![]() It has no legal obligation to represent anyone. The ACLU is a private organization and, as such, it can of course pick and choose the people it decides to represent in court. He apparently was not carrying a firearm, so he seemingly would not be affected by the new ACLU policy. One wonders whether, if the free speech rights of the driver of the car that killed Heyer were violated, the ACLU would represent him. I have not read any reports of guns being fired in Charlottesville. However, Heyer and the other people who were injured alongside her were rammed by a speeding automobile. Department of Justice is investigating all these possible federal crimes, as it should. It might also constitute a criminal violation of the civil rights of Heyer and the other people who were injured, and also a criminal act of terrorism. It appears from the videotapes that the killing was intentional, and if it indeed was, it was a murder. The ACLU’s new policy undoubtedly was stimulated by the recent disturbances in Charlottesville, where a young woman, Heather Heyer, was killed. Anyone who is interested can find my paper on the constitutional question here. ![]() (I believe that the court was wrong in so holding, but the issue is quite complex. Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment substantially limits the rights of states and localities to impose gun control regulations. If some government - whether local, state or federal - decides to violate the free speech rights of demonstrators who are lawfully carrying weapons, the ACLU won’t object.ĭemonstrators who are licensed to carry firearms rely on the Second Amendment, which provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Moreover, the U.S. The ACLU’s new stance is remarkable because it means the organization will refuse to defend the constitutional rights of armed demonstrators, even if those demonstrators are properly licensed to carry firearms. The ACLU has worked since 1920 to ensure that freedom of speech is protected for everyone.” It seems the word “everyone” has just taken on a new meaning. On its website, the ACLU proudly proudly asserts, “Protecting free speech means protecting a free press, the democratic process, diversity of thought, and so much more. Last Thursday, the organization announced that it will no longer defend the constitutional rights of any group that publicly demonstrates with loaded firearms. And now the ACLU has made its bias even more blindingly obvious. It is the advancement of a far-left agenda. But, where the injured party is Israel, they suddenly detect a violation of the First Amendment. The ACLU would never argue that federal civil rights statutes violate free speech. The anti-boycott legislation would parallel exactly our federal civil rights statutes: anyone can say anything - no matter how hateful - about other races, religions or ethnicities, but a landlord, for example, is not permitted to refuse to rent a home to a family because of that family’s race. person who had merely voiced agreement with a boycott. The ACLU opined that such a law would violate free speech rights under the First Amendment because punishment would be imposed on a U.S. from refusing to do business with Israelis in compliance with an internationally-organized boycott of Israel. My previous column discussed a proposed federal law which would prohibit anyone in the U.S. Just days ago, the organization resoundingly confirmed my point. I said then that the ACLU, which bills itself as “ our nation’s guardian of liberty ,” would more accurately be described as the guardian of a far-left progressive agenda. Earlier this month, I wrote a column about the American Civil Liberties Union.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |