33 ms·

Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

388 points by mful 5y ago

jseliger 5y ago
I was a member for 10 years and stopped renewing a year or two ago, when it seemed to stop putting free speech and expression first.
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  I held them up for years and years as an example of an actually principled organization in an age where every other institution was compromising their stated beliefs in favor of genuflection to fashionable slogans. Like you, I stopped doing this a few years ago : ( To their relative credit, they do seem to be struggling with it in a way that very few other orgs are, and you occasionally see them take principled action.
- nxc18 5y ago
  Same. I was turned off by the “my way or the highway” mentality on trans issues shown in their Twitter. Failure to defend 2A rights, now that NRA is clearly not principled in any way (maybe it never was), also bothered me. It is hard to imagine them defending an anti-trans person in 2021. As despicable as those people are, they still have civil rights. As a gay man, I would have been despicable for most of the past 100+ years, but the ACLU would have defended me anyway. That version of the ACLU no longer exists. Reading through their Twitter again just now, it is clear they have gone off the rails.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    The ACLU has never defended or supported Hellerian 2A rights (https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment), and its not clear that they should change their position due to a shift in SC precedent, anymore than that they should shift their position on speech if the SC decided to revert to Schenck.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - hed 5y ago
      Once they came out after Heller and stated they still believed it was a collective right, I knew my relationship with them was over. ACLU (and others) cite it as a 5-4 decision but even the dissenters on the case believed it was an individual right, they just still thought it could be regulated / scrutinized. In that sense the individual right won 9-0.
      - syshum 5y ago
        The collective right never made any sense in the first place, not a single other amendment in the bill of rights is viewed as a "collective right" so why in the hell would this lone amendment be a "collective right" Further what the hell does a "collective right" even look like in the first place.... the ACLU hates guns, does not believe anyone outside the government should have guns, the "collective right" was just their cover so they did not have to admit they only stood for some of the constitution not all of it //EDIT: Mods have rate limited me, so in response to comment below allow me to add I guess I should have implicitly stated Constitutional Rights, and more specifically Bill of Rights in the context. On top of that, that is still not a "collective right", that is more of a Balance of rights, You have a right to your property, I have a right to my property, if your actions (aka polluting ) damage my property then you have directly harmed my individual rights and are thus liable An example of this would be the fact that I have the right to swing my arms, but if I swing my arms in a manner that hits another person I have violated their bodily rights not to be injured by me. No one would claim that is a "collective right", no here we are balancing individual rights, their right to not be injured trumps my right to swing my arms in the physical space they occupy at that moment
        arrosenberg 5y ago
        > Further what the hell does a "collective right" even look like in the first place.... I'll give a non-gun example - you buy a piece of property near the headway of an important river. You have an individual right to improve the property, and really use it any way you want. HOWEVER - the people who live downstream of you ALSO have a collective right to use the river, which puts a limit on your individual rights. You can't dump pollutants or trash in the river, nor can you divert the waterway. You have an individual right to use your own property, but your neighbors (depending on the issue, this may be local or global) have a collective right not to suffer damage or externalities from that use. In the context of the gun discussion, the collective rights people believe that gun ownership is intended to defend the neighborhood, not for individual self-defense.
  - stirfish 5y ago
    The NRA started as a way to retrain Union soldiers to actually aim their weapons instead of volleying them, as they were no longer using smooth-bored muskets. If that's a principle, they did that. I'm not sure why they became a weird mix of Russians and the KKK.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      > I'm not sure why they became a weird mix of Russians and the KKK. They didn't. The NRA supports the rights of all individuals to own gubs. The KKK supports gun control to stop minorities from owning guns.
      - 1986 5y ago
        Then why was the NRA so silent about Philando Castile?
        _-david-_ 5y ago
        Because he was in possession of a controlled substance and a gun which is illegal. Edit: not sure why I am being down voted but here is the statement https://mobile.twitter.com/DLoesch/status/895508311193382912 https://mobile.twitter.com/DLoesch/status/895508311193382912
        a1369209993 5y ago
        > and a gun which is illegal. > not sure why I am being down voted Probably for stupid reasons, but a legitimate reason for downvoting you would be because that is no such thing as a gun which is illegal[0]; that's the whole point of the second amendment. 0: Except maybe something like a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) if applicable arms limitation treaties make it also illegal for the military to possess one.
        _-david-_ 5y ago
  - istorical 5y ago
    > As a gay man, I would have been despicable for most of the past 100+ years, but the ACLU would have defended me anyway. That version of the ACLU no longer exists. This precise thing is why it's baffling that people can suggest cancel culture is only something to complain about if you've done / said something wrong. What is considered wrong does not always age well. Sometimes we ourselves are the baddies.
    - happytoexplain 5y ago
      >people ... suggest cancel culture is only something to complain about if you've done / said something wrong This is an oversimplification. What you might be extrapolating from is the common sentiment that complaining about cancel culture is not substantive in cases where an individual appears to have done something wrong enough to justify the consequences. Yes, "wrong enough" is of varying subjectivity in each case, but focusing on "cancel culture" as some kind of monolithic evil instead of focusing on the details of each case is a very common source of noise, and so is commonly criticized, and that criticism may be what you're accumulating into "cancel culture is only something to complain about if you've done / said something wrong".
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - p1necone 5y ago
        The whole concept of cancel culture seems to just be used as a way to silence legitimate criticism of others as far as I can see. I'm sure it meant something at one point, but now it's just silly.
        tomerico 5y ago
        Note how you have just did exactly what you criticized ( “silence legitimate criticism of others” by dismissing those that called out cancel culture)
        5y ago
  - devwastaken 5y ago
    I looked at their twitter, looks pretty good to me. What exactly are you talking about?
  - birdyrooster 5y ago
    Trans politics was going okay until they took the lions share of BLM donations that was raised on the death of cisgendered straight black men. There are people that are unhappy with this distribution being called anti-trans and it’s kinda insane.
    - sgerenser 5y ago
      Haven’t heard about this. Googling doesn’t unearth anything either. Have any links to details on this?
      - birdyrooster 5y ago
        page 22 of their 2020 impact report https://blacklivesmatter.com/2020-impact-report/ https://blacklivesmatter.com/2020-impact-report/ meanwhile families of those who died in 2020 still haven't received help from BLM despite promises https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/breonna-taylor-tamika-palmer-blm-b1833123.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/breonna-ta... https://www.complex.com/life/michael-browns-father-ferguson-activist-request-20-million-from-black-lives-matter-for-organizing-efforts https://www.complex.com/life/michael-browns-father-ferguson-...
  - syshum 5y ago
    NRA never was, they wrote or substantially contributed to most of the Gun Laws we have today, they comprised the 2nd amendment way in never ending trail of "reasonable gun control" [1] GOA and SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) are far far better when it comes to actual legal challenges to laws that infringe the 2nd Amendment [1] https://i.imgur.com/TO8BGgw.png https://i.imgur.com/TO8BGgw.png
    - jdhn 5y ago
      At this point, I think the NRA exists only to act as a foil for gun control groups. I have donated to both of the groups you mentioned as I think that they're both lightyears ahead of the NRA when it comes to actually doing anything.
- asabjorn 5y ago
  https://www.thefire.org/ https://www.thefire.org/ has picked up the mantle on executing on the vision of what ACLU used to be. ACLU is lost, I stopped donating a while ago as well, and it won't return until they oust those that work against the liberal ideal.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  I have a similar history. My replacement donations are Fire and Institute for Justice. https://www.thefire.org/ https://www.thefire.org/ https://ij.org/ https://ij.org/
  - brian_cunnie 5y ago
    Thanks for the tip! I'm going to follow suit, and replace my donations. I feel there's merit to a singleness-of-purpose within an organization, and ACLU's attempt to juggle "12 or 15 different values" detracts from its effectiveness.
- norswap 5y ago
  And so the ACLU gets worse and worse via evaporative cooling of group beliefs. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporative-cooling-of-group-beliefs https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporativ...
mudil 5y ago
ACLU has been subverted by political correctness, mob mentality of internet, and the do-gooder activists. ACLU is a perfect example on how we ended up in the through the looking glass world.
- creamytaco 5y ago
  One has to wonder if the useful idiots (according to Lenin) that are propagating this wave of ideological censorship and intolerance realize what they are in for. The powers that be must surely be extremely pleased to see such hated - by corporate and financial kleptocracy - liberal bastions as free speech and open debate dismantled and destroyed. I fear it is already too late.
  - DennisAleynikov 5y ago
    short answer is no
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    I'm hoping that it's self-correcting. The right has (belatedly) starting using this lunacy against the left. I guess the best we can hope for is that the illiberal masses on one side act as a counterweight against the illiberal masses on the other until they rediscover the purpose of the liberalism. In the meanwhile, for anyone who wasn't stupid enough to forget, the best you can do is try and stay out of the way. I'm delighted to have found a job that's mission-focused enough that this nonsense doesn't come close to touching the people doing real work in the way it (stochastically) can at places with more slack, like Google. We pay a tax, in the form of HR playing masturbatory language games with each other, but I've never once had to care about it.
    - a1369209993 5y ago
      > In the meanwhile, for anyone who wasn't stupid enough to forget, the best you can do is try and stay out of the way. This is indeed about the best plan I've been able to come up with. Based on history, I worry it's woefully insufficient.
csande17 5y ago
You could write a similar article about a lot of nonprofits, lately. "Once a Developer of Web Browsers, Mozilla Faces an Identity Crisis." "Once a Free Online Encyclopedia, the Wikimedia Foundation Faces an Identity Crisis."
- Y_Y 5y ago
  Don't forget Amnesty International.
  - tpmx 5y ago
    Edit: placeholder (Decided it was unfair to throw a large org under the bus without being able spend a few hours to defend the claim.)
    - deadalus 5y ago
      Or Anti-Defamation League.
      - this2shallPass 5y ago
        Citation / explanation needed. ADL's stated mission is "To stop the defamation of the Jewish people, and to secure justice and fair treatment to all..." It seems like the ADL has legitimate work it can be doing, unless you think Jews and all people are treated fairly. I don't think you're saying that, and I do think you're saying it's not doing the work that it could be doing. Could you say more about that? "Of the 1,715 victims of anti-religious hate crimes: 60.2 percent were victims of crimes motivated by offenders’ anti-Jewish bias." https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/victims https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/victims Anti-Jewish hate-crimes make up a majority of the anti-religious hate crimes in the US. (You could argue they should be classified as "Racial/ethnicity/ancestry bias" but that's another discussion). The statistics aren't perfect - not every crime or possible crime is reported to law enforcement, and not every law enforcement agency in the US shares hate crime information with the federal government. A recent law changed that so it's required instead of optional, so likely more will be doing so in the future.
myWindoonn 5y ago
They phoned me earlier this year and asked for $1500 USD. I asked them why we live in a country where people are starving, exposed, and sick in a country that has a bounty of food, housing, and healthcare. “Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind,” says a person who probably has all three of those things. Feed people, and then ask for virtues from them.
- throwaway3699 5y ago
  Free speech is how civil rights are won. It is a prerequisite for a positive change.
  - myWindoonn 5y ago
    I know how much food $1500 will buy, or how many months of rent it will cover, or how little of a hospital bill it can handle. How much civil rights can $1500 buy? They didn't know on the phone, but I was genuinely curious. I agree that free speech is essential -- I imagine that they asked for money because I gave them money in the past. Can you agree that the starving, homeless, and sick might have difficulty exercising their right to free speech even if the ACLU protects it in court?
- wearywanderer 5y ago
  > “Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind,” That's nonsensical. If somebody leaves the First Amendment behind, they are leaving liberalism behind. If you do not support free speech, you simply are not liberal.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    If you seek to use governance as a tool to strip citizens of their liberty you are demonstrably un-American. That doesn't stop many politicians from doing so and making it a foundation of their party's ideology.
    - wearywanderer 5y ago
baggy_trough 5y ago
Despite the sad loss of the ACLU as an institution that cares about civil liberties, we can remain hopeful due to other organizations like FIRE. https://www.thefire.org https://www.thefire.org
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Nicksil 5y ago
  >Despite the sad loss of the ACLU as an institution that cares about civil liberties, we can remain hopeful due to other organizations like FIRE. You're just going to leave it there? What/who is FIRE? This isn't one of those unique words easily discovered during a web search.
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    "fire org" and "fire civil liberties" both return the correct result in the first ranking. It really isn't that difficult
    - notwedtm 5y ago
      Perhaps, but then YOU are not doing it the service it deserves by simply slapping it in there and not providing any context. This is the problem with the whole "DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH" retort that lots of political arguments deteriorate into. If YOU have already done said research, and you have an informed opinion from said research, then you should share it directly in the conversation at hand. Not only do you avoid looking like a jerk by trying to end a conversation with "look it up" or something similar; you are also able to potentially be the reason someone changes their mind on the subject because you evangelized something that you believe in instead of leaving them potentially thinking "People who like FIRE must be jerks."
      - wutbrodo 5y ago
        > Not only do you avoid looking like a jerk by trying to end a conversation with "look it up" or something similar What on Earth are you talking about? Your whole comment is in reference to rebuffing a request for more details with "look it up". _Nobody here is doing that_. The original comment mentioned FIRE without describing it; presumably you don't think every mention of an organization must come with an executive summary? The response then whined about how the previous comment left them with an ungoogleable dead-end. My comment simply said that, with context, it was far from ungoogleable (and thus the aggressive tone towards the parent comment wasn't warranted). The reason I personally didn't provide more information is that I myself am not that familiar with FIRE, certainly not to the extent that I'd be able to summarize why they're an adequate substitute for the ACLU. > you evangelized something that you believe in instead of leaving them potentially thinking "People who like FIRE must be jerks This and the rest of your comment is a perfect example of the decay of discourse behind things like the ACLU's troubles. Instead of trying to understand what they read, people like you are desperate to pattern-match to some imagined ill and then mistake your hysterical emotional response for moral reasoning.
kbelder 5y ago
I honestly think they were compromised from the very beginning, with their mission of "defending every civil right... except the 2nd amendment, we don't like that one." But they still fought lots of commendable battles, sticking up for people that nobody else would. I think that's what they've lost... they would be scared to stick up for somebody that might get the wrong people upset with them.
- mjmahone17 5y ago
  It’s probably reasonable for an organization to choose not to conflate the civil liberties they stand for with amendments. In an ideal world the people would happily eliminate or modify laws that do harm, and of the existing US civil liberties, the 2nd amendment is likely the most debatable on whether it is a net win for liberty.
  - gotoeleven 5y ago
    The American Civil Liberties Approved by Left Wing Twitter Mobs Union has a nice ring to it.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Even the most extreme proponents of the 2nd amendment have examples of it working The various police forces during the capital seige - in January, remember how that was this year - said they used less force because the participants were armed and knew they could shoot back Their whole thing is that they will make the state think twice, whereas the peaceful and unarmed protestors get knocked around with no recourse Without examples, its easy to think they are advocating for actually killing government officials with their guns in order to get their way, but after a year of examples I can at least say I have experienced competing and conflicting ideas in action
    - Retric 5y ago
      The ACLU’s mission isn’t about defending the constitution, plenty of other organizations step up for that. Their scope includes all those liberties which don’t show up on the constitution which is a much larger issue. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as” Many people just have a problem with word except on that line and so many other places in society. As such the ACLU’s goal is to push for improvements not simply defend the current situation.
tpmx 5y ago
I like this idea: https://twitter.com/kittypurrzog/status/1401610476237197312 https://twitter.com/kittypurrzog/status/1401610476237197312 The ACLU should split into two groups: ACLU Sr, which fights for free speech rights, and ACLU Jr, which fights against them (Yes, I saw this when PG retweeted it.)
- Avshalom 5y ago
  You know free speech isn't the only civil liberty right?
  - nzrf 5y ago
    Much like they just stay out of 2nd amendment… https://www.aclu.org/blog/civil-liberties/mobilization/aclus-position-gun-control https://www.aclu.org/blog/civil-liberties/mobilization/aclus... As I support their efforts generally. I find picking and choosing seems counter to the what protecting our civil liberties means in a whole.
    - rgbrenner 5y ago
      Theyve said previously that the reason they mostly stay out of the 2nd amendment is that there's already a well funded organization that has made the 2nd their sole focus. The NRA's budget is larger than the ACLUs.. so it makes sense for them to prioritize other constitutional issues.
      - Natsu 5y ago
        There's mostly downside for them because a significant fraction of their members are not fans of the 2nd amendment. The closest I think they've gotten to gun cases is probably this one, which was more of a 4th amendment issue: https://www.aclu.org/cases/caniglia-v-strom https://www.aclu.org/cases/caniglia-v-strom
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
slowmovintarget 5y ago
Free speech is table stakes for a free society. Those claiming otherwise are playing with fire.
- jacobsenscott 5y ago
  There has never been a society where this is true. Certainly where I live, in the US, free speech is code for "white men are allowed to say whatever they want" while the speech of other groups can be violently repressed without consequence.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dmitrygr 5y ago
    IF you are right, that just means we need MORE free speech for those who don't have it, NOT less for those who do!
    - yhoneycomb 5y ago
      Ironic that there are so many deleted comments on a post about free speech
      - Applejinx 5y ago
        Not at all: functionally, there's a meta-gaming thing that goes on where 'free speech' is treated as sort of antifa Kryptonite. It's not being argued in good faith at all. It's a tactic. You'll find that the same people making a big noise about 'free speech' will do everything they possibly can to suppress and conceal the speech of those who are calling 'em out for arguing in bad faith… because they are arguing in bad faith, because they have absolutely no intention of furthering free speech. It is purely a tactic.
        akarma 5y ago
        If you're conspiratorial about everybody who supports free speech not really supporting free speech, and instead just saying it in bad faith(?), you're going to have a tough time with meaningful debate and enjoying HN. One of the core tenets is a belief in the principle of charity — assume the strongest interpretation of the commenter's argument, not the weakest.
stuaxo 5y ago
I've seen so much pro establish ment guff from the NYT I CBA to read this.
Syonyk 5y ago
I wish I'd taken a photo of the "survey" they sent me the other day. I've managed to get junk mail from both sides of the political spectrum now, which has been interesting (the conservative groups have had me on their mailing list forever, and I think a subscription to Harpers got me on the liberal groups). Unfortunately, other than the issues involved, I can't really tell a big difference between fundraising styles. "Assume the reader is an idiot and send surveys with the most leading questions you've ever heard of, then ask for money." Usually, they say "Please send us $15 to process the survey, and your best gift." The questions are absolutely, loaded, leading questions that would be laughed out of any courtroom or actual attempt at a statistically accurate survey. They're things like "Do you agree that racial injustice and white supremacy is the most important issue facing America today?" and "Do you agree that widespread, unchecked illegal immigration is on a path to destroy the nation we love?" One group actually has survey stickers you respond with - "Yes, illegal immigration is a huge concern!" and "No, I'm a global elitist who supports illegal aliens voting in our elections and overthrowing our Democracy." Or something of the sort. I guess it works or they wouldn't do it, but it's absolutely insane how these "surveys" are worded. I'm sure all they do is look for a check on the inside instead of "processing" them. Oh, and just in case you're a drooling moron who doesn't know how to read a letter, the attached letter highlighting the supposed problems will reliably include at the bottom of the pages, "Over!" "Next page please!" "Flip over to continue reading!" and other insulting directions that more or less imply I don't know how to read a multi-page document. Since it's apparently against federal law to leave whitespace in such a fundraising request, they fill the last page with "PS: This is an URGENT issue that requires your rushed donation to STOP THEM from DOING EVIL THINGS." "PPS: Please rush your donation back!" "PPSS: I'm still going to put stuff here so there's no whitespace." But I do tend to respond in long form, usually expanding on answers, and often include 2-3 typed pages in response when the survey lacks nuance. I doubt it ever gets read, but it's good practice for being able to expand on issues. In any case, the ACLU isn't getting my money. Neither is the Heritage Foundation, and neither are any other groups that send me these "surveys" where the only important question is "But how much can you afford to give?"
- stirfish 5y ago
  > Since it's apparently against federal law to leave whitespace in such a fundraising request, Oh nice, we are following federal fundraising laws now. This is an improvement.
neonate 5y ago
https://archive.is/zo5sx https://archive.is/zo5sx
sammalloy 5y ago
There's not a single word about Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in this article, and how defending the free speech of this organization set them on this downward trajectory.
- javagram 5y ago
  Citizens United was about banning an organization from publishing a political attack video on Hillary Clinton. If Citizens United had gone the other way, nothing would stop the government from banning books or social media posts as well. (During oral arguments before the Supreme Court, the government lawyer admitted they believed they could ban books and YouTube videos as well) Citizens United is frequently misunderstood - the main problem with it is that because restrictions on recognized political party fundraising still remain on the books, political money ends up flooding into third party organizations that are less under control of the institutional party and are more likely to be extreme. Meanwhile political candidates can plausibly deny their connection to the actions of such super PACs. Making the playing field even again by allowing larger or unlimited direct donations to candidates or parties would be the way toward a just but also effective solution.
stefantalpalaru 5y ago
See also https://taibbi.substack.com/p/is-traditional-liberalism-vanishing https://taibbi.substack.com/p/is-traditional-liberalism-vani... : «The old-school liberalism Glasser represents believed in that model of constant engagement and constant dialogue, which is probably what RFK was talking about when he said the ACLU defended the “root ideas” of the country. That optimism is vanishing, though, and just like Ebbets Field, a generation may grow up now never knowing it was there.»
insert_coin 5y ago
Free speech is the only “right” that matters. Thoughtcrime should not be allowed to be prosecuted, mob lynching is not justice. But if the ACLU is compromised maybe it is too late.
- jl2718 5y ago
  Well obviously it’s not working so maybe we need some other right to make sure we can retain that one. Hmmm... wonder if anybody thought of that...
- Applejinx 5y ago
  That gives rise to the fair question of, 'is free speech the only law that exists?' To what extent do all other considerations go by the wayside in order to draw a bright line sanctioning ALL possible expressions of ideas in speech, by definition rendering them immune from any sort of judgement or consequence? I think there's a fair amount of existing law that's made rather ridiculous by this position. In particular, the whole notion of conspiracy goes out the window when it's by definition not possible to share in responsibility for an act by persuasion. I'm not even sure it's possible to extort: if you can plausibly say you will wreak mayhem on a person for failing to comply, and you do so, and they comply rather than get mayhem wrought upon them, you've got what you want but you have never done more than speak. Your actions have never once crossed the line. The fact that your speech functioned as plausible threats is irrelevant: it was always and only speech, because nobody called you on it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- seventytwo 5y ago
  There’s lots of “speech” that’s already illegal in the US. Please, define where the actual line should be.
  - insert_coin 5y ago
    What speech is illegal? What is the list of words not allowed by law to be spoken?
jon37 5y ago
I see HN still has a policy of deleting all political content except for political articles whose thesis is "the left is anti-free-speech."
- dang 5y ago
  There's no such policy and there are countless counterexamples. I think you may be falling prey to the cognitive bias that causes people to notice and/or emphasize what they dislike much more than what they like. The bad stands out more than the good, pain is more memorable than pleasure, etc. This leads to false feelings of generality. Plenty of past explanation at these links, if you or anyone happens to care: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20dislike%20notice&sort=byDate&type=story&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20false%20feelings%20of%20generality&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
EGreg 5y ago
Freedom of speech is often a euphemism these days for capitalism of megaphones. I actually want to move away from celebrity culture and privately owned platforms, means of distribution, and audiences, and towards platforms based on collaboration, where people have to duke it out and address all serious arguments before the public sees it. It might take slightly longer but our society wouldn't be so divided. Individual people can't all be expected to be experts on climate change, vaccines, 5G and so on. I give an extensive explanation on the economics of free speech here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8HbvC6vqIY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8HbvC6vqIY I interviewed Noam Chomsky on it last week here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUPZ8rSESZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUPZ8rSESZo And we are building it here (sorry for the bad design so far): https://rational.app/ https://rational.app/
LatteLazy 5y ago
I don't understand why you would join the ACLU if you don't actually support the first ammendment and the stances the ACLU has taken? Seriously. Why? Its like joining a bowling league and complaining that you want to play soccer.
- asabjorn 5y ago
  Its got a huge endowment and a strong brand that can be subverted into fighting for progressive causes instead of what it used to do. It's woke 101 playbook. Basecamp and coinbase showed that you either choose to have zero tolerance of politics in the workplace, or the woke will make you spend as many resources as possible on political activism instead of whatever you used to do. A dynamic that has been so toxic to work dynamics and productivity that even a woke company like Basecamp had to course-correct. The organizations that have chosen to forbid political activism at work have lost employees that prioritize this over work, but those that remained have gotten back to work with fewer distractions and its arguable that loosing people that prioritize activism at work over the company vision is a net positive.
  - toiletfuneral 5y ago
    What does the term “woke” mean in this comment? You use it like it has a specific set of definitions I should know, but it mostly looks like a catch-all for any uncomfortable positions someone would rather not confront.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      I am not the person you replied to (I am the root commentor). As he's been down voted he won't be able to reply for a while I think. As it is, I think a good faith reading of his comment would just require woke to mean "people who expect their work to conform to their politics". I worked at an investment bank recently, they just wanted to make money -> not woke. After that I worked at a brokerage, the CEO announced she wanted more female managers, not just because it would be profitable but for her political beliefs -> woke.
kofejnik 5y ago
> Four years later at the University of Connecticut, two white students ... > The A.C.L.U. of Connecticut demanded that the university hire 10 Black faculty and staff members NYT's double standards are ridiculous
seventytwo 5y ago
Strange how no one bats an eye when any other advocacy group defines in their own way their goals or values, but when it’s the ACLU that does it, people lose their minds. No one cares that the NRA only gives a crap about half of 2A. No one cares that the federalist Society has a very specific view of the judiciary… but when the ACLU defines a cause in their own way, people go nuts with accusations of hypocrisy because it doesn’t line up with their own personal definition of “civil liberties”.
verytrivial 5y ago
Liberalism and Identity Politics never really sorted out their relationship, and it turns out the latter won Twitter (and created excellent foot-holds for bad-actors doing information "warfare" now everyone has social media welded directly to their brains.) Edit: A reply would be nice if down voting. The examples the first subject in the article uses are implicitly comparing liberty of speech to protected/disenfranchised classes or characteristics of people, and how ACLU seems to have changed disposition here. That's my point. My use of Identity Politics is not baiting -- it's a well studied topic in the social sciences.
golemiprague 5y ago
As much as I like a good political debate I wish HN restrict itself to more tech related articles rather than this. Sometimes tech has some political aspecst or we discuss the politics of certain tech companies, but this has nothing to do with either tech or tech companies, so why is it even here?
- twodai 5y ago
  Correct me if I'm incorrect but the idea of the hn forum is to discuss and share things which spark curiosity or something along those lines. I believe this article and conversation is incredibly curiosity inspiring. Also if hn was to deviate from that aim I think hn would really cease to be what it is.
  - golemiprague 5y ago
    Well almost any subject can spark curiosity but there is some understanding that it has to be within the realm of some technological aspects, otherwise we can all go to reddit. I am not saying it is against the rules to put such an article, just that we should be careful not to expand the net too much.
- api_or_ipa 5y ago
  I agree. Most of the comments are disappointingly poor and as a result there's little actual critical discussion. I was really hoping to chime into a fruitful discussion about positive vs negative protection of the first amendment rights. 1A says "... Congress shall make no law ..." but California's Constitution (for example) goes farther to say "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right". This lead to the fascinating Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins Supreme Court case[0] which surfaced the careful distinction between the two senses of Free Speech and the government's obligation to protect it. Where does an org like ACLU stand on what precisely defines Free Speech, and, the responsibilities of each State, Federal Govt and NGO like itself to protect it? IANAL, just someone who hoped we'd discuss things a bit more carefully on HN. 0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
atoav 5y ago
For free speech to be a reasonable thing to priorise over other things you have to have some more fundamental rules of society in place. E.g. fighting for free speech during the rise of the nazi party in 1920s Germany might sound like a noble thing, but once the Nazis whos speech you defended are in power they will shoot you at your doorstep for defending that of their enemies. That doesn't mean you have forbid Nazis from ever speaking (as if this would work), it means you have to make sure your democracy and your institutions are stable enough to survive their first period in government and manage to get a peaceful and fair transfer of power after that (instead of Nazis setting fire to the Reichstag, blaming it on communists, declaring an emergency and never have elections again). I'd rather loose the right to utter certain inflamatory phrases than loose the right and the possibility to vote the next government out of office in a fair and representative election.
- mnouquet 5y ago
  > For free speech to be a reasonable thing to priorise over other things you have to have some more fundamental rules of society in place. E.g. fighting for free speech during the rise of the nazi party in 1920s Germany might sound like a noble thing, but once the Nazis whos speech you defended are in power they will shoot you at your doorstep for defending that of their enemies. Do you mean the actual summary of what happened in the US over the past 50 years ? "These Rights were convenient at the time we were a minority, but now, we are in power, they are in the way of our ideal utopia." > I'd rather loose the right to utter certain inflamatory phrases than loose the right and the possibility to vote the next government out of office in a fair and representative election. And that's why the 2nd Amendment is protecting the 1st. (and all the subsequent).
busymom0 5y ago
Relevant: > ACLU Again Cowardly Abstains From an Online Censorship Controversy: The once-principled group issues P.R.-scripted excuses or engages in obfuscation to avoid taking stances that would offend its liberal donor base. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/aclu-again-cowardly-abstains-from https://greenwald.substack.com/p/aclu-again-cowardly-abstain... Edit: HN always seems to downvote anything which doesn't go with the censorship of controversial view points.
smsm42 5y ago
It's not ACLU's identity crisis, it's the Left's identity crisis. Civil rights are checks on government and institutional powers. When the left gained a massive institutional power and a lot of governmental power, it turned out it doesn't really like this power to be checked and challenged. It's one thing to fight for the free speech of people who are maybe abhorrent, but ultimately their speech won't change much, it's another thing when the speech is by your political rival, the fate of the power distribution in the nation depends on it, and you have all the tools to shut it down. It is hard to resist the temptation, and the Left didn't even try to resist it for long - in fact, they embraced it. Turns out, the hard question question wasn't "can you defend the Nazi's free speech", but "can you defend the Republican's free speech, if it could cost your favorite candidate the election?". Looks like the major part of the Left decided the right answer is "no", and winning is more important that preserving the liberties. After all, if the good guys are in power, who needs their powers to be checked? Only the bad guys.
- buu700 5y ago
  I don't think your conclusion that the majority of the left has adopted that position is founded, but I agree that this is a very interesting tension that you've perfectly described. It's easy to be principled when it doesn't matter. To anyone who didn't live through it, the Nazis are an ancient demon that feels as relevant as Darth Vader or the Devil. What do I care if 4chan wants to name a soda "Hitler did nothing wrong" for the lols? It's a lot harder when you perceive the speech that your principles would have you save to be a tangible threat to your safety. If some on the left (rightly or wrongly) see e.g. unmoderated alt-right social media activity as a risk factor for something bigger than 1/6, there would be an inherent tension between principles and pragmatism. I'd be interested in seeing evidence as to whether the left has trended toward a particular side, but it's a shame that this has to become an issue in the first place.
  - smsm42 5y ago
    We already had something massively - orders of magnitude - bigger than 1/6. In fact, it is happening right to this day - riots in Minneapolis and Portland continue right now, and have been happening all through 2020. The economic harm is in billions, the victim counts is raising steadily, and that before we account for the huge spike in crime - including murders - that happened in the last year in many major cities. Yet somehow it's not a "tangible threat to safety" while a bunch of wackos fantasizing on the internet how Trump is about to be revealed as the Messiah is. Sorry, it's very hard to treat such "safety" concerns as genuine while keeping ignoring the real safety threats. It's more like a pampered $100K-per-year college student cries that she feels "unsafe" going to their college campus because somewhere there on campus there is a professor who once said something that puts him slightly on the right of AOC. It's not what people mean by "safety", it's weaponizing "safety" for political reasons.
exporectomy 5y ago
Since the organization doesn't take responsibility for the "consumption of free speech" by its staff under its name on Twitter, perhaps they should use two Twitter accounts - one for uncensored staff tweets and one for official statements that ACLU stands behind.
slumdev 5y ago
Popular speech doesn't need defending. If the ACLU sacrifices its principles to earn the approval of the woke authoritarian left, then the people in charge never really had those principles.
RickJWagner 5y ago
The ACLU has struggled for a really long time. They've been accused of being racist and sexist for quite a few years. [1] is one example. [1] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-11/black-attorney-accuses-aclu-of-flagrantly-racist-policies-in-discrimination-lawsuit https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-11/black-at...
emmelaich 5y ago
From 1989[0], about Amnesty International > O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20100715191034/http:/old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp https://web.archive.org/web/20100715191034/http:/old.nationa...
jb775 5y ago
> One hears markedly less from the A.C.L.U. about free speech nowadays. Its annual reports from 2016 to 2019 highlight its role as a leader in the resistance against President Donald J. Trump. But the words “First Amendment” or “free speech” cannot be found. I find it incredibly ignorant that this article (or anyone here for that matter) fails to mention the name George Soros. The dude literally did a hostile takeover of the ACLU a few years back in the form of overly-generous donations[1]. The ACLU isn't "facing an identity crisis", it's been strategically taken over to push a divide-and-conquer strategy within America. Notice how everything they do nowadays is focused around heated "us vs them" topics? This isn't a mistake, or a natural byproduct...it's 100% by design. Not really sure what the end-goal is, but the ACLU's current agenda (and most of George Soros funded organizations) is clearly to get everyone in America to hate each other. [1] https://nonprofitquarterly.org/50-million-soros-grant-to-fund-aclu-for-reduction-of-incarceration/ https://nonprofitquarterly.org/50-million-soros-grant-to-fun...
senderista 5y ago
I will never donate to the ACLU again.
mattparcens 5y ago
ACLU is to Civil Liberties as MTV is to Music.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
They really have struggled lately with free speech, the difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism (which is "free speech that progressives approve"). I hope they figure it out.
throwawaysea 5y ago
This is why I stopped supporting the ACLU and instead support FIRE (https://www.thefire.org/ https://www.thefire.org/). The ACLU is no longer a civil liberties organization but rather a progressive political organization that only pushes leftist political positions. They used their platform and large funds to betray their original mission and longtime supporters. I’m sad about how far they have fallen but also happy to move on instead of lending them my support.
citizenpaul 5y ago
ACLU jumped the shark years back. i stopped donating when it became clear they had fallen to woke agenda rather than civil rights.
Wescott62 5y ago
Thanks for sharing such great information, I highly appreciate your hard-working skills as the post you published have some great information which is quite beneficial for me, I hope you will post more like that in the future. https://www.epayitonline.us/ https://www.epayitonline.us/
wolverine876 5y ago
One idea is that the generational change is like all generational political changes: Unsatisfied with the world they've inherited, as they should be, the next generation wants revolution, not reform. They want to tear down the old system and build something new. They see the results of the old system and have little respect for its jaded, corrupt defenders. The older people decry it, saying that the revolution is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, that reform is the best approach. The new movement responds that reform hasn't worked. I think both sides have a point; the problem is winner-take-all outcomes for either side: Revolution does destroy, often more than it creates, and I think the principles of free speech must be preserved. But if you are satisfied with the old system, you are living a privileged life under a rock: Tens of millions or more in the U.S. alone are denied their rights, denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The old system has not delivered on its promises; reform has not delivered. And the new movement is right that older people are corrupt and jaded: I've seen myself that many of my peers, people who used to be honest and open, have aged to fit that description; it's worse than the younger people think.
- jl2718 5y ago
  What is this ‘revolution’ revolting against? All I see is a violent astroturfed corporate-funded government-supported mob demanding more wealth and freedom to be taken from the average individual, and given to the already most powerful. It doesn’t look like a revolution to me; it looks like the same old parasitism moving from host equilibrium to final harvest.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Very open minded. The GP post describes it.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- trabant00 5y ago
  If we talk about revolution we could take a look at the French one and see how things can turn up. I see a lot of parallels in terms of terms/narrative: privilege, virtue, reactionaries.
HanShotFirst 5y ago
The right-wing angle of most of most of these comments, while not surprising considering the article, belies the fact that the right has a similar free speech problem to the left. In fact, the left response has been partially motivated by opposition to a notably authoritarian former president and his willing allies. Where is any discussion of things such as: - Anti-BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) statues being written into state and local law in jurisdictions all over the country. - Efforts to legally sanction corporations that exercise their free speech rights in opposition to certain political issues, such as repealing MLBs antitrust protection for moving the All-star game from Georgia. - Even if there are not legal efforts, widespread outrage at similar exercises of free speech, such as the rights holders of Dr. Seuss books voluntarily deciding to discontinue publication of a small subset of his not-very popular books. - Anti-protest bills that in some cases essentially decriminalize violent opposition to the free speech rights of people you may not agree with. (1) - The Trump White House banning left-of-center media from attending certain events (2), and overall making numerous statements aiming to paint media they don't agree with as fake, lying, etc. I can readily admit the left has a free speech problem, but this problem is in no way unique to the left. (1) https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-legislature-oks-bill-to-crack-down-on-protesters/36123193 https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-legislature-oks-bill-t... (2) https://outline.com/dfhh9h https://outline.com/dfhh9h
ladyattis 5y ago
I would say that those who sign up to be part of the ACLU should know that they will inevitably have to defend the rights of people they find repugnant. As much as I don't like Nazis, I surely don't want the government to have the power to enact what they would if they were in power (censorship, genocide, etc). So having the ACLU being an aggressive opponent to the government's overreach on civil liberties is fine. I just wish more folks would recognize this.
pcvarmint 5y ago
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-expression-1529533065 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-exp... https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disintegration-of-the-aclu-james-kirchick https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disinte... https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/dont-want-corporations-to-have-rights-then-the-aclu-suit-is-dead/276917/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/dont-wa... https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/22/aclus-david-cole-responds-about-aclu-and/ https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/22/aclus-david-cole-respon... https://aclu.procon.org/did-you-know/ https://aclu.procon.org/did-you-know/ The Rutherford Institute is better than the ACLU today: https://www.rutherford.org/ https://www.rutherford.org/

388 points by mful 5y ago

I was a member for 10 years and stopped renewing a year or two ago, when it seemed to stop putting free speech and expression first.

wutbrodo 5y ago
I held them up for years and years as an example of an actually principled organization in an age where every other institution was compromising their stated beliefs in favor of genuflection to fashionable slogans. Like you, I stopped doing this a few years ago : ( To their relative credit, they do seem to be struggling with it in a way that very few other orgs are, and you occasionally see them take principled action.
nxc18 5y ago
Same. I was turned off by the “my way or the highway” mentality on trans issues shown in their Twitter. Failure to defend 2A rights, now that NRA is clearly not principled in any way (maybe it never was), also bothered me. It is hard to imagine them defending an anti-trans person in 2021. As despicable as those people are, they still have civil rights. As a gay man, I would have been despicable for most of the past 100+ years, but the ACLU would have defended me anyway. That version of the ACLU no longer exists. Reading through their Twitter again just now, it is clear they have gone off the rails.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  The ACLU has never defended or supported Hellerian 2A rights (https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment), and its not clear that they should change their position due to a shift in SC precedent, anymore than that they should shift their position on speech if the SC decided to revert to Schenck.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - hed 5y ago
    Once they came out after Heller and stated they still believed it was a collective right, I knew my relationship with them was over. ACLU (and others) cite it as a 5-4 decision but even the dissenters on the case believed it was an individual right, they just still thought it could be regulated / scrutinized. In that sense the individual right won 9-0.
    - syshum 5y ago
      The collective right never made any sense in the first place, not a single other amendment in the bill of rights is viewed as a "collective right" so why in the hell would this lone amendment be a "collective right" Further what the hell does a "collective right" even look like in the first place.... the ACLU hates guns, does not believe anyone outside the government should have guns, the "collective right" was just their cover so they did not have to admit they only stood for some of the constitution not all of it //EDIT: Mods have rate limited me, so in response to comment below allow me to add I guess I should have implicitly stated Constitutional Rights, and more specifically Bill of Rights in the context. On top of that, that is still not a "collective right", that is more of a Balance of rights, You have a right to your property, I have a right to my property, if your actions (aka polluting ) damage my property then you have directly harmed my individual rights and are thus liable An example of this would be the fact that I have the right to swing my arms, but if I swing my arms in a manner that hits another person I have violated their bodily rights not to be injured by me. No one would claim that is a "collective right", no here we are balancing individual rights, their right to not be injured trumps my right to swing my arms in the physical space they occupy at that moment
      - arrosenberg 5y ago
        > Further what the hell does a "collective right" even look like in the first place.... I'll give a non-gun example - you buy a piece of property near the headway of an important river. You have an individual right to improve the property, and really use it any way you want. HOWEVER - the people who live downstream of you ALSO have a collective right to use the river, which puts a limit on your individual rights. You can't dump pollutants or trash in the river, nor can you divert the waterway. You have an individual right to use your own property, but your neighbors (depending on the issue, this may be local or global) have a collective right not to suffer damage or externalities from that use. In the context of the gun discussion, the collective rights people believe that gun ownership is intended to defend the neighborhood, not for individual self-defense.
- stirfish 5y ago
  The NRA started as a way to retrain Union soldiers to actually aim their weapons instead of volleying them, as they were no longer using smooth-bored muskets. If that's a principle, they did that. I'm not sure why they became a weird mix of Russians and the KKK.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    > I'm not sure why they became a weird mix of Russians and the KKK. They didn't. The NRA supports the rights of all individuals to own gubs. The KKK supports gun control to stop minorities from owning guns.
    - 1986 5y ago
      Then why was the NRA so silent about Philando Castile?
      - _-david-_ 5y ago
        Because he was in possession of a controlled substance and a gun which is illegal. Edit: not sure why I am being down voted but here is the statement https://mobile.twitter.com/DLoesch/status/895508311193382912 https://mobile.twitter.com/DLoesch/status/895508311193382912
        a1369209993 5y ago
        > and a gun which is illegal. > not sure why I am being down voted Probably for stupid reasons, but a legitimate reason for downvoting you would be because that is no such thing as a gun which is illegal[0]; that's the whole point of the second amendment. 0: Except maybe something like a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) if applicable arms limitation treaties make it also illegal for the military to possess one.
        _-david-_ 5y ago
- istorical 5y ago
  > As a gay man, I would have been despicable for most of the past 100+ years, but the ACLU would have defended me anyway. That version of the ACLU no longer exists. This precise thing is why it's baffling that people can suggest cancel culture is only something to complain about if you've done / said something wrong. What is considered wrong does not always age well. Sometimes we ourselves are the baddies.
  - happytoexplain 5y ago
    >people ... suggest cancel culture is only something to complain about if you've done / said something wrong This is an oversimplification. What you might be extrapolating from is the common sentiment that complaining about cancel culture is not substantive in cases where an individual appears to have done something wrong enough to justify the consequences. Yes, "wrong enough" is of varying subjectivity in each case, but focusing on "cancel culture" as some kind of monolithic evil instead of focusing on the details of each case is a very common source of noise, and so is commonly criticized, and that criticism may be what you're accumulating into "cancel culture is only something to complain about if you've done / said something wrong".
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - p1necone 5y ago
      The whole concept of cancel culture seems to just be used as a way to silence legitimate criticism of others as far as I can see. I'm sure it meant something at one point, but now it's just silly.
      - tomerico 5y ago
        Note how you have just did exactly what you criticized ( “silence legitimate criticism of others” by dismissing those that called out cancel culture)
        5y ago
- devwastaken 5y ago
  I looked at their twitter, looks pretty good to me. What exactly are you talking about?
- birdyrooster 5y ago
  Trans politics was going okay until they took the lions share of BLM donations that was raised on the death of cisgendered straight black men. There are people that are unhappy with this distribution being called anti-trans and it’s kinda insane.
  - sgerenser 5y ago
    Haven’t heard about this. Googling doesn’t unearth anything either. Have any links to details on this?
    - birdyrooster 5y ago
      page 22 of their 2020 impact report https://blacklivesmatter.com/2020-impact-report/ https://blacklivesmatter.com/2020-impact-report/ meanwhile families of those who died in 2020 still haven't received help from BLM despite promises https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/breonna-taylor-tamika-palmer-blm-b1833123.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/breonna-ta... https://www.complex.com/life/michael-browns-father-ferguson-activist-request-20-million-from-black-lives-matter-for-organizing-efforts https://www.complex.com/life/michael-browns-father-ferguson-...
- syshum 5y ago
  NRA never was, they wrote or substantially contributed to most of the Gun Laws we have today, they comprised the 2nd amendment way in never ending trail of "reasonable gun control" [1] GOA and SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) are far far better when it comes to actual legal challenges to laws that infringe the 2nd Amendment [1] https://i.imgur.com/TO8BGgw.png https://i.imgur.com/TO8BGgw.png
  - jdhn 5y ago
    At this point, I think the NRA exists only to act as a foil for gun control groups. I have donated to both of the groups you mentioned as I think that they're both lightyears ahead of the NRA when it comes to actually doing anything.
asabjorn 5y ago
https://www.thefire.org/ https://www.thefire.org/ has picked up the mantle on executing on the vision of what ACLU used to be. ACLU is lost, I stopped donating a while ago as well, and it won't return until they oust those that work against the liberal ideal.
BurningFrog 5y ago
I have a similar history. My replacement donations are Fire and Institute for Justice. https://www.thefire.org/ https://www.thefire.org/ https://ij.org/ https://ij.org/
- brian_cunnie 5y ago
  Thanks for the tip! I'm going to follow suit, and replace my donations. I feel there's merit to a singleness-of-purpose within an organization, and ACLU's attempt to juggle "12 or 15 different values" detracts from its effectiveness.
norswap 5y ago
And so the ACLU gets worse and worse via evaporative cooling of group beliefs. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporative-cooling-of-group-beliefs https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporativ...

mudil 5y ago

ACLU has been subverted by political correctness, mob mentality of internet, and the do-gooder activists. ACLU is a perfect example on how we ended up in the through the looking glass world.

creamytaco 5y ago
One has to wonder if the useful idiots (according to Lenin) that are propagating this wave of ideological censorship and intolerance realize what they are in for. The powers that be must surely be extremely pleased to see such hated - by corporate and financial kleptocracy - liberal bastions as free speech and open debate dismantled and destroyed. I fear it is already too late.
- DennisAleynikov 5y ago
  short answer is no
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  I'm hoping that it's self-correcting. The right has (belatedly) starting using this lunacy against the left. I guess the best we can hope for is that the illiberal masses on one side act as a counterweight against the illiberal masses on the other until they rediscover the purpose of the liberalism. In the meanwhile, for anyone who wasn't stupid enough to forget, the best you can do is try and stay out of the way. I'm delighted to have found a job that's mission-focused enough that this nonsense doesn't come close to touching the people doing real work in the way it (stochastically) can at places with more slack, like Google. We pay a tax, in the form of HR playing masturbatory language games with each other, but I've never once had to care about it.
  - a1369209993 5y ago
    > In the meanwhile, for anyone who wasn't stupid enough to forget, the best you can do is try and stay out of the way. This is indeed about the best plan I've been able to come up with. Based on history, I worry it's woefully insufficient.

csande17 5y ago

You could write a similar article about a lot of nonprofits, lately. "Once a Developer of Web Browsers, Mozilla Faces an Identity Crisis." "Once a Free Online Encyclopedia, the Wikimedia Foundation Faces an Identity Crisis."

Y_Y 5y ago
Don't forget Amnesty International.
- tpmx 5y ago
  Edit: placeholder (Decided it was unfair to throw a large org under the bus without being able spend a few hours to defend the claim.)
  - deadalus 5y ago
    Or Anti-Defamation League.
    - this2shallPass 5y ago
      Citation / explanation needed. ADL's stated mission is "To stop the defamation of the Jewish people, and to secure justice and fair treatment to all..." It seems like the ADL has legitimate work it can be doing, unless you think Jews and all people are treated fairly. I don't think you're saying that, and I do think you're saying it's not doing the work that it could be doing. Could you say more about that? "Of the 1,715 victims of anti-religious hate crimes: 60.2 percent were victims of crimes motivated by offenders’ anti-Jewish bias." https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/victims https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/victims Anti-Jewish hate-crimes make up a majority of the anti-religious hate crimes in the US. (You could argue they should be classified as "Racial/ethnicity/ancestry bias" but that's another discussion). The statistics aren't perfect - not every crime or possible crime is reported to law enforcement, and not every law enforcement agency in the US shares hate crime information with the federal government. A recent law changed that so it's required instead of optional, so likely more will be doing so in the future.

myWindoonn 5y ago

They phoned me earlier this year and asked for $1500 USD. I asked them why we live in a country where people are starving, exposed, and sick in a country that has a bounty of food, housing, and healthcare. “Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind,” says a person who probably has all three of those things. Feed people, and then ask for virtues from them.

throwaway3699 5y ago
Free speech is how civil rights are won. It is a prerequisite for a positive change.
- myWindoonn 5y ago
  I know how much food $1500 will buy, or how many months of rent it will cover, or how little of a hospital bill it can handle. How much civil rights can $1500 buy? They didn't know on the phone, but I was genuinely curious. I agree that free speech is essential -- I imagine that they asked for money because I gave them money in the past. Can you agree that the starving, homeless, and sick might have difficulty exercising their right to free speech even if the ACLU protects it in court?
wearywanderer 5y ago
> “Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind,” That's nonsensical. If somebody leaves the First Amendment behind, they are leaving liberalism behind. If you do not support free speech, you simply are not liberal.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  If you seek to use governance as a tool to strip citizens of their liberty you are demonstrably un-American. That doesn't stop many politicians from doing so and making it a foundation of their party's ideology.
  - wearywanderer 5y ago

baggy_trough 5y ago

Despite the sad loss of the ACLU as an institution that cares about civil liberties, we can remain hopeful due to other organizations like FIRE. https://www.thefire.org https://www.thefire.org

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Nicksil 5y ago
>Despite the sad loss of the ACLU as an institution that cares about civil liberties, we can remain hopeful due to other organizations like FIRE. You're just going to leave it there? What/who is FIRE? This isn't one of those unique words easily discovered during a web search.
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  "fire org" and "fire civil liberties" both return the correct result in the first ranking. It really isn't that difficult
  - notwedtm 5y ago
    Perhaps, but then YOU are not doing it the service it deserves by simply slapping it in there and not providing any context. This is the problem with the whole "DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH" retort that lots of political arguments deteriorate into. If YOU have already done said research, and you have an informed opinion from said research, then you should share it directly in the conversation at hand. Not only do you avoid looking like a jerk by trying to end a conversation with "look it up" or something similar; you are also able to potentially be the reason someone changes their mind on the subject because you evangelized something that you believe in instead of leaving them potentially thinking "People who like FIRE must be jerks."
    - wutbrodo 5y ago
      > Not only do you avoid looking like a jerk by trying to end a conversation with "look it up" or something similar What on Earth are you talking about? Your whole comment is in reference to rebuffing a request for more details with "look it up". _Nobody here is doing that_. The original comment mentioned FIRE without describing it; presumably you don't think every mention of an organization must come with an executive summary? The response then whined about how the previous comment left them with an ungoogleable dead-end. My comment simply said that, with context, it was far from ungoogleable (and thus the aggressive tone towards the parent comment wasn't warranted). The reason I personally didn't provide more information is that I myself am not that familiar with FIRE, certainly not to the extent that I'd be able to summarize why they're an adequate substitute for the ACLU. > you evangelized something that you believe in instead of leaving them potentially thinking "People who like FIRE must be jerks This and the rest of your comment is a perfect example of the decay of discourse behind things like the ACLU's troubles. Instead of trying to understand what they read, people like you are desperate to pattern-match to some imagined ill and then mistake your hysterical emotional response for moral reasoning.

kbelder 5y ago

I honestly think they were compromised from the very beginning, with their mission of "defending every civil right... except the 2nd amendment, we don't like that one." But they still fought lots of commendable battles, sticking up for people that nobody else would. I think that's what they've lost... they would be scared to stick up for somebody that might get the wrong people upset with them.

mjmahone17 5y ago
It’s probably reasonable for an organization to choose not to conflate the civil liberties they stand for with amendments. In an ideal world the people would happily eliminate or modify laws that do harm, and of the existing US civil liberties, the 2nd amendment is likely the most debatable on whether it is a net win for liberty.
- gotoeleven 5y ago
  The American Civil Liberties Approved by Left Wing Twitter Mobs Union has a nice ring to it.
- vmception 5y ago
  Even the most extreme proponents of the 2nd amendment have examples of it working The various police forces during the capital seige - in January, remember how that was this year - said they used less force because the participants were armed and knew they could shoot back Their whole thing is that they will make the state think twice, whereas the peaceful and unarmed protestors get knocked around with no recourse Without examples, its easy to think they are advocating for actually killing government officials with their guns in order to get their way, but after a year of examples I can at least say I have experienced competing and conflicting ideas in action
  - Retric 5y ago
    The ACLU’s mission isn’t about defending the constitution, plenty of other organizations step up for that. Their scope includes all those liberties which don’t show up on the constitution which is a much larger issue. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as” Many people just have a problem with word except on that line and so many other places in society. As such the ACLU’s goal is to push for improvements not simply defend the current situation.

tpmx 5y ago

I like this idea: https://twitter.com/kittypurrzog/status/1401610476237197312 https://twitter.com/kittypurrzog/status/1401610476237197312 The ACLU should split into two groups: ACLU Sr, which fights for free speech rights, and ACLU Jr, which fights against them (Yes, I saw this when PG retweeted it.)

Avshalom 5y ago
You know free speech isn't the only civil liberty right?
- nzrf 5y ago
  Much like they just stay out of 2nd amendment… https://www.aclu.org/blog/civil-liberties/mobilization/aclus-position-gun-control https://www.aclu.org/blog/civil-liberties/mobilization/aclus... As I support their efforts generally. I find picking and choosing seems counter to the what protecting our civil liberties means in a whole.
  - rgbrenner 5y ago
    Theyve said previously that the reason they mostly stay out of the 2nd amendment is that there's already a well funded organization that has made the 2nd their sole focus. The NRA's budget is larger than the ACLUs.. so it makes sense for them to prioritize other constitutional issues.
    - Natsu 5y ago
      There's mostly downside for them because a significant fraction of their members are not fans of the 2nd amendment. The closest I think they've gotten to gun cases is probably this one, which was more of a 4th amendment issue: https://www.aclu.org/cases/caniglia-v-strom https://www.aclu.org/cases/caniglia-v-strom
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

slowmovintarget 5y ago

Free speech is table stakes for a free society. Those claiming otherwise are playing with fire.

jacobsenscott 5y ago
There has never been a society where this is true. Certainly where I live, in the US, free speech is code for "white men are allowed to say whatever they want" while the speech of other groups can be violently repressed without consequence.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dmitrygr 5y ago
  IF you are right, that just means we need MORE free speech for those who don't have it, NOT less for those who do!
  - yhoneycomb 5y ago
    Ironic that there are so many deleted comments on a post about free speech
    - Applejinx 5y ago
      Not at all: functionally, there's a meta-gaming thing that goes on where 'free speech' is treated as sort of antifa Kryptonite. It's not being argued in good faith at all. It's a tactic. You'll find that the same people making a big noise about 'free speech' will do everything they possibly can to suppress and conceal the speech of those who are calling 'em out for arguing in bad faith… because they are arguing in bad faith, because they have absolutely no intention of furthering free speech. It is purely a tactic.
      - akarma 5y ago
        If you're conspiratorial about everybody who supports free speech not really supporting free speech, and instead just saying it in bad faith(?), you're going to have a tough time with meaningful debate and enjoying HN. One of the core tenets is a belief in the principle of charity — assume the strongest interpretation of the commenter's argument, not the weakest.

stuaxo 5y ago

I've seen so much pro establish ment guff from the NYT I CBA to read this.

Syonyk 5y ago

I wish I'd taken a photo of the "survey" they sent me the other day. I've managed to get junk mail from both sides of the political spectrum now, which has been interesting (the conservative groups have had me on their mailing list forever, and I think a subscription to Harpers got me on the liberal groups). Unfortunately, other than the issues involved, I can't really tell a big difference between fundraising styles. "Assume the reader is an idiot and send surveys with the most leading questions you've ever heard of, then ask for money." Usually, they say "Please send us $15 to process the survey, and your best gift." The questions are absolutely, loaded, leading questions that would be laughed out of any courtroom or actual attempt at a statistically accurate survey. They're things like "Do you agree that racial injustice and white supremacy is the most important issue facing America today?" and "Do you agree that widespread, unchecked illegal immigration is on a path to destroy the nation we love?" One group actually has survey stickers you respond with - "Yes, illegal immigration is a huge concern!" and "No, I'm a global elitist who supports illegal aliens voting in our elections and overthrowing our Democracy." Or something of the sort. I guess it works or they wouldn't do it, but it's absolutely insane how these "surveys" are worded. I'm sure all they do is look for a check on the inside instead of "processing" them. Oh, and just in case you're a drooling moron who doesn't know how to read a letter, the attached letter highlighting the supposed problems will reliably include at the bottom of the pages, "Over!" "Next page please!" "Flip over to continue reading!" and other insulting directions that more or less imply I don't know how to read a multi-page document. Since it's apparently against federal law to leave whitespace in such a fundraising request, they fill the last page with "PS: This is an URGENT issue that requires your rushed donation to STOP THEM from DOING EVIL THINGS." "PPS: Please rush your donation back!" "PPSS: I'm still going to put stuff here so there's no whitespace." But I do tend to respond in long form, usually expanding on answers, and often include 2-3 typed pages in response when the survey lacks nuance. I doubt it ever gets read, but it's good practice for being able to expand on issues. In any case, the ACLU isn't getting my money. Neither is the Heritage Foundation, and neither are any other groups that send me these "surveys" where the only important question is "But how much can you afford to give?"

stirfish 5y ago
> Since it's apparently against federal law to leave whitespace in such a fundraising request, Oh nice, we are following federal fundraising laws now. This is an improvement.

neonate 5y ago

https://archive.is/zo5sx https://archive.is/zo5sx

sammalloy 5y ago

There's not a single word about Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in this article, and how defending the free speech of this organization set them on this downward trajectory.

javagram 5y ago
Citizens United was about banning an organization from publishing a political attack video on Hillary Clinton. If Citizens United had gone the other way, nothing would stop the government from banning books or social media posts as well. (During oral arguments before the Supreme Court, the government lawyer admitted they believed they could ban books and YouTube videos as well) Citizens United is frequently misunderstood - the main problem with it is that because restrictions on recognized political party fundraising still remain on the books, political money ends up flooding into third party organizations that are less under control of the institutional party and are more likely to be extreme. Meanwhile political candidates can plausibly deny their connection to the actions of such super PACs. Making the playing field even again by allowing larger or unlimited direct donations to candidates or parties would be the way toward a just but also effective solution.

stefantalpalaru 5y ago

See also https://taibbi.substack.com/p/is-traditional-liberalism-vanishing https://taibbi.substack.com/p/is-traditional-liberalism-vani... : «The old-school liberalism Glasser represents believed in that model of constant engagement and constant dialogue, which is probably what RFK was talking about when he said the ACLU defended the “root ideas” of the country. That optimism is vanishing, though, and just like Ebbets Field, a generation may grow up now never knowing it was there.»

insert_coin 5y ago

Free speech is the only “right” that matters. Thoughtcrime should not be allowed to be prosecuted, mob lynching is not justice. But if the ACLU is compromised maybe it is too late.

jl2718 5y ago
Well obviously it’s not working so maybe we need some other right to make sure we can retain that one. Hmmm... wonder if anybody thought of that...
Applejinx 5y ago
That gives rise to the fair question of, 'is free speech the only law that exists?' To what extent do all other considerations go by the wayside in order to draw a bright line sanctioning ALL possible expressions of ideas in speech, by definition rendering them immune from any sort of judgement or consequence? I think there's a fair amount of existing law that's made rather ridiculous by this position. In particular, the whole notion of conspiracy goes out the window when it's by definition not possible to share in responsibility for an act by persuasion. I'm not even sure it's possible to extort: if you can plausibly say you will wreak mayhem on a person for failing to comply, and you do so, and they comply rather than get mayhem wrought upon them, you've got what you want but you have never done more than speak. Your actions have never once crossed the line. The fact that your speech functioned as plausible threats is irrelevant: it was always and only speech, because nobody called you on it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
seventytwo 5y ago
There’s lots of “speech” that’s already illegal in the US. Please, define where the actual line should be.
- insert_coin 5y ago
  What speech is illegal? What is the list of words not allowed by law to be spoken?

jon37 5y ago

I see HN still has a policy of deleting all political content except for political articles whose thesis is "the left is anti-free-speech."

dang 5y ago
There's no such policy and there are countless counterexamples. I think you may be falling prey to the cognitive bias that causes people to notice and/or emphasize what they dislike much more than what they like. The bad stands out more than the good, pain is more memorable than pleasure, etc. This leads to false feelings of generality. Plenty of past explanation at these links, if you or anyone happens to care: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20dislike%20notice&sort=byDate&type=story&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20false%20feelings%20of%20generality&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

EGreg 5y ago

Freedom of speech is often a euphemism these days for capitalism of megaphones. I actually want to move away from celebrity culture and privately owned platforms, means of distribution, and audiences, and towards platforms based on collaboration, where people have to duke it out and address all serious arguments before the public sees it. It might take slightly longer but our society wouldn't be so divided. Individual people can't all be expected to be experts on climate change, vaccines, 5G and so on. I give an extensive explanation on the economics of free speech here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8HbvC6vqIY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8HbvC6vqIY I interviewed Noam Chomsky on it last week here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUPZ8rSESZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUPZ8rSESZo And we are building it here (sorry for the bad design so far): https://rational.app/ https://rational.app/

LatteLazy 5y ago

I don't understand why you would join the ACLU if you don't actually support the first ammendment and the stances the ACLU has taken? Seriously. Why? Its like joining a bowling league and complaining that you want to play soccer.

asabjorn 5y ago
Its got a huge endowment and a strong brand that can be subverted into fighting for progressive causes instead of what it used to do. It's woke 101 playbook. Basecamp and coinbase showed that you either choose to have zero tolerance of politics in the workplace, or the woke will make you spend as many resources as possible on political activism instead of whatever you used to do. A dynamic that has been so toxic to work dynamics and productivity that even a woke company like Basecamp had to course-correct. The organizations that have chosen to forbid political activism at work have lost employees that prioritize this over work, but those that remained have gotten back to work with fewer distractions and its arguable that loosing people that prioritize activism at work over the company vision is a net positive.
- toiletfuneral 5y ago
  What does the term “woke” mean in this comment? You use it like it has a specific set of definitions I should know, but it mostly looks like a catch-all for any uncomfortable positions someone would rather not confront.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    I am not the person you replied to (I am the root commentor). As he's been down voted he won't be able to reply for a while I think. As it is, I think a good faith reading of his comment would just require woke to mean "people who expect their work to conform to their politics". I worked at an investment bank recently, they just wanted to make money -> not woke. After that I worked at a brokerage, the CEO announced she wanted more female managers, not just because it would be profitable but for her political beliefs -> woke.

kofejnik 5y ago

> Four years later at the University of Connecticut, two white students ... > The A.C.L.U. of Connecticut demanded that the university hire 10 Black faculty and staff members NYT's double standards are ridiculous

seventytwo 5y ago

Strange how no one bats an eye when any other advocacy group defines in their own way their goals or values, but when it’s the ACLU that does it, people lose their minds. No one cares that the NRA only gives a crap about half of 2A. No one cares that the federalist Society has a very specific view of the judiciary… but when the ACLU defines a cause in their own way, people go nuts with accusations of hypocrisy because it doesn’t line up with their own personal definition of “civil liberties”.

verytrivial 5y ago

Liberalism and Identity Politics never really sorted out their relationship, and it turns out the latter won Twitter (and created excellent foot-holds for bad-actors doing information "warfare" now everyone has social media welded directly to their brains.) Edit: A reply would be nice if down voting. The examples the first subject in the article uses are implicitly comparing liberty of speech to protected/disenfranchised classes or characteristics of people, and how ACLU seems to have changed disposition here. That's my point. My use of Identity Politics is not baiting -- it's a well studied topic in the social sciences.

golemiprague 5y ago

As much as I like a good political debate I wish HN restrict itself to more tech related articles rather than this. Sometimes tech has some political aspecst or we discuss the politics of certain tech companies, but this has nothing to do with either tech or tech companies, so why is it even here?

twodai 5y ago
Correct me if I'm incorrect but the idea of the hn forum is to discuss and share things which spark curiosity or something along those lines. I believe this article and conversation is incredibly curiosity inspiring. Also if hn was to deviate from that aim I think hn would really cease to be what it is.
- golemiprague 5y ago
  Well almost any subject can spark curiosity but there is some understanding that it has to be within the realm of some technological aspects, otherwise we can all go to reddit. I am not saying it is against the rules to put such an article, just that we should be careful not to expand the net too much.
api_or_ipa 5y ago
I agree. Most of the comments are disappointingly poor and as a result there's little actual critical discussion. I was really hoping to chime into a fruitful discussion about positive vs negative protection of the first amendment rights. 1A says "... Congress shall make no law ..." but California's Constitution (for example) goes farther to say "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right". This lead to the fascinating Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins Supreme Court case[0] which surfaced the careful distinction between the two senses of Free Speech and the government's obligation to protect it. Where does an org like ACLU stand on what precisely defines Free Speech, and, the responsibilities of each State, Federal Govt and NGO like itself to protect it? IANAL, just someone who hoped we'd discuss things a bit more carefully on HN. 0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

atoav 5y ago

For free speech to be a reasonable thing to priorise over other things you have to have some more fundamental rules of society in place. E.g. fighting for free speech during the rise of the nazi party in 1920s Germany might sound like a noble thing, but once the Nazis whos speech you defended are in power they will shoot you at your doorstep for defending that of their enemies. That doesn't mean you have forbid Nazis from ever speaking (as if this would work), it means you have to make sure your democracy and your institutions are stable enough to survive their first period in government and manage to get a peaceful and fair transfer of power after that (instead of Nazis setting fire to the Reichstag, blaming it on communists, declaring an emergency and never have elections again). I'd rather loose the right to utter certain inflamatory phrases than loose the right and the possibility to vote the next government out of office in a fair and representative election.

mnouquet 5y ago
> For free speech to be a reasonable thing to priorise over other things you have to have some more fundamental rules of society in place. E.g. fighting for free speech during the rise of the nazi party in 1920s Germany might sound like a noble thing, but once the Nazis whos speech you defended are in power they will shoot you at your doorstep for defending that of their enemies. Do you mean the actual summary of what happened in the US over the past 50 years ? "These Rights were convenient at the time we were a minority, but now, we are in power, they are in the way of our ideal utopia." > I'd rather loose the right to utter certain inflamatory phrases than loose the right and the possibility to vote the next government out of office in a fair and representative election. And that's why the 2nd Amendment is protecting the 1st. (and all the subsequent).

busymom0 5y ago

Relevant: > ACLU Again Cowardly Abstains From an Online Censorship Controversy: The once-principled group issues P.R.-scripted excuses or engages in obfuscation to avoid taking stances that would offend its liberal donor base. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/aclu-again-cowardly-abstains-from https://greenwald.substack.com/p/aclu-again-cowardly-abstain... Edit: HN always seems to downvote anything which doesn't go with the censorship of controversial view points.

smsm42 5y ago

It's not ACLU's identity crisis, it's the Left's identity crisis. Civil rights are checks on government and institutional powers. When the left gained a massive institutional power and a lot of governmental power, it turned out it doesn't really like this power to be checked and challenged. It's one thing to fight for the free speech of people who are maybe abhorrent, but ultimately their speech won't change much, it's another thing when the speech is by your political rival, the fate of the power distribution in the nation depends on it, and you have all the tools to shut it down. It is hard to resist the temptation, and the Left didn't even try to resist it for long - in fact, they embraced it. Turns out, the hard question question wasn't "can you defend the Nazi's free speech", but "can you defend the Republican's free speech, if it could cost your favorite candidate the election?". Looks like the major part of the Left decided the right answer is "no", and winning is more important that preserving the liberties. After all, if the good guys are in power, who needs their powers to be checked? Only the bad guys.

buu700 5y ago
I don't think your conclusion that the majority of the left has adopted that position is founded, but I agree that this is a very interesting tension that you've perfectly described. It's easy to be principled when it doesn't matter. To anyone who didn't live through it, the Nazis are an ancient demon that feels as relevant as Darth Vader or the Devil. What do I care if 4chan wants to name a soda "Hitler did nothing wrong" for the lols? It's a lot harder when you perceive the speech that your principles would have you save to be a tangible threat to your safety. If some on the left (rightly or wrongly) see e.g. unmoderated alt-right social media activity as a risk factor for something bigger than 1/6, there would be an inherent tension between principles and pragmatism. I'd be interested in seeing evidence as to whether the left has trended toward a particular side, but it's a shame that this has to become an issue in the first place.
- smsm42 5y ago
  We already had something massively - orders of magnitude - bigger than 1/6. In fact, it is happening right to this day - riots in Minneapolis and Portland continue right now, and have been happening all through 2020. The economic harm is in billions, the victim counts is raising steadily, and that before we account for the huge spike in crime - including murders - that happened in the last year in many major cities. Yet somehow it's not a "tangible threat to safety" while a bunch of wackos fantasizing on the internet how Trump is about to be revealed as the Messiah is. Sorry, it's very hard to treat such "safety" concerns as genuine while keeping ignoring the real safety threats. It's more like a pampered $100K-per-year college student cries that she feels "unsafe" going to their college campus because somewhere there on campus there is a professor who once said something that puts him slightly on the right of AOC. It's not what people mean by "safety", it's weaponizing "safety" for political reasons.

exporectomy 5y ago

Since the organization doesn't take responsibility for the "consumption of free speech" by its staff under its name on Twitter, perhaps they should use two Twitter accounts - one for uncensored staff tweets and one for official statements that ACLU stands behind.

slumdev 5y ago

Popular speech doesn't need defending. If the ACLU sacrifices its principles to earn the approval of the woke authoritarian left, then the people in charge never really had those principles.

RickJWagner 5y ago

The ACLU has struggled for a really long time. They've been accused of being racist and sexist for quite a few years. [1] is one example. [1] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-11/black-attorney-accuses-aclu-of-flagrantly-racist-policies-in-discrimination-lawsuit https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-11/black-at...

emmelaich 5y ago

From 1989[0], about Amnesty International > O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20100715191034/http:/old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp https://web.archive.org/web/20100715191034/http:/old.nationa...

jb775 5y ago

> One hears markedly less from the A.C.L.U. about free speech nowadays. Its annual reports from 2016 to 2019 highlight its role as a leader in the resistance against President Donald J. Trump. But the words “First Amendment” or “free speech” cannot be found. I find it incredibly ignorant that this article (or anyone here for that matter) fails to mention the name George Soros. The dude literally did a hostile takeover of the ACLU a few years back in the form of overly-generous donations[1]. The ACLU isn't "facing an identity crisis", it's been strategically taken over to push a divide-and-conquer strategy within America. Notice how everything they do nowadays is focused around heated "us vs them" topics? This isn't a mistake, or a natural byproduct...it's 100% by design. Not really sure what the end-goal is, but the ACLU's current agenda (and most of George Soros funded organizations) is clearly to get everyone in America to hate each other. [1] https://nonprofitquarterly.org/50-million-soros-grant-to-fund-aclu-for-reduction-of-incarceration/ https://nonprofitquarterly.org/50-million-soros-grant-to-fun...

senderista 5y ago

I will never donate to the ACLU again.

mattparcens 5y ago

ACLU is to Civil Liberties as MTV is to Music.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

They really have struggled lately with free speech, the difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism (which is "free speech that progressives approve"). I hope they figure it out.

throwawaysea 5y ago

This is why I stopped supporting the ACLU and instead support FIRE (https://www.thefire.org/ https://www.thefire.org/). The ACLU is no longer a civil liberties organization but rather a progressive political organization that only pushes leftist political positions. They used their platform and large funds to betray their original mission and longtime supporters. I’m sad about how far they have fallen but also happy to move on instead of lending them my support.

citizenpaul 5y ago

ACLU jumped the shark years back. i stopped donating when it became clear they had fallen to woke agenda rather than civil rights.

Wescott62 5y ago

Thanks for sharing such great information, I highly appreciate your hard-working skills as the post you published have some great information which is quite beneficial for me, I hope you will post more like that in the future. https://www.epayitonline.us/ https://www.epayitonline.us/

wolverine876 5y ago

One idea is that the generational change is like all generational political changes: Unsatisfied with the world they've inherited, as they should be, the next generation wants revolution, not reform. They want to tear down the old system and build something new. They see the results of the old system and have little respect for its jaded, corrupt defenders. The older people decry it, saying that the revolution is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, that reform is the best approach. The new movement responds that reform hasn't worked. I think both sides have a point; the problem is winner-take-all outcomes for either side: Revolution does destroy, often more than it creates, and I think the principles of free speech must be preserved. But if you are satisfied with the old system, you are living a privileged life under a rock: Tens of millions or more in the U.S. alone are denied their rights, denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The old system has not delivered on its promises; reform has not delivered. And the new movement is right that older people are corrupt and jaded: I've seen myself that many of my peers, people who used to be honest and open, have aged to fit that description; it's worse than the younger people think.

jl2718 5y ago
What is this ‘revolution’ revolting against? All I see is a violent astroturfed corporate-funded government-supported mob demanding more wealth and freedom to be taken from the average individual, and given to the already most powerful. It doesn’t look like a revolution to me; it looks like the same old parasitism moving from host equilibrium to final harvest.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Very open minded. The GP post describes it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
trabant00 5y ago
If we talk about revolution we could take a look at the French one and see how things can turn up. I see a lot of parallels in terms of terms/narrative: privilege, virtue, reactionaries.

HanShotFirst 5y ago

The right-wing angle of most of most of these comments, while not surprising considering the article, belies the fact that the right has a similar free speech problem to the left. In fact, the left response has been partially motivated by opposition to a notably authoritarian former president and his willing allies. Where is any discussion of things such as: - Anti-BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) statues being written into state and local law in jurisdictions all over the country. - Efforts to legally sanction corporations that exercise their free speech rights in opposition to certain political issues, such as repealing MLBs antitrust protection for moving the All-star game from Georgia. - Even if there are not legal efforts, widespread outrage at similar exercises of free speech, such as the rights holders of Dr. Seuss books voluntarily deciding to discontinue publication of a small subset of his not-very popular books. - Anti-protest bills that in some cases essentially decriminalize violent opposition to the free speech rights of people you may not agree with. (1) - The Trump White House banning left-of-center media from attending certain events (2), and overall making numerous statements aiming to paint media they don't agree with as fake, lying, etc. I can readily admit the left has a free speech problem, but this problem is in no way unique to the left. (1) https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-legislature-oks-bill-to-crack-down-on-protesters/36123193 https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-legislature-oks-bill-t... (2) https://outline.com/dfhh9h https://outline.com/dfhh9h

ladyattis 5y ago

I would say that those who sign up to be part of the ACLU should know that they will inevitably have to defend the rights of people they find repugnant. As much as I don't like Nazis, I surely don't want the government to have the power to enact what they would if they were in power (censorship, genocide, etc). So having the ACLU being an aggressive opponent to the government's overreach on civil liberties is fine. I just wish more folks would recognize this.

pcvarmint 5y ago

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-expression-1529533065 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-exp... https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disintegration-of-the-aclu-james-kirchick https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disinte... https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/dont-want-corporations-to-have-rights-then-the-aclu-suit-is-dead/276917/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/dont-wa... https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/22/aclus-david-cole-responds-about-aclu-and/ https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/22/aclus-david-cole-respon... https://aclu.procon.org/did-you-know/ https://aclu.procon.org/did-you-know/ The Rutherford Institute is better than the ACLU today: https://www.rutherford.org/ https://www.rutherford.org/