On February 1, Breitbart technology editor and right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak at the University of California-Berkeley. Students at the university protested his speech, and radicalsmany of whommay not have been studentsturned violent. <\/p>\n
Yiannopoulos speech was canceled for safety concerns, as demonstrators threw rocks and fireworks at the building where the speech was set to take place. What began as a speech to 500 students expanded to thousands as the media (including this writer) wrote countless articles about the riots and Yiannopoulos. <\/p>\n
If the Left wanted to shut Yiannopoulos down, they failed by behavingin such a mannerthat raised his profile. Who knows how many people wondered who this person was whocaused such a backlash, and how many of those people then found at least some of what Yiannopoulos says to be acceptable? <\/p>\n
In a follow-up article on the riots, Washington Post columnist Steven Petrow spoke to a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, Lee Rowland. Rowland told Petrow that she finds much of Yiannopoulos speech to be absolutely hateful an despicablebut those adjectives dont remove his speech from the Constitutions protection. <\/p>\n
Rowland went on to say that its easy to protect speech we agree with, but more important to protect speech we abhor, lest the First Amendment simply become a popularity contest. <\/p>\n
Rowland tweeted the article with her quote on Friday. ACLUs own Twitter account tweeted as well. This, naturally, outraged the Left, with many responses to the tweet focusing on Yiannopoulos past comments and how he shouldnt have a platform. <\/p>\n
Eric Boehlert of the left-wing Media Matters website quoted the ACLUs tweet,adding another wrinkle to the organizations alleged faults. One wk after came ACLU [sic] out in support of GOP overturning Obama rule to keep mentally ill ftom [sic] getting gunstoo late to get donations back? <\/p>\n
The ACLU shot back, telling Boehlert it defend[s] everyones rights, even when its not popular. <\/p>\n
Boehlert was referring to a recent action by House Republicans to overturn an Obama-era regulation that kept some with disabilities from owning firearms. While the mainstream media naturally went apoplectic, declaring that Republicans were removing gun-control protections and limiting background checks for people with severe mental illnesses, the reality of the measure is that it classified a large group of the mentally disabled as violent. The ACLU, and othergroups advocating for the rights of the disabled, opposed the measure. <\/p>\n
The ACLU even wrote a letter to Congress supporting the move by Republicans. The original rule required those who use a representative payee to help them manage their Social Security Disability Insurance to have their names submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. <\/p>\n
We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent, the ACLU wrote. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage ones Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. <\/p>\n
The ACLU added: Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm. <\/p>\n
But because the rule had to do with gun control, the Left suddenly became bigoted toward those with disabilities, conflating mental disability with violence. <\/p>\n
To be clear, the ACLU isnt an organization friendly to activists of gun rights. The organizations stated belief on the Second Amendment is that it protects a collective right [a well regulated militia] rather than an individual right. <\/p>\n
The only other time the ACLU comes close to supporting individual gun rights is when opposing the no fly list. The list, according to the ACLU, denies due process to those on it, and the majority of those who would be included are Muslims. When Democrats try to keep those on any of the no fly lists from getting guns, the ACLU is cited because, again, those on the list receive no due process. <\/p>\n
But the ACLU, in these cases, isnt standing up for gun rights. In the first example, its standing up for those with disabilities, and in the second example, its standing up for Muslims. <\/p>\n
Yet still the Left gets angry. The ACLU almost always holds positions that coincide with the Lefts views, so when it doesntas in the case of Yiannopoulos speech or gun control measuresthe Left criticizes and even suggests rescinding donations. <\/p>\n
The ACLU is a great ally, until theyre not, apparently. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read more from the original source: <\/p>\n
Left Attacks ACLU for Defending Milo Yiannopoulos' Right to Free Speech - Observer<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On February 1, Breitbart technology editor and right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak at the University of California-Berkeley. Continue reading