The ACLU and the Nazi Stance

Nazism, the restraining, abolishment or defending of it, is a very current issue. Below are two differing views of an ACLU stance in the works right now.

ACLU Defending Nazis Again

ACLU to Defend Nazis Again

1) ACLU defending Nazis again
by cao @ 3:28 am. Filed under ACLU
Shortly after I graduated High School in 1977, the ACLU defended the American Nazi Party here in Skokie when they wanted to march there. I felt that was an rude and audacious move, since so many holocaust survivors and their families live in Skokie; I’ve met some of them, and seen their tattoos from the concentration camps of Auschwitz, Bergen Belzen, and others.

The Captain has a post referring to that old debacle, plus a more recent one here:

The ACLU lost a number of members in 1977 when they defended the American Nazi Party when they wanted to stage a demonstration in the town of Skokie, Illinois — a city where a number of Holocaust victims and their families had settled. Over 30,000 ACLU members staged a demonstration of their own when they marched out of the organization, even after the ACLU won the case, and even though the Nazis never did march in Skokie.

It was disgusting! I was watching the news coverage over that then. The idea of these people marching through the streets of holocaust victims and their families was infuriating. The fact that the ACLU propped their right to do it, completely ignorant of the shattered lives and feelings of these people went beyond bad taste and crossed the line.

Thirty years later, the ACLU proves that they have not learned their lesson. The Ohio chapter has agreed to represent the American Nazi Party again in a conflict over a demonstration permit, this time in a predominantly black neighborhood in Cincinnati. Holly at The Moderate Voice shares the e-mail:

On April 20, 2007, the American National Socialist Workers Party of Roanoke, VA—a neo-Nazi group—plans to march through the predominantly African-American neighborhood of Over-the-Rhine in Cincinnati. The city initially issued a permit to the group for its march, but the permit was soon revoked and prohibitions were added by city officials limiting the group’s demonstration to a three-block area. Believing their constitutional rights to free speech and free assembly have been violated, the ACLU of Ohio will be defending the demonstrators.

This looks to me like a call to Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and seems timely because of the Don Imus firing over racism. In their world, you’re a racist if you’re white! To me, you’re a racist if you’re a leftist. If these people are allowed to do this, Don Imus should be reinstated.

The ACLU condemns violent action and supports its prevention. Yet we also believe that our government must allow citizens their unhindered right to free speech. The City of Cincinnati should stand behind this basic freedom while taking steps to ensure a peaceful demonstration.

As in previous cases where the ACLU has come to the defense of people or groups with whom we disagree, our position is rooted in certain fundamental principles. While we in no way endorse the views of the American National Socialist Workers Party, we believe that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and press would be meaningless if the government could pick and choose the persons to whom they apply.

I think the American National Socialist Workers Party is seeking our destruction, and I’m not sure that ‘allowing their freedom of speech’ is something anyone should sanction or approve.

I agree that the government should not be in the business of determining the acceptability of political speech. I would not want to have to get permission to hold a public assembly that hinges on the political content of the speech for myself, and I would want government have the same approach for others as well.

However, that isn’t what has happened in Over-The-Rhine, at least judging by the ACLU’s description. The city did revoke their permit, but then apparently issued another that gives them three blocks in which to demonstrate. That does not sound like an overwhelming burden for the Nazis to meet, and it does not keep them from conducting their protest. They’re not being stopped from demonstrating; they want to complain because of the boundaries placed on their protest, even though such permits routinely impose boundaries on demonstrations.

That’s interesting…during the DNC, there was a place for protesters to protest, but it was surrounded by a fence, outside of the view of media cameras. Although many people showed up to demonstrate, the media didn’t cover it. It will be interesting to see how much coverage the Nazis get.

The ACLU will put themselves in the position of arguing that the city of Cincinnati has no authority to determine the geographical boundaries for a protest — on behalf of a group that would, if given the chance, strip everyone of the right to demonstrate in any form at all. They do so even though they have no requirement to represent Nazis; the Nazis could hire their own lawyers to handle this case, and unfortunately they can probably afford it, too. The ACLU has determined that they can get a lot of publicity for their flacking on behalf of Nazis, and have climbed into bed with racists as a result. They’re doing nothing more than unnecessarily enabling the Nazis.

Indiana Jones once said, “I hate these guys.” In this context, it would be difficult to determine which group he would have meant.

The ACLU’s support of Islamic terrorists has become quite apparent over the past few years, why should this reminder come as a surprise to anyone? The ACLU is about destroying the spirit of the laws we have in place to convict and put away criminals to make America safe; and to prop the rights of NAMBLA, felons, drug dealers and murderers – not to mention the fascists that want to attack us of the Islamic variety.

2) ACLU To Defend Nazis Again

by JonJayRay @ 2:26 am. Filed under ACLU
We read:

“The ACLU lost a number of members in 1977 when they defended the American Nazi Party when they wanted to stage a demonstration in the town of Skokie, Illinois — a city where a number of Holocaust victims and their families had settled. Over 30,000 ACLU members staged a demonstration of their own when they marched out of the organization, even after the ACLU won the case, and even though the Nazis never did march in Skokie.

Thirty years later, the ACLU proves that they have not learned their lesson. The Ohio chapter has agreed to represent the American Nazi Party again in a conflict over a demonstration permit, this time in a predominantly black neighborhood in Cincinnati.

On April 20, 2007, the American National Socialist Workers Party of Roanoke, VA—a neo-Nazi group—plans to march through the predominantly African-American neighborhood of Over-the-Rhine in Cincinnati. The city initially issued a permit to the group for its march, but the permit was soon revoked and prohibitions were added by city officials limiting the group’s demonstration to a three-block area. Believing their constitutional rights to free speech and free assembly have been violated, the ACLU of Ohio will be defending the demonstrators.

No doubt many readers and bloggers will disagree with me about this but I think the ACLU have got this one right. Free speech is not free speech if you can pick and choose to whom it applies.

I imagine however that the ACLU are just doing it to show how “unbiased” they are. It’s easy to defend groups that are no real threat to you.

(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE , AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

In a comment left at the original post:
loboinok Says:
April 14th, 2007 at 2:53 am e
The only disagreement I would have is, that the city restricted their right to protest but didn’t deny them their right. That restriction was apparently for the safety of the protesters as well as the citizens.

And secondly, the ACLU of Ohio, stated in an email;

Throughout the history of the ACLU, our firm dedication to civil liberties has directed us to defend the rights of all Americans—even, at times, those whose messages we abhor. For nearly a century, we have adhered to Voltaire’s principle that “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

[snip]

As in previous cases where the ACLU has come to the defense of people or groups with whom we disagree, our position is rooted in certain fundamental principles. While we in no way endorse the views of the American National Socialist Workers Party, we believe that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and press would be meaningless if the government could pick and choose the persons to whom they apply.

They defend the rights of ALL Americans, unless you are an anti-abortion protestor, protesting at an abortion mill or a student wearing a t-shirt opposing the “Day of silence”.

To name two.

Permalink for this entry: http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2007/04/aclu-and-nazi-stance.html

Trackback URL for this entry:
http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/3418846984151950605

Technorati Tags: