5 ms·

> Congress must ensure that the next generation of Americans is able to speak and associate freely This is a bit ironic considering that the ACLU has abandoned

> Congress must ensure that the next generation of Americans is able to speak and associate freely This is a bit ironic considering that the ACLU has abandoned many of its principled civil liberties stances of the past, including defense of free speech, and mostly turned into a progressive political organization. Some articles covering this change at the ACLU: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disintegration-of-the-aclu-james-kirchick https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disinte... On the topic of privacy, it is strange to see the ACLU speak against mass surveillance when they recently flip flopped on vaccine mandates, which are fundamentally about bodily autonomy and health privacy: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/09/why-aclu-supports-vaccine-mandates/619984/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/09/why-acl...

kiba 5y ago
On the topic of privacy, it is strange to see the ACLU speak against mass surveillance when they recently flip flopped on vaccine mandates, which are fundamentally about bodily autonomy and health privacy: I don't know why people argued for bodily autonomy when viruses don't care about bodily autonomy or who they infect. It would be one thing if a disease isn't infectious, but that's not how covid-19 works.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  I'm reminded of that classic exchange: -"Your right to swing your fist ends at the other person's nose." -"But what if the other person's nose is continually growing?" I could argue against the right to say anything I want on the grounds hearing it might exacerbate a self-diagnosed mental health issue. I might even find a way to do so honestly, if I worked at it. We can't have no impact on our fellow citizens, and I'm not saying I know the solution, but I'm sure giving them full control over our actions is not it.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  COVID-19 is not as bad as Smallpox or Ebola. The lack of acceptance of vaccines (partially) shows people aren't afraid of this disease and view this as an overreaction. If people were terrified because people were visibly dying in the streets and vomiting blood or walking around the grocery store disfigured for life - they'd get the vaccine like past mandates.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  You have every right to protect yourself. I don't think police will stop you from wearing gas mask and bio hazard suite. As such you have every right and capability to protect yourself. Or just don't leave your own home. Simple. No need to force others to do something against their rights.
  - spqr0a1 5y ago
    ~40% of Americans live in states that have laws against wearing a mask in public spaces. Preventing people from protecting themselves is absolutely a live issue. http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      So maybe this is something that ACLU should take on. Actual civil liberty issue with states not protecting freedoms of people.
    - throwawaysea 5y ago
      I can see the mask bans being useful to prevent crime. It’s hard to bring criminals to justice if their identities are hidden.
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
> ACLU officials similarly reject the implication that their support of COVID-vaccine mandates is inconsistent with the organization’s opposition to past immunization requirements. They argue that COVID-19 is a more infectious and deadlier virus than H1N1, and that the vaccines are better. “What is the risk to public health? How effective is the vaccine? What are the alternatives?” asked Allie Bohm, a policy counsel for the New York Civil Liberties Union, summarizing the questions she considered. “The facts of H1N1 are different, and they lead to different conclusions. I don’t think that is inconsistent, because it is the same test being applied.” That seems perfectly reasonable to me. A virus that has killed more people than WWII is very clearly over the line, even if I couldn't tell you exactly where the line is. (The same mushiness exists for free speech, unless you think it should be legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.)
- Ekaros 5y ago
  So I suppose we should bring back prohibition as alcohol has killed more and is clear drag on public health. Maybe we should also extend this to everything, like drownings, stopping pedestrian traffic and so on...
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    IMO, it depends on the downside of the measure. I can pretty clearly state the problems with banning alcohol; I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how our society would be worse-off if in-person jobs required employees to be vaccinated. Particularly as e.g. schools have required vaccines for a very long time.
- slibhb 5y ago
  I agree that a vaccine mandate is reasonable at some point. As is martial law. But the death rate of covid is around 1% (and substantially less for young, healthy people). Given that death rate, I don't think a mandate is reasonable. Given a substantially higher death rate, I doubt one would be necessary. The comparison to WWII is a little silly. We consider dying of viral infection to be an act of god, i.e. we do not hold people responsible for exhaling virons into "public air". If you want to question the wisdom of that judgement, consider that you quite possibly have been a link in a chain of infections that killed people. Does that make you a fraction of a murderer?

kiba 5y ago

On the topic of privacy, it is strange to see the ACLU speak against mass surveillance when they recently flip flopped on vaccine mandates, which are fundamentally about bodily autonomy and health privacy: I don't know why people argued for bodily autonomy when viruses don't care about bodily autonomy or who they infect. It would be one thing if a disease isn't infectious, but that's not how covid-19 works.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
I'm reminded of that classic exchange: -"Your right to swing your fist ends at the other person's nose." -"But what if the other person's nose is continually growing?" I could argue against the right to say anything I want on the grounds hearing it might exacerbate a self-diagnosed mental health issue. I might even find a way to do so honestly, if I worked at it. We can't have no impact on our fellow citizens, and I'm not saying I know the solution, but I'm sure giving them full control over our actions is not it.
gjsman-1000 5y ago
COVID-19 is not as bad as Smallpox or Ebola. The lack of acceptance of vaccines (partially) shows people aren't afraid of this disease and view this as an overreaction. If people were terrified because people were visibly dying in the streets and vomiting blood or walking around the grocery store disfigured for life - they'd get the vaccine like past mandates.
Ekaros 5y ago
You have every right to protect yourself. I don't think police will stop you from wearing gas mask and bio hazard suite. As such you have every right and capability to protect yourself. Or just don't leave your own home. Simple. No need to force others to do something against their rights.
- spqr0a1 5y ago
  ~40% of Americans live in states that have laws against wearing a mask in public spaces. Preventing people from protecting themselves is absolutely a live issue. http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    So maybe this is something that ACLU should take on. Actual civil liberty issue with states not protecting freedoms of people.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    I can see the mask bans being useful to prevent crime. It’s hard to bring criminals to justice if their identities are hidden.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago

> ACLU officials similarly reject the implication that their support of COVID-vaccine mandates is inconsistent with the organization’s opposition to past immunization requirements. They argue that COVID-19 is a more infectious and deadlier virus than H1N1, and that the vaccines are better. “What is the risk to public health? How effective is the vaccine? What are the alternatives?” asked Allie Bohm, a policy counsel for the New York Civil Liberties Union, summarizing the questions she considered. “The facts of H1N1 are different, and they lead to different conclusions. I don’t think that is inconsistent, because it is the same test being applied.” That seems perfectly reasonable to me. A virus that has killed more people than WWII is very clearly over the line, even if I couldn't tell you exactly where the line is. (The same mushiness exists for free speech, unless you think it should be legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.)

Ekaros 5y ago
So I suppose we should bring back prohibition as alcohol has killed more and is clear drag on public health. Maybe we should also extend this to everything, like drownings, stopping pedestrian traffic and so on...
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  IMO, it depends on the downside of the measure. I can pretty clearly state the problems with banning alcohol; I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how our society would be worse-off if in-person jobs required employees to be vaccinated. Particularly as e.g. schools have required vaccines for a very long time.
slibhb 5y ago
I agree that a vaccine mandate is reasonable at some point. As is martial law. But the death rate of covid is around 1% (and substantially less for young, healthy people). Given that death rate, I don't think a mandate is reasonable. Given a substantially higher death rate, I doubt one would be necessary. The comparison to WWII is a little silly. We consider dying of viral infection to be an act of god, i.e. we do not hold people responsible for exhaling virons into "public air". If you want to question the wisdom of that judgement, consider that you quite possibly have been a link in a chain of infections that killed people. Does that make you a fraction of a murderer?