Breath of the Beast has a new one up. This one's a little more controversial. While I agree with the author in spirit, and don't generally think much of the ACLU these days, I'm not sure I agree with him completely in the example he cites, although I understand the spirit of what he's trying to convey. The piece is well worth a shufty, though.
Thanks once again-
I know what you mean about not agreeing completely. I have that same reaction when I read what I wrote. I am reaching for something subtle here and I know I have not quite hit it. Maybe I am wrong but I think we have to have more faith in the system and each other in some ways. Just reiterate, t I am still 100% in favor of freedom of speech. I advanced the example that I did exactly because it strikes such a balance. The ACLU, in insisting that the government can't pick and choose, ignores the ancient exception of "advocating the violent overthrow of the government" and the newer "hate Speech" exception. If the Skokie march, intentionally targeting holocaust survivors, is not hate speech then I must have missed something important.
My point here is that any government could use either of those exceptions to outlaw almost anything. After all, neo-Nazis, anarchists and Communists, by definition are all advocating the overthrow of our system. What keeps that kind of thing in balance is not so much the activities of the ACLU (although they do serve a purpose in some cases) but the inherent checks and balances built into our system of government. The mutual contract shared by citizens of a free republic is more of a binding force than the law that underlies it. I think that the ACLU is tone deaf and so gets in the way of that process more than it helps.
Best Regards,
YBM
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Thanks once again-
I know what you mean about not agreeing completely. I have that same reaction when I read what I wrote. I am reaching for something subtle here and I know I have not quite hit it. Maybe I am wrong but I think we have to have more faith in the system and each other in some ways. Just reiterate, t I am still 100% in favor of freedom of speech. I advanced the example that I did exactly because it strikes such a balance. The ACLU, in insisting that the government can't pick and choose, ignores the ancient exception of "advocating the violent overthrow of the government" and the newer "hate Speech" exception. If the Skokie march, intentionally targeting holocaust survivors, is not hate speech then I must have missed something important.
My point here is that any government could use either of those exceptions to outlaw almost anything. After all, neo-Nazis, anarchists and Communists, by definition are all advocating the overthrow of our system. What keeps that kind of thing in balance is not so much the activities of the ACLU (although they do serve a purpose in some cases) but the inherent checks and balances built into our system of government. The mutual contract shared by citizens of a free republic is more of a binding force than the law that underlies it. I think that the ACLU is tone deaf and so gets in the way of that process more than it helps.
Best Regards,
YBM