8 ms·

This is from the ACLU nagware banner: "Efforts to erase voting rights, trans rights, and abortion rights for millions of people are escalating across the count

This is from the ACLU nagware banner: "Efforts to erase voting rights, trans rights, and abortion rights for millions of people are escalating across the country. We’re responding on all fronts — from courts to legislatures in all 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico — but we need your help to win." Has the mission statement changed? Why are trans people, who are on every front page daily as needing more rights, being dragged into this? Why is Snowden not mentioned? Seems that organization has been successfully infiltrated as well.

throwawaysea 5y ago
The ACLU has definitely been taken over by partisans who are more interested in defending political positions rather than sticking to basic civil liberties principles. This article, titled “The Disintegration of the ACLU”, covers the changes in leadership and culture: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disintegration-of-the-aclu-james-kirchick https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disinte...
- lavabiopsy 5y ago
  I found that article to be thoroughly unconvincing, and the article itself also seems to fall for the same trap of defending political positions rather than sticking to basic civil liberties principles.
alexatalktome 5y ago
Because trans people deserve basic civil liberties? And who better to fight for them than the American Civil Liberties Union
- fallingknife 5y ago
  What rights do trans people not have?
  - maxfurman 5y ago
    Being trans is not a protected class, so discrimination against trans people is legal in many states. On top of that, states keep passing unconstitutional anti-trans bills like NC's famous "bathroom bill," which someone has to fight in court
    - gjsman-1000 5y ago
      Trans people have basic civil liberties already. You can't kill them, they can own property, they can work a job, they can rent a house without discrimination (legally at least), and so forth. Bathroom bills, on the other hand, require acceptance by everyone that they are who they say they are. And to put it simply, half of America (roughly speaking) doesn't find that convincing. To them, who are these people who would invade their right to bathroom privacy? Do their rights not matter? That's very different than a right to work a job or own property.
      - gambiting 5y ago
        >>To them, who are these people who would invade their right to bathroom privacy? Do their rights not matter? Can you please tell us which rights are being violated here exactly, I'm super curious. Most people just go into a stall, close the door, do their business and leave - who cares if they are trans or not. Do you peek into people's pants when you go into a public bathroom??
        gjsman-1000 5y ago
        Maybe you are a mom who is changing an infant, and having a trans person (because they can sometimes be off-putting) enter the room is disturbing enough to be on a similar emotional level to a trans person being denied bathroom access. You might say, well whatever, she's transphobic - but you are prioritizing the trans' persons emotions over the mom's however you slice it.
        gambiting 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
haberman 5y ago
The statement about voting rights is particularly rich, given that the ACLU just won a lawsuit in Seattle to remove Charter Amendment 29 from the ballot for this fall's election. https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/transit-riders-union-seattleking-county-coalition-homelessness-and-aclu-washington-joint https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/transit-riders-union-seattlekin... Charter Amendment 29 is (was?) a popular measure concerning homelessness that polls at around 60% in Seattle, with only 20% opposed. The ACLU sued to remove it from the ballot on legal technicalities: they say that it conflicts with state law. The core thrust of their legal arguments had no civil liberties basis to them. But in their filing they stated their core opposition to the bill in this way: > While Plaintiffs agree with some of CA 29’s purported goals, these goals cannot be advanced by the local initiative process. Electioneering and soundbites are neither an appropriate nor a legal method for addressing a complex and evolving regional crisis. Moreover, allowing homelessness policy to be established by local initiative would open a floodgate to local initiative and referenda on homelessness, which could be used to further criminalize homelessness or derail action to address affordable housing and homelessness. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21040873-20210811-1-complaint https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21040873-20210811-1-...) The ACLU sued to prevent the people from voting on a popular initiative to address the homeless crisis, because in their opinion the people might fall prey to "electioneering and soundbites" and vote for the wrong thing. The lead council for the ACLU on this lawsuit, Knoll Lowney, uses local initiatives extensively in his own progressive advocacy. "Knoll has extensive experience in initiative law, and has authored dozens of statewide and local initiatives for the progressive community." https://www.smithandlowney.com/our-team https://www.smithandlowney.com/our-team In a previous lawsuit where Lowney was in the opposite position -- defending a local initiative to keep it on the ballot -- he argued that "All doubts should be resolved in favor of letting the people vote”, and “any challenges the [opponent] wants to raise will be fully preserved for post-election review”. (Those quotes are found in this filing): https://sccinsight.com/2021/08/31/compassion-seattle-changes-mind-appeals-ruling-after-all/ https://sccinsight.com/2021/08/31/compassion-seattle-changes... But that principle flipped this time, when he argued that the citizens of Seattle cannot be allowed to vote on a measure to address one of the region's most urgent crises. So I don't find it particularly convincing when the ACLU claims they will stand up for voting rights. They will fight against your right to vote on measures they do not agree with.

throwawaysea 5y ago

The ACLU has definitely been taken over by partisans who are more interested in defending political positions rather than sticking to basic civil liberties principles. This article, titled “The Disintegration of the ACLU”, covers the changes in leadership and culture: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disintegration-of-the-aclu-james-kirchick https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disinte...

lavabiopsy 5y ago
I found that article to be thoroughly unconvincing, and the article itself also seems to fall for the same trap of defending political positions rather than sticking to basic civil liberties principles.

alexatalktome 5y ago

Because trans people deserve basic civil liberties? And who better to fight for them than the American Civil Liberties Union

fallingknife 5y ago
What rights do trans people not have?
- maxfurman 5y ago
  Being trans is not a protected class, so discrimination against trans people is legal in many states. On top of that, states keep passing unconstitutional anti-trans bills like NC's famous "bathroom bill," which someone has to fight in court
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    Trans people have basic civil liberties already. You can't kill them, they can own property, they can work a job, they can rent a house without discrimination (legally at least), and so forth. Bathroom bills, on the other hand, require acceptance by everyone that they are who they say they are. And to put it simply, half of America (roughly speaking) doesn't find that convincing. To them, who are these people who would invade their right to bathroom privacy? Do their rights not matter? That's very different than a right to work a job or own property.
    - gambiting 5y ago
      >>To them, who are these people who would invade their right to bathroom privacy? Do their rights not matter? Can you please tell us which rights are being violated here exactly, I'm super curious. Most people just go into a stall, close the door, do their business and leave - who cares if they are trans or not. Do you peek into people's pants when you go into a public bathroom??
      - gjsman-1000 5y ago
        Maybe you are a mom who is changing an infant, and having a trans person (because they can sometimes be off-putting) enter the room is disturbing enough to be on a similar emotional level to a trans person being denied bathroom access. You might say, well whatever, she's transphobic - but you are prioritizing the trans' persons emotions over the mom's however you slice it.
        gambiting 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

haberman 5y ago

The statement about voting rights is particularly rich, given that the ACLU just won a lawsuit in Seattle to remove Charter Amendment 29 from the ballot for this fall's election. https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/transit-riders-union-seattleking-county-coalition-homelessness-and-aclu-washington-joint https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/transit-riders-union-seattlekin... Charter Amendment 29 is (was?) a popular measure concerning homelessness that polls at around 60% in Seattle, with only 20% opposed. The ACLU sued to remove it from the ballot on legal technicalities: they say that it conflicts with state law. The core thrust of their legal arguments had no civil liberties basis to them. But in their filing they stated their core opposition to the bill in this way: > While Plaintiffs agree with some of CA 29’s purported goals, these goals cannot be advanced by the local initiative process. Electioneering and soundbites are neither an appropriate nor a legal method for addressing a complex and evolving regional crisis. Moreover, allowing homelessness policy to be established by local initiative would open a floodgate to local initiative and referenda on homelessness, which could be used to further criminalize homelessness or derail action to address affordable housing and homelessness. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21040873-20210811-1-complaint https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21040873-20210811-1-...) The ACLU sued to prevent the people from voting on a popular initiative to address the homeless crisis, because in their opinion the people might fall prey to "electioneering and soundbites" and vote for the wrong thing. The lead council for the ACLU on this lawsuit, Knoll Lowney, uses local initiatives extensively in his own progressive advocacy. "Knoll has extensive experience in initiative law, and has authored dozens of statewide and local initiatives for the progressive community." https://www.smithandlowney.com/our-team https://www.smithandlowney.com/our-team In a previous lawsuit where Lowney was in the opposite position -- defending a local initiative to keep it on the ballot -- he argued that "All doubts should be resolved in favor of letting the people vote”, and “any challenges the [opponent] wants to raise will be fully preserved for post-election review”. (Those quotes are found in this filing): https://sccinsight.com/2021/08/31/compassion-seattle-changes-mind-appeals-ruling-after-all/ https://sccinsight.com/2021/08/31/compassion-seattle-changes... But that principle flipped this time, when he argued that the citizens of Seattle cannot be allowed to vote on a measure to address one of the region's most urgent crises. So I don't find it particularly convincing when the ACLU claims they will stand up for voting rights. They will fight against your right to vote on measures they do not agree with.