5 ms·

Defending Speech We Hate

77 points by apcragg 5y ago

skrowl 5y ago
This is somewhat true. For example, they put out a press release talking about Facebook / Twitter's unchecked power when they banned President Trump, but they didn't go further than that. Speech they hate gets a strongly worded press release. Speech they like gets actual litigation support.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > For example, they put out a press release talking about Facebook / Twitter's unchecked power when they banned President Trump, but they didn't go further than that. What exactly could they do? The ACLU is an organization that checks government overreach. What government overreach was involved when twitter banned Trump? Twitter banning Trump didn't violate anyone's civil liberties.
  - engineer_22 5y ago
    You're right, private speech on private platforms is not protected by the constitution. However, I think we need to realize the physics of censorship have changed. Censure was once only available to the government, since they ostensibly controlled all public spaces and had the forces to make it so. Today, private companies control the largest forums for civic discourse, of which there is only a small handful of companies with wide reaching networks. These private companies therefore can have an undue effect on our civil government simply by exercising their rights to censor speech on their platforms. So, we could say, that Trump's civil liberties as currently defined were not violated. But it may be in everyone's interest to update our shared obligation to free speech (for what if the shoe was on the other foot?).
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      The only way I can imagine this making sense is if you admit that the US is a failed state. If the President of the United States needs assistance from a legal nonprofit to defend his civil liberties, then the US government has failed entirely and we should just start anew. I don't think this is the case, so I'm led to think there's some other flaw in this line of reasoning. Notably, > Censure was once only available to the government, since they ostensibly controlled all public spaces and had the forces to make it so. Is plainly false. You've never had the "right to distribution". A printing press owner didn't have to publish your pamphlet. The church never needed to let you give a sermon. The NYT didn't have to publish your article. CNN has never had an obligation to let you on air. There has always been a "best" method of distribution, and its always been private. Twitter blocking Trump isn't functionally different than the NYT or WaPo publishing the pentagon papers. It is a private organization exercising their right to push back against government propaganda. It is first amendment protected, and it should unequivocally be defended by those who believe in civil liberties.
      - emc3 5y ago
        > Twitter blocking Trump isn't functionally different than the NYT or WaPo publishing the pentagon papers. It is a private organization exercising their right to push back against government propaganda. It is first amendment protected, and it should unequivocally be defended by those who believe in civil liberties. This argument needs to be made more often. Thanks!
      - engineer_22 5y ago
        What happens, my dear fellow never-trumpers, if the shoe is on our own foot? What stops Twitter, Facebook, et al from silencing a political candidate with whom we agree? Let's imagine a popular progressive candidate running on a platform of anti-monopoly / privacy reform. If these companies feel threatened they have their marketing company come up with a scandal and pull the plug on the rising candidate. Is that acceptable? Can we trust big tech to do the right thing?
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        > What stops Twitter, Facebook, et al from silencing a political candidate with whom we agree? Well, why haven't they banned Sanders or Warren or Klobuchar or Markey or AoC who have all called for various things from anti-trust cases to explicitly breaking up big tech companies? > What happens, my dear fellow never-trumpers, if the shoe is on our own foot? Get back to me when facebook updates their acceptable use policy to disallow criticism of facebook.
    - clucas 5y ago
      What are the criteria for when a private site crosses the line to become a "public" site where it is no longer allowed to moderate its content (or has to moderate its content based on federal rules)? If it's based on average users over a time period, do we trust the site to report it accurately? If a user gets banned from a "private" site that has not yet hit the size threshold, and the user complains to the government and alleges that the site actually is big enough, does the the government go in and audit the company's logs to make a determination over whether it should be a "public" site? If it's based on something looser, like "percentage of people who use this site as their only news source," (which does seem more defensible, to me) how do we set up the criteria for making the determination? Also, how would the federal rules for content moderation look? Would a call for open insurrection still be bannable? What if two roughtly equal portions of the electorate don't agree about whether it was a call for insurrection? Who decides if it was? I think questions like these need to be thought through and answered before we can seriously talk about making a law that prevents social media companies from banning anyone they choose.
      - engineer_22 5y ago
        Yup, let's begin immediately!
        clucas 5y ago
        Well, I can't see any answers to those questions that don't have serious flaws, worse than the problems such government control would prevent. Which is why I think government control over social media moderation is a really bad idea. Since you're the one who wants to change the status quo, why don't you suggest a proposal for how such federal moderation regulation would work? I'm willing to acknowledge that I may just be suffering a failure of imagination. Though, maybe not in this thread... contact in profile, or I'm sure we can discuss it next week when it comes up on HN again. :)
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure the ACLU took a side when hotels and restaurants weren't serving black people. There wasn't any government overreach there either.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      Fair point, but then I think my other reply makes sense here: if you believe that twitter's is "unchecked", you have to first admit that the US is a failed state. There's no other reasonable argument I can find where the US government would be unable to enjoin twitter from doing what it did. Either that, or what twitter did is perfectly in line with civil liberties as defined by pretty much everyone. They exercised their right to free association. What law would you create to enjoin them from having done so?
    - anigbrowl 5y ago
      Perhaps you can cite something to add additional context. You amy or may not be aware that there are already laws designed to prevent discrimination against protected classes, and one sort of civil liberty is being able to enjoy the protection of the laws. You're comparing the ban of an individual with the ban of a whole ethnicity, which are obviously not equivalent.
thepasswordis 5y ago
I'll believe the ACLU when they defend the January 6th rioters with the same fervor that they defended the BLM rioters.
- xbp 5y ago
  nit: please refrain from any ad hominem comments and instead comment on the merits of the content itself
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jmcgough 5y ago
  Not trolling, but what case are you referring to? The only ones I'm aware of were where protesters were illegally prevented from gathering. I'm also not sure what they'd be able to do to defend the Jan 6th rioters - it doesn't seem like their 1st amendment rights were violated that day.
  - barbacoa 5y ago
    >I'm also not sure what they'd be able to do to defend the Jan 6th rioters - it doesn't seem like their 1st amendment rights were violated that day. The FBI conducted mass dragnet seizure of cellphone data -- much of it without warrants -- in order to identify people involved. This is the kind of thing the ACLU would go bananas over years ago but today are silent. https://theintercept.com/2021/02/22/capitol-riot-fbi-cellphone-records/ https://theintercept.com/2021/02/22/capitol-riot-fbi-cellpho...
    - jmcgough 5y ago
      Interesting, thank you.
- k4c9x 5y ago
  Defending domestic terrorist might be a bit outside their wheelhouse.
bitcurious 5y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html?searchResultPosition=2 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html?... This is an article worth reading, if you're curious about the ACLU's identity crisis.
- r721 5y ago
  ACLU attorney's response: https://twitter.com/carltakei/status/1401655639114489859 https://twitter.com/carltakei/status/1401655639114489859
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bigtones 5y ago
This article published last night by the ACLU is in direct response to the New York Times piece below published yesterday to counter the narrative the ACLU is in an identity crisis. The identity crisis as detailed in the NY Times article states that the majority of lawyers that are members of the ACLU do not agree with the stance that ALL free speech should be defended. They argue that the free speech rights of the far right in the January 6th Capitol Riots were not worthy of defense by the A.C.L.U, whereas the BLM free speech rights are. That is a big departure from the ACLU historic stance of the past and it's the problem inside the ACLU right now - today free speech does not trump voting rights, reparations, transgender rights and defunding the police in the eyes of the MAJORITY of their members. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
- vharuck 5y ago
  HN thread about that article, including archive link of a non-paywalled copy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414920 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414920
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  ACLU legal director, 10 years ago: > "The First Amendment really was designed to protect a debate at the fringes. You don't need the courts to protect speech that everybody agrees with, because that speech will be tolerated. You need a First Amendment to protect speech that people regard as intolerable or outrageous or offensive — because that is when the majority will wield its power to censor or suppress, and we have a First Amendment to prevent the government from doing that. https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/protecting-outrageous-offensive-speech https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/prot...
- slownews45 5y ago
  It's more than that. The ACLU has actively come out AGAINST due process rights for accused in Title IX cases on colleges. They have come out AGAINST various other free speech that "negatively impacts" folks whose voices are less strong. Not against any of this, but this was traditionally more in the social justice advocacy group world vs ACLU world. Actions speak louder than words. I think they are going to carry the free speech brand, but are moving into that speech is violence so I can respond with violence world.
dnissley 5y ago
Personally, I'd like to see the ACLU take up the issue of "hostile work environment" legislation. The ambiguity of this term and the various ways different courts have interpreted it seems to be one of the greatest threats to free speech in the current day and age. Whether it's defining it more narrowly or getting rid of it altogether, something should be done about it, and I can't think of a better positioned organization to take on that task.
SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
Reading through their examples, this definitely seems like a case where increased visibility of internal disputes is being incorrectly perceived as an increase in their frequency or ferocity. (With the subproblem, as always, of Twitter - it's a lot easier to stay on-message when you're not publishing a daily live feed of hot takes.)
neonological 5y ago
"When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths... We've been wrong before, and we're likely going to be wrong again...That the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade and ideas. In light of that knowledge that we may be wrong, the best course of action, the safest course of action, is to go ahead and listen to the ideas on the other side. The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. Those are the ideas that we can safely act upon. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based on imperfect knowledge. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment." - Oliver Wendell Homes on the marketplace of ideas. Unknown to most people, our modern idea of free speech was not founded by the constitution but by a judge of the name Oliver Wendell Homes. The history and story of how our modern concept of free speech came to be what is today is very relevant to the free speech problems faced by the ACLU. If you're interested I recommend this podcast episode: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/what-holmes https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/what-.... Really relevant and really interesting.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  I think it's worth supplementing this experimental approach with some data on how the marketplace of ideas actually operates: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-020-00224-z https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epj... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/information-overload-helps-fake-news-spread-and-social-media-knows-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/information-overl... In a nutshell, there are only 24 hours in a day and humans have limited cognitive capacity; news and factual assertions tend to propagate fastest based on perceived significance and urgency, and it's easy to fake those qualities. Informally, consider the existence of tabloid newspapers and clickbait advertising on most news sites. I'm sure you're familiar with companies like Taboola and Outbrain that put up ads with iconic imagery and headlines like 'cure unwanted medical condition with this one weird trick' or 'Insider secret revealed: professionals hate him' etc. etc. Now, you can block ads with the help of an extension if you're technically competent, but let's face it, the web is awash in fake content. If you go to a popular news site without any adblocking software, it's absolute hot garbage, and sadly you can easily find a correlation between particular ideological tendencies and the incidence of garbage. The bottom line here is that that dishonesty is profitable and in marketplace of ideas terms that means it's easier to sell a defective product than a reliable one, because people prioritize emotional activation over truth. So picture the marketplace of ideas a a bunch of ideologues shouting out their thoughts on everything from the right end from which to eat an egg to what humanity's overall priorities should be. Now picture that the more successful ideologues purchase megaphones, platforms, and eventually gian sound systems. A naive consumer entering this marketplace is naturally going to accord the greatest weight to the loudest signals because it requires a tremendous amount of work to do otherwise.
the_optimist 5y ago
There's some pretty intense careful-phrasing in there that is entirely removed from on-the-ground experience, including the body of the organization being dedicated directly toward the 'stop Trump' resistance, in both fundraising and activity. 'When the tide goes out, you find out who's swimming naked.'
- vharuck 5y ago
  You can rightfully dismiss the wording of PR statements, but it's a little harder to dismiss their list of actions on behalf of Conservative citizens and groups. Including Donald Trump.
  - the_optimist 5y ago
    Indeed, actions speak volumes. They have demonstrated a clear will to have staff email a pondering prepared quote to a single reporter who might screenshot it in 5pt font into a Twitter thread.
lesstenseflow 5y ago
I'm surprised that this case hasn't received more attention: https://www.womensliberationfront.org/aclu-lawsuit-public-records https://www.womensliberationfront.org/aclu-lawsuit-public-re... Here, the ACLU is suing to prevent citizens from getting public records released by the government. From ACLU: "We have filed for an emergency Temporary Restraining Order and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to prevent the disclosure of documents you have requested from the Department of Corrections." This really blew my mind–I never thought I'd see the day when the ACLU filed suit to protect government secrecy against FOIA sunshine. This seems to be a clear conflict between progressive causes (in this case: letting trans-identified male people access female prisons) and supporting government transparency. Here the ACLU decided transparency could and should be denied because the information was being requested by bad people, or for bad reasons, or something. If you only support free speech (or transparency) in cases where you agree with the actors, you don't really support free speech at all.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Here is the ACLU explainer on that suit: https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/faq-does-v-washington-department-corrections https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/faq-does-v-washington-departme... Privacy is also a civil liberty worth defending, and in this case, it appears the ACLU is defending that liberty where it is in conflict with transparency. (Probably worth noting: the right to free speech is not the right to know things. On the contrary, it also includes the right to remain silent; compelled speech is also a violation of the basic freedom of speech. The ACLU is not in conflict with defense of free speech in challenging a FOIA request on privacy-violation grounds).
  - dwaltrip 5y ago
    Why is this comment downvoted? Can someone explain the reasoning?
- rhinoceraptor 5y ago
  > trans-identified male This is a pretty offensive term. It's mainly used by TERF/'gender critical' bigots to refer to trans women and describe their gender identity as fraudulent or inauthentic (along with its analogue for trans men).
pianom4n 5y ago
If your organization is dedicated to supporting free speech, but openly admits that it hates large swaths of speech, it's already failed.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  How so? It is completely coherent to believe in and defend the right to say things you find deplorable.
  - pianom4n 5y ago
    As an individual, absolutely. As an organization with a purpose (among others) to defend all legal speech, no. Their credibility is completely undermined. As a very bad analogy, let's pretend the ACLU also explicitly expressed the belief that all drug use is bad and immoral (even legal drugs). Do you think they could credibly claim to equally defend people's rights in drug cases? Do you think they could avoid internal bias when choosing which cases to defend?
    - krastanov 5y ago
      Yes. The answer is trivial if you look up their history and it goes against your claims. Here is one recent extreme example https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-speech https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-em-defends-kkks-rig...
legitster 5y ago
There's definitely something different about the recent work they highlight: >We filed an amicus brief >We advocated >We sent a public demand letter >We filed comments >We sent a letter >We questioned Twitter and Facebook Compared to the work they did in the past, this is all incredibly low effort. If anything, going through this list highlights a lot of actual hard work being done by completely separate organizations.
- morelisp 5y ago
  Amicus briefs are like 99% of what the ACLU does. They have historically not been the group organizing protests and usually do not file suits themselves outside of core issues like freedom of speech and religion. (Local office may have different priorities and tactics.)
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  No, it starts there. If they can fix the problem with a letter, it's better than fixing it with a lawsuit. They'll (presumably) go to lawsuits when they need to.
motohagiography 5y ago
What the ACLU ultimately does is defend the rule of law from being usurped or cast aside by conflicts over speech. Defending speech one hates is a way to maintain and develop the integrity of the law as an institution, and I think this is the underlying mission of the ACLU. The examples of what they do protect the right of individuals and groups to say this or that, but the real work of the ACLU is to be a grinding stone to refine the law the way an official opposition party works in a parliamentary system. While hard cases make for bad precedents, it is in the hard cases that ensure the law is fit for purpose. In this sense, the ACLU are not reliably progressive activists or allies, even if they often outwardly behave as them, because they in-effect take a fundamentalist position on the principle of the rule of law over the effects of speech. In this view, progress may only occur on a foundation of the law, and this is what offends radicals and fanatics alike. The material of the speech they choose to defend is secondary to, and even independent of, whether the parties are saying something evil or not. What I do not think they were prepared for is the co-ordinated assault on language itself, where we have real uncertainty about whether the rule of law can withstand a cultural movement in which words have no fixed or shared meaning. Arguing the meaning of a text, and unmooring the text from meaning as a means to selectively reconstitute it are very different problems. The integrity of the ACLU to its principle maybe a useful canary for how much the culture can withstand.

77 points by apcragg 5y ago

This is somewhat true. For example, they put out a press release talking about Facebook / Twitter's unchecked power when they banned President Trump, but they didn't go further than that. Speech they hate gets a strongly worded press release. Speech they like gets actual litigation support.

joshuamorton 5y ago
> For example, they put out a press release talking about Facebook / Twitter's unchecked power when they banned President Trump, but they didn't go further than that. What exactly could they do? The ACLU is an organization that checks government overreach. What government overreach was involved when twitter banned Trump? Twitter banning Trump didn't violate anyone's civil liberties.
- engineer_22 5y ago
  You're right, private speech on private platforms is not protected by the constitution. However, I think we need to realize the physics of censorship have changed. Censure was once only available to the government, since they ostensibly controlled all public spaces and had the forces to make it so. Today, private companies control the largest forums for civic discourse, of which there is only a small handful of companies with wide reaching networks. These private companies therefore can have an undue effect on our civil government simply by exercising their rights to censor speech on their platforms. So, we could say, that Trump's civil liberties as currently defined were not violated. But it may be in everyone's interest to update our shared obligation to free speech (for what if the shoe was on the other foot?).
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    The only way I can imagine this making sense is if you admit that the US is a failed state. If the President of the United States needs assistance from a legal nonprofit to defend his civil liberties, then the US government has failed entirely and we should just start anew. I don't think this is the case, so I'm led to think there's some other flaw in this line of reasoning. Notably, > Censure was once only available to the government, since they ostensibly controlled all public spaces and had the forces to make it so. Is plainly false. You've never had the "right to distribution". A printing press owner didn't have to publish your pamphlet. The church never needed to let you give a sermon. The NYT didn't have to publish your article. CNN has never had an obligation to let you on air. There has always been a "best" method of distribution, and its always been private. Twitter blocking Trump isn't functionally different than the NYT or WaPo publishing the pentagon papers. It is a private organization exercising their right to push back against government propaganda. It is first amendment protected, and it should unequivocally be defended by those who believe in civil liberties.
    - emc3 5y ago
      > Twitter blocking Trump isn't functionally different than the NYT or WaPo publishing the pentagon papers. It is a private organization exercising their right to push back against government propaganda. It is first amendment protected, and it should unequivocally be defended by those who believe in civil liberties. This argument needs to be made more often. Thanks!
    - engineer_22 5y ago
      What happens, my dear fellow never-trumpers, if the shoe is on our own foot? What stops Twitter, Facebook, et al from silencing a political candidate with whom we agree? Let's imagine a popular progressive candidate running on a platform of anti-monopoly / privacy reform. If these companies feel threatened they have their marketing company come up with a scandal and pull the plug on the rising candidate. Is that acceptable? Can we trust big tech to do the right thing?
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        > What stops Twitter, Facebook, et al from silencing a political candidate with whom we agree? Well, why haven't they banned Sanders or Warren or Klobuchar or Markey or AoC who have all called for various things from anti-trust cases to explicitly breaking up big tech companies? > What happens, my dear fellow never-trumpers, if the shoe is on our own foot? Get back to me when facebook updates their acceptable use policy to disallow criticism of facebook.
  - clucas 5y ago
    What are the criteria for when a private site crosses the line to become a "public" site where it is no longer allowed to moderate its content (or has to moderate its content based on federal rules)? If it's based on average users over a time period, do we trust the site to report it accurately? If a user gets banned from a "private" site that has not yet hit the size threshold, and the user complains to the government and alleges that the site actually is big enough, does the the government go in and audit the company's logs to make a determination over whether it should be a "public" site? If it's based on something looser, like "percentage of people who use this site as their only news source," (which does seem more defensible, to me) how do we set up the criteria for making the determination? Also, how would the federal rules for content moderation look? Would a call for open insurrection still be bannable? What if two roughtly equal portions of the electorate don't agree about whether it was a call for insurrection? Who decides if it was? I think questions like these need to be thought through and answered before we can seriously talk about making a law that prevents social media companies from banning anyone they choose.
    - engineer_22 5y ago
      Yup, let's begin immediately!
      - clucas 5y ago
        Well, I can't see any answers to those questions that don't have serious flaws, worse than the problems such government control would prevent. Which is why I think government control over social media moderation is a really bad idea. Since you're the one who wants to change the status quo, why don't you suggest a proposal for how such federal moderation regulation would work? I'm willing to acknowledge that I may just be suffering a failure of imagination. Though, maybe not in this thread... contact in profile, or I'm sure we can discuss it next week when it comes up on HN again. :)
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure the ACLU took a side when hotels and restaurants weren't serving black people. There wasn't any government overreach there either.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    Fair point, but then I think my other reply makes sense here: if you believe that twitter's is "unchecked", you have to first admit that the US is a failed state. There's no other reasonable argument I can find where the US government would be unable to enjoin twitter from doing what it did. Either that, or what twitter did is perfectly in line with civil liberties as defined by pretty much everyone. They exercised their right to free association. What law would you create to enjoin them from having done so?
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    Perhaps you can cite something to add additional context. You amy or may not be aware that there are already laws designed to prevent discrimination against protected classes, and one sort of civil liberty is being able to enjoy the protection of the laws. You're comparing the ban of an individual with the ban of a whole ethnicity, which are obviously not equivalent.

thepasswordis 5y ago

I'll believe the ACLU when they defend the January 6th rioters with the same fervor that they defended the BLM rioters.

xbp 5y ago
nit: please refrain from any ad hominem comments and instead comment on the merits of the content itself
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jmcgough 5y ago
Not trolling, but what case are you referring to? The only ones I'm aware of were where protesters were illegally prevented from gathering. I'm also not sure what they'd be able to do to defend the Jan 6th rioters - it doesn't seem like their 1st amendment rights were violated that day.
- barbacoa 5y ago
  >I'm also not sure what they'd be able to do to defend the Jan 6th rioters - it doesn't seem like their 1st amendment rights were violated that day. The FBI conducted mass dragnet seizure of cellphone data -- much of it without warrants -- in order to identify people involved. This is the kind of thing the ACLU would go bananas over years ago but today are silent. https://theintercept.com/2021/02/22/capitol-riot-fbi-cellphone-records/ https://theintercept.com/2021/02/22/capitol-riot-fbi-cellpho...
  - jmcgough 5y ago
    Interesting, thank you.
k4c9x 5y ago
Defending domestic terrorist might be a bit outside their wheelhouse.

bitcurious 5y ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html?searchResultPosition=2 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html?... This is an article worth reading, if you're curious about the ACLU's identity crisis.

r721 5y ago
ACLU attorney's response: https://twitter.com/carltakei/status/1401655639114489859 https://twitter.com/carltakei/status/1401655639114489859

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bigtones 5y ago

This article published last night by the ACLU is in direct response to the New York Times piece below published yesterday to counter the narrative the ACLU is in an identity crisis. The identity crisis as detailed in the NY Times article states that the majority of lawyers that are members of the ACLU do not agree with the stance that ALL free speech should be defended. They argue that the free speech rights of the far right in the January 6th Capitol Riots were not worthy of defense by the A.C.L.U, whereas the BLM free speech rights are. That is a big departure from the ACLU historic stance of the past and it's the problem inside the ACLU right now - today free speech does not trump voting rights, reparations, transgender rights and defunding the police in the eyes of the MAJORITY of their members. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html

vharuck 5y ago
HN thread about that article, including archive link of a non-paywalled copy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414920 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414920
oh_sigh 5y ago
ACLU legal director, 10 years ago: > "The First Amendment really was designed to protect a debate at the fringes. You don't need the courts to protect speech that everybody agrees with, because that speech will be tolerated. You need a First Amendment to protect speech that people regard as intolerable or outrageous or offensive — because that is when the majority will wield its power to censor or suppress, and we have a First Amendment to prevent the government from doing that. https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/protecting-outrageous-offensive-speech https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/prot...
slownews45 5y ago
It's more than that. The ACLU has actively come out AGAINST due process rights for accused in Title IX cases on colleges. They have come out AGAINST various other free speech that "negatively impacts" folks whose voices are less strong. Not against any of this, but this was traditionally more in the social justice advocacy group world vs ACLU world. Actions speak louder than words. I think they are going to carry the free speech brand, but are moving into that speech is violence so I can respond with violence world.

dnissley 5y ago

Personally, I'd like to see the ACLU take up the issue of "hostile work environment" legislation. The ambiguity of this term and the various ways different courts have interpreted it seems to be one of the greatest threats to free speech in the current day and age. Whether it's defining it more narrowly or getting rid of it altogether, something should be done about it, and I can't think of a better positioned organization to take on that task.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago

Reading through their examples, this definitely seems like a case where increased visibility of internal disputes is being incorrectly perceived as an increase in their frequency or ferocity. (With the subproblem, as always, of Twitter - it's a lot easier to stay on-message when you're not publishing a daily live feed of hot takes.)

neonological 5y ago

"When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths... We've been wrong before, and we're likely going to be wrong again...That the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade and ideas. In light of that knowledge that we may be wrong, the best course of action, the safest course of action, is to go ahead and listen to the ideas on the other side. The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. Those are the ideas that we can safely act upon. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based on imperfect knowledge. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment." - Oliver Wendell Homes on the marketplace of ideas. Unknown to most people, our modern idea of free speech was not founded by the constitution but by a judge of the name Oliver Wendell Homes. The history and story of how our modern concept of free speech came to be what is today is very relevant to the free speech problems faced by the ACLU. If you're interested I recommend this podcast episode: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/what-holmes https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/what-.... Really relevant and really interesting.

anigbrowl 5y ago
I think it's worth supplementing this experimental approach with some data on how the marketplace of ideas actually operates: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-020-00224-z https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epj... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/information-overload-helps-fake-news-spread-and-social-media-knows-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/information-overl... In a nutshell, there are only 24 hours in a day and humans have limited cognitive capacity; news and factual assertions tend to propagate fastest based on perceived significance and urgency, and it's easy to fake those qualities. Informally, consider the existence of tabloid newspapers and clickbait advertising on most news sites. I'm sure you're familiar with companies like Taboola and Outbrain that put up ads with iconic imagery and headlines like 'cure unwanted medical condition with this one weird trick' or 'Insider secret revealed: professionals hate him' etc. etc. Now, you can block ads with the help of an extension if you're technically competent, but let's face it, the web is awash in fake content. If you go to a popular news site without any adblocking software, it's absolute hot garbage, and sadly you can easily find a correlation between particular ideological tendencies and the incidence of garbage. The bottom line here is that that dishonesty is profitable and in marketplace of ideas terms that means it's easier to sell a defective product than a reliable one, because people prioritize emotional activation over truth. So picture the marketplace of ideas a a bunch of ideologues shouting out their thoughts on everything from the right end from which to eat an egg to what humanity's overall priorities should be. Now picture that the more successful ideologues purchase megaphones, platforms, and eventually gian sound systems. A naive consumer entering this marketplace is naturally going to accord the greatest weight to the loudest signals because it requires a tremendous amount of work to do otherwise.

the_optimist 5y ago

There's some pretty intense careful-phrasing in there that is entirely removed from on-the-ground experience, including the body of the organization being dedicated directly toward the 'stop Trump' resistance, in both fundraising and activity. 'When the tide goes out, you find out who's swimming naked.'

vharuck 5y ago
You can rightfully dismiss the wording of PR statements, but it's a little harder to dismiss their list of actions on behalf of Conservative citizens and groups. Including Donald Trump.
- the_optimist 5y ago
  Indeed, actions speak volumes. They have demonstrated a clear will to have staff email a pondering prepared quote to a single reporter who might screenshot it in 5pt font into a Twitter thread.

lesstenseflow 5y ago

I'm surprised that this case hasn't received more attention: https://www.womensliberationfront.org/aclu-lawsuit-public-records https://www.womensliberationfront.org/aclu-lawsuit-public-re... Here, the ACLU is suing to prevent citizens from getting public records released by the government. From ACLU: "We have filed for an emergency Temporary Restraining Order and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to prevent the disclosure of documents you have requested from the Department of Corrections." This really blew my mind–I never thought I'd see the day when the ACLU filed suit to protect government secrecy against FOIA sunshine. This seems to be a clear conflict between progressive causes (in this case: letting trans-identified male people access female prisons) and supporting government transparency. Here the ACLU decided transparency could and should be denied because the information was being requested by bad people, or for bad reasons, or something. If you only support free speech (or transparency) in cases where you agree with the actors, you don't really support free speech at all.

shadowgovt 5y ago
Here is the ACLU explainer on that suit: https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/faq-does-v-washington-department-corrections https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/faq-does-v-washington-departme... Privacy is also a civil liberty worth defending, and in this case, it appears the ACLU is defending that liberty where it is in conflict with transparency. (Probably worth noting: the right to free speech is not the right to know things. On the contrary, it also includes the right to remain silent; compelled speech is also a violation of the basic freedom of speech. The ACLU is not in conflict with defense of free speech in challenging a FOIA request on privacy-violation grounds).
- dwaltrip 5y ago
  Why is this comment downvoted? Can someone explain the reasoning?
rhinoceraptor 5y ago
> trans-identified male This is a pretty offensive term. It's mainly used by TERF/'gender critical' bigots to refer to trans women and describe their gender identity as fraudulent or inauthentic (along with its analogue for trans men).

pianom4n 5y ago

If your organization is dedicated to supporting free speech, but openly admits that it hates large swaths of speech, it's already failed.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
How so? It is completely coherent to believe in and defend the right to say things you find deplorable.
- pianom4n 5y ago
  As an individual, absolutely. As an organization with a purpose (among others) to defend all legal speech, no. Their credibility is completely undermined. As a very bad analogy, let's pretend the ACLU also explicitly expressed the belief that all drug use is bad and immoral (even legal drugs). Do you think they could credibly claim to equally defend people's rights in drug cases? Do you think they could avoid internal bias when choosing which cases to defend?
  - krastanov 5y ago
    Yes. The answer is trivial if you look up their history and it goes against your claims. Here is one recent extreme example https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-speech https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-em-defends-kkks-rig...

legitster 5y ago

There's definitely something different about the recent work they highlight: >We filed an amicus brief >We advocated >We sent a public demand letter >We filed comments >We sent a letter >We questioned Twitter and Facebook Compared to the work they did in the past, this is all incredibly low effort. If anything, going through this list highlights a lot of actual hard work being done by completely separate organizations.

morelisp 5y ago
Amicus briefs are like 99% of what the ACLU does. They have historically not been the group organizing protests and usually do not file suits themselves outside of core issues like freedom of speech and religion. (Local office may have different priorities and tactics.)
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
No, it starts there. If they can fix the problem with a letter, it's better than fixing it with a lawsuit. They'll (presumably) go to lawsuits when they need to.

motohagiography 5y ago

What the ACLU ultimately does is defend the rule of law from being usurped or cast aside by conflicts over speech. Defending speech one hates is a way to maintain and develop the integrity of the law as an institution, and I think this is the underlying mission of the ACLU. The examples of what they do protect the right of individuals and groups to say this or that, but the real work of the ACLU is to be a grinding stone to refine the law the way an official opposition party works in a parliamentary system. While hard cases make for bad precedents, it is in the hard cases that ensure the law is fit for purpose. In this sense, the ACLU are not reliably progressive activists or allies, even if they often outwardly behave as them, because they in-effect take a fundamentalist position on the principle of the rule of law over the effects of speech. In this view, progress may only occur on a foundation of the law, and this is what offends radicals and fanatics alike. The material of the speech they choose to defend is secondary to, and even independent of, whether the parties are saying something evil or not. What I do not think they were prepared for is the co-ordinated assault on language itself, where we have real uncertainty about whether the rule of law can withstand a cultural movement in which words have no fixed or shared meaning. Arguing the meaning of a text, and unmooring the text from meaning as a means to selectively reconstitute it are very different problems. The integrity of the ACLU to its principle maybe a useful canary for how much the culture can withstand.