13 ms·
You know free speech isn't the only civil liberty right?
by Avshalom 5y ago
You know free speech isn't the only civil liberty right?
- nzrf 5y agoMuch 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 agoTheyve 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 agoThere'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]
- leephillips 5y agoThere have been others. I join in the disappointment at the sad turn the ACLU has taken. But they have been consistent in their opposition to no-fly lists, as an end-run around due process, and have applied the same argument against proposals to create similar no-gun lists. They are right in both cases. Then there was this case, which was mainly 1st amendment, but with strong 2nd amendment ingredients: https://lee-phillips.org/aclu2/ https://lee-phillips.org/aclu2/
- bazooka_penguin 5y agoDidn't the NRA help form early gun control laws?
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoYes but for all practical purposes it's not the same organization anymore.
- bitwize 5y agoThe NRA is bankrupt and about to be dissolved.
- jayd16 5y agoIts not a pick and choose if they fundamentally disagree with the interpretation of the amendment.
- tpmx 5y agoIt does seem to be the one civil liberty where ACLU people very strongly disagree with each other.
- peteretep 5y agoAmerica is a weird outlier in lifting worship of freedom of speech far far beyond where other rich, free countries do, so that’s not all that surprising.
- vageli 5y agoIt is bizzare to advocate for fewer rights.
- peteretep 5y agoSounds like you’re advocating for removal of all laws?
- WalterBright 5y agoThe US Constitution is about guaranteeing rights using laws.
- SECProto 5y agoIncreased rights have consequences. Decreased rights have consequences. There are limits on rights everywhere, even the US. I think it's quite rational for people to favour one or another system or limitation. The first amendment in America protects speech (etc), while freedom of expression in Canada has stricter limits on speech w.r.t. hate speech. I'd argue that Canada's limits are more reasonable. I also accept that rational people could argue the opposite. I trust in the democratic process to deal with these issues. The limitations on hate speech are something I agree with strongly, and would vote against someone wanting to reduce them. So I guess you'd find my position bizarre.
- stuart78 5y ago
- tomlockwood 5y agoIt seems to me that certain people fixate on free speech because they have the luxury to be able to. It's like once they've progressed past a certain level of Maslow's hierarchy they forget about the previous levels. First step of the free speech agenda: Breathe.
- depaulagu 5y agoNo, people fixate on free speech because no other right even makes sense if you don't have free expression. It's the foundation for our democratic society.
- tomlockwood 5y agoNo, without existence, there can be no democracy or democratic representation. Being allowed to exist is the most fundamental right.
- ravel-bar-foo 5y agoIf you don't exist you don't have rights to defend. Did you mean the right to life, as in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
- tomlockwood 5y agoThat's precisely my point. Food, water, shelter, air, and good health, are all required before one can begin to pursue the right to free speech.
- ponow 5y agoNo, those life essentials are not required _before_ getting the right to freedom-of-speech. Indeed, freedom of speech may be essential to discussing how to arrange a society to enable the procurement of those things. Holding off freedom of speech until "basic needs" are met is, to me, a way to guarantee that a tyrant in a poor country stays in power. Ultimately, those life necessities must be provided by oneself or by someone else, or some combination. Freedom of speech can allow for the best ways of providing these things to be selected. The alternative is that only the prevailing view is considered or approved, often leading to much worse provision of these necessities, including starvation (feudal systems, communism, warlords, etc.).
- justnotworthit 5y agoYou know a 3rd category would ruin the joke (and its power to provide insight and perspective) right?
- xbar 5y agoTrue. We also need to keep soldiers from moving into our homes. More seriously, the ACLU has always faced an identity crisis and a consequent PR problem. If the ACLU embraced all civil liberties, wouldn't you expect more Bill-Of-Rights-T-Shirt wearers to be more supportive?
- bradleyjg 5y agoThere used to be a grudging respect between the ACLU and the Federalist society. They disagreed on a lot, but not everything by a long shot. I saw ACLU officials speak at Federalist Society events and vice versa. RBG was famously friends with Scalia. But the current mood is absolutely moral certainty and off the charts self righteousness.
- JPKab 5y agoAgreed. The moral certainty is obnoxious to a comedic level, bordering on tropes of self righteous college students in Che Guevara shirts lecturing about their enlightenment after two semesters at uni.
- coolgeek 5y agoThe goal of the Federalist Society is to replace every single member of the Judiciary with hand-picked candidates that strictly agree with a narrowly-defined canon of legal doctrine. Their members may be less openly confrontational - more genteel - than some ACLU employees. But if you think they're any less certain of their morality, or any less self-righteous than those ACLU employees, you're not seeing reality clearly.
- whymauri 5y agoYeah, this honestly seems like a nothingburger to me. They have institutional priorities right now for other civil liberties, and once they feel satisfied with progress there they'll probably re-invest resourced into their free speech cases to avoid churn or even grow that area. It's short term vs long term thinking and clearly they know way more about the Constitution and law than I do to identify major threats to liberty. It's pretty normal for both lay people and professionals to disagree with that strategy, as there are often disagreements in the law. And while I think having this discussion is important, framing it as an existential crisis for the organization is a bit fatalistic. It's my opinion, and people are welcome to disagree (that's OK), that much of the angst directed towards the ACLU in this thread is more appropriate and effective if directed at the government bodies suppressing free speech, instead.
- koheripbal 5y agoYou're missing the issue. They aren't ignoring Free Speech cases. They are actively fighting against them.
- beisner 5y agoSometimes rights conflict with one another.
- koheripbal 5y agoWhich civil right is diminished by someone's offensive speech?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- JediWing 5y agoThe low hanging fruit answer: taking up the defense of the KKK could free up resources for the organization to actively infringe on the rights of others, either through direct violence and intimidation, spread of hate speech materials, or allowing political spending on issues with further its white supremacist agenda.
- bradleyjg 5y agoThe ACLU has been the premier organization fighting for free speech since its inception. This transformation is like the staff of the Muscular Dystrophy Association deciding it really ought to put its energy into fighting herpes. There’s nothing wrong with fighting herpes, but if staffers did that they’d be stealing the organization.
- teclordphrack2 5y ago"he ACLU has been the premier organization fighting for free speech" Just b/c the article says it does not make it so. The ACLU has a broad agenda of things they defend. "Civil Liberties" does not just mean speech.
- bradleyjg 5y agoThis article is not the first time I’ve ever heard of the ACLU. I read dozens of their cases in law school and attended lectures and conferences they’ve organized. I’m well aware of their history. It’s true that civil liberties means more than just free speech. They’ve also done very important work in defending the rights of the accused, for example. What they never were, until the organization was stolen, was a generic left of center organization that advocated whatever happened to be popular among that sector of society regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with civil liberties, or indeed were outright opposed. There’s always been ideologues that thought that anything and everything else should give way before their moral certainty about everything. It just unfortunate that they’ve destroyed an institution that stood up for specific meta-principles.
- mesozoic 5y agoIt's really more like the staff of an anti AIDs org trying to organize to give as many people AIDs as possible
- saagarjha 5y agoWell, more like refusing to help certain people suffering from AIDS on the basis that they’re “a net negative” by engaging in behaviors that spread the disease.
- lr4444lr 5y agoDo they spend any time defending firearm rights? Because it is, after all, the second enumerated right after free speech.