this is a more important case than people realize. here are the two money quotes: "In a brief filed in federal court today, the ACLU argues that New York's strong-arm efforts to compel banks and insurance companies to ditch the NRA as a customer represent a glaring violation of the First Amendment. . . . 'Although public officials are free to express their opinions and may condemn viewpoints or groups they view as inimical to public welfare, they cannot abuse their regulatory authority to retaliate against disfavored advocacy organizations and to impose burdens on those organizations' ability to conduct lawful business,' the ACLU says." and "'If Cuomo can do this to the NRA, then conservative governors could have their financial regulators threaten banks and financial institutions that do business with any other group whose political views the governor opposes,' David Cole, the ACLU's legal director, wrote in a blog post today. 'The First Amendment bars state officials from using their regulatory power to penalize groups merely because they promote disapproved ideas.'" here's the link: https://reason.com/archives/2018/08/24/aclu-teams-up-with-nra
I’m glad the ACLU is acting in a truly bipartisan manner and Cuomo was wrong in what he was suggesting at the time. There are active investigations looking into the money flowing into and influencing the NRA and the GOP. The NRA is also a cancer to our society... but they have rights until they are violating the law. Cuomo and others need to appreciate that until the inevitable conclusion shows that the NRA is the illegal propaganda enterprise we all know it to be. Until then, they have rights, and officials should respect that.
This highlights the difference between the left and the right. You will never see anyone in the right defend someone on the left.
yeah, I just don't think this is generally true . . . one example https://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Conservative-Defense-of-Free/240467
I'm siding with the ACLU again. I know there was one time where I disagreed with a stance they took. I remember thinking it was odd because I almost always agree with them. For whatever reason, I can't remember the issue though. On this issue, I agree with the ACLU yet again.
The ACLU doesn't always do the right thing, but I'm glad they did in this instance. Principles are more important than tribalism.
This isn't surprising for anyone following the ACLU over time. They've defended the widest range of groups. In this case I really agree w them, even though I loathe the NRA.
If Cumo has an opinion he has a right to his opinion. If he isn't threatening banks and insurance companies nothing to see here
...well... ...anybody who defends the Ku Klux Klan's right to assemble "peacefully" can't be all bad....
Volokh with the full ACLU brief here: https://reason.com/volokh/2018/08/26/aclu-on-the-nras-lawsuit-against-ny-gov
Obviously, they want to avoid a precedent that will let some future governor or president from blackballing them. ACLU tends to be bi-partisan in its defense of speech, but in this case the self-interest seems like the most important part.
