I hate that groups like the ACLU have to defend nazi scum to protect my liberties. Better that the government not violate our rights in the first place, but in lieu of that, even nazi scum is subject to the same rights and due process as any other citizen. However, I wouldn’t mind if they got pantsed a couple of times by their lawyers.

48 points

The ACLU are savvy litigators and picked a client our Supreme Court might be sympathetic to

permalink
report
reply
37 points

Well, on one-hand, fuck this asshole, who cares?

On the other hand, if this isn’t challenged, it will happen more and more, and to anyone for any reason.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

Exactly. It’s like the saying about how we treat prisoners. Whatever we allow to happen to those lowest in standing is what will be allowed to happen to all of us eventually.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Did you read the article? Obviously not.

The ACLU is involved to challenge one specific motion related to illegal surveillance. They are not providing the defense for a neo-nazi.

So, y’know…maybe read next time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points
*

Wow. You’re telling a blatant lie, then telling me to read the article that disproves it on literally the first paragraph. What’s with liberals telling obvious lies to defend fascism and genocide? I’d genuinely love an explanation, but ig I’ll settle for you calling me a russian plant and a trump supporter for not supporting fascist bullshit like you do

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Removed, civility.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

Making sure nazis have protected liberties is part of what makes us not nazis - but it doesn’t guarantee asshats like that a platform or societal tolerance.

Whatever actions are taken should be within the law.

permalink
report
reply
-12 points

No. Nazis should not have protected liberties because they reject the social contract, therefore they should not be protected by it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

They should have protection of the law. That doesnt mean they dont deserve to be car bombed by the local socialist Redneck for shits and giggles. This is to ensure sympathic fuckwads dont cry foul or turn it on far less egregious groups.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

So we can class them as a specific subgroup that we’re allowed to mistreat and don’t have the same rights as everyone else? We could make them wear little badges.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Yeah, it’s called “felons”, “inmates”, “incarcerated individuals”. All those J6 guys who are locked up got little numbers on their shirts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Having a belief is not voiding the social contract. Acting on that belief, is.

Christians can believe that a new Crsuade against satanists and Muslims and that they should all be killed post haste. But as long as they arent doing anything illegal, the social contract remains intact.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Nazis act on their beliefs by being nazis. Their existence as a continuance of a hate filled group that instigated the holocaust is an act of violence against society.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

This is an odd test case. Not only is the defendant unsympathetic, the circumstances seem to be exactly what section 702 was intended for.

Whatever information was obtained through FISA (if it was), wasn’t used as evidence against this guy. So they can’t even prove that the Nazi was subject to a FISA search, much less that it harmed him.

permalink
report
reply
-14 points

Exactly, it’s just a bunch of hand-wringing libs upset that their Nazi buddies are suffering consequences for their actions. Nothing bad happened here, other than ACLU actively rooting for and supporting Nazi terrorists

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

ROFL! The ACLU is now “rooting for Nazi terrorists”?

Does this have anything to do with that nonsense you posted from 2017 about how the ACLU protected someone’s right to free speech even though they admittedly abhorred what they were saying?

Yeah… that’s called the 1st Amendment. And that prick has all the rights illustrated within it just as you do to say your dumb shit here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Dude what the hell

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

I get a kick out of lawyers doing the right thing despite their convictions or moral objections.

Actually, I was just watching Philadelphia last night. That’s the one where Tom Hanks is gay and has AIDS and Denzel has to defend him for getting fired even though he is morally opposed to “homosexuals” (the ‘in’ term back in the day). Obviously defending a gay and sick man for discrimination is entirely different from defending Nazis, but still, it’s a tangible illustration of Blind Justice.

Best of luck, Nazi shitbag!

permalink
report
reply
-12 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I don’t know how your “people” are but you should know it’s not about defending a person but the rights of all Americans.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Removed, ad hominem, appeal to violence.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-12 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

I like seeing our right to not be spied on being defended, yes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Using examples like this to erode rights is how the nazis got public support to become nazis.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Are you saying people will join a group that committed the holocaust because they wanted to blow up a power grid and the police didn’t check all the right boxes when they found out?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Then the government should have gotten a fucking warrant so there wouldn’t be any grounds to appeal.

You’ll be real sorry the next time a Republican is in office and uses this as precedent to spy on and persecute anyone sympathetic to the LGBT community.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Removed, ad hominem. Everyone is entitled to a defense.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 332K

    Comments