3 ms·

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 ord

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!
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > No. Such considerations are out of scope when defending against infringement of civil liberties. That merely ignores the problem: It's (arguably) necessary for defending civil liberties. The old formulation now fails to defend civil liberties (and arguably always has, for minorities).
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.

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!
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > No. Such considerations are out of scope when defending against infringement of civil liberties. That merely ignores the problem: It's (arguably) necessary for defending civil liberties. The old formulation now fails to defend civil liberties (and arguably always has, for minorities).

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.