ACLU

They have the right to voice their opinion without government interference, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't beat the shit out of them.

Source?

Then you are actually as worse than these Klan members and validating their sense of victimhood

Gotta love liberals

...

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that independent political expenditures by corporations and unions are protected under the First Amendment and not subject to restriction by the government. The Court therefore struck down a ban on campaign expenditures by corporations and unions that applied to non-profit corporations like Planned Parenthood and the National Rifle Association, as well as for-profit corporations like General Motors and Microsoft.

That decision has sparked a great deal of controversy. Some see corporations as artificial legal constructs that are not entitled to First Amendment rights. Others see corporations and unions as legitimate participants in public debate whose views can help educate voters as they form their opinions on candidates and issues.

We understand that the amount of money now being spent on political campaigns has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system that raises serious concerns. We firmly believe, however, that the response to those concerns must be consistent with our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech and association. For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech.

At the same time, we recognize that the escalating cost of political campaigns may make it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money often plays a significant role in determining who runs for office and who is elected.

In our view, the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.

Some argue that campaign finance laws can be surgically drafted to protect legitimate political speech while restricting speech that leads to undue influence by wealthy special interests. Experience over the last 40 years has taught us that money always finds an outlet, and the endless search for loopholes simply creates the next target for new regulation. It also contributes to cynicism about our political process.

Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.

It is also useful to remember that the mixture of money and politics long predates Citizens United and would not disappear even if Citizens United were overruled. The 2008 presidential election, which took place before Citizens United,was the most expensive in U.S. history until that point. The super PACs that have emerged in the 2012 election cycle have been funded with a significant amount of money from individuals, not corporations, and individual spending was not even at issue in Citizens United.

Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of “big money” in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

That's there same line of logic when they attack Commies.

...

...

Beating the shit out of a bunch of klansmen only serves to let right wing retards say "SO MUCH FOR THE TOLERANT LEFT".
Racial equality is not some delicate flower that needs to be shielded from detractors using violence

So fascists? I agree

...

Agreed.

All collectivists, including fascists and SJWs.

That makes u the real fascist

...

Yeah, they're hypocrites. They're gonna do this no matter what. When we don't beat them up they call us weak, when we do they call us violent thugs. You think all their talk about free speech is gonna stop them from supressing ours when they have the power to? Playing popularity contests with them is pointless

That line of reasoning is why Hitler got into power. People are more willing to listen to you, if they think you're being mistreated. That is why SJWs have been good at influencing people.

Are you fucking insane? Racism is as popular as AIDS, at least in the majority of the western world. It isn't likely that they will ever regain the power they once had. That isn't to say there is no racism now, but it is much better
Going to protests like at Berkeley is all about attention-whoring in black so that they have some neat pictures to post on Facebook. It is the height of trendy liberalism
Also what this dude said

Yeah, you know absolutely nothing of history, famalam. People didn't vote for the nazis because they felt bad for how those ebul gommies mistreated them. They also literally had paramilitaries roaming the streets. Hitler already had power before he was elected, the election was a formality, and it was the "tolerant" social democrats who enabled his rise to power

I agree racism is popular in the west.

Fam…
It's popular enough to incite right-wingers to kill people and run them over with cars. The right is far more violent than the left has ever been.

They literally ban communists from being members of their little group.

That's a retarded, rationally unfounded rationalization.

Without descending to moralism and idealism, try to say why people who have and voice "problematic" opinions are worse and more dangerous than people who violently silence those they don't like. Wanting to kill is not the same as likely or willing to kill, and there are a lot worse organizations that people associate with and which no one gives a fuck about.

Also, calling essential praxis "popularity contests" is just a way for you to disregard it. Unless the Blanquists were right all along, the revolution isn't going to happen unless it's from a popular movement, and that movement won't appear if no one likes or listens to Leftist thought because they associate Leftists with edgy kids who resort to violence when they're offended. If you don't at least pretend to respect free speech, then you're not going to get remotely close to anywhere in the US.

You d know that Germany had Nazis and Communists fighting in the streets, right? Anyway, the Commies won most of those fights at first, but people got sympathetic to the Nazis. Causing them to join the Nazis, and then they started using Hitler.

Lad, no.

Tell that to that antifa member who killed a innocent horse.

Making it not have a commie bias.

Ignoramus yes.
www .youtube. com/watch?v=e3p Wn G5 ay 4A

You must not be from California
I agree that the far right is way more violent but what good does suppressing their voice do?
It doesn't stop them to say "hmmmmm this dude kicked my ass and didn't let me speak my mind, guess i better change my ways"
I am a believer that violence is often a person expressing themselves when words have failed them. We are better off with someone on a podium giving a half-assed speech on "race realism" than with the fuck driving his car through a crowd of people.

...

This is probably the worst fucking take of inter-war Germany I have ever read

Because they won't hesitate to put those "problematic" opinions into action if you let them, and they also won't hesitate to silence people they don't like, all while claiming that they're the victim. There is no such thing as a "peaceful" right-winger. Someone calling for ethnic cleansing isn't gonna be the next fucking Gandhi
Appealing to liberals isn't essential praxis, famalam

How am I wrong?

...

[CITATION NEEDED]

I've known plenty of people with radical and violent opinions but who I have no doubt would never try to actually enact them. A person believing something is not the same as a person willing to do it. Secondly, even if they were actually willing to follow through with them in the right circumstances, getting into brawls does less than nothing; it radicalizes them even further while doing the same for those leaning towards the right. You're not going to be able to punch their beliefs out of them or make the onlookers suddenly decide that they don't like Fascism after all. The only rational policy to have towards Rightists is ignoring them until they become violent, then responding in a purely defensive manner. The difference between Berkley and Charleston in public opinion shows that.

see>>2084657

Hey Cuckold of Blackedkod we still aint watching your shit. Go read a book to dilute all those memes cloggin your noggin.

hey i have a sargon video too :^)

You're literally counting on them being too big pussies to put their beliefs into action.
Good thing no one is trying to "punch their beliefs out of them", just punch them.
The counter protest at Charleston was no different than the one in Berkley. The only difference was that no one died in Berkley. If you'll recall they also still claimed they were poor, innocent lambs being bullied by the "intolerant left".

Reply back to this post if you can find something false in the video I posted.

Whoever breaks the law should go to jail. At the end of the day, which group are attacked a bunch of idiots, who were just making themselves look like fools?

You can stop shill your videos here Cuckold of Blackod. Youtube videos from "Rational Skeptics" are not legitimate sources of information

...

I said reply back only if you can find something wrong in that video, you illiterate fuck.

What is wrong with laws?

We don't care about your feelings, famalam

Not illiterate, just lack of caring for your world view based on memes and idiot youtube personalities.

And you also don't care about actually telling why exactly something is false.

sauce on pic?

Nah, its just not worth the effort to disprove the 'cultural marxism' meme

Too bad, I love learning I was wrong.

If this thread is anything to go by you really don't and arnt worth even trying with.

The fact that they are created by the bourgeois state to protect bourgeois property. They are simply the state saying what you can't and cannot do, they have nothing to do with any kind of morals or ethics. Attaching any significance to them beyond simple fear of punishment is pure ideology

You are always wrong, famalam. Lurk more and get rid of that faux-namefagging and you might be right for once

lol Did you know I'm actually not a fashie.

But aren't laws what keep fashies and commies from wiping each other out.

You dont have to be you just need to go back to Holla Forums

Holla Forums hates me. I'm a classical liberal.

Yet here

you say you are from Holla Forums. So go back

Laws are what protect capitalism and the system of property. They also don't actually do anything of their own, they require enforcement by the state (police).
The police are also the only thing preventing the fashies from getting lynched when they're facing a counter-protest five times their size

I'm not, I was only trying to show how you guys both are extremists, who employ the same bad methods.

literally hundreds of texas gov internet pages, just google "texas government code chapter 2270 israel"

I admit the left are tactically inept but fuck off with your both sides shit

Holy kek

Fine then go back r/the_donald or whatever sewer you crawled out of.
Also stop putting spaces in your fucking links. The only reason you couldnt post that one link is because the letters D.S.A is wordfiltered

oh thanks.

What a bunch of fucking tools.

Yeah I know that this "treat all sides equally" is the kind of thing that sounds nice but ends up being abused by fascists. But honestly, I can't help but respect people who don't compromise their principles. Not to mention it's good to have one big organization doing the "treat all sides equally" thing, to keep things in perspective, lest you fall into an ideological blindspot.

Except for that time they purged commies from their ranks. Fuck all of them from that time.

How can Holla Forums shit on liberals all the time and still like the ACLU?

It's just internet dickwaggling fam. We all know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of our converts come from liberals as opposed to rightists, so we don't hate-hate liberals. Liberalism and socialism have a large common heritage in Enlightenment thought. Ultimately what pisses us off is the difference between us and them, not them in themselves. That difference is the bullshit we constantly attack: support of sweatshops, mealymouthed centrism, "my Uber of X will bring development to the third world", "those CEOs work hard too" etc. Which I guess is a contrived way to say "not everything they think wrong".

Are you sure? Aren't lots of anons here ex-Holla Forumsyps?

...