The ACLU has been backing away from free speech in areas where it could impact marginalized communities. A memo was recently leaked showing that not only will they take "special consideration" when dealing with certain speech but they won't support being armed at a rally either.It would seem that based on the rhetoric the ACLU is pushing far left talking points and actually stating they must consider whether defending absolute free speech is worth it. They claim to defend the constitution but would back away from the first amendment and the second amendment.What happened and why is the ACLU backing away from free speech?SUPPORT JOURNALISM. Become a patron athttp://www.patreon.com/TimcastSupport the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The ACLU is no longer the American Civil Liberties Union.
They are not fighting for civil liberties.
They are fighting for one political faction's ideology and using the Constitution to defend that.
Why?
In my opinion, because they've made a fuckload of money doing it.
Pardon my French.
But that's what we saw last year.
And seeing them back away from their principles is absolutely disgusting.
Before we get started, make sure you head over to patreon.com forward slash Timcast.
Doing this work is costly, it's expensive, it's my full-time job.
And I really do rely on the support of all of you who watch in order to keep doing this.
So if you really do appreciate my videos and want to see me do more reporting and on-the-ground reporting, please consider becoming a patron today.
From Reason!
Leaked internal memo reveals the ACLU is wavering on free speech.
Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed.
The American Civil Liberties Union will weigh its interest in protecting the First Amendment against its other commitments to social justice, racial equality, and women's rights, given the possibility that offensive speech might undermine ACLU goals.
Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed, wrote ACLU staffers in a confidential memo obtained by former board member Wendy Kaminer.
Reason says, it's hard to see this as anything other than a cowardly retreat from a full-throated defense of the First Amendment.
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, Values.
Structural inequality.
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 structure
and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur."
Values, structural inequality, rhetoric often used by the far left.
Let's take a look at some of the history of the ACLU to understand how this is a dramatic
From their own website, 1978, taking a stand for free speech in Skokie, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie, where many Holocaust survivors lived.
The notoriety of the case cost the ACLU dearly as members left in droves, but to many it was our finest hour, and it has come to represent our unwavering commitment to principle.
On their website it says, The ACLU is frequently asked to explain its defense of
certain people or groups, particularly controversial and unpopular entities such as the American
Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Nation of Islam.
We do not defend them because we agree with them.
Rather, we defend their right to free expression and free assembly.
And in their drop down menu it says, For almost 100 years, the ACLU has worked to defend and
preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws
of the United States.
So something has changed, and I'm going to lay out exactly what has changed.
Before I do, let's take a look at this memo and read exactly what the ACLU has planned for free speech and the right to bear arms.
In the memo, there's a section called Considerations Specific to Speech Cases.
In carrying out the ACLU's commitment to defend freedom of speech, a number of specific considerations may arise.
We emphasize that in keeping with our commitment to advancing free speech for all, these are neutral principles that apply to all speakers, irrespective of the speaker's particular political views.
The first paragraph I actually can agree with says whether the speaker seeks to engage in or promote violence.
Yes, inciting violence is not defensible.
It's actually, it's a crime.
It's not free speech.
However, below this we see whether the speakers seek to carry weapons.
The presence of weapons can be intimidating and inimical to the free exchange of ideas.
They can chill speech and justify state suppression of protest.
Accordingly, the ACLU generally will not represent protesters who seek to march while armed.
What about people who are protesting for their right to bear arms, which is the Second Amendment, which the ACLU claims to defend the rights guaranteed to the Constitution?
They're now saying they will not defend people if they plan to protest while armed, and I can understand that to an extent.
Because of what we saw in Charlottesville, we see people showing up with weapons and clubs, etc.
However, We have a right to bear arms in this country, and so it's a difficult situation, I would imagine, but the ACLU has taken the side of opposing the Constitution in this matter.
The people have a right to bear arms.
The ACLU will not defend you if you decide to.
And just below that, it says, and the impact of its suppression.
The paragraph is rather long-winded, but it does say, as an organization equally committed to free speech and
equality, we should make every effort to consider the consequences of
our actions for constitutional law, for the community in which the speech will occur,
and for the speaker and others whose speech might be suppressed in the future.
This is a very typical far-left talking point.
Most people on the moderate left and right agree with free speech, but the far-left believes that speech, free speech, can actually be violence against marginalized communities.
It can actually seek to suppress the speech of minority groups, and that is a fringe position the ACLU is now parroting.
And to give you an example that the rhetoric goes beyond just this memo, we saw this post from David Cole, August 24th, 2017, on the ACLU website, Why We Must Defend Free Speech.
At the bottom of the article he says, tolerating such speech reinforces harms that this nation
has done to African Americans from slavery through Jim Crow to today's de facto
segregation, implicit bias, and structural discrimination.
And still, others argue that while it might have made sense to tolerate Nazis marching in Skokie in 1978, now, when white supremacists have a friend in the president himself, the power and influence they wield justify a different approach.
Once again, far-left rhetoric.
Because your average person on the left, your average person walking around in New York City in Times Square, doesn't believe these things.
So why is it that the ACLU is now parroting far-left rhetoric?
Well, now I'm gonna tell you why.
From the New York Post, January 30th, 2017, the ACLU gets record donations after Trump's immigration ban.
The American Civil Liberties Union has broken its fundraising records after receiving millions of donations in response to backlash over President Trump's executive order banning people from seven majority Muslim countries from entering the U.S., according to reports.
The non-profit organization raked in a total of $24 million from more than 350,000 donors since Saturday.
On average, the ACLU raises about $4 million online per year, said Romero, whose organization and other legal groups sued the White House on behalf of two Iraqi men who were detained at the JFK airport after arriving Friday.
So there you have it.
They typically would raise $4 million.
But after opposing Donald Trump's moratorium on travel from these certain countries, they received $24 million.
Six times the amount they normally made in a single campaign in only a few days.
That says a lot to people who work at the ACLU.
Obviously, the people who are donating to the ACLU are the resistance.
People who oppose Donald Trump, people who believe that we're now living under fascists.
And as we saw from the sentence from David Cole on the ACLU website, he actually thinks that Donald Trump is a friend to white supremacists.
Now I'm not going to argue whether or not he is or isn't, but simply that that is a far-left talking point that is now being repeated by the ACLU, unsurprisingly, only a few months after they received record donations from this political faction.
So what happened after this that made the ACLU double down on backing away from free speech?
Charlottesville happened, and the ACLU defended the right of the organizers to have their event.
Something that caused great backlash for the ACLU when they were forced to defend supporting Unite the Right.
Following Charlottesville, we saw this story from Vox.
Why the ACLU is adjusting its approach to free speech after Charlottesville.
The ACLU positioned itself to lead the resistance.
Now, its deepest traditions could be at stake.
It starts with the quote.
The ACLU has blood on its hands.
It was not uncommon sentiment in the wake of last week's Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, in which 32-year-old Heather Heyer was killed, allegedly at the hands of white supremacist James Alex Fields Jr., and far-right activists assaulted and intimidated counter protesters.
The ACLU had sued the city of Charlottesville to allow the Unite the Right rally to happen downtown and now it had happened and blood had been spilled.
The ACLU rebranded itself for the resistance and now it's reaping the backlash.
By February, the organization had raised $79 million since the election from 1 million donors.
Its membership had more than doubled, but along with that flood of support came the expectation that the ACLU actually do something with it and become a resistance leader.
They doubled their donors.
They broke fundraising records.
And now the ACLU is doubling down on joining the resistance, a political ideology.
They are espousing rhetoric typically associated with the far left, not with defending civil liberties.
The ACLU is no longer the American Civil Liberties Union.
They are not fighting for civil liberties.
They're fighting for one political faction's ideology and using the Constitution to defend that.
Why?
In my opinion, because they've made a fuckload of money doing it.
Pardon my French.
But that's what we saw last year.
And seeing them back away from their principles is absolutely disgusting.
Too many people are spineless.
You want to donate money to me and then get mad when I put out a video that disagrees with your opinion so then you complain to me about how I was wrong and how I don't deserve your donation?
Then fine!
Take your money and leave.
I don't want it.
When you donate to me for the work I do, the only guarantee you have is that I'm going to do what I think is right.
That I'm going to uphold my principles.
And I damn well will uphold the right to free speech And our goddamn Constitution.
Because without that, what do we really have?
The people advocating for the removal of free speech protections, the people who are advocating for hate speech law, don't realize that they will come next because we are already seeing examples of it now.
When they talk about hate speech against protected groups and then Facebook enacts a policy that white men are a protected group, they freak out.
This story back in December.
Facebook bans women for saying mean things about men.
The story says, This means derogatory comments about white men aren't allowed on the service, as both race and gender are protected.
While derogatory comments about women drivers and black children are, thus saying, all men are scum would be technically against Facebook's policies.
These are the policies that you advocate for.
And it's why we need groups that are willing to stand up for the Bill of Rights and stand up for civil liberties.
Because the government will waste no time in taking away your right to speech the moment you demand they take it away from someone else.
And what's particularly baffling about all of this is that the current power structure, the president, his administration, they're the people supposedly at odds with the resistance.
So why would the resistance fight to empower the government, which is currently operating under the Trump administration?
Why would you advocate taking guns away from people if you're scared of a fascist takeover from Donald Trump?
Why would you advocate the removal of free speech if Trump is in office and the executive branch will just say, okay, no more free speech.
Yours is the first to go.
As far as I'm concerned at this point, it would seem the ACLU is compromised.
I view them as another progressive, ideological organization that does not seek to guarantee civil liberties for all people, just for those that align with its faction, and just for those who are lining its pockets with gold.
Because again, record fundraising.
$79 million since the election, doubling their membership.
Is it any surprise they're taking this position?
I don't think it is.
But let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
Am I wrong here?
You know, I'm a little heated because I feel so strongly about the right to free expression.
It's absolutely paramount.
And the ACLU has faltered on this.
The one thing that really annoys me the most about
