15 ms·

I've been a long time supporter of the ACLU. While they're being politicized right now as being anti-Trump, the thing I admire most about them is their consiste

I've been a long time supporter of the ACLU. While they're being politicized right now as being anti-Trump, the thing I admire most about them is their consistency in fighting for the rights of everyone. They stick to their principles of free speech and human equality no matter how unpopular the issue or unsavory their client. A good example is back in the 1930s when the ACLU simultaneously defended the rights of blacks on behalf of the NAACP at the same time as they were fighting for the rights of the Klu Klux Klan to hold rallies calling for the abolition of those rights. The strength of your convictions are only tested at the extremes. Do you still believe in free speech when it's coming from neo-Nazis? The ACLU do and I deeply respect them for that.

Pigo 10y ago
I would really like to see if a moral position like that could still stand tall. I'd be surprised if they could defend Milo Yiannopoulos's Twitter account without massive protests and everyone losing their job.
- CPLX 10y ago
  There are literally zero constitutional issues raised by the nature of his relationship with Twitter.
  - lol214365 10y ago
    There are no constitutional issues raised by the border wall, and yet the ACLU is opposed to that.
    - cowsandmilk 10y ago
      The parts of the border wall built by President Bush seized property from private citizens. Infamously, there is now a golf course in Texas that is now on the wrong side of the border. So, you have to subject yourself to search by CBP in order to go play golf despite not leaving your country. Bush tackled the easiest parts of the wall. Expanding will only present more seizing of property from citizens and subjecting citizens to search and seizure solely due to their proximity to the border, despite them having no desire to cross the border. Whether being searched for wanting to play golf is unreasonable is a constitutional issue.
  - dwaxe 10y ago
    How do people still not get this? The First Amendment is a limitation on the government of the United States. Period. It does not apply to other countries. It does not apply to private entities within the United States. It does not apply to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or any other social media.
    - wutbrodo 10y ago
      > How do people still not get this? The First Amendment is a limitation on the government of the United States. Period. It does not apply to other countries. It does not apply to private entities within the United States. It does not apply to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or any other social media. To be fair, most of the time I hear your complaint, the people complaining about the loss of free speech has nothing to do with the Constitution (though that isn't the case in this instance, of course). It's possible to oppose certain speech restrictions as damaging to a community you care about and to be upset when those restrictions arise. Not for constitutional reasons, but for reasons having to do with the health and ethical grounding of a community. Though this is just my sample: It's of course possible that we are exposed to very different circles and that you're more often exposed to "Reddit can't ban this subreddit! It's unconstitutional!". If so, I'm sorry, that must blow
    - base698 10y ago
      Maybe it shouldn't be: "... a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself." --John Stuart Mill
      - phil21 10y ago
        Pretty much exactly this. If you don't have a practical right to exercise free speech, you effectively have lost the right in it's entirety.
19guid 10y ago
Unfortunately, the ACLU is not always consistent on the issue of free speech. For example, they have frequently argued in favour of compelling speech from Christian bakers, florists and photographers who, for reasons of conscience, are unwilling to provide their creative services for same-sex weddings. [1] [2] [3] [1] http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate... [2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0712/A-florist-caught-between-faith-and-financial-ruin http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0712/A-florist-cau... [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/weighing-free-speech-in-refusal-to-photograph-ceremony.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/weighing-free-speech-in...
- danielsju6 10y ago
  Refusal of service based race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation is not protected speech. It's discrimination. They gave up rights when they went into business.
  - 19guid 10y ago
    I don't think refusal of service is itself protected speech either, but we're not talking about the government restricting protected speech. We're talking about the government compelling an individual to engage in protected speech, like taking a wedding photograph. > The U.S. Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the First Amendment protects an "individual freedom of mind"—e.g., (1943), which affirmed the right not to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance—which the government violates whenever it tells a person that she must or must not speak. Forcing a photographer to create a unique piece of art violates that freedom of the mind. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/choosing-what-to-photograph-is-a-form-of-speech http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/choosing-what-to-photograph...
    - literallycancer 10y ago
      What's the difference between the wedding photographer who won't take a picture of a gay couple, and a bar/shop owner with "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish" policy?
alanh 10y ago
You used the passive voice, “the ACLU are being politicized right now as being anti-Trump.” The ACLU, in their official communications and advertisements, have been actively and explicitly anti-Trump. Witness their current 'pinned tweet' for example: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/825805289572151298 https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/825805289572151298 I don’t really mind that, but let’s not ignore that the ACLU intentionally earned their reputation as an opponent of this administration (and to some extent, of every previous admin, as well)!
- bb611 10y ago
  There is a chasm between anti-illegal behavior by the president and anti-president. By this definition of "actively and explicitly anti-Trump" the ACLU was probably the 2nd most anti-Obama group after the birthers. The ACLU has a clear agenda that is not highly aligned with either political party, so "being politicized" is accurate.
- DashRattlesnake 10y ago
  A long time ago, during the GWB administration, I donated to the ACLU and got placed on the postal mailing lists of innumerable unrelated Democratic-leaning activist organizations. I was disappointed by that, since the partisan association cheapens their work and opens them up to attack.
  - bjourne 10y ago
    Are you sure you didn't tick the "Yes, send me information about related campaigns box"? Because this is what their privacy statement reads: "When we give you an opportunity to voluntarily submit information about yourself, we may give you the option of indicating that you permit us to share that data with other parties such as coalition partners or specific legislators. We will not share your data with such parties unless you have indicated that you permit us to do so." https://www.aclu.org/american-civil-liberties-union-privacy-statement https://www.aclu.org/american-civil-liberties-union-privacy-... Because you are making a strong accusation: "they shared my data without my consent"
amckenna 10y ago
I searched around to see if I could find any writeup about the ACLU defending the NAACP and KKK at the same time. I found a similar example to the one you described from the mid 90's - http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/10/news/a-klansman-s-black-lawyer-and-a-principle.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/10/news/a-klansman-s-black-la...
- cperciva 10y ago
  An even more impressive demonstration of their principles: In the 1970s the ACLU supported the National Socialist Party of America in their fight to be allowed to display swastikas while marching through the predominantly-Jewish village of Skokie. Incidentally, the lawyers representing the National Socialist Party and the ACLU were both Jewish.
- SomewhatLikely 10y ago
  Not sure what happened, but it looks like the attorney was recently disbarred for "professional misconduct". http://www.txcourts.gov/media/825977/149249.pdf http://www.txcourts.gov/media/825977/149249.pdf
EternalData 10y ago
Skokie, IL. The epitome of a principled defense of civil rights.
lol214365 10y ago
The ACLU has completely deviated from their declared mission -- protecting civil liberties -- in recent weeks. The ACLU opposes a border wall. Who's civil liberties are violated by a border wall? The ACLU opposes the immigration and refugee EO. Who's civil liberties are violated by foreign nationals not being permitted into the United States?
- dwaxe 10y ago
  They literally tell you. Border wall: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-trumps-border-and-sanctuary-city-plans-will-violate-civil-liberties https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-trumps-border-and-sanctuary-c... One of dozens of articles on the refugee EO: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/trump-begins-his-unconstitutional-program-anti-muslim-discrimination https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/trump-begins-his-unco...
  - User23 10y ago
    These pages are both grossly biased and intellectually dishonest. While I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible to impute motive from action, it's irresponsible to call defending borders racist when there are other reasonable and less incendiary explanations. I've historically supported the ACLU's mission, but right now they are showboating for donations and that plan is working out great for them which means we can expect them to double down on the strategy. It's no secret that a significant portion of political activism and fund-raising is just skinning suckers. The right ran the same scam on its constituents during the Obama years.
    - uabstraction 10y ago
      "it's irresponsible to call defending borders racist when there are other reasonable and less incendiary explanations." I haven't heard one single reasonable explanation for why the US taxpayers should put $15 BILLION (before budget overflows and deadline pushbacks) into this wall. Until it is remotely justifiable, a knee-jerk monument to collective racism and xenophobia is ALL it is. Starting a trade war with Mexico so we can say they paid for it though creative accounting will hurt our economy and cost the working class much more than a simple crackdown on employers exploiting illegal immigrants.
hackuser 10y ago
> While they're being politicized right now ... That's long been true, though I'm sure sometimes more than others. I agree with what you say, but AFAIK they always have been associated with the left.
- matthewbauer 10y ago
  True, they are more left-wing than right-wing. At the same time, they support Citizens United which is usually considered conservative. So it's not so clear cut.
- krenoten 10y ago
  to the extent that the left is associated with the maintenance of our rights
shawn-butler 10y ago
The ACLU used to be an entirely admirable organization. It has devolved into mostly political advocacy and attention-seeking, but still does some good work. Not black/white, every institution has its own history. But YC is entirely diluting their brand wading into this mess. The A.C.L.U. has has about 250,000+ members, a $15-20 million annual budget (hardly a startup mentality), an extensive network of state affiliates and local chapters, backed up by a national office with headquarters in New York, a legislative office in Washington and regional offices in Atlanta and Denver. There are fifty-one affiliates - every state except North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho, plus 3 in California, and one in D.C. (not sure about state offices anymore, I think that is correct), - have their own staffs and their own boards, plus at least one representative on the national board, which sets policy for the whole organization. The state affiliates do make independent decisions about which cases to take and which local legislation to lobby for or against. They frequently take cases in areas where the national organization has not yet adopted a policy. But they also get smacked down when they run afoul of national board. It is the national board sets a "policy" agenda and then seeks out cases to pursue that agenda. That board meets for a weekend four times a year to iron out the policy. That natl/local split accounts for some of the diversity, but in truth it is mostly partisan organization based on board membership.
- pcvarmint 10y ago
  In Worst Instincts [1] [2], Wendy Kaminer documents this. I lately have found the Rutherford Institute [3] to be a much better protector of individual rights than the ACLU. [4] [1] https://www.amazon.com/Worst-Instincts-Cowardice-Conformity-ACLU/dp/080704430X/ https://www.amazon.com/Worst-Instincts-Cowardice-Conformity-... [2] http://beta.wendykaminer.com/ACLU.aspx http://beta.wendykaminer.com/ACLU.aspx [3] http://rutherford.org/ http://rutherford.org/ [4] http://www.npr.org/2013/06/02/188125996/john-whitehead-on-protecting-individual-rights http://www.npr.org/2013/06/02/188125996/john-whitehead-on-pr...

Pigo 10y ago

I would really like to see if a moral position like that could still stand tall. I'd be surprised if they could defend Milo Yiannopoulos's Twitter account without massive protests and everyone losing their job.

CPLX 10y ago
There are literally zero constitutional issues raised by the nature of his relationship with Twitter.
- lol214365 10y ago
  There are no constitutional issues raised by the border wall, and yet the ACLU is opposed to that.
  - cowsandmilk 10y ago
    The parts of the border wall built by President Bush seized property from private citizens. Infamously, there is now a golf course in Texas that is now on the wrong side of the border. So, you have to subject yourself to search by CBP in order to go play golf despite not leaving your country. Bush tackled the easiest parts of the wall. Expanding will only present more seizing of property from citizens and subjecting citizens to search and seizure solely due to their proximity to the border, despite them having no desire to cross the border. Whether being searched for wanting to play golf is unreasonable is a constitutional issue.
- dwaxe 10y ago
  How do people still not get this? The First Amendment is a limitation on the government of the United States. Period. It does not apply to other countries. It does not apply to private entities within the United States. It does not apply to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or any other social media.
  - wutbrodo 10y ago
    > How do people still not get this? The First Amendment is a limitation on the government of the United States. Period. It does not apply to other countries. It does not apply to private entities within the United States. It does not apply to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or any other social media. To be fair, most of the time I hear your complaint, the people complaining about the loss of free speech has nothing to do with the Constitution (though that isn't the case in this instance, of course). It's possible to oppose certain speech restrictions as damaging to a community you care about and to be upset when those restrictions arise. Not for constitutional reasons, but for reasons having to do with the health and ethical grounding of a community. Though this is just my sample: It's of course possible that we are exposed to very different circles and that you're more often exposed to "Reddit can't ban this subreddit! It's unconstitutional!". If so, I'm sorry, that must blow
  - base698 10y ago
    Maybe it shouldn't be: "... a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself." --John Stuart Mill
    - phil21 10y ago
      Pretty much exactly this. If you don't have a practical right to exercise free speech, you effectively have lost the right in it's entirety.

19guid 10y ago

Unfortunately, the ACLU is not always consistent on the issue of free speech. For example, they have frequently argued in favour of compelling speech from Christian bakers, florists and photographers who, for reasons of conscience, are unwilling to provide their creative services for same-sex weddings. [1] [2] [3] [1] http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate... [2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0712/A-florist-caught-between-faith-and-financial-ruin http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0712/A-florist-cau... [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/weighing-free-speech-in-refusal-to-photograph-ceremony.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/weighing-free-speech-in...

danielsju6 10y ago
Refusal of service based race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation is not protected speech. It's discrimination. They gave up rights when they went into business.
- 19guid 10y ago
  I don't think refusal of service is itself protected speech either, but we're not talking about the government restricting protected speech. We're talking about the government compelling an individual to engage in protected speech, like taking a wedding photograph. > The U.S. Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the First Amendment protects an "individual freedom of mind"—e.g., (1943), which affirmed the right not to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance—which the government violates whenever it tells a person that she must or must not speak. Forcing a photographer to create a unique piece of art violates that freedom of the mind. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/choosing-what-to-photograph-is-a-form-of-speech http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/choosing-what-to-photograph...
  - literallycancer 10y ago
    What's the difference between the wedding photographer who won't take a picture of a gay couple, and a bar/shop owner with "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish" policy?

alanh 10y ago

You used the passive voice, “the ACLU are being politicized right now as being anti-Trump.” The ACLU, in their official communications and advertisements, have been actively and explicitly anti-Trump. Witness their current 'pinned tweet' for example: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/825805289572151298 https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/825805289572151298 I don’t really mind that, but let’s not ignore that the ACLU intentionally earned their reputation as an opponent of this administration (and to some extent, of every previous admin, as well)!

bb611 10y ago
There is a chasm between anti-illegal behavior by the president and anti-president. By this definition of "actively and explicitly anti-Trump" the ACLU was probably the 2nd most anti-Obama group after the birthers. The ACLU has a clear agenda that is not highly aligned with either political party, so "being politicized" is accurate.
DashRattlesnake 10y ago
A long time ago, during the GWB administration, I donated to the ACLU and got placed on the postal mailing lists of innumerable unrelated Democratic-leaning activist organizations. I was disappointed by that, since the partisan association cheapens their work and opens them up to attack.
- bjourne 10y ago
  Are you sure you didn't tick the "Yes, send me information about related campaigns box"? Because this is what their privacy statement reads: "When we give you an opportunity to voluntarily submit information about yourself, we may give you the option of indicating that you permit us to share that data with other parties such as coalition partners or specific legislators. We will not share your data with such parties unless you have indicated that you permit us to do so." https://www.aclu.org/american-civil-liberties-union-privacy-statement https://www.aclu.org/american-civil-liberties-union-privacy-... Because you are making a strong accusation: "they shared my data without my consent"

amckenna 10y ago

I searched around to see if I could find any writeup about the ACLU defending the NAACP and KKK at the same time. I found a similar example to the one you described from the mid 90's - http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/10/news/a-klansman-s-black-lawyer-and-a-principle.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/10/news/a-klansman-s-black-la...

cperciva 10y ago
An even more impressive demonstration of their principles: In the 1970s the ACLU supported the National Socialist Party of America in their fight to be allowed to display swastikas while marching through the predominantly-Jewish village of Skokie. Incidentally, the lawyers representing the National Socialist Party and the ACLU were both Jewish.
SomewhatLikely 10y ago
Not sure what happened, but it looks like the attorney was recently disbarred for "professional misconduct". http://www.txcourts.gov/media/825977/149249.pdf http://www.txcourts.gov/media/825977/149249.pdf

EternalData 10y ago

Skokie, IL. The epitome of a principled defense of civil rights.

lol214365 10y ago

The ACLU has completely deviated from their declared mission -- protecting civil liberties -- in recent weeks. The ACLU opposes a border wall. Who's civil liberties are violated by a border wall? The ACLU opposes the immigration and refugee EO. Who's civil liberties are violated by foreign nationals not being permitted into the United States?

dwaxe 10y ago
They literally tell you. Border wall: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-trumps-border-and-sanctuary-city-plans-will-violate-civil-liberties https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-trumps-border-and-sanctuary-c... One of dozens of articles on the refugee EO: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/trump-begins-his-unconstitutional-program-anti-muslim-discrimination https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/trump-begins-his-unco...
- User23 10y ago
  These pages are both grossly biased and intellectually dishonest. While I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible to impute motive from action, it's irresponsible to call defending borders racist when there are other reasonable and less incendiary explanations. I've historically supported the ACLU's mission, but right now they are showboating for donations and that plan is working out great for them which means we can expect them to double down on the strategy. It's no secret that a significant portion of political activism and fund-raising is just skinning suckers. The right ran the same scam on its constituents during the Obama years.
  - uabstraction 10y ago
    "it's irresponsible to call defending borders racist when there are other reasonable and less incendiary explanations." I haven't heard one single reasonable explanation for why the US taxpayers should put $15 BILLION (before budget overflows and deadline pushbacks) into this wall. Until it is remotely justifiable, a knee-jerk monument to collective racism and xenophobia is ALL it is. Starting a trade war with Mexico so we can say they paid for it though creative accounting will hurt our economy and cost the working class much more than a simple crackdown on employers exploiting illegal immigrants.

hackuser 10y ago

> While they're being politicized right now ... That's long been true, though I'm sure sometimes more than others. I agree with what you say, but AFAIK they always have been associated with the left.

matthewbauer 10y ago
True, they are more left-wing than right-wing. At the same time, they support Citizens United which is usually considered conservative. So it's not so clear cut.
krenoten 10y ago
to the extent that the left is associated with the maintenance of our rights

shawn-butler 10y ago

The ACLU used to be an entirely admirable organization. It has devolved into mostly political advocacy and attention-seeking, but still does some good work. Not black/white, every institution has its own history. But YC is entirely diluting their brand wading into this mess. The A.C.L.U. has has about 250,000+ members, a $15-20 million annual budget (hardly a startup mentality), an extensive network of state affiliates and local chapters, backed up by a national office with headquarters in New York, a legislative office in Washington and regional offices in Atlanta and Denver. There are fifty-one affiliates - every state except North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho, plus 3 in California, and one in D.C. (not sure about state offices anymore, I think that is correct), - have their own staffs and their own boards, plus at least one representative on the national board, which sets policy for the whole organization. The state affiliates do make independent decisions about which cases to take and which local legislation to lobby for or against. They frequently take cases in areas where the national organization has not yet adopted a policy. But they also get smacked down when they run afoul of national board. It is the national board sets a "policy" agenda and then seeks out cases to pursue that agenda. That board meets for a weekend four times a year to iron out the policy. That natl/local split accounts for some of the diversity, but in truth it is mostly partisan organization based on board membership.

pcvarmint 10y ago
In Worst Instincts [1] [2], Wendy Kaminer documents this. I lately have found the Rutherford Institute [3] to be a much better protector of individual rights than the ACLU. [4] [1] https://www.amazon.com/Worst-Instincts-Cowardice-Conformity-ACLU/dp/080704430X/ https://www.amazon.com/Worst-Instincts-Cowardice-Conformity-... [2] http://beta.wendykaminer.com/ACLU.aspx http://beta.wendykaminer.com/ACLU.aspx [3] http://rutherford.org/ http://rutherford.org/ [4] http://www.npr.org/2013/06/02/188125996/john-whitehead-on-protecting-individual-rights http://www.npr.org/2013/06/02/188125996/john-whitehead-on-pr...