in the vicinity
Trump-haters want to suppress free speech: Trish Regan
FBN ‘ s Trish Regan describes a Manhattan judge who issued a judgment that there is nothing wrong with throwing Trump Fans from the bars.
The American Civil Liberties Union does not seem so interested in the defense of the First Amendment, though it might hurt “marginalized groups” or enable protesters carrying open weapons, according to a leaked internal memo.
In secret directives, which were revealed this week in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, the former ACLU Board member Wendy Kaminer, a liberal organization that initially claimed that it wanted to advance “neutral principles” protection of the language “regardless of the political speaker’s specific political views.” The ACLU did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment.
The memo was marked “confidential attorney-client product,” went on to outline numerous “considerations” that the ACLU is sniper qualified, supposedly neutral commitment to freedom of speech.
For example, the guidelines noted that “weapons can be intimidating, and without, by the free exchange of ideas.”
The ACLU “in General, do not represent the protesters who try to March, while armed,” explained the memo flatly — that the restriction was actually unbiased, because it was considered “without regard to a speaker’s political views.”
HATERS GONNA HATE: ACLU DEFENDS LINK ARTICLE TAYOR SWIFT, THE White SUPERIORITY
And the leaked document said the organization necessary to the effect of the speech on “marginal groups” and “the extent to which the speech can help in the promotion of the objectives of the white supremacists group, or other people whose views contrary to our values.”
White supremacy-affiliated protesters gathered in Virginia in the year 2007, touching off international outrage.
According to Kaminer, the leaked memo and the spring of blistering op-ed about the content, the ACLU is trying to escape, secretly back down on its basic principles.
She cited the seminal 1969 Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio in which the ACLU took on the case of the Ku-Klux-Klan-leader to be prosecuted for calling for “revenge” against the Jewish and black people.
The high court finally decided that it was unconstitutional was to follow him, without that he was inciting the crowd to commit imminent unlawful act.
“The ACLU would be hard-pressed to take, Brandenburg is today, wrote, in view of the new guidelines,” Kaminer.
“Weapons can be intimidating, and without, by the free exchange of ideas.”
– Leaked internal ACLU memo
“Traditional free-speech values do not appeal to the ACLU, always a partisan progressive electorate-and especially after 2017-and-white-racist rally in Charlottesville,” Kaminer added.
The Virginia ACLU took up the case of the white supremacists of a group, if the city told you, you did not assemble the right, without a permit.
But after the death of a counter-protester at the rally caused international outrage, some critics said the ACLU had entered the blood on the hands, and a leader of the organization in Virginia.
The furor set off soul-searching within the ACLU, and an announcement that it would not stand, the hate groups target to March with weapons.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Gregg Re is an editor for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @gregg_re.