Sentenced to rape
I hate the ACLU more than ever.
Women in prison forced to live with men at the behest of the ACLU.
On April 13, NJ News reported that at least two women became impregnated by men incarcerated in Edna Mahan Correctional Facility, the only female-only prison in the state of New Jersey. The men were placed there because they claimed to have a female gender identity.
I have a billionaire identity; can I be housed in a mansion?
The story was quickly picked up by several mainstream media outlets around the world. The Daily Mail reported that American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), once a respected human rights advocacy group, “managed” to house at least 27 people at the women’s prison, many of them men. The ACLU fought a long legal battle to transfer men to Edna Mahan and the prison, which started accepting male inmates in 2021.
The ACLU fought a long battle to force men on helpless women trapped in prison. The ACLU can go jump off a cliff.
From the 4W piece, “Since when did rapists and murderers and men who assault women and children become the most ‘vulnerable?’ Ah, yes, since they began changing their pronouns.”
I used to support the ACLU, both in spirit and financially. For some years now, when I receive their mail asking me to donate, I write “No, but I’ll reconsider if you fire Chase Strangio” and return the postage-paid envelope.
But instead they’re letting Strangio write most of the rules. It’s disgusting.
So what’s in it for the ACLU. Do they have some big AGP donor making up for all the people who’ve stopped supporting them? Has the ACLU not been so much captured as purchased? With campaigns like putting men in women’s prisons, they’re quickly destroying whatever credibility and goodwill any such hypothetical purchaser might have been hoping to leverage. It doesn’t take long for a “good name” to become a bad one, especially if you put in a concerted effort to do so. They’re going whole hog on this. TiM athletes on women’s teams; TiM offenders in women’s prisons. Opportunists, fetishisists and predators. Quite the client list. Next stop MAP rights? Almost makes one long for the good old days of their representing Nazis…
I assumed it was like PP… they got a shit ton of Trump cash to fund “the Resistance” and they’re just doing the opposite of what the Trumpists would do regardless of whether or not it’s a good idea on its own merits.
“Defend Nazis rights.!!!!”
“Nazis must have their civil liberties defended too.”
“Nazis are only human. If you cut them, do they not bleed.?” Etc, etc etc?
Surely the ACLU must take up their cause.!
With the case of the Nazis in Skokie, the ACLU defended them even though the found them to be onerous because there was a legal principle involved. If we only honor the rightrs of the people we think are worthy, then they are not rights, they are privileges. The ACLU did catch shit for taking the right stand on that, even though they couldn’t stand the people whose rights they were promoting. Lawyers have to represent people they think are guilty, or horrible people.
The ACLU under Chase has become something itself abhorrent, denying that women are a protected class of minority in favor of an imagined class.
It depends on how one is defining a “right” though. Is it a “right” for an avowedly anti-Semitic group to march (with anti-Semitic posters) in a Jewish neighborhood?
Much more broadly, is it a “right” for protesters to incite violence or hatred or both? Was it a “right” for protesters in Charlottesville to chant “Jews will not replace us”?
It’s not so much what we think is worthy or not, as it is what we think is likely to incite hatred—>violence.
I’ve spent a lot of brain cells thinking about this, and I’m afraid I have to come down on the side of yes, Nazis have a right. If we talk about dangerous speech, violent speech, or hatred speech, the question comes to who gets to decide what that means. We’ve seen that trans people believe “men are not women” to be violent speech, and a lot of otherwise intelligent people are backing them up. Feminism has been considered dangerous. Civil rights and anti-racist speech has been deemed dangerous, as was abolition speech. Gay rights speech was once considered dangerous, and still is by many.
While I’m not a fan of the slippery slope argument which is way overused, I do think we have a bad choice here. We can either be free speech absolutists, where everyone gets their rights, or we can be ready to ban obviously odious speech such as Nazis…and then watch as our own speech rights are eroded away by people who believe it is obvious that our speech is odious.
There is no easy answer, but when so much hangs on the question, I think we need to err on the side of caution, which means we need to be careful about limiting speech. Actions? Yes. Speech that directly threatens to harm someone? Yes, of course. Rape threats. Death threats. Doxxing. All of those are clear enough, since threats are already covered in the criminal statutes. Speech that offends but does not actually threaten should be allowed. Otherwise, we end up giving away our own rights, just as people are trying to give away our rights to freely criticize trans ideology.
iknklast @ 9 well put.
Inciting violence is a much easier concept to me than inciting hatred. Calling for people to go and beat up or kill other people, that seems pretty clear. Inciting hatred, well, any kind of strongly negative comment, true or not, can be said to generate hatred. “They’re coming for your guns”, isn’t that inciting hatred against Democrats? “They want to ban accurate history”, isn’t that inciting hatred against Republicans? So I don’t know where a reasonable line might be.
Certainly get rid of the nonsense where things that are not literal violence get called “literal violence”, though.