ACLU and Nazis
Posted on February 27, 2006
Four neo-nazis walk into a German restaurant wearing swastika lapel pins. The management asked them to take off the lapel pins. They refused. The management asked them to leave. They refused. The management called the police, who arrested them.
The ACLU of Southern California defends them. No joke, Clayton Cramer’s got the story.
In short, the ACLU seem quite conflicted on their views of “hate speech.”
David Bernstein’s jaw drops open about the case.
There are several remarkable things about this story, which occurred in 1986. First, the ACLU of Southern California represented the Nazis, yet, at least by the late 1980s, this local ACLU branch was known as a vigorous proponent of hate speech regulations. How to square that circle, I don’t know. Perhaps the organization had a sudden and dramatic leadership shift. Perhaps the local ACLU leaders saw this as “discrimination based on ideology in public accommodations” and somehow didn’t notice it was also the suppression of hate speech. Perhaps they just had their heads up their behinds.
Second, why was the ACLU concerned about the rights of the Nazi patrons, but not the owners? Why didn’t the owners have a right to send a message that they disapprove of Naziism?
Third, even accepting the absurd premises apparently underlying this lawsuit, that the Unruh Act somehow protects Nazis from discrimination in public accommodation, where was the discrimination here? The restaurant didn’t refuse to serve the Nazis, it simply refused to serve them so long as they were turning the restaurant into a forum for promoting their Nazi views by wearing swastikas. A restaurant couldn’t discriminate against Satanists, does that mean they are required to let the Satanists wear T-shirts showing Jesus being tortured by a gleeful Lucifer?
Fourth, under current hostile environment law, the restaurant could get in serious trouble for not ordering the Nazis to stop wearing the swastikas. Tolerating swastika-wearing patrons would be considering by some to be the creation of an “illegal hostile public environment” for Jews, Gypsies, and others.
In a related article: The ACLU defend neo-nazi group’s right to burn down the ACLU headquarters.
“I am reminded of the words of Voltaire: ‘I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’” Strossen said. “While the ACLU vehemently disagrees with the idea of Nazis torching this building, the principle of freedom of expression must be supported in all cases. If we take away these Nazis’ right to burn down our headquarters, we take away everyone’s right to burn down our headquarters.”
Trackback URL
Comments
3 Responses to “ACLU and Nazis”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
I believe the ACLU takes a Nazi or other repugnant case once in a while just to cover their persistent far left and anti-American agenda. It’s not about free speech, etc. its about the ACLU being able to state that they “defend everyone” and it smells just like everything the ACLU does.
The ACLU does have trouble with English Comprehension as I do not see where the get political statement or dress from the above. I suppose that upscale restaurants are forced to allow people dressed as street bums come in and use the facilities. I wonder how that effects business?
The threat to burn down the ACLU’s headquarter is a trickier matter since if it is not a direct threat then it is covered under free speech. Of course that is only if you are not pro life. There is a case involving pro lifers who put out wanted posters on abortion doctors and I know a pro life web site was pulled because it proposed executing abortion doctors for war crimes.
I wonder what side the ACLU took on those two cases?
I read the first paragraph and thought the story was heading for a hilarious punchline. Man was I disappointed.