Sadly, agreed. The ACLU used to be known as a stalwart on this, fighting for the right of the KKK to hold marches etc. The "their speech might be reprehensible, but we need to fight for all free speech" perspective.

Now, they're uninterested in a lot of these issues.

And I say this as someone very liberal.

You can also separately debate where the line is on the topic of say "absolute free speech", but whatever the ACLU used to fight for, it fights for a distinct subset only, now.

▲

watwut 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Why is free speech defined by freedom of nazi and never by freedom for left wing people?

Nazi are popular now and sympatisants are political leaders. It is not their defense what defines freedom, it is everybody elses rights that define lack of it.

▲

bofadeez 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm glad I live in a country where nothing you say or think or do can ever take away my natural right to speak any opinion in a peaceful way. If you don't already have freedom too, I hope someday your government will stop oppressing your people and let them express their opinions in a peaceful way.

▲

watwut 16 hours ago | parent [-]

You dont live in America then. But that was not my question.

My question was while is it ok to silence progressives, feminists, left wing, critics of nazi and still be considered free speech activist while "not actively defending nazi" is excluding you from that.

Your only benchmark for free speech is "are nazi helped enough in their quest to oppress others". You dont care about anybody elses rights.

	▲	bofadeez 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You're confused. Silencing people is the thing 1A protects against. "I'm in favor of gun rights and that's why we need to eliminate the 2A" I don't think you get it lol. Your arguments are not consistent with you understanding the facts. Who do you expect to convince with unapologetc ignorance?

▲

FireBeyond 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am not defining it that way. I am saying that previously, the ACLU fought hard for free speech for both left wing causes and right. i.e., it fought for free speech.

It still fights for free speech for left wing causes, but not for right.

On a deeply personal level? That doesn't overly bother me, because I am fairly far left wing. But it's somewhat antithetical to -their- stated cause, about "protecting all speech, because as soon as you don't protect some, more and more is attacked".

	▲	bofadeez 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This must be the first time as a far left liberal that you had a comment net downvoted just for saying demonstrably true facts? Frustrating huh? That's how it goes here if you don't conform to what others here would prefer to be true.