I mean defending horrible shitty people who are exercising their 1st amendment rights.

The ACLU should defend people who suck ass and another group should defend the heroes who beat their ass for saying awful shit.

▲

ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure. But there's 100 shitty people and you have to pick one or two.

So maybe you pick the anti-ICE protester instead of the Nazi to help out. Both got shot with pepper balls, both had their rights infringed upon. Why not pick the one who isn't a complete ass to establish the same precedent with?

▲

selectodude 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree 100%, I’d rather the ACLU picked their battles and if there’s a choice, not pick a Nazi. But I’m not a huge fan about how they’ve explicitly said they won’t defend hate speech. It’s a betrayal of their original cause.

	▲	ceejayoz 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> But I’m not a huge fan about how they’ve explicitly said they won’t defend hate speech. They've explicitly said the opposite. https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-w... 2023: "We joined Young Americans for Freedom, the Cato Institute, and other unlikely partners in filing an amicus brief on behalf of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression in its challenge to New York’s new law regulating 'hateful conduct' in social media."