Why is the ACLU not involved here? This seems to fit the definition of false imprisonment and depriving someone of their civil rights under color of law.
Isn't there a quote somewhere that says "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection"? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
If you are not for the free speech of people you disagree with, then you are simply just not for free speech.
Nazis and the KKK, while they might not quite make calls to violence, know how to word-smith the hatred and grow it, like a verbal "I'm not touching you" kind of thing. They'll make ambiguous statements like claiming they need to deal with the $SLUR problem in the neighborhood.
While I despise Nazis, KKK and the likes from the core of my heart. And while I find the limits on free speech in German law reasonable and well proportioned given our history (for example you are not allowed to deny the holocaust having happened publicly) let me still quote something (translated with DeepL) from somebody who lived through the Third Reich as a victim:
When the Nazis came for the Communists, I kept silent; after all, I was not a Communist.
When they took the trade unionists, I kept silent; I was not a trade unionist.
When they took the Jews, I kept silent; I was not a Jew.
When they took me, there was no one left to protest.
The basic question is, how far is one willing to tolerate intolerance? This is a philosophical as well as an ideological question imho without right/wrong answers.
It is an essential question, meaning people won't budge over it but fight over it. There is no middle ground. One is either on this or on a different side.
As said, while I basically agree with your sentiment, one must accept, that even if I don't like what they say, if a Nazi states the they think all foreigners need to leave the country. And as long as they do not argue for violent action, this is an opinion they need to be allowed to have in a free society.
As also said in some other place, I agree with the German way of prohibiting the public denial of the Shoa or the usage of the Hitler salut. This is punishable by law here as the early democratic German society decided that these were red lines given our history.
But also, while I would argue against it, a Nazi is allowed to hold and voice the opinion, that these laws are repressive.
So I think there are no easy answers, but a society must decide how far they allow free speech and where it draws red lines. This must be part of a democratic process and must be discussed in a public way. And it might be that these red lines move over time.
But I would go far in what is allowed in speech or writing, as I would not want to create precedent that later can be used to censor other groups as well. But that is only my personally held opinion and others should differ on that to enable a healthy debate.
Prolly a good call not to use a quote about Nazi atrocities and how they can't be given an inch to defend the notion that Nazis should be given pro-bono legal defense.
Hardly. It was about standing up for someone regardless of whether you agree with them or not. Had anyone stood up against the atrocious acts in the beginning, they may not have gotten as far.
ie- This isn't about their beliefs, it's about the right to free speech. If no one stands up now, who will be left to stand for you when your time comes.
edit- I once had to take a friend of mine to her abortion appointment. The vitriol screamed at us both (they assumed incorrectly I was the father), was mind-blowing. They brought her to tears, were screaming in her face. It got ugly until I screamed right back. The fury I felt that day was incomprehensible to most people. Literally saw red. Had to comfort my friend afterwards. To me it was evil, spiteful, hateful shit to spew at someone at their lowest and most vulnerable.
They still had the right to spew that garbage.
The times it's hard to swallow can sometimes be the most important.
Civil liberties get trampled every day without adequate legal representation. I don't see how the ACLU no longer going out of their way to defend human scum is such a big blow.
Nice to see this quite wrongly understood quote from Rosa Luxemburg here. Her quote was a hand written notation in the margins of a text and scholars, given the context, come to the conclusion that these words were sarcastically used by her.
On other occasions she clearly spoke against democracy or freedoms for people having other ideologies than herself.
I personally had to learn not to use this quote anymore after discovering the background years ago in a documentary.
I still like the quote, if we take the author out of the picture. The meaning behind the words and the meaning nowadays ascribed to it is absolutely positive imho.
You really believe those are good priorities for pro-bono legal representation when they can just as easily defend individuals and organizations that aren't actively promoting genocide and/or pedophilia?
Honestly, the worst among us are the ones that most need defense against the erosion of their civil rights because not defending them signals that those aren't rights that we care about and won't so much mind if they're taken away from us all
You get on a slippery slope pretty easily here. Just consider how heavily the Overton window moved in these last 10 years - what was baseline liberal in 2010 is often treated as right-wing to borderline fascist today.
Remember that this is the organisation that helped a malicious domestic abuser make malicious defamatory statements in such way they wouldn't be considered defamatory. Should really be no respect left for such evil and vile group of people...
