Trying to protect "free speech" is all very well and good...

[Turborama]

Last edited Sat Jan 17, 2015, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)

However, it's mostly hateful people who try to protect "hate speech".

- Me

[Donald Ian Rankin]

1. I'm afraid I strongly disagree. Hate speech needs to be protected against state censure.

The right to be wrong - even offensively and insultingly wrong - is central to free speech.

I think it's more accurate to say that "hate speech" is a term made up be people who don't support free speech and want to severely curtail it, but want to pretend to themselves that they're still free-speech-loving liberals.

If you don't speak up when they come for the Klansmen, and the Westborough baptists, and all the other horrible but non-criminal groups of bigots up there, there will be no-one to speak up when they come for you.

As a private citizen, by all means attack them verbally (as I've just done, albeit in passing). But their freedom of speech must be protected.

[Turborama]

2. You disagree that haters fight the hardest to protect hate speech?

Welcome to the elite ignored crew.

[Turborama]

3. Anyone else who wants to add themselves to the list join the queue and sign up... nt

[GGJohn]

14. Yeah, I'll add myself.

I abhor hate speech, but I'll defend a persons right to utter it.

[sabrina 1]

19. Let me ask a question. Do you support the right of an abusive spouse

to continue the verbal abuse so prevalent in domestic abuse cases?

[cherokeeprogressive]

37. Comparing apples to Edsels.

[sabrina 1]

45. How so? Speech is speech. I am reading comments here stating that even the 'most vile and hateful

speech must be protected'. My question is, does that include all speech, or are there SOME limits, eg, when it is hurting someone, such as the spouses and children of domestic abusers.

Sure people have a right to do many things, but should they? Eg, under this absolute doctrine regarding free speech could a domestic abuser defend himself by claiming that right? Would YOU support him in that defense?

[PeaceNikki]

50. You're describing assault

[sabrina 1]

60. So, some speech is assault. That's not the response I'm getting in this thread though.

'The victim can ignore the verbal abuse, or the victim can respond in kind, or the victim can leave'.

[NuclearDem]

63. Do you know the difference between hate speech and assault?

[sabrina 1]

64. I know the difference, do you?

[NuclearDem]

65. I don't think you do.

Because in a thread about hate speech, you brought up a case of assault as if they're related.

[sabrina 1]

72. Is verbal abuse speech that should be protected or not in domestic violence situations?

That was my question, the answer was 'you are talking about assault'. So you are agreeing that some speech IS assault? Or do you not consider spousal verbal abuse to be hate speech?

[NuclearDem]

73. Ugh. Alright, clearly you don't know what assault is.

And you also have a pretty broad definition of hate speech.

But that's not a surprise from you.

[sabrina 1]

74. You're making no sense whatsoever. Same old personal attacks.

Next time, don't address me, your responses have zero to do with the topic and I find your interest and personal attacks to be quite disturbing especially since I don't know you.

Have a great evening.

[NuclearDem]

83. I have no "interest" in you. You post nonsense, and I reply.

If you don't want me replying, there's an ignore feature. Or stop posting nonsense, either one is fine by me.

[politicman]

78. Youa are spot on.

That's the problem with all these dopes on here spouting the 'free speech must be defended at all costs' line.

They want their free speech as long as it is something they agree with, as soon as you bring up instances of how free speech can be hurt others and show instances of how the government has made laws against some speech because it can hurt others, they resort to their default position of 'comparing apples to oranges' ha.

Your example is an extremely valid one.

These people will come on here and argue that even hate speech should be allowed, yet when you bring up a scenario of a spouse verbally hating or abusing his or her spouse, then they try and argue that it is different because it is assault and already against the law.

[GGJohn]

80. Well, that's because that's what it is,

it's assault and against the law.
And I'll say it again, in this country, hate speech is protected speech and I do defend someone's right to say it, I don't agree, but I do agree with the right to say it.

[politicman]

82. so please enlighten us then.

So please enlighten us to when in your opinion hate speech crosses the line and becomes verbal assault?

If you would be so kind please tell us in your opinion the difference between hate speech (which you are arguing in favour of protecting), and spousal verbal assault (which we have already established is against the law).?

If a guy spewed hate speech at his wife everyday, what makes that worse than a stranger spewing hate speech at another stranger everyday?

[GGJohn]

88. Sorry, but I'm not gonna play a gotcha moment with you.

I'll leave it to the courts to decide when it crosses the line.

[sabrina 1]

97. I can't find any law against spousal verbal abuse. Can you please post something

that proves it to be illegal and categorized as assault?

[GGJohn]

102. As I told you before,

not going to play your gotcha game.

[sabrina 1]

105. What 'gotcha' game? After you and couple of others stated that verbal spousal abuse was 'assault'

according to the law, I went to find out if that was the case. Since I found no law backing up that claim, I asked you, politely, to provide it since you made the claim and must have more information than I could find.

All I found were many legal discussions about it, admitting that it is very harmful, but hesitance to make it illegal.

Either there is a law or there isn't. Which goes back to my original question to those who claim that 'all speech, no matter how vile or hateful' should be protected.

Assuming there is no law, I have to assume those who have made that statement would include domestic spousal verbal abuse in those absolute declarations.

[GGJohn]

108. Here's my simple answer,

No, I don't approve of it, just like I don't approve of any hate speech, but I do defend the concept of free speech, warts and all.
Start down the slippery slope of banning "hate speech" and who knows where it will lead.
And that's my final statement on it in this thread.

[sabrina 1]

110. Those who claimed, in this thread, that spousal verbal abuse was legally defined as 'assault' were

wrong.

So, that means it is up to us to decide when hurtful, hateful speech should be used or not.

I agree with that. Reasonable people should not need laws to tell them what is right and what is wrong.

But there are people here defending the gratuitous use of speech that they know is hurtful to others. And because of that, in Europe eg, some speech HAS been made illegal.

Irresponsible use of rights tends to lead to laws being passed. And an over-lawed society is a failed society.

I don't get why you are upset with me btw, statements were made here, and personal attacks engaged in merely for trying to get facts, and to correct false information.

[GGJohn]

112. I'm not upset with you.

I'm upset that there are people here on DU who would love nothing more than to restrict free speech that they don't like, and I don't include you in that category.
Those that would like to see European style hate speech laws have not thought it through, once that door is opened, it lets the genie out of the bottle.
My biggest fear is if such laws were passed, and the republicans gained all 3 seats of power, then they will be able to pass their version of hate speech laws, and that's a nightmare scenario.

[sabrina 1]

116. Okay, sorry if I misunderstood you. I agree with you which is why I was surprised to be told

that some speech, verbal spousal abuse, had already been made illegal. That tells me that there are people while claiming that all speech should be protected, have their own limits on free speech and even thought that some speech had been made illegal, which was okay with them.

While it is harmful, I am glad that no such law exists, yet, because as you point out, it would open the door to other kinds of speech being restricted.

Which gets back to the point that while it's great to shout that ALL speech is fine, it doesn't need to be illegal for reasonable people to act responsibly, knowing that some speech will result in harm, to choose not to engage in it, which is what most people do anyhow.

[GGJohn]

118. Maybe I should clarify my earlier posts,

verbal abuse is illegal if it's accompanied by a physical, threatening action towards another person.
Just yelling hateful words at someone, whether it be your SO, a stranger, an acquaintance, etc, is in of itself, not illegal, nor should it be.

[sabrina 1]

81. Yes, my question was to try to find out if they really meant, as I have seen stated here, 'that all

speech, no matter how vile, should be protected'. Because for as long as I have been on DU, I have seen the opposite when it comes to some speech.

And if some speech is assault, which I assume was the implication here, then they do NOT mean it when they state that all speech 'no matter how vile' should be protected. And what makes only spousal verbal abuse 'assault' but not the verbal abuse of other people?

[treestar]

89. Really, you would outlaw such speech?

How would that work?

The solution is to get away from the spouse. That's much better than limiting speech alone.

Protection from Abuse Orders are a much better solution.

[sabrina 1]

96. You said that, I didn't say that. So you agree with those who say that all speech, 'no matter how

vile or hateful should be protected'?? How would that work in a situation such as the one I just described? Would people rush to the defense of the abuser because of 'free speech no matter how vile or hateful'?

You don't seem to know much about domestic abuse, btw. Most of the violence, murder etc against abused spouses happens when they take that advice, leave. Orders of protection often cause the abuser to become even more angry.

So, our culture is that the victim should expect the abuser's right to free speech to cause her to be the one to uproot and run. Free speech no matter how vile or hateful should be protected, at any cost.

Thanks, I am confused as I am getting so many different responses.

[treestar]

98. Yes. Deal with it other ways. It can't be banned.

The arguments about what is verbal abuse and what is not would occur. People would be afraid to talk at all. Yes we would have to rush to defend the abuser from being punished under the criminal law for what they SAID.

[sabrina 1]

111. I was told in this thread that spousal verbal abuse is legally considered 'assault' and illegal.

Clearly those people disagree with you and think it should be. However, I have checked out those statements and could not find any law declaring such speech as 'assault'. But what these claims reveal is that for some, despite the claims that ALL speech should be protected, have their own personal limits on protected speech.

I don't want it to be illegal. But leaves it up to us, to be able to discern when speech is likely to harm others and to exercise restraint before deciding to use those rights.

Otherwise eventually there will be laws which will restrict even more rights, which has already happened in Europe.

[treestar]

113. I think they are wrong and it is not an assault

It might be enough for a protection from abuse order though.

[sabrina 1]

115. True, thankfully. I don't know if, on it's own, it is enough for a protection order.

[GGJohn]

66. That's assault, which is already against the law.

And I'm not gonna play your gotcha game.
I reiterate, I abhor hate speech, but I will defend the right to say it.

[malaise]

86. I agree with the OP but I don't accept that all speech is free

You are only allowed to hate some folks publicly.
What was done to my ancestors in the Atlantic slave trade was significantly worse than what was done to several other people, but everyone is allowed to hate my race publicly. The KKK have the right to say that their 'protection' of white only rights is no different than African American groups organizing for the right to be treated as human beings.

Free speech is very selective - you can slaughter Palestinians but don't dare say a word against the Zionists.

[cleanhippie]

90. That's not a free speech issue.

Nice try, but fail.


Epic Fail.

[sabrina 1]

93. Then you don't agree with those here who are claiming that 'all speech, no matter how vile, should

be protected'? That's all I wanted know, thanks for that response.

We agree btw.

[cleanhippie]

95. Lol

[sabrina 1]

117. Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'? Verbal Spousal Abuse IS a free speech issue, and no, it is not illegal

as claimed here in this thread. But it appears that some people, espousing free speech without exception, actually do have limits on what they think should be allowed.

That's all I wanted to know, to what extent people actually mean what they say.

[GGJohn]

16. Ha!!!!

If you're going to add everyone who agrees that hate speech is free speech, then you're going to have very few people left to talk to on DU, and probably IRL.

[NuclearDem]

20. Sign me up too.

On edit: Hooray! I must already be on ignore.

[TheKentuckian]

21. Lock me in.

[Turborama]

31. Done.

[TheKentuckian]

47. Good job, Inquisitor. Way to stand up for only the speech you like!

[Turborama]

52. Who cares if we never have to deal with each other again?

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. I'd like to be ignored twice, Thank You.

[Turborama]

39. Because you are hateful and want to protect hate speech?

Done!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. I think the people who fight for it hardest are probably the ACLU. N.T.

[sabrina 1]

22. Has the ACLU defended abusive spouses for verbal abuse of their victims? Maybe they

have, just wondering.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. That's not what most people use the words "hate speech" are talking about. N.T.

[sabrina 1]

32. So there are limits to vile, hateful speech? I'm seeing absolute statements that ALL speech

must be protected. I'm trying to see if there is any limit on those absolutes.

So what is and what is not hate speech, and why would Domestic Verbal Abuse not also be protected?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. Of course there are. Here is a thread where I set out what I thought some of them should be.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026094109

There are plenty of grounds on which it is reasonable to criminalise speech.

"It's hateful", however, is absolutely not one of them.

[Rex]

104. Assault is the overt act of intentionally trying to physically hurt someone.

Courts say that mere words are not enough, that an act of physical intimidation or threat of force must be shown. IOW, you can be charged with assault if you raise your fist to someone else and say something abusive. However, just saying something abusive is not assault.

I happen to agree with you on this one, studies show verbal abuse always leads to violence (and NO, running away does not make it 'all better' that is far too simplistic to a very complex issue) in the end. So imo, the intention is always there to threaten the use of force when words fail to harm anymore.

I've known a few women in my life that were stalked and tormented psychologically ONLY after they got a restraining order and moved away. You are exactly right, the threats and violence only escalated - in one case the husband shot the windows out of the business his wife worked for. I'm just glad he took that anger out on the windows and not his wife. He still walks a free man to this day, no charges.

White male privilege works in ways some cannot even begin to comprehend unless they are there dealing with the nightmare.

[sabrina 1]

107. Thank you, after being told in this thread that verbal abuse of a spouse was 'different' vile and

hateful speech' because it was legally defined as assault, I went to look it up and found nothing to back up that statement.

I have found cases where both verbal abuse followed by physical abuse were part of the considerations of the court. But on its own, speech no matter how vile or hateful, appears not to be covered by the law.

My point was, that there are some forms of speech that while not illegal, should be recognized as very harmful and reasonable people should take that into consideration before exercising their 'right' to use it.

Iow, we should not need laws to tell us as responsible people, that it isn't always advisable to exercise rights depending on the circumstances.

Thanks for your comment, Rex.

[Yo_Mama]

84. Yes, I agree strongly with the post you want to ignore.

The only reason you think this is that we do have strong pretty widely recognized prohibitions on government speech censorship, so the only time it even becomes controversial is when genuinely disgusting people say genuinely acutely disgusting things.

If we didn't, the real nature of the dilemma would become clear to you as half the elected officials in the land (many of them having police departments or others with police powers under their control) abruptly decided that hate speech in the current election cycle was pointing out how they had voted or the appearance of conflict of interests in their votes.

Only be defending the rights of these sad failures of human potential can we defend your right, or the right of the local citizen, to speak freely on matters of public interest.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

100. Only two kinds of people will forcefully contest allegations against them -- the Guilty and

the Innocent.

[Rex]

99. Who is this 'they' that is coming for us eventually? Don't you realize how silly that sounds?

It was good up til you started in with the rhetoric. Totally agree with your first sentence.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

106. Not from a UK perspective, it doesn't.

"Hate speech" laws here in the UK are arguably too tight already, and there's pressure to tighten them.

If you haven't heard of him, look up Paul Chambers - not exactly a hate speech case, but indicative of the same malady.

[Turborama]

4. Anyone else who wants to add themselves to the list join the queue and sign up... nt

[Turborama]

6. Next?

[cheapdate]

8. Sign me up, please.

Haters are joined by civil libertarians of all stripes in arguing for the most expansive possible application of free speech. The ACLU are the hater's best friend and mine.

[Turborama]

9. Sure, bye! n/t

[ChosenUnWisely]

5. Bunk, free speech is free speech, no matter how much it offends someone

I will defend the right of any speech, no matter vile

In fact the more disgusting the better makes life more interesting.

[sabrina 1]

27. So, if you walked into the home of an abused woman and heard her spouse

verbally abusing her, you would tell her 'listen, nothing you can do about this, I am here to defend his right to continue verbally abusing you and the kids because, 'free speech' no matter how vile etc.

[NuclearDem]

33. What ridiculous strawman bullshit.

[sabrina 1]

38. Speech is speech is what I am hearing here. Even the most vile 'must be protected'.

It certainly is not a strawman to try to find out if there is any limit at all on speech. So far I am not getting many answers, see your comment eg.

[NuclearDem]

44. Protection against state censorship is not the same as privately condoning or accepting.

[TheKentuckian]

48. It is bizarre folks have such difficulty with this concept.

[Yo_Mama]

85. The guarantee of free speech protects the citizens against the government - you don't make sense.

The remedy for such a woman is to get herself and the kids outta there!

And for private citizens, speech may sometimes amount to a crime but only under limited and highly defined circumstances. It is not the government's role to enter into private relationships and censure the speech or lack thereof between adults.

Times when speech amounts to criminal behavior can include stalking, harassment, slander and libel, just for starters.

[ChosenUnWisely]

87. I would tell the woman to get out, get a gun and shoot his ass dead if he touches her or the kids

That is what I would tell her.

Any other questions?

[sabrina 1]

92. But he can verbally abuse her so long as he doesn't touch her? Okay, that's all I wanted

to know. That speech is protected?

[ChosenUnWisely]

119. I did not say that, she is in an abusive relationship with a psycho

I advised to get the F out of the situation and protect her self.

[X_Digger]

10. Popular speech needs no protection- it's popular.

Now when it's your speech that someone else deems unpopular? You might suddenly get the point.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. DU and Democrats already protected hateful speech aggressively when Rick Warren was anointed

as Inaugural Minister a few days after he'd denigrated LGBT people as criminals, pedophiles and like those who commit incest. Also when Donnie McClurkin served as Obama's surrogate after declaring 'war' on LGBT people and saying we are trying to kill Christian children.
We could review some threads on those subjects which very clearly show the bulk of DU stating that any objection to officially presented, clearly spoken bigotry and denigration of a minority is simply 'poutrage' and 'wanting a pony'.

So once a group has decided to stand with name calling hate preachers a few times over, it is a bit late for those people to suddenly claim they 'always oppose any denigrating language'. Because they have often supported such language, and those who did not support it downplayed it, dismissed the importance of it and most certainly expected LGBT people to accept all insults without comment.
So folks who suddenly have empathy for insulted murderers who had no empathy for innocent insulted LGBT people are hypocrites of the first degree.

[wavesofeuphoria]

23. !!! +1

[sibelian]

29. I LESS THAN THREE YOU.

I <3 U

(BNW)

[treestar]

91. Yes, everyone has free speech

The only opposition is more speech.

There's not going to be any criminal punishment for it in this country.

[MohRokTah]

12. Bullshit.

The most hateful, despicable, and offensive speech of all enjoys the same freedom as the most popular speech.

And fuck anybody who would defend popular speech while attempting to suppress hate speech, because those are the true tyrants and despots that will lead down the road to ruin.

[sabrina 1]

40. Let me ask you then, verbal abuse of a spouse in a home where domestic abuse is

prevalent, that would fit the 'most hateful, despicable, and offensive speech of all' category. Is that also protected speech?

[TheKentuckian]

53. Sure, what government definitions and sanctions do you want to set on verbal abuse?

[sabrina 1]

58. I don't want anything, I just want to know what recourse those who are victims of

verbal abuse have. So far, it appears they simply have to 'suck it up'. Not just abused spouses but Gays and other minorities.

We have the right to do many things, I'm assuming no one here is saying the just because we have those rights we should use them.

However that isn't clear in some of the statements I am seeing here.

[TheKentuckian]

59. If the discussion isn't the right then what is the point? We've left policy behind and I've lost the

plot to what "politics" are being discussed.

The victims of verbal abuse have the option of firing back in kind, ignoring the abuser, or leaving the situation I guess, what do you want their options to be? Clearly, we don't want people abused but there is no magic, we deal with our problems via the law and I don't see what there is to be done about it other than as previously prescribed.

[TransitJohn]

13. Jesus Tittyfucking Christ.

Are you talking about Charlie Hebdo, I assume? If so, one of the worst OPs yet on the subject. Congratulations.

[Coventina]

56. You made me LOL!

[PeaceNikki]

15. Like the ACLU?

[Turborama]

17. It's mostly hateful people who try to protect "hate speech".

I strongly stand by this statement.

Anyone who wants to disagree is welcome to bring it.

[Nye Bevan]

28. Do you consider the ACLU to be "hateful people"? (nt)

[branford]

71. Read up on the ACLU's representation of the Nazi's in Skokie, IL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

We don't need protections for popular speech. We defend purported "hate speech" (however you define it) because doing so protects us all. Never forget that those in power might not always share classically liberal views, and "hate speech" could easily be defined as left-wing views like communist or socialist ideology or matters like support for same-sex marriage.

If you believe only hateful people defend the right to offend or hate (as contrasted with actual agreement with the message itself), you're going to have to ignore most of your fellow Americans, both on the right and most definitely the left.

Again, if you truly oppose the fundamental free speech axiom, ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," I will proudly welcome you adding me to your ignore list.

[GGJohn]

75. Pure horsehockey.

I'm not hateful at all and I strongly agree that hate speech is protected speech, no matter how vile it is.

[el_bryanto]

18. We should set you as a new pope of free speech - then you can tell us what speech

is acceptable free speech and what speech is hate speech and therefore banned.


Bryant

[Turborama]

43. OK

Let's talk salary...

[Nye Bevan]

24. Those hateful folks at the ACLU, defending the right of the KKK to march (nt)

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. "However" is the rich cousin of "but" nt

[Avalux]

26. This is a joke, right? Your little 'quote' doesn't even make sense. n/t

[Turborama]

35. Which part don't you get?

Let me know and I'll try and explain it to you.

[Avalux]

61. All of it. Go for it, blow my mind. n/t

[Turborama]

67. LOL. All I can say to that is...

See my edit of the OP.

[tularetom]

36. I'd have to know who you're talking about before I respond

[dissentient]

41. I consider people who defend free speech to be true patriots

hateful people are the ones who want to roll back or limit freedoms.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

46. If it's "mostly" hateful people, who do you feel are the remaining people?

[Turborama]

49. Other than the hateful? Absolutists, of course.

You know, black and white thinkers.

[Basic LA]

51. Hate speech

Racial stereotypes, in grotesque drawings that foster hate against powerless minorities is not something to defend. It's not satire. It's bigotry. Those who foster it are not 'journalists.' Hate speech is a you-know-it-when-you-see-it affront to free speech, & unlike satire, it always punches down.

[Turborama]

54. Thank you! One would have thought this is a normal conclusion in these parts.

Apparently not, though. Sadly.

[sabrina 1]

62. What's amusing is the same people who are jumping on the 'defend all speech no matter how vile'

bandwagon, support the silencing of journalists and Whistle Blowers and depending on who the 'hate speech' is aimed at, clearly it's okay when Muslims are the target, but make it against those they identify with and see what happens.

[GGJohn]

76. Funny thing is that no one here is defending the hate,

we're defending the right to say it, big difference.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

101. "against powerless minorities"

What does that look like in matters of law? To me it looks like one group is singled out for prosecution while other groups are given license. If so then the whole "powerless" point suddenly evaporates.

[Neon Gods]

55. I'm trying to unpack this

It appears that you support free speech. It appears that you don't believe hate speech should be considered free speech and that those who believe it should be considered free speech are mostly hateful people. Before I can decide if I agree I need to know your definition of hateful people. I hate injustice. Does this make me a hateful person?

[LWolf]

57. Define "hate speech."

I've seen it described quite differently here at DU, let alone out in the general public.

[Major Hogwash]

68. Hahaha!!!

Hate speech?
Where?
Why here at the little ol' DU, that's where!

Love the picture.
What is the turtle wearing, a cozy?
What the fuck is that?

[kiva]

69. Protect it from whom?

From government control? Sign me up, I'm defending it.

From protesters and boycotts and civil litigation? Nope - you say it, you take the consequences.

I defend the right - defined by me as the right not to be prosecuted by the government - of people to have free speech. That does not mean there won't be consequences for that speech, but death by crazed religious fanatics shouldn't be one of those consequences.

I also recognize that other governments have different limitations, such as Germany's law against speech that incites popular hatred.

So I guess you could put me on your list, if it makes you feel better.

[99Forever]

70. Not even close.

[merrily]

77. Who are these hateful people trying to protect free speech? The Framers, ACLU, lawyers, judges?

Skinner, who has gone to court over it, on behalf of DU? Your fellow DUers?

Seems to me that the really hateful people in the CA scenario were the killers, not the slaughtered cartoonists or the people murdered for trying to earn a living by running a kosher food store.

Maybe a different kind of OP would have elicited a different kind of response?

[Humanist_Activist]

79. Define "hate speech", is what the Pope said about same-sex marriage threatening...

the family hate speech?

I would say it does qualify, but I also support free speech, and if you know anything about my personal feelings towards that guy, I think he's a misogynistic, homophobic asshole.

[Iggo]

94. Trying to protect free speech is all very well and good. (n/t)

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

103. The more hateful the speech the stronger I will defend it...

One person's hate speech is another's platform.

This isnt complicated, why do you think the ACLU defended the Nazi party?

Because they agreed with them?

Hell no, but agreement wasnt part of the problem.

[GGJohn]

109. +1000. eom

[chrisa]

114. Is the ACLU a bunch of hateful people then?