ACLU of Ohio Makes an Old Mistake
File this email from the ACLU of Ohio under the ‘should have known better’ category:
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.�
We wish to inform you that this bedrock principle—and fundamental Constitutional right—is once again being put to the test in our own state. We share this message with a mixture of pride in our convictions and sadness over the circumstances.
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.
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.
We know that it is hard for you, as residents of the greater Cincinnati area, to have such turmoil in your community. It is hard for us at the ACLU of Ohio to defend the rights of this group, whose message of intolerance and hate we do not endorse but rather speak out against in our own work. We believe that the proper response to speech is more speech, rather than limiting or eliminating the opportunities for groups to express their views. We recognize that curtailing the rights of a group based on their views can set a dangerous precedent. Such limits ultimately jeopardize the rights of all of us.
The principles of the First Amendment are indivisible. In a nation of laws, the rights established necessarily apply to all. Extend those rights to one group and they protect all groups; deny them to one group, and all groups suffer. We cannot remain faithful to the First Amendment by turning our backs when it is put to its severest test.
As a supporter of the ACLU, you have an appreciation for the complex values presented by our client’s case. We ask that you give the same thoughtful consideration to this situation as you do to so many others defended by the ACLU of Ohio. We ask the entire membership of the ACLU of Ohio for its support as we stand by this fundamental principle.
Sincerely,
Christine Link,
Executive Director
opinions powered by SendLove.to
66 Responses to “ACLU of Ohio Makes an Old Mistake”
So where is Bill White’s posting? There’s less “toleration” here apparently than in Cincinnati. I thought Mr. White was quite revealing and instructive, actually.
Of course!
In accordance with TMV’s posted policy on comments, one of the editors deleted Bill White’s post.
The government won’t protect you from the government. That’s where the ACLU comes in.
[...] 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. [...]
Holly said:
> Of course!
Was this a reply to the following?
“Like gun owners and Christians, for example?”
Those people are examples of those who obviously do not get equal rights or defense of their rights by the ACLU.
> In accordance with TMV’s posted policy
> on comments, one of the editors deleted
> Bill White’s post.
It’s your right as one of the editors. *wink*
I thought overall it was less bad than what else could have been posted, and it possessed some “educational” quality to it (insight about the poster).
Chris said:
> The government won’t protect you from
> the government. That’s where the ACLU
> comes in.
The ACLU doesn’t protect, but often attacks citizens and government to advance its political agenda.
If anything, we need to be protected by government from the ACLU.
It’s no surprise that a backlash cottage industry has spring up on-line due to ACLU mischief.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/
http://www.acluvsamerica.com/main/default.aspx
> Like gun owners and Christians, for example?
Or white lacrosse players? *GRIN*
The government won’t protect you from the government. That’s where the ACLU comes in.
That’s where the 2nd amendment comes in!
I’d say both gun owners AND Christians are well-protected by the ACLU.
Larry Flynt famously said to a group of reporters outside the Supreme Court, “If the First Amendment protects a scumbag like me, just think what it does for you.”
It’s all about precedent.
Sure the Neo-Nazis are repugnant. I wish they wouldn’t be there. But the thing of it is, any argument that is used to legally suppress them can — and will — be used to silence someone else. And then it will be broadened a little to silence some other group. and then all the groups that people want to get rid of will be gone, and everyone will be happy … and then they’ll decide that this other group needs to go, and the arguments will be dusted off and tweaked a little …
Laws undergo mission creep. When the USA PATRIOT Act was up for renewal, one of the arguments was that its provisions were useful in fighting the drug war. Mission creep in action, and a sure sign that the supposedly temporary provisions of USA PATRIOT Act will be with us for good. It takes constant action and constant watchfulness to prevent that, and constant preparedness of citizens (government officials sure won’t do it) to cry foul.
No matter how repugnant, no matter how appalling, if any group’s right to speak and assemble (within the Supreme Court’s rulings on the permissible restrictions in the name of public safety) is threatened, every group’s right to speak and assemble is threatened. If public offence is held up as a sufficient criterion for preventing the ANSWP from marching, the precedent is set and who will stop a coalition of Christian Right organisations from getting a Pride march banned as offensive to public sentiment? And if enough anti-gun people are banded together in some city, maybe the NRA can legally be run out of town. It’s precisely with organisations like the ANSWP — little distasteful things that nobody wants to defend — that this kind of disastrous precedent gets set with. And so the ACLU takes up the thankless dirty job of protecting the rest of us by protecting the people nobody wants to protect. And people want to dump on it? They wish it away now, in ten or fifteen years they may be wishing it was there to protect them.
Many people deride the ACLU as liberal, but there’s a famous right-wing quote that applies perfectly to its mission: “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Or has eternal vigilance of the citizenry over government become somehow un-American? If it has, America is a dead myth and our Constitution is just a piece of paper.
[...] Read the rest of it here. [...]
Jammer,
True – if ACLU were as diligent at protecting freedom of religion as well as freedom of speech. They consistently tear down freedom of religion – even when freedom of speech is also involved.
Sam,
Recall the case of the ACLU shutting the Microphone off on a valedictorian who was delivering her speech and referenced god in her ambitions & her inspiration. Theres no public funding there at all and they specifically targeted shutting down free speech in order to shut down her freedom of religion. When I asked the ACLU would not defend their position, they simply responded saying it was their position.
There are times that the ACLU is good – I do support their supporting a pro-nazi march. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the ACLU striking down one portion of the bill of rights in favor of another.
[...] 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: [...]
[...] 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: [...]
And so the ACLU takes up the thankless dirty job of protecting the rest of us by protecting the people nobody wants to protect.
Kim Moon you presume that in the absence of the ACLU that there would be no one to watch over our rights. That no one would care. That the USA would slip into whatever it is you think they will slip into.
BS there are 10,000,000 lawyers just waiting to take on causes. Get paid well like the ACLU does for taking on these supposed “Disgustful cases.”
The ACLU is self appointed to determine which rights pay well and which rights dont. They rarely take on a case if they think they are going to lose. Why is that you suppose?
Why money of course. They get to collect huge sums of money for their diligent Rights oversight. Notice they are nearly always suing the government.
Nice speech but the ACLU is nothing more then what they are “Cherry pickers with the goal of communist America.” That which you fear the USA will slip into without the ACLU oversight is exactly that which the founder of the ACLU wanted for his organization and for America.
[...] 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: [...]