5 ms·

That's not what I get from reading it. You could give that a try. Here's an interesting bit: > The A.C.L.U. of Virginia argued that this violated the free spe

That's not what I get from reading it. You could give that a try. Here's an interesting bit: > The A.C.L.U. of Virginia argued that this violated the free speech rights of the far-right groups and won, preserving the right for the group to parade downtown. With too few police officers who reacted too passively, the demonstration turned ugly and violent; in addition to fistfights, the far right loosed anti-Semitic and racist chants and a right-wing demonstrator plowed his car into counterprotesters, killing a woman. Dozens were injured in the tumult. > Revulsion swelled within the A.C.L.U., and many assailed its executive director, Anthony Romero, and legal director, Mr. Cole, as privileged and clueless. The A.C.L.U. unfurled new guidelines that suggested lawyers should balance taking a free speech case representing right-wing groups whose “values are contrary to our values” against the potential such a case might give “offense to marginalized groups.” That's not political correctness, that's ideals colliding head-on with the grim reality. The real world isn't a Disney movie, and doing the "right thing" doesn't magically make everything work out positively. So the Virginia ACLU defended the freedom of speech of Nazis, and the Nazis did what Nazis do and ran over people they didn't like, killing a woman. At that point a lot of people started asking themselves "Are we really being a positive influence?". And a conflict began. I see this as a conflict between deontology and consequentialism. Deontology says "free speech was defended, the outcome doesn't matter. Let's keep going". But it turns out that deontology isn't that great of a fit for the real world, because people do care about consequences very intensely. Few have the iron-clad nerve needed to say "an innocent died as the consequence of my/my group's actions, and nevertheless I wouldn't change a thing". I think the major difference now vs the 70s is that news spread far wider, and consequences are communicated far better and more viscerally.

Applejinx 5y ago
All of this. When the reality is that a political movement will operate in bad faith and intentionally, aggressively exploit any such ideological fulcrum as a weakness in a coordinated way, clinging to deontology makes you a knowing ally… which means you have taken sides. I can see why this discussion's turned ugly, but it can't NOT be ugly. None of this is hypothetical. It's blown up because the aforementioned Nazis worked out that they could compel the ACLU to effectively become a Nazi ally and devote their forces to the cause of terrorism. Under the ground rules of what the ACLU is, if properly managed, the organization can be used to clear the way for violence and actions that are not on brand for the ACLU, and not what it thinks of as 'civil liberty'. This is a clever sort of meta-gaming thing, but it's also an obvious existential crisis for the ACLU to the extent that the ACLU cares at all about terrorism. I think there's an assumption that we can define some things with a bright line never to be infringed upon, and that there will never be exploits to undermine our assumptions. And I mean, that's not even true for mathematical proof, much less free-speech liberalism.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  > clinging to deontology makes you a knowing ally… which means you have taken sides Nope. It becomes a side-taking issue when sides are taken in a self-directed manner, rather than indiscriminate support. eg When the UN medics treat warlord soldiers after they have been left behind, the UN has not "taken sides".
FeepingCreature 5y ago
> I see this as a conflict between deontology and consequentialism. Deontology says "free speech was defended, the outcome doesn't matter. Let's keep going". But it turns out that deontology isn't that great of a fit for the real world, because people do care about consequences very intensely. Few have the iron-clad nerve needed to say "an innocent died as the consequence of my/my group's actions, and nevertheless I wouldn't change a thing". I see this all the time in the so-called "paradox of tolerance", which is of course only a paradox if you assume a consequentialist framework as unstated background assumption. Personally, I feel asking people to make personal consequentialist decisions gives them far too much leeway to bring personal bias in, so I'm in favor of deontological freedom of speech - on consequentialist grounds.
- dale_glass 5y ago
  > I see this all the time in the so-called "paradox of tolerance", which is of course only a paradox if you assume a consequentialist framework as unstated background assumption. Everyone is consequentialist in some measure. It's in human nature. In the end, we all want to be happy and to enjoy life, and to be proud of our work, and as a result we care when things get in the way of that. You can see plenty evidence of this in modern times. Eg, to pick something a bit less dramatic, Brexit didn't work out so well for a lot of fishermen that supported it, and it's not hard to find news of them being very upset by this and demanding change. It turns out having sovereignty doesn't make one all that happy when it threatens one's own livelihood.
calcifer 5y ago
> At that point a lot of people started asking themselves "Are we really being a positive influence?". And a conflict began. Those people were clearly in the wrong though. After all, why join a civil liberties union if your support for said liberties is conditional on your whims?
- dale_glass 5y ago
  That's because it's a lot easier to be principled in the abstract, than when it blows up in your face. Pre-Brexit, there were a lot of people that really wanted sovereignty. Post-Brexit, it turns out that sovereignty didn't make a lot of those people happy, because it got in the way of their employment or business, and it turns out you can't eat sovereignty. Same thing happened here. It's a lot easier to defend a despicable person's right to hold a protest when they're powerless. But when people start dying that gets a lot harder to justify.
  - calcifer 5y ago
    > But when people start dying that gets a lot harder to justify. Only for those who were unprincipled in the first place. Those who approach civil liberties from a point of subjective right vs wrong are doomed to failure - the moment a case comes up that clashes with their own viewpoints, they will abandon the liberties they claimed to defend. On the other hand, those who approach civil liberties as a matter of principle face no such dilemma.
    - dale_glass 5y ago
      This isn't how most people actually work. Most of us see principles as a means to an end, even if we don't say so, or initially don't admit it. It's kind of a fairy tale of the kind Disney sells you: if you do the right thing, everything works out for the best. We like that idea because simplicity is appealing, but the real world is complicated and conflicts with such nice notions. In Disney movies when you do the right thing, it saves the world in the end. In the real world when you do the right thing, sometimes all you achieve is nazis running over a crowd, and you end up with a crisis of conscience and not much to show for it.

Applejinx 5y ago

All of this. When the reality is that a political movement will operate in bad faith and intentionally, aggressively exploit any such ideological fulcrum as a weakness in a coordinated way, clinging to deontology makes you a knowing ally… which means you have taken sides. I can see why this discussion's turned ugly, but it can't NOT be ugly. None of this is hypothetical. It's blown up because the aforementioned Nazis worked out that they could compel the ACLU to effectively become a Nazi ally and devote their forces to the cause of terrorism. Under the ground rules of what the ACLU is, if properly managed, the organization can be used to clear the way for violence and actions that are not on brand for the ACLU, and not what it thinks of as 'civil liberty'. This is a clever sort of meta-gaming thing, but it's also an obvious existential crisis for the ACLU to the extent that the ACLU cares at all about terrorism. I think there's an assumption that we can define some things with a bright line never to be infringed upon, and that there will never be exploits to undermine our assumptions. And I mean, that's not even true for mathematical proof, much less free-speech liberalism.

Supermancho 5y ago
> clinging to deontology makes you a knowing ally… which means you have taken sides Nope. It becomes a side-taking issue when sides are taken in a self-directed manner, rather than indiscriminate support. eg When the UN medics treat warlord soldiers after they have been left behind, the UN has not "taken sides".

FeepingCreature 5y ago

> I see this as a conflict between deontology and consequentialism. Deontology says "free speech was defended, the outcome doesn't matter. Let's keep going". But it turns out that deontology isn't that great of a fit for the real world, because people do care about consequences very intensely. Few have the iron-clad nerve needed to say "an innocent died as the consequence of my/my group's actions, and nevertheless I wouldn't change a thing". I see this all the time in the so-called "paradox of tolerance", which is of course only a paradox if you assume a consequentialist framework as unstated background assumption. Personally, I feel asking people to make personal consequentialist decisions gives them far too much leeway to bring personal bias in, so I'm in favor of deontological freedom of speech - on consequentialist grounds.

dale_glass 5y ago
> I see this all the time in the so-called "paradox of tolerance", which is of course only a paradox if you assume a consequentialist framework as unstated background assumption. Everyone is consequentialist in some measure. It's in human nature. In the end, we all want to be happy and to enjoy life, and to be proud of our work, and as a result we care when things get in the way of that. You can see plenty evidence of this in modern times. Eg, to pick something a bit less dramatic, Brexit didn't work out so well for a lot of fishermen that supported it, and it's not hard to find news of them being very upset by this and demanding change. It turns out having sovereignty doesn't make one all that happy when it threatens one's own livelihood.

calcifer 5y ago

> At that point a lot of people started asking themselves "Are we really being a positive influence?". And a conflict began. Those people were clearly in the wrong though. After all, why join a civil liberties union if your support for said liberties is conditional on your whims?

dale_glass 5y ago
That's because it's a lot easier to be principled in the abstract, than when it blows up in your face. Pre-Brexit, there were a lot of people that really wanted sovereignty. Post-Brexit, it turns out that sovereignty didn't make a lot of those people happy, because it got in the way of their employment or business, and it turns out you can't eat sovereignty. Same thing happened here. It's a lot easier to defend a despicable person's right to hold a protest when they're powerless. But when people start dying that gets a lot harder to justify.
- calcifer 5y ago
  > But when people start dying that gets a lot harder to justify. Only for those who were unprincipled in the first place. Those who approach civil liberties from a point of subjective right vs wrong are doomed to failure - the moment a case comes up that clashes with their own viewpoints, they will abandon the liberties they claimed to defend. On the other hand, those who approach civil liberties as a matter of principle face no such dilemma.
  - dale_glass 5y ago
    This isn't how most people actually work. Most of us see principles as a means to an end, even if we don't say so, or initially don't admit it. It's kind of a fairy tale of the kind Disney sells you: if you do the right thing, everything works out for the best. We like that idea because simplicity is appealing, but the real world is complicated and conflicts with such nice notions. In Disney movies when you do the right thing, it saves the world in the end. In the real world when you do the right thing, sometimes all you achieve is nazis running over a crowd, and you end up with a crisis of conscience and not much to show for it.