7 ms·

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 i

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.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  They the American Civil Liberties Union, not the American Free Speech Absolutists. In the above case, the TRO is due to an org suing for identifying information regarding gender identity in jails. Given their track record, it's likely that they're suing so that individuals are not getting identified without their consent.
  - barney54 5y ago
    The first amendment is pretty absolute: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
    - anigbrowl 5y ago
      The first amendment is a restraint on government, not everyone else. Many 'free speech absolutists' seem to argue for a more expansive scope.
    - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
      Freedom of speech isn't freedom to acquire private information.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > They have come out AGAINST various other free speech that "negatively impacts" folks whose voices are less strong. I'm not sure what speech you're driving at specifically, but I want to make sure we're distinguishing between "voices of minority communities" (ignoring for the moment that racial/ethnic communities aren't homogeneous blocks) and "progressive voices that purport to speak on behalf of minority communities". In the latter case, we often find that the progressive caricature of minorities differs a lot from reality--e.g., the narrative that the black community wants to abolish/defund the police, an opinion which only represents something like 20-30% of the black community. To be clear, I don't think you're necessarily conflating anything, but this is a common point of misunderstanding and I want to make sure we clarify up front to avoid predictable misunderstandings.
zwieback 5y ago
What struck me about the NYT article is that it portrayed the ACLU as undergoing a generational shift, with younger lawyers being more open to actively pursuing a progressive agenda vs. just defending free speech. Simultaneously, the NYT seems to be undergoing its own shift to being more openly anti-PC and anti-woke.
- marcusverus 5y ago
  What has the NYT done to make you think it is becoming less woke?
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    NYT runs a token moderate liberal article once in a while to represent the "right wing" viewpoint so they can argue that they're a balanced, neutral news source, which some take to mean they are "anti-woke".
  - zwieback 5y ago
    I've read quite a a few editorials as well as main articles about excessive speech policing, primarily at colleges. There's plenty of reporting about self-destructive policies of the Demorcats and warnings about playing into Trumps hand. Also, the "NYY picks" of comments about articles are generally commenters complaining about illiberal trends. I don't read cover-to-cover so I might be getting a selective view. My general impression is that the NYT is trying to satisfy it's generally older, whiter readership by weighing in against wokeness.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  Do you have any evidence to show the NYT moving against progressivism like you claim? Hordes of HN posters have agreed that they NYT’s shift away from neutrality towards progressivism in recent years has destroyed their positive view of the publication.
  - zwieback 5y ago
    Sorry, no hard evidence. I've just been reading the NYT online for the past year or so and have been struck by the number of articles portraying speech policing as a real problem coming from the left. I don't know if the NYT generally shifted from more neutral to more progressive, just that they perceive the excesses of wokism in education and media as a real problem.
thesausageking 5y ago
Worth reading this response to the article from a Sr. Staff Attorney at the ACLU: https://twitter.com/carltakei/status/1401655639114489859 https://twitter.com/carltakei/status/1401655639114489859

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.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago
They the American Civil Liberties Union, not the American Free Speech Absolutists. In the above case, the TRO is due to an org suing for identifying information regarding gender identity in jails. Given their track record, it's likely that they're suing so that individuals are not getting identified without their consent.
- barney54 5y ago
  The first amendment is pretty absolute: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    The first amendment is a restraint on government, not everyone else. Many 'free speech absolutists' seem to argue for a more expansive scope.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    Freedom of speech isn't freedom to acquire private information.
throwaway894345 5y ago
> They have come out AGAINST various other free speech that "negatively impacts" folks whose voices are less strong. I'm not sure what speech you're driving at specifically, but I want to make sure we're distinguishing between "voices of minority communities" (ignoring for the moment that racial/ethnic communities aren't homogeneous blocks) and "progressive voices that purport to speak on behalf of minority communities". In the latter case, we often find that the progressive caricature of minorities differs a lot from reality--e.g., the narrative that the black community wants to abolish/defund the police, an opinion which only represents something like 20-30% of the black community. To be clear, I don't think you're necessarily conflating anything, but this is a common point of misunderstanding and I want to make sure we clarify up front to avoid predictable misunderstandings.

zwieback 5y ago

What struck me about the NYT article is that it portrayed the ACLU as undergoing a generational shift, with younger lawyers being more open to actively pursuing a progressive agenda vs. just defending free speech. Simultaneously, the NYT seems to be undergoing its own shift to being more openly anti-PC and anti-woke.

marcusverus 5y ago
What has the NYT done to make you think it is becoming less woke?
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  NYT runs a token moderate liberal article once in a while to represent the "right wing" viewpoint so they can argue that they're a balanced, neutral news source, which some take to mean they are "anti-woke".
- zwieback 5y ago
  I've read quite a a few editorials as well as main articles about excessive speech policing, primarily at colleges. There's plenty of reporting about self-destructive policies of the Demorcats and warnings about playing into Trumps hand. Also, the "NYY picks" of comments about articles are generally commenters complaining about illiberal trends. I don't read cover-to-cover so I might be getting a selective view. My general impression is that the NYT is trying to satisfy it's generally older, whiter readership by weighing in against wokeness.
jimbob45 5y ago
Do you have any evidence to show the NYT moving against progressivism like you claim? Hordes of HN posters have agreed that they NYT’s shift away from neutrality towards progressivism in recent years has destroyed their positive view of the publication.
- zwieback 5y ago
  Sorry, no hard evidence. I've just been reading the NYT online for the past year or so and have been struck by the number of articles portraying speech policing as a real problem coming from the left. I don't know if the NYT generally shifted from more neutral to more progressive, just that they perceive the excesses of wokism in education and media as a real problem.

thesausageking 5y ago

Worth reading this response to the article from a Sr. Staff Attorney at the ACLU: https://twitter.com/carltakei/status/1401655639114489859 https://twitter.com/carltakei/status/1401655639114489859