4 ms·

Yeah, this honestly seems like a nothingburger to me. They have institutional priorities right now for other civil liberties, and once they feel satisfied with

Yeah, 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 ago
You're missing the issue. They aren't ignoring Free Speech cases. They are actively fighting against them.
- beisner 5y ago
  Sometimes rights conflict with one another.
  - koheripbal 5y ago
    Which civil right is diminished by someone's offensive speech?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - JediWing 5y ago
      The 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.
    - borepop 5y ago
      There are many ways this can occur. Think of intimidating, racist language being used to discourage minorities from voting, for example. Or a public official whose expression of obnoxious views about women prevents female employees from feeling secure in the workplace. The overall tone of the comments here seems to regard speech as an obvious, unadulterated good. I think the reality is actually much more complex.
      - trainsplanes 5y ago
        Nobody here is pretending all speech is good. The point many people here have is that if you only defend non-offensive speech, you’re not for freedom of speech at all. Nowhere on earth bans what they consider non-controversial, inoffensive speech.
      - dionidium 5y ago
        All of this was well understood in, say, 1975. The tension you're describing is why the ACLU's hardline stance on speech and the rights of the accused has always been controversial and deeply unpopular in some circles. Without putting too fine a point on it: that's literally what made them the ACLU.
    - dillondoyle 5y ago
      The article uses charlottesville as an example where their actions to guarantee free speech ended up inciting violence and got someone killed. But that's always been the line right and hindsight is 20/20
      - jl2718 5y ago
        > speech ... killed I’m not familiar with the incident (save it, don’t care), but I can promise you that no honest coroner has ever given “free speech” as a cause of death.
        dillondoyle 5y ago
        charlottesville was a pretty consequential event politically, which also result in a death. this is not the first dismissive comment I've had on HN of people showing a disregard for knowledge & literally not caring to know the issue they comment on. both instances i've participated in involved race which is telling to me imho. Seems to go against the ideals of this forum. I'm no trying to argue either way just point out the example in the article. Personally I lean more towards free speech at all costs.
        jl2718 5y ago
        Really? What was the race of the person who died? What was the race of the person who killed them?
        Qwertious 5y ago
        It's commonly called "stochastic terrorism".
      - koheripbal 5y ago
        If you're making the case that protests should not be allowed because sometimes violence occurs, then no protests would ever be allowed.
        dillondoyle 5y ago
  - chmod600 5y ago
    Can you please expand on that?
DigiDigiorno 5y ago
The head of the ACLU from the 1970s to 2001 says he doesn't think the ACLU of today would have taken the cases that made them famous. (See "Mighty Ira" a documentary on him.) The ACLU caving to political donors under new executive directors in the Obama years isn't a nothingburger to lawyers like me who looked up to them.

koheripbal 5y ago

You're missing the issue. They aren't ignoring Free Speech cases. They are actively fighting against them.

beisner 5y ago
Sometimes rights conflict with one another.
- koheripbal 5y ago
  Which civil right is diminished by someone's offensive speech?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - JediWing 5y ago
    The 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.
  - borepop 5y ago
    There are many ways this can occur. Think of intimidating, racist language being used to discourage minorities from voting, for example. Or a public official whose expression of obnoxious views about women prevents female employees from feeling secure in the workplace. The overall tone of the comments here seems to regard speech as an obvious, unadulterated good. I think the reality is actually much more complex.
    - trainsplanes 5y ago
      Nobody here is pretending all speech is good. The point many people here have is that if you only defend non-offensive speech, you’re not for freedom of speech at all. Nowhere on earth bans what they consider non-controversial, inoffensive speech.
    - dionidium 5y ago
      All of this was well understood in, say, 1975. The tension you're describing is why the ACLU's hardline stance on speech and the rights of the accused has always been controversial and deeply unpopular in some circles. Without putting too fine a point on it: that's literally what made them the ACLU.
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    The article uses charlottesville as an example where their actions to guarantee free speech ended up inciting violence and got someone killed. But that's always been the line right and hindsight is 20/20
    - jl2718 5y ago
      > speech ... killed I’m not familiar with the incident (save it, don’t care), but I can promise you that no honest coroner has ever given “free speech” as a cause of death.
      - dillondoyle 5y ago
        charlottesville was a pretty consequential event politically, which also result in a death. this is not the first dismissive comment I've had on HN of people showing a disregard for knowledge & literally not caring to know the issue they comment on. both instances i've participated in involved race which is telling to me imho. Seems to go against the ideals of this forum. I'm no trying to argue either way just point out the example in the article. Personally I lean more towards free speech at all costs.
        jl2718 5y ago
        Really? What was the race of the person who died? What was the race of the person who killed them?
      - Qwertious 5y ago
        It's commonly called "stochastic terrorism".
    - koheripbal 5y ago
      If you're making the case that protests should not be allowed because sometimes violence occurs, then no protests would ever be allowed.
      - dillondoyle 5y ago
- chmod600 5y ago
  Can you please expand on that?

DigiDigiorno 5y ago

The head of the ACLU from the 1970s to 2001 says he doesn't think the ACLU of today would have taken the cases that made them famous. (See "Mighty Ira" a documentary on him.) The ACLU caving to political donors under new executive directors in the Obama years isn't a nothingburger to lawyers like me who looked up to them.