7 ms·
Since several people are asking why the ACLU isn't what it once was, let me answer that. In 1978, the ACLU successfully defended the right of neo-Nazis to marc
by Meekro 5y ago
Since several people are asking why the ACLU isn't what it once was, let me answer that.
In 1978, the ACLU successfully defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in the predominantly Jewish town of Skokie, Illinois. This action reflected their commitment to free speech, regardless of how offensive the speech might be. The movie "Skokie" and documentary "Mighty Ira" are based on this event-- I highly recommend them because this is an important piece of U.S. history.
In contrast, the modern ACLU has backed away from this stance. A leaked ACLU memo[1] says that before they take a free speech case, they will consider the "context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur."
[1] https://reason.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech/ https://reason.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech/
- ASalazarMX 5y agoFreedom of speech is such a bizarre thing in USA. I understand citizens need the right to voice their opinion without fear of government repression; but citizens shouldn't believe they have the right to insult and behave antisocially to other citizens. Any kind of white supremacist behavior is not something to be treasured as freedom, because that enables their harmful behavior against other citizens.
- DeathArrow 5y ago>Any kind of white supremacist behavior is not something to be treasured as freedom, because that enables their harmful behavior against other citizens. But inciting on harmful behavior against white people is somehow the right thing to do? I believe all people should be treated against the same set of rules.
- jdavis703 5y agoAs a Black American who has fought against white supremacists in the street I would say the government has no right to prevent their free speech. At the same time, I’m under no obligation as a private citizen to tolerate their odious speech. This even includes in business settings… At an old company I once asked our CEO to take down “sponsored content” from our home feed that was promoted by a group on the SPLC hate group list (for comparison we also regularly took down ISIS material.)
- dboreham 5y agoHopefully you meant "fought against".
- int_19h 5y ago"Shouldn't behave antisocially", as in e.g. that whole asbo thing that the Brits had until very recently? I'm very glad US doesn't have anything like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour_order
- hkt 5y agoFun summary: Civil order that it is a crime to breach. So you could get slapped with one on "balance of probabilities" while becoming criminalised for something fairly arbitrary like entering an area or being drunk. I seem to recall somebody was given an ASBO forbidding them from having noisy sex - which they subsequently did and then faced criminal sanction.
- thegrimmest 5y agoIt's only freedom of speech if it protects speech which is actually controversial. This isn't high school. People should have the right to give offense and behave antisocially, if for no other reason than because there is no one who can be trusted with the power to determine what falls into these extremely arbitrary and subjective categories. Yes we should tolerate the speech of white supremacists and other hateful characters, because the alternative is to see reasonable statements lumped in with them. Where we should draw a clear and sharp line is at violence. "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." - William Blackstone "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
- 8note 5y agoThe question is, what do you do when they gain power?
- thegrimmest 5y agoArmed conflict seems to be the only way to displace tyrants from power.
- tekknik 5y agoCounter their arguments better so they don’t.
- snugghash 5y agoThe core problem here is that our technology for discourse is basically twitter and "voting with likes". The algorithms are optimized for attention and likes, so the mob wins - not the best argument. IF we fixed THAT problem (with new technology, an early one is https://www.kialo.com/tour https://www.kialo.com/tour, but it's not good enough), we can have what you want. Right now, we're effectively the same tech level as the 1900s (perhaps in a more dangerous way) w.r.t finding truth or the "right" arguments
- 5y ago
- strangeattractr 5y agoMaybe try thinking about it for a moment instead of resorting to the boring heuristic of assuming Americans are dumb zealots treasuring rights because they are brainwashed. People like you need to stop saying things like "I understand citizens need the right to voice their opinion without fear of government repression" because this is exactly the opposite of what you want. You want views that you consider objectionable to be subject to government repression. You don't have to qualify it, just admit it. The reason people oppose restrictions on freedom of speech are fairly obvious to anyone who has thought about the question for more than 5 minutes. The moment you start deciding which speech is and isn't legal, you have now established a mechanism to censor. Ban 'hate speech', those who define the term now control the boundaries of allowable speech, and you can guarantee bad actors will seek those powers and abuse them.
- DeathArrow 5y agoBut proponents of censorship will argue that there is bad censorship and there is good censorship.
- ASalazarMX 5y agoYou misunderstood me. The government should not censor speech because governments tend to authoritarianism, but civil organizations also shouldn't support neonazis when they exert their freedom of speech against other citizens. TL;DR: The government must not censor freedom, and citizens should not support acts of oppressions disguised as civil rights.
- tomcooks 5y agoIf you think opinions should have a limit, I doubt you understand the right to voice one's opinion. I'm sure you heard about the Golden Rule, as long as you follow it you should be allowed to express yourself.
- GhettoComputers 5y agoCan you define what “white supremacist behavior” is? I’ve heard that leveraged against African immigrants due to their meteoric success.
- farmerstan 5y agoThey also are against doing anything about homeless people. When people come up with ideas on how to solve the homeless situation, like trying to get drug addicts into rehab programs or mentally ill people into hospitals to get them the medication they need, the aclu is against it. They would rather addicts and mentally ill languish on the streets and live in tents.