion to reconsider an amended complaint filed by Sandmann’s lawyers, allowing the case to proceed on three statements in Post articles stating that Sandmann had “blocked” Phillips and “would not allow him to retreat.”
I.e., bald faced lies.
Lying requires intent. And intent is very important.
One is incompetence, the other is malice. Do you not understand the difference between the two?
Even if you want to use the weak excuse that they didn't know what they were doing, the fact it was not corrected or retracted after they did view this "hypothetical footage" (which apparently everyone else on the internet was able to find immediately), proves the malicious and intentional nature of it.
They covered the most popular footage at the time, which was not the footage that exonerated Sandmann.
> Even if you want to use the weak excuse that they didn't know what they were doing, the fact it was not corrected or retracted after they did view this "hypothetical footage" (which apparently everyone else on the internet was able to find immediately), proves the malicious and intentional nature of it.
They published their correction to the original article on January 22nd (3 days after their first article, 4 days after the incident in question). Pretty quick fix if you ask me for this sort of stuff. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/picture-o...
Of course it was. There was not one video or angle that showed the protestors were trying to escape and being blocked
> They published their correction to the original article on January 22nd (3 days after their first article, 4 days after the incident in question). Pretty quick fix if you ask me for this sort of stuff. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/picture-o...
3 days! 3 days of ruining a kid's life, riling up a hateful mob of violent angry lunatics calling for him to be killed, calling him racist and white supremacist. Meanwhile all the footage was out! It was malicious lies. I don't know how you can excuse such disgusting lies.
The only accusations against Project Veritas is that they doctored their videos, but it seems to me that they usually publish the full length videos.
Conveniently, you can evaluate their cited sources for yourself.
> Following the Boudreau incident, Project Veritas paid Izzy Santa a five-figure settlement after she threatened to sue, which included a nondisclosure agreement.[185]
That links to https://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68628_Page3.html, which seems like a factual account to me.
You should consider that facts that you don't like aren't "opinions", they're just facts that you don't like.
Settlements doesn't prove anything
Also the Wikipedia article begins by labeling PV as being "far-right", which is in and of itself an opinion and they proceed to quote opinion pieces.
Why do I have to explain this tho? I feel like a high school teacher explaining yet another time to his students why they can't cite Wikipedia.
So you agree that the article had a factual statement backed by a factual source then. Thanks.
Your previous statements are demonstrably incorrect and you've resorted to goalpost-shifting. "oh sure that was a factual statement backed by a factual citation, but that fact doesn't mean anything!!"
Please consider that facts you don't like aren't "opinion", they're just facts you don't like.
For real though, I know I'm repeating myself, but I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer for you to understand.
> oh sure that was a factual statement backed by a factual citation
Don't you think considering "X thinks Y" as a fact is a bit disingenuous?
> you've resorted to goalpost-shifting
You started quoting Wikipedia as a source, and then shifted the debate about how not problematic it is. I "resorted" to nothing outside of common sense.
Sorry but Wikipedia is a very poor source of information when it comes to sensitive and politically charged subjects. The articles starts with qualifying them as "far-right" and then quotes opinion pieces or other irrelevant factoids.
Yea, they didn't really say anything like that. They're saying Veritas are scumbags and the FBI might be wrong but should proceed with oversight.
Their statement has so many qualifications and judgements attached to it, that it is nearly meaningless.
The Government colluding with private industry to subvert its own legal processes looks exactly like that dirty f-word that the NYT's main audience likes to casually throw around.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10193997/Lawyer-rep...
It goes on, but they have PV's privileged communications. How else can they make those comments?
Original: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/us/politics/project-verit...
Archive: https://archive.md/wvkck
First Veritas (responsibly) refuse to publish the content of the alleged Biden's daughter diary (the fact that she was hidden from the public is a red flag by itself but I digress) that were given to them anonymously because they can't verify nothing.
Then they try to give it back to Biden's daughter's attorney but he refuses because that would be considered as an admission of its authenticity.
And then they give it back to the FBI.
Then they get raided. Which is weird because the FBI can't have warrants based on fake documents.
Then the New York Times had access leaked information about the raid from the FBI.
At least the ACLU had the good sense to set aside their political bias for once.
People keep on saying this, but there doesn't appear to have been any actual changes at the ACLU? They also just recently defended the "F** Biden" person: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/court-vacates-charges-ro...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
More at: https://www.twitter.com/search?src=typed_query&q=%40ggreenwa...
Moving forward, when deciding whether to take a free speech case, the organization will consider "factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur."
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACL...