3 ms·

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. [

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.

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.