>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/08/00 11:03AM >>>
> ((((((((((((((((
>
> CB: However, the NLG as an organization has long taken the position of not defending
>Nazi/KKK rights to speak as attorneys.
.
* * *
You mean the NLG doesn't defend as atty's the free speech rights of fascists?
(((((((((((((
CB: Correct. That was the position of the national organization for many years. I
haven't been active for a number of years, but I haven't heard of this changing.
((((((((
Far as I know the only notable fascist whose free speech rights are at stake, or
were, is Matthew Hale of Carbondale, who graduated SIU Law School, but was denied
admission to the Illinois bar because of his political beliefs.
(((((((((((
CB: Yes, my sentence above has misleading grammar. I'm not talking about the right of
fascists to be attorneys, which I suppose the NLG would oppose too.
)))))))))
He's Pontifex Maximus of the Church of the Creator, I think it is called, a white
supremacist outfit indirectly implicated in the racial murder by a nut case of
Northwest basketball coach Ricky Birdsong about 2 minutes from my house.
The U.S.Ct. wouldn't take Hale's case. Personally, I think that's wrong. I think he
should be admitted to the bar (if he passes the bar exam) regardless of his political
views. There's legal basis for this--the cases from the 60s saying that the states
couldn't keep commies out of the bar.
(((((((((((((
CB: I don't agree with comparing commies and fascists. The issue is not "unpopular"
speech , but fascistic racist speech.
)))))))))))
Anyway, if the Guild as an organization doesn't defend the free speech rights of
fascists, that's OK. The ACLU does, so there's a division of labor.
(((((((((((((((
CB: No, there is a political and ideological difference. The Guild aims to be
radical. The ACLU aims to be liberal.
