FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: dpareja on August 13, 2017, 05:13:13 pm
-
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/how-could-you-represent-someone-milo-yiannopoulos
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/first-amendment-literally-banned-dc
The ACLU (along with the ACLU of DC and the ACLU of Virginia) is filing suit against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority over their rejection of ads from the ACLU, Carafem, PETA, and Milo Yiannopoulos.
The rejected ads are pictured here:
(https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/blog_main_wide_580x384/public/field_image/web17-1stamend-1160x768.jpg?itok=VQbz4DQW)
Note that the ACLU also ran their ad featuring the First Amendment translated into Spanish and Arabic, and there were three other versions of Yiannopoulos' ad, each with a different quote about him. Note that while the ACLU, Carafem, and PETA ads were rejected outright, Yiannopoulos' ad was only taken down (and a full refund issued) after ten days and rider complaints.
To this, all I can say is that this is exactly the correct position. Free speech is for everyone--no matter who's offended by it.
-
Yeah leave it up, ads for Milo's book are more like a career epitaph at this point.
-
Well, what has a lot of people butthurt about this is that the ACLU made it known that they would be leading the charge against all the unconstitutional bullshit they expected the Trump administration to do.
So a lot of anti-Trump types donated to them.
And then the ACLU is defending Milo Yiannopoulos.
And those same donors are angry about that.
Hacks.
-
But choosing to not accept an ad isn't passing a law against it being said/punishing someone for their speech. Are they not giving you their platform? Sure. But that's more than a little different than arresting someone for saying it. I don't think the ACLU has a leg to stand on here.
-
But choosing to not accept an ad isn't passing a law against it being said/punishing someone for their speech. Are they not giving you their platform? Sure. But that's more than a little different than arresting someone for saying it. I don't think the ACLU has a leg to stand on here.
But WMATA's policy is as subject to the First Amendment as any law. They are, as a government agency, obligated to allow any speech outside of those few matters that the courts allow the government to criminalize.
-
Yeah can't say that I'm surprised. It's a First Amendment issue and the ACLU has always been at the forefront of that.
Ironbite-as they should be.
-
Anybody shocked or outraged by this clearly doesn't know the stance of the ACLU. They've helped protect the free speech of Westboro Baptist and actual Nazis organizing actual Nazi marches before. And I wouldn't have it any other way really. They protect shitheads just as much as the rest of us as long as everyone involved is within an equal legal framework.
If the government and society was ever was completely overrun by say, a bunch of fundies that think Atheist or "evolutionist" people posting ads, holding rallies, or whatever was hatred against Christianity the ACLU would (and should) protect us from overreach.
The only time that there should be intervention is if it gets violent or someone encourages other people to commit acts of violence against innocents or political opposition like there has been recently in Charlottesville with that White Nationalist who ran people over and the night before that when the rest of his gang started punching the people counter-protesting.