sassy_jack

I guess my question is how you all internally deliberate the question of whether hate-speech is a form of violence (which seems to be a progressive belief) and the idea that even the worst hate-speech is protected? It seems like the ACLU of California's press release seems to virtue-signal the former despite the broader belief of the ACLU. Thanks!

How does the ACLU reconcile defending hate speech with first amendment protections (https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-speech) and then state that it's not protected by the first amendment (https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-california-statement-white-supremacist-violence-not-free-speech)? Is there a way for the ACLU to navigate those weird waters where a group of folks think the ACLU is one thing (progressive/defending immigrant rights, fighting Trump) but get disappointed or even angry when the politics don't match up completely with the stated goals of the ACLU?