6 ms·

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

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.
      - d110af5ccf 5y ago
        No. Such considerations are out of scope when defending against infringement of civil liberties. Limits and exceptions are defined by law; the courts can and do enforce them. The ACLU did not previously, and should not going forward, make value judgments about a defendant when deciding whether or not to take a case. Such value judgments run directly counter to the notion of equal rights under the law which is what they supposedly stand for. The ACLU should quite literally defend enemies of the state in the event that their civil rights are violated. If they are no longer willing or able to act in such a principled manner then we are in sore need of a replacement. It is imperative that your legal rights not depend on others agreeing with or liking your views. You don't enjoy freedom of political speech "while saying the right things", you enjoy freedom of political speech "full stop". (Do note that I have nothing at all against organizations that lobby for political change. The ACLU has historically done that as well! What set them apart was their commitment to defending the civil liberties of anyone and everyone, no matter what.)
        ponow 5y ago
        Nicely put, thanks!
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > he 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. The former is inconsistent with the latter. The preservation of any set of civil rights you might conceive of is, absolutely, a “political agenda”.
      - d110af5ccf 5y ago
        Yes, perhaps that was worded somewhat poorly. The ACLU certainly does lobby for political change as well! They did not historically, however, take into consideration the degree to which one's political agenda aligned with theirs when deciding whether to render aid in the defense of (legally guaranteed!) civil liberties. It's also worth noting that the meaning of the word "political" is overloaded here. I did not use it in the same sense that you did - I hope that doesn't escape your notice. (Still though, a potentially ambiguous wording is nonetheless a shortcoming. It's on me to ensure that my communications are as clear as possible.)
    - slowhand09 5y ago
      I would argue they used to stand for that. Historically, I think you'll find ZERO effort expended in protection of 2nd Amendment rights.
  - koheripbal 5y ago
    The irony of your comment is that in this case is that they openly support the party that is a danger to free speech.
simonh 5y ago
It's evidence of a fundamental misunderstanding of what free speech is and why it's important at the highest levels. Free speech is the right to say things that others find offensive. If being offended is enough of an excuse to silence others, then anyone, at any time, can silence anyone else with impunity. If this power is only given to marginalised groups, then it becomes a matter of who defines marginalisation and who gets to draw the dividing lines in identity politics. Come on ACLU, is free speech a fundamental right or a contingent power to be granted or revoked?
- wolverine876 5y ago
  I happen to favor the old interpretation of free speech, but I think there's a strong argument that the traditional approach of defending all free speech facilitates a system where black people and others have been denied their rights for generations, and that we must act now to ensure their rights - that waiting any more is criminal.
  - zpeti 5y ago
    I believe in free speech but only when it suits my political views. That's not free speech. And just to counter your actual point, what about a lousiana white person who's family's been living in poverty for 100 years? Do they get free speech? Or not, because they're white?
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > political views I'm not talking about political views, but the civil rights of minorities. Calling civil rights 'political views' is an old, simple tactic of denying people's rights.
      - zpeti 5y ago
        As soon as you make civil rights selective and for only certain people, it’s a political view. Either it’s civil rights for everyone or you are taking some sort of political stance. Whether that’s repressing a minority (past) or repressing a majority (current trend), it’s basically treating people unequally and it’s just as bad.

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.
    - d110af5ccf 5y ago
      No. Such considerations are out of scope when defending against infringement of civil liberties. Limits and exceptions are defined by law; the courts can and do enforce them. The ACLU did not previously, and should not going forward, make value judgments about a defendant when deciding whether or not to take a case. Such value judgments run directly counter to the notion of equal rights under the law which is what they supposedly stand for. The ACLU should quite literally defend enemies of the state in the event that their civil rights are violated. If they are no longer willing or able to act in such a principled manner then we are in sore need of a replacement. It is imperative that your legal rights not depend on others agreeing with or liking your views. You don't enjoy freedom of political speech "while saying the right things", you enjoy freedom of political speech "full stop". (Do note that I have nothing at all against organizations that lobby for political change. The ACLU has historically done that as well! What set them apart was their commitment to defending the civil liberties of anyone and everyone, no matter what.)
      - ponow 5y ago
        Nicely put, thanks!
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > he 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. The former is inconsistent with the latter. The preservation of any set of civil rights you might conceive of is, absolutely, a “political agenda”.
    - d110af5ccf 5y ago
      Yes, perhaps that was worded somewhat poorly. The ACLU certainly does lobby for political change as well! They did not historically, however, take into consideration the degree to which one's political agenda aligned with theirs when deciding whether to render aid in the defense of (legally guaranteed!) civil liberties. It's also worth noting that the meaning of the word "political" is overloaded here. I did not use it in the same sense that you did - I hope that doesn't escape your notice. (Still though, a potentially ambiguous wording is nonetheless a shortcoming. It's on me to ensure that my communications are as clear as possible.)
  - slowhand09 5y ago
    I would argue they used to stand for that. Historically, I think you'll find ZERO effort expended in protection of 2nd Amendment rights.
- koheripbal 5y ago
  The irony of your comment is that in this case is that they openly support the party that is a danger to free speech.

simonh 5y ago

It's evidence of a fundamental misunderstanding of what free speech is and why it's important at the highest levels. Free speech is the right to say things that others find offensive. If being offended is enough of an excuse to silence others, then anyone, at any time, can silence anyone else with impunity. If this power is only given to marginalised groups, then it becomes a matter of who defines marginalisation and who gets to draw the dividing lines in identity politics. Come on ACLU, is free speech a fundamental right or a contingent power to be granted or revoked?

wolverine876 5y ago
I happen to favor the old interpretation of free speech, but I think there's a strong argument that the traditional approach of defending all free speech facilitates a system where black people and others have been denied their rights for generations, and that we must act now to ensure their rights - that waiting any more is criminal.
- zpeti 5y ago
  I believe in free speech but only when it suits my political views. That's not free speech. And just to counter your actual point, what about a lousiana white person who's family's been living in poverty for 100 years? Do they get free speech? Or not, because they're white?
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > political views I'm not talking about political views, but the civil rights of minorities. Calling civil rights 'political views' is an old, simple tactic of denying people's rights.
    - zpeti 5y ago
      As soon as you make civil rights selective and for only certain people, it’s a political view. Either it’s civil rights for everyone or you are taking some sort of political stance. Whether that’s repressing a minority (past) or repressing a majority (current trend), it’s basically treating people unequally and it’s just as bad.