Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.

Minichan

Topic: The #1Nazi Party policy, the central tenet of their whole platform long before they attacked one jew

Anonymous A started this discussion 3 years ago #107,317

Was free speech.

Isn't it a coincidence that the Republicans are now making this their #1 priority too?🤔🤔

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #1,205,294

No one really cares about free speech; we just have cycles where one side claims to care about it. It was just barely 10 years ago when Democrats were the free speech party. Remember the ACLU?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
It was the left crying about that case.

Now just replace the year, subject matter, political parties and the results will be the same.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 8 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,205,370

I haven't seen the democrats this upset since the Republicans freed the slaves.

Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 46 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,205,372

Yeah, most likely a coincidence.

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 19 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,205,375

@1,205,294 (B)
Same ACLU that argued for Citizen United in court that legalized unlimited bribing of lawmakers?

Anonymous B replied with this 3 years ago, 3 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,205,384

@previous (E)
Unlimited bribing = free speech.
Speech I don't like = hate

One basis of these allegations was 2017 statement made from the ACLU president to a reporter after the death of a counter-protester during the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Virginia, where Romero told a reporter that the ACLU would no longer support legal cases of activists that wish to carry guns at their protests.[357]

Another basis for these claims was an internal ACLU memo dated June 2018, discussing factors to evaluate when deciding whether or not to take a case. The memo listed several factors to consider, including "the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values". Some analysts viewed this as a retreat from ACLU's historically strong support of first amendment rights, regardless of whether minorities were negatively impacted by the speech, citing the ACLU's past support for certain KKK and Nazi legal cases.
:

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting.