10 ms·

I wonder how large the generational divide is there. Are younger lawyers less likely to take cases of clients they deem detestable? The article alludes to some

I wonder how large the generational divide is there. Are younger lawyers less likely to take cases of clients they deem detestable? The article alludes to some internal rift but the topic may deserve an article all on its own.

6foot4_82iq 5y ago
Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of Politics are enough to explain the downfall of ACLU: 1. Everyone is conservative about what they know best 2. Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing 3. The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies
- api 5y ago
  I don't know about others but I'm totally the opposite of #1. The more I know about a domain the more I am willing to propose new ways of doing things in that domain. I am conservative about things I don't understand because I don't feel like I know enough to break the rules effectively.
koheripbal 5y ago
It doesn't seem like there's so much a rift as a complete change in policy. Per the article, the old policy defending Free Speech was ... > "we are committed to represent those whose views we regard as repugnant" Whereas the new policy says... > "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.” " It's actually really sad. They've even explicitly paid for campaign ads for Democratic political candidates... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0aqKS3ihVM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0aqKS3ihVM It's really just the ACLU in name only. They've done what so many organizations have done, and sacrificed their principles to take sides in the GOP vs Dem battle. Shortsighted.
- xdennis 5y ago
  This is made worse by the fact that they're partisan political. It would be somewhat better if they refused free speech cases from all extremist groups.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > This is made worse by the fact that they're partisan political. What if the greatest threat to free speech is a political party? Should the ACLU allow that threat to advance unopposed so that the ACLU can claim to be non-partisan?
    - d110af5ccf 5y ago
      Yes, they should. The ACLU exists to defend civil rights regardless of how those rights might be used. They do not (or at least did not previously) exist in order to further a political agenda. Your freedoms should _never_ be contingent on the expression (or lack thereof) of a particular political ideology.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        > The ACLU exists to defend civil rights regardless of how those rights might be used. They do not (or at least did not previously) exist in order to further a political agenda. Again, what if a party or politician is a significant threat to civil rights, and necessary to the defense of those rights is the defeat of that party? I think the ACLU would be abandoning its duties if they stood helpless on principle. Probably they should make clear their reasoning. > Your freedoms should _never_ be contingent on the expression (or lack thereof) of a particular political ideology. I'm not sure how that is relevant to the question. Also, there are exceptions to everything, including free speech and political ideologies. First, anything can be called a 'political ideology'; those words are not a shield. Second, if your political ideology is to seize power and end civil rights, you don't have unlimited right to promote it (especially if you are a threat to succeed); my tolerance for your rights doesn't extend to you taking away my rights.
smsm42 5y ago
> Are younger lawyers less likely to take cases of clients they deem detestable If only that. The younger lawyers would attack (sometimes physically, like with Molotov cocktails, as in the case of Urooj Rahman and Colinford Mattis) those they find detestable, and anybody in the law profession that dares to provide them with any service. Which once was considered a basic human right, but not anymore - now, if you defend the deplorables, you become unperson yourself.
- alecb 5y ago
  Neither Rahman and Mattis worked for the ACLU and are having the book thrown at them (potentially 50+ years) for burning an empty NYPD van. The rest of your comment is trite Taibbi-parroting about cancel culture.
  - splitstud 5y ago
    So if you even make an argument that sounds like one an unperson made, you are also an unperson?
    - phs318u 5y ago
      smsm made a point that implied some facts. alecb rebutted those facts, added one of his own and made a critique on the rest of smsm's comment. Nowhere is that making smsm an "unperson". People are free to make a point. And others are free to critique that point. No one has the right to consequence/criticism-free speech.
      - smsm42 5y ago
        There's a huge difference between "consequence of your speech is that you may be criticized and maybe shown you're wrong" and "consequence of your speech is that you will be fired from your job, physically attacked, denied access to business and services, and people who dare to support you will be attacked in a similar fashion". Pretending to not understand the difference and calling both "consequences" is plain disingenuous - and steps right into what Smirnov's original joke was about. Yes, speech has consequences in both free countries and totalitarian ones. In the former, it's debate, in the latter it's jail and execution. Thankfully, the woke is not yet in the latter position, but they long left the former one and are inch by inch moving to the totalitarian side. And no, none of the facts I stated were "rebutted". One incorrect comment was made about Rahman and Mattis, clearly quoting old (and also incorrect) press articles, which totally missed the point (I never claimed they work for ACLU), and I was then hilariously called "parroting Taibbi". That's not rebuttal.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
MattGaiser 5y ago
When I was in university, there were law students who called for lawyers defending certain people (in this case Jian Ghomeshi) in court to be disbarred.
- canadianfella 5y ago
  Not exactly a monster.
- bbarnett 5y ago
  Wow, considering how that trial ended up, with the women involved lying, colluding together on testimony, interacting with him after events, on and on... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Jian_Ghomeshi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Jian_Ghomeshi Well, it is an prime example of why we have trials.... instead of public opinion lynch mobs with a noose and tree. Frankly, those law students not wanting someone to have a fair day in court, should have been disbarred. Absurd! Court is how you determine guilt!
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    They were fine with the court part. They just didn't think he should have representation as "he already had the power."
    - bbarnett 5y ago
      Well, they want punitive action against anyone doing the entirely legal, and correct thing by representing him, so they didn't want him having a fair day in court... Again, laws don't matter... the truth doesn't matter, have a trial of public option, and even make it hard to have his side heard. After all, they didn't want him to have a fair defense? Canadians pay too much attention to US politics. We're not perfect, but for example "defund the police? Look at a Toronto sized US city police, and social program budget. Now look at Toronto. Surprise! Toronto's social programs almost rival the police budget. US city? Almost non-existent, and they get military surplus weaponry. No comparison. Not even remotely the same. Yet Canucks run around, gibbering on about defund the police, when we've effectively always done that! Perfect? No. But we should focus on our real issues, not transplant US issues here. My point is, our courts are not US courts either.
bradleyjg 5y ago
Lawyers sometimes have a duty of representation—-they can be appointed by a court, for example. People that are strictly unable to set aside their personal feelings in the name of professional responsibility are not fit to be admitted to the bar.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
It seems more and more millenials and gen z care less about the idea of free speech that differs from theirs, just like the current GOP party.
- saila 5y ago
  I don't understand this take. Were Boomers, for example, adamant defenders of free speech (on the whole)? Gen X might be an exception, but it seems to me that all prior generations attempted to squelch speech and other rights more so than Gen Z and Millenials.
  - bradleyjg 5y ago
    In the Boomer and GenX generations the right wing opposed free speech and the left wing fought for it. In Millennials and GenZ it’s the opposite. If you have a group that’s mixed in age but most made up of left of center people from their respective generations then you are likely to see all the would be censures in the younger half.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - api 5y ago
    The change many people are noting is that opposition to free speech used to be largely confined to the religious right. It's now much more broad. I think part of it is the rise of online echo chambers. People act like the media they consume, and latter generations grew up with online circle jerks being the norm. Another factor is the rise of so much bad faith disinformation coupled with the extreme virality of bullshit on social media. It seems like the truth of a story is inversely proportional to its likelihood of being shared on Facebook. There's been a panic about the explosion of things like Qanon, neo-fascism, and anti-vaccine disinformation. I hear a lot of people questioning whether it's possible to have a liberal open society without... ironically... censorship. I don't think censorship can be the answer, but I don't know what the answer is. The last few years has left me utterly shocked at the gullibility of human beings. Do people even think at all or are we indeed just mindless "meme machines" whose central nervous systems are vectors for replicating patterns?
brian_cunnie 5y ago
I don't know how large the generational divide is _within_ the ACLU, but I know that there is a generational divide. I'm 57, and a firm believer in free speech, but my younger friends have a different viewpoint.

6foot4_82iq 5y ago

Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of Politics are enough to explain the downfall of ACLU: 1. Everyone is conservative about what they know best 2. Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing 3. The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies

api 5y ago
I don't know about others but I'm totally the opposite of #1. The more I know about a domain the more I am willing to propose new ways of doing things in that domain. I am conservative about things I don't understand because I don't feel like I know enough to break the rules effectively.

koheripbal 5y ago

It doesn't seem like there's so much a rift as a complete change in policy. Per the article, the old policy defending Free Speech was ... > "we are committed to represent those whose views we regard as repugnant" Whereas the new policy says... > "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.” " It's actually really sad. They've even explicitly paid for campaign ads for Democratic political candidates... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0aqKS3ihVM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0aqKS3ihVM It's really just the ACLU in name only. They've done what so many organizations have done, and sacrificed their principles to take sides in the GOP vs Dem battle. Shortsighted.

xdennis 5y ago
This is made worse by the fact that they're partisan political. It would be somewhat better if they refused free speech cases from all extremist groups.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > This is made worse by the fact that they're partisan political. What if the greatest threat to free speech is a political party? Should the ACLU allow that threat to advance unopposed so that the ACLU can claim to be non-partisan?
  - d110af5ccf 5y ago
    Yes, they should. The ACLU exists to defend civil rights regardless of how those rights might be used. They do not (or at least did not previously) exist in order to further a political agenda. Your freedoms should _never_ be contingent on the expression (or lack thereof) of a particular political ideology.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > The ACLU exists to defend civil rights regardless of how those rights might be used. They do not (or at least did not previously) exist in order to further a political agenda. Again, what if a party or politician is a significant threat to civil rights, and necessary to the defense of those rights is the defeat of that party? I think the ACLU would be abandoning its duties if they stood helpless on principle. Probably they should make clear their reasoning. > Your freedoms should _never_ be contingent on the expression (or lack thereof) of a particular political ideology. I'm not sure how that is relevant to the question. Also, there are exceptions to everything, including free speech and political ideologies. First, anything can be called a 'political ideology'; those words are not a shield. Second, if your political ideology is to seize power and end civil rights, you don't have unlimited right to promote it (especially if you are a threat to succeed); my tolerance for your rights doesn't extend to you taking away my rights.

smsm42 5y ago

> Are younger lawyers less likely to take cases of clients they deem detestable If only that. The younger lawyers would attack (sometimes physically, like with Molotov cocktails, as in the case of Urooj Rahman and Colinford Mattis) those they find detestable, and anybody in the law profession that dares to provide them with any service. Which once was considered a basic human right, but not anymore - now, if you defend the deplorables, you become unperson yourself.

alecb 5y ago
Neither Rahman and Mattis worked for the ACLU and are having the book thrown at them (potentially 50+ years) for burning an empty NYPD van. The rest of your comment is trite Taibbi-parroting about cancel culture.
- splitstud 5y ago
  So if you even make an argument that sounds like one an unperson made, you are also an unperson?
  - phs318u 5y ago
    smsm made a point that implied some facts. alecb rebutted those facts, added one of his own and made a critique on the rest of smsm's comment. Nowhere is that making smsm an "unperson". People are free to make a point. And others are free to critique that point. No one has the right to consequence/criticism-free speech.
    - smsm42 5y ago
      There's a huge difference between "consequence of your speech is that you may be criticized and maybe shown you're wrong" and "consequence of your speech is that you will be fired from your job, physically attacked, denied access to business and services, and people who dare to support you will be attacked in a similar fashion". Pretending to not understand the difference and calling both "consequences" is plain disingenuous - and steps right into what Smirnov's original joke was about. Yes, speech has consequences in both free countries and totalitarian ones. In the former, it's debate, in the latter it's jail and execution. Thankfully, the woke is not yet in the latter position, but they long left the former one and are inch by inch moving to the totalitarian side. And no, none of the facts I stated were "rebutted". One incorrect comment was made about Rahman and Mattis, clearly quoting old (and also incorrect) press articles, which totally missed the point (I never claimed they work for ACLU), and I was then hilariously called "parroting Taibbi". That's not rebuttal.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

MattGaiser 5y ago

When I was in university, there were law students who called for lawyers defending certain people (in this case Jian Ghomeshi) in court to be disbarred.

canadianfella 5y ago
Not exactly a monster.
bbarnett 5y ago
Wow, considering how that trial ended up, with the women involved lying, colluding together on testimony, interacting with him after events, on and on... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Jian_Ghomeshi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Jian_Ghomeshi Well, it is an prime example of why we have trials.... instead of public opinion lynch mobs with a noose and tree. Frankly, those law students not wanting someone to have a fair day in court, should have been disbarred. Absurd! Court is how you determine guilt!
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  They were fine with the court part. They just didn't think he should have representation as "he already had the power."
  - bbarnett 5y ago
    Well, they want punitive action against anyone doing the entirely legal, and correct thing by representing him, so they didn't want him having a fair day in court... Again, laws don't matter... the truth doesn't matter, have a trial of public option, and even make it hard to have his side heard. After all, they didn't want him to have a fair defense? Canadians pay too much attention to US politics. We're not perfect, but for example "defund the police? Look at a Toronto sized US city police, and social program budget. Now look at Toronto. Surprise! Toronto's social programs almost rival the police budget. US city? Almost non-existent, and they get military surplus weaponry. No comparison. Not even remotely the same. Yet Canucks run around, gibbering on about defund the police, when we've effectively always done that! Perfect? No. But we should focus on our real issues, not transplant US issues here. My point is, our courts are not US courts either.

bradleyjg 5y ago

Lawyers sometimes have a duty of representation—-they can be appointed by a court, for example. People that are strictly unable to set aside their personal feelings in the name of professional responsibility are not fit to be admitted to the bar.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

It seems more and more millenials and gen z care less about the idea of free speech that differs from theirs, just like the current GOP party.

saila 5y ago
I don't understand this take. Were Boomers, for example, adamant defenders of free speech (on the whole)? Gen X might be an exception, but it seems to me that all prior generations attempted to squelch speech and other rights more so than Gen Z and Millenials.
- bradleyjg 5y ago
  In the Boomer and GenX generations the right wing opposed free speech and the left wing fought for it. In Millennials and GenZ it’s the opposite. If you have a group that’s mixed in age but most made up of left of center people from their respective generations then you are likely to see all the would be censures in the younger half.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- api 5y ago
  The change many people are noting is that opposition to free speech used to be largely confined to the religious right. It's now much more broad. I think part of it is the rise of online echo chambers. People act like the media they consume, and latter generations grew up with online circle jerks being the norm. Another factor is the rise of so much bad faith disinformation coupled with the extreme virality of bullshit on social media. It seems like the truth of a story is inversely proportional to its likelihood of being shared on Facebook. There's been a panic about the explosion of things like Qanon, neo-fascism, and anti-vaccine disinformation. I hear a lot of people questioning whether it's possible to have a liberal open society without... ironically... censorship. I don't think censorship can be the answer, but I don't know what the answer is. The last few years has left me utterly shocked at the gullibility of human beings. Do people even think at all or are we indeed just mindless "meme machines" whose central nervous systems are vectors for replicating patterns?

brian_cunnie 5y ago

I don't know how large the generational divide is _within_ the ACLU, but I know that there is a generational divide. I'm 57, and a firm believer in free speech, but my younger friends have a different viewpoint.