5 ms·
The ACLU Retreats from Free Expression
- breakyerself 8y agoI'd say white nationalists and the like have more than enough representation these days. They don't need the ACLU wasting limited resources when they've already got the support of the Whitehouse.
- chrislynch42 8y agoSlippery slopes are real. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
- TheIronYuppie 8y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- chrislynch42 8y agoI had already read it and didn't see anything compelling. Basically it says its hard to maintain a tolerant cohesive society with intolerant nincompoops running around. We have intolerant groups on both sides of many issues. Are we going to censor all of them?
- charlesism 8y ago> We have intolerant groups on both sides of many issues. Are we going to censor all of them? Who did you have in mind?
- chrislynch42 8y agoAbortion, Gun Rights and Religious Freedom are low hanging fruit. To my mind, as a nation we are becoming less tolerant rather than more tolerant across the board. One of the reasons I have largely disconnected from Social Media.
- skywhopper 8y ago"First they came for the Nazis"? Really?
- mkane848 8y agoAfter hearing ICE agents unironically saying how "they're just following orders", I'm really not surprised people can let themselves think like this.
- wheaties 8y agoI, personally hate white nationalists, as they devalue everything good and decent. I also fully support the first amendment. I want to see them shut up but I'll be damned if a law is passed that forces it. Bias needs to be stamped out because we feel it's wrong, not because we're told to do so. External motivation is far less compelling than internal. Laws are external
- the6threplicant 8y agoThe problem is all of these institutional systems rely a lot on people being in "good faith". From the president to the police-man. I feel like our institutions are being populated by people who just want to destroy them instead of improving them or even debating their worth.
- skywhopper 8y agoThis particular item has nothing to do with laws about free speech. The ACLU provides legal support to fight government silencing of free speech. But there are always more cases than it can fight. The ACLU has, in the past, supported lots of truly hateful speech on principle. However, as others have pointed out, there's a presumption of good faith. ie, that the hateful speakers really are being silenced, and need legal help. These days, the "pro-free-speech" crowd that gets publicized in the WSJ opinion page and Fox News are completely bad faith actors, seeking to incite hatred and violence, making irresponsible claims, backed by tons of money, and then crying "free speech" when their bad faith is pointed out. The ACLU is, reasonably, calling that crap out as not worth providing legal support to, since those actors are not sincere, they are just troublemakers, sowing discord because it works to their advantage. The ACLU ultimately must stand up for its core principles, and not be sucked into minute parsing of legalistic technicalities, because the bad guys are playing that game to destroy the ACLU and what it stands for, not because they believe in "free speech".
- Dowwie 8y agoReminder: The WSJ is owned by NewsCorp, who owns FoxNews and NYPost
- CWuestefeld 8y agoReminder: never believe anything said by members of your out-group. Only what's written by your own tribe can be true.
- wccrawford 8y agoAnyone got a source that isn't behind a paywall? I can't find any of those quotes from the blurb on the web, not even from the ACLU themselves.
- haaen 8y agohttps://outline.com/MtGgKs https://outline.com/MtGgKs
- wccrawford 8y agoThanks. I don't see anything in there that says they're "retreating from free expression" as the title here claims. Instead, it actually says that they will still defend free speech for those they disagree with, including white supremacists, when the cases make sense. In fact, the only thing I really see here is them saying that a lot of factors go into deciding which cases they can take, including the fact that they can't take all the cases they want to. Without something more than this, I think the title is clickbait, if not outright wrong.
- CWuestefeld 8y agoThere's a brief article on Reason: https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-spe... Quoting from it: It's hard to see this as anything other than a cowardly retreat from a full-throated defense of the First Amendment. Moving forward, when deciding whether to take a free speech case, the organization will consider "factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur." The memo also makes clear that the ACLU has zero interest in defending First Amendment rights in conjunction with Second Amendment rights. If controversial speakers intend to carry weapons, the ACLU "will generally not represent them."
- TheIronYuppie 8y agoThere's a lot of research out there that the reality is more subtle than just "free speech is free speech". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- flyingfences 8y agoOh how the mighty have fallen.
- berthe 8y agoRelevant context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am... tl;dr: The ACLU famously defended the right of a group of Nazis to hold a protest march through a Jewish neighborhood and display swastikas there.
- RickJWagner 8y agoThat's disturbing. Step one on the SPLC trail.