3 ms·

I've stopped donating to the ACLU after being a donor for many years because they have stopped being nonpartisan from what I can tell. This is not only in their

I've stopped donating to the ACLU after being a donor for many years because they have stopped being nonpartisan from what I can tell. This is not only in their cases but their public statements, and it's become very clear they no longer are friends of free speech.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> it's become very clear they no longer are friends of free speech. Well, certainly they aren't a friend of the modern right-wing idea that “free speech” is a positive entitlement to compel other private actors to relay your speech, but they remain zealous defenders of the Constitutional right of free speech against encroachment by government, including against bipartisan assaults like the EARN IT Act. https://www.aclu.org/news/by-issue/free-speech/ https://www.aclu.org/news/by-issue/free-speech/
- bmelton 6y ago
  This memo[1] seems to assert that they would not be friends to free speech against encroachment by the government if the speech were speech they didn't like. [1] http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf?mod=article_inline http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACL...
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > This memo[1] seems to assert that they would not be friends to free speech against encroachment by the government if the speech were speech they didn't like. It explicitly says the opposite, but does indicate that they would not be able to legally represent people making such speech if the terms of such representation would restrict the ACLU from criticizing the viewpoint being advanced while defending the right to advance it: "While the ACLU vigorously defends the right to free speech of those who espouse views antithetical to our own, we also reserve our right to condemn those views. Our defense of free speech rests squarely on the proposition that speech deserves defending even if we, or others in the community, find it reprehensible. Accordingly, as a general matter we should be able to simultaneously defend a speaker’s right to speak and condemn their views, and we should seek to preserve that right through ethically appropriate representation agreements. [...] But we generally should not agree to represent people who will not agree to sign an ethically appropriate advance waiver of potential conflicts arising from our condemnation of their views."
    - bmelton 6y ago
      I appreciate the correction, but I think it's noteworthy that they expect would-be defendants to waiver away the ACLU's disdain for them as a condition of representation. Perhaps this is normal in the legal realm?
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Perhaps this is normal in the legal realm? Yes, informing potential clients of, and conditioning representation on waiver of, a forseeable conflict of interest is generally mandatory for lawyers.
        bmelton 6y ago
        Framed as you have it, I would agree...but I always understood a conflict of interest to be one which might compel an attorney to violate your confidence, or fail to keep your confidences sacrosanct. Publicly stating "we do not agree with the language of our clients" does not seem to me to rise anywhere near the level of that to require waiver. That said, I take you as more informed on the subject than I, so again I thank you for the information.
narogab 6y ago
Ditto for me. I supported ACLU for decades. But about 30 years ago I noticed their messaging changing: less about racial civil rights and a move toward sexual civil rights. I met someone who worked with their local offices and in conversations it became apparent that ACLU was undergoing a shift in management style: persons from the gay community were moving into local and national positions in their organization. Fast forward to 20 years later ACLU was (also) now concerned about bullying in schools. I had seen one bullying incident in my entire life, despite exposure to all types of people. Seeing their fallback from black civil rights, the advancement of LGBT causes to the forefront, and the support of such causes as "bullying", I surmised that ACLU had "gone off the rails". It was no longer the organization I once admired. I ceased my contributions.
notJim 6y ago
It seems like people are confused about what non-partisan means. Non-partisan does not mean neutral on political issues. The ACLU has never been neutral on political issues, going back as long as they've existed [1]. Non-partisan means they pursue their vision of civil rights regardless of which party that brings them into conflict with. If they come info conflict with one party more than another, that doesn't make them partisan. It just means that their vision of civil liberties has been taken up more by one party than others. [1] Just skim their wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union

dragonwriter 6y ago

> it's become very clear they no longer are friends of free speech. Well, certainly they aren't a friend of the modern right-wing idea that “free speech” is a positive entitlement to compel other private actors to relay your speech, but they remain zealous defenders of the Constitutional right of free speech against encroachment by government, including against bipartisan assaults like the EARN IT Act. https://www.aclu.org/news/by-issue/free-speech/ https://www.aclu.org/news/by-issue/free-speech/

bmelton 6y ago
This memo[1] seems to assert that they would not be friends to free speech against encroachment by the government if the speech were speech they didn't like. [1] http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf?mod=article_inline http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACL...
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > This memo[1] seems to assert that they would not be friends to free speech against encroachment by the government if the speech were speech they didn't like. It explicitly says the opposite, but does indicate that they would not be able to legally represent people making such speech if the terms of such representation would restrict the ACLU from criticizing the viewpoint being advanced while defending the right to advance it: "While the ACLU vigorously defends the right to free speech of those who espouse views antithetical to our own, we also reserve our right to condemn those views. Our defense of free speech rests squarely on the proposition that speech deserves defending even if we, or others in the community, find it reprehensible. Accordingly, as a general matter we should be able to simultaneously defend a speaker’s right to speak and condemn their views, and we should seek to preserve that right through ethically appropriate representation agreements. [...] But we generally should not agree to represent people who will not agree to sign an ethically appropriate advance waiver of potential conflicts arising from our condemnation of their views."
  - bmelton 6y ago
    I appreciate the correction, but I think it's noteworthy that they expect would-be defendants to waiver away the ACLU's disdain for them as a condition of representation. Perhaps this is normal in the legal realm?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Perhaps this is normal in the legal realm? Yes, informing potential clients of, and conditioning representation on waiver of, a forseeable conflict of interest is generally mandatory for lawyers.
      - bmelton 6y ago
        Framed as you have it, I would agree...but I always understood a conflict of interest to be one which might compel an attorney to violate your confidence, or fail to keep your confidences sacrosanct. Publicly stating "we do not agree with the language of our clients" does not seem to me to rise anywhere near the level of that to require waiver. That said, I take you as more informed on the subject than I, so again I thank you for the information.

narogab 6y ago

Ditto for me. I supported ACLU for decades. But about 30 years ago I noticed their messaging changing: less about racial civil rights and a move toward sexual civil rights. I met someone who worked with their local offices and in conversations it became apparent that ACLU was undergoing a shift in management style: persons from the gay community were moving into local and national positions in their organization. Fast forward to 20 years later ACLU was (also) now concerned about bullying in schools. I had seen one bullying incident in my entire life, despite exposure to all types of people. Seeing their fallback from black civil rights, the advancement of LGBT causes to the forefront, and the support of such causes as "bullying", I surmised that ACLU had "gone off the rails". It was no longer the organization I once admired. I ceased my contributions.

notJim 6y ago

It seems like people are confused about what non-partisan means. Non-partisan does not mean neutral on political issues. The ACLU has never been neutral on political issues, going back as long as they've existed [1]. Non-partisan means they pursue their vision of civil rights regardless of which party that brings them into conflict with. If they come info conflict with one party more than another, that doesn't make them partisan. It just means that their vision of civil liberties has been taken up more by one party than others. [1] Just skim their wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union