Vanessa, Josh Hawley, Today discussed on Impeachment: A Daily Podcast

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

I don't. I don't disagree that it's probably right that it's that that that we are probably being accurately descriptive of what the law can do. But that that's the only way this is but that's very well but you're not giving me a fair opportunity to respond and to respond. Not only in a defensive. The aco you've historic position and the historic position by the way of the entire civil rights movement and racial justice organizations and human rights advocates around the world because the alternative of going back to the pre Emergency standard when government did have more latitude and in other countries. It's still has more latitude to per to prevent and punish speech that it is not proposing such a direct emergency that gives the government too much discretion and that discretion predictably is used over and over and over again to silence. The voices of those you and i would consider to be on the right side of justice and we are not talking only about history one of the aclu clients. Today is derailed mckesson a national leader of the black lives matter movement who is being prosecuted and civilly sued for his civilly sued for a speech that he gave Advocating black lives matter denouncing police violence and police killing and that has been attacked as hate speech we know that government officials have attacked it as hate speech law enforcement and intelligence officials have attacked it as terrorist speech. There was a loss it that succeeded and lower courts trying to hold him and therefore the blm movement personally culpable because at one rally where he was speaking an anonymous person through some kind of brick and injured a police officers so they are being accused of having violated the brandenburg standard. And we know that critics of beal and other protesters are charging them With having instigated the assassination of police officers so if you want to loosen the standards and give the government more power to punish speech because of an indirect potential connection it might have to violence then mark my words. It is going to be precisely those who lack political power including advocates for racial justice pipeline. Protesters we've seen it all over the country we've seen the laws that have swept across this country seeking to punish protesters who are protesting the status quo. That's where the power balance lies. And that's why free speech is especially essential to the racial and social justice causes that the aclu is also fighting for league. Go ahead and respond to their professor. I of course am saying that people liked array deserve a defense i am. I am a forest advocating for arrays position. I think what's happening to him as wrong. And i'm glad the aclu is defending him. The question though on the table is whether or not the aclu has to defend everybody right like see the problem here. Is that the the nazi's fascist and the people that we're talking about. They're not hard for lawyers. All right josh hawley. Has lloyd agree. He can go he can go to. Vanessa wants to jones. Day can go defend the nazis if they want to. The nazis have warriors on their side. So why is it then. Why is it. Incumbent upon the aclu may nonprofit mission driven organization that gets funding from donations. From people like me. Why is it incumbent. On the aclu to be the ones defending the clan and the nazis and all the awful people..

Coming up next