The ACLU is challenging Section 702 by joining the defense of a neo-Nazi accused of plotting to destroy Baltimore’s power grid.

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.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    392·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      111·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        52·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • EndlessApollo@lemmy.worldEnglish
          112·
          6 months ago

          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

          • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
            41·
            6 months ago

            Attorneys from the ACLU’s National Security Project will be working with Brandon Clint Russell’s defense “for the limited purpose of challenging the government’s secretive warrantless surveillance under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,”

            ok. You’re a russian plant

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    282·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      618·
      6 months ago

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

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        81·
        6 months ago

        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.

      • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
        114·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          67·
          6 months ago

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

          • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
            51·
            6 months ago

            If they commit a crime then we can lock them up. If they don’t then they have the same rights as you and me. And that is a GOOD THING.

      • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
        65·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • snooggumsEnglish
          74·
          6 months ago

          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.

    • EndlessApollo@lemmy.worldEnglish
      116·
      6 months ago

      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

      • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
        61·
        6 months ago

        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.

  • oxjox@lemmy.mlEnglish
    111·
    6 months ago

    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!

      • oxjox@lemmy.mlEnglish
        111·
        6 months ago

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

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        92·
        6 months ago

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

        • snooggumsEnglish
          2·
          6 months ago

          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?

          • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
            42·
            6 months ago

            I’m saying if you say “fuck you rights” to bad people it’s easier for the government to fuck everyone’s rights

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.worldEnglish
        41·
        6 months ago

        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.

      • oxjox@lemmy.mlEnglish
        83·
        6 months ago

        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.

          • oxjox@lemmy.mlEnglish
            73·
            6 months ago

            Then they should be charged with whatever crimes they committed and face a jury of their peers to determine their guilt. That is not what this case is about.

            I didn’t know “gay” was a people. I don’t go around calling straight people “my people”. How weird. Maybe you’ve got some prejudice against certain groups that don’t look like you.

    • fathog@lemmy.world
      3·
      6 months ago

      Legal precedent is important and he’s gonna rot regardless (not an endorsement of our prisons, he’ll likely have friends in there)

  • EndlessApollo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    217·
    6 months ago

    I thought they’d have gotten better since the Unite the right really, but nope, still going to bat for literal fascists who would kill everyone in the ACLU and everyone else they defend if given the chance. They deserve the wall like every other Nazi sympathizing cunt