8 ms·

ACLU Comment on FBI Raid of Project Veritas Founder

41 points by missinfo 5y ago

ageek123 5y ago
I'm pleasantly surprised to see this statement. The ACLU has really lost its way lately, shunning the principles it used to embrace and just parroting progressive talking points on many issues.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  > The ACLU has really lost its way lately People keep on saying this, but there doesn't appear to have been any actual changes at the ACLU? They also just recently defended the "F** Biden" person: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/court-vacates-charges-roselle-park-resident-wrongly-cited-under-obscenity-ordinance https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/court-vacates-charges-ro...
  - jmeister 5y ago
    I’m sorry, have you been living under a rock? Even the New York Times acknowledges this change. Details here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html More at: https://www.twitter.com/search?src=typed_query&q=%40ggreenwald%20aclu https://www.twitter.com/search?src=typed_query&q=%40ggreenwa...
  - causi 5y ago
    The ACLU has explicitly altered its case selection guidelines away from content-neutral rights protection in order to avoid protecting the rights of white supremacists or other prejudiced individuals. Moving forward, when deciding whether to take a free speech case, the organization will consider "factors such as the (present and historical) 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." http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf?mod=article_inline http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACL...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deadbolt 5y ago
      This quote (you're using italics to be a quote, right?) doesn't exist in the linked document.
      - causi 5y ago
        The quotes inside the italics is a quote. It begins in the last bullet point of page five in the PDF.
busterarm 5y ago
Most chilling to me here is that Project Veritas is in the middle of a defamation lawsuit with The New York Times and the FBI leaked Veritas' privileged attorney communications to that very same party. The Government colluding with private industry to subvert its own legal processes looks exactly like that dirty f-word that the NYT's main audience likes to casually throw around.
- molyss 5y ago
  I couldn’t find any info about that leak of veritas’ privileged info. Any sources? I looked at the NYT’s article and everything seemed to come from veritas themselves…
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    The NYT published an article based on their private legal information. They were also tipped off about the raid. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10193997/Lawyer-representing-Project-Veritas-boss-James-OKeefe-suggests-feds-leaked-legal-memos.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10193997/Lawyer-rep...
  - cronix 5y ago
    > The documents, a series of memos written by the group’s lawyer, detail ways for Project Veritas sting operations — which typically diverge from standard journalistic practice by employing people who mask their real identities or create fake ones to infiltrate target organizations — to avoid breaking federal statutes such as the law against lying to government officials. It goes on, but they have PV's privileged communications. How else can they make those comments? Original: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/us/politics/project-veritas-journalism-political-spying.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/us/politics/project-verit... Archive: https://archive.md/wvkck https://archive.md/wvkck
    - TeeMassive 5y ago
      This is so ridiculous. There is nothing wrong in asking lawyers on how not to stay within the law.
celeritascelery 5y ago
> “Project Veritas has engaged in disgraceful deceptions, and reasonable observers might not consider their activities to be journalism at all. Nevertheless, the precedent set in this case could have serious consequences for press freedom. It’s good to see the ACLU stand up for groups that are not “popular”. More and more it seems people only want civil liberties for those they agree with. But since we are all equal under the law (or at least should be), if it can happen to “then” then it can happen to “you”.
- 0xy 5y ago
  The ACLU has vigorously defended the KKK on civil rights grounds, which is admirable. If nobody defends the KKK, the steamroller of censorship and oppression will continue until it reaches something you care about.
  - jmeister 5y ago
    Evergreen Mencken quote: “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
    - db65edfc7996 5y ago
      I am also fond of Larry Flynt, "If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you."
- Goety 5y ago
  I hate that they have to preface it with "we hate these guys but..."
  - pm90 5y ago
    There are very good reasons to find what Project Veritas has been credibly accused of quite distasteful. Institutions do no exist in a perfect vacuum, they consist of people, and people live in civil society. What they're saying here is analogous to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
TeeMassive 5y ago
The whole thing is insane. First Veritas (responsibly) refuse to publish the content of the alleged Biden's daughter diary (the fact that she was hidden from the public is a red flag by itself but I digress) that were given to them anonymously because they can't verify nothing. Then they try to give it back to Biden's daughter's attorney but he refuses because that would be considered as an admission of its authenticity. And then they give it back to the FBI. Then they get raided. Which is weird because the FBI can't have warrants based on fake documents. Then the New York Times had access leaked information about the raid from the FBI. At least the ACLU had the good sense to set aside their political bias for once.
- 0xy 5y ago
  The fact they were raided lends credence to the documents authenticity, so I am baffled that it happened. They chose not to publish because it's outlandish and has no proof. Now, it looks more genuine.

41 points by missinfo 5y ago

I'm pleasantly surprised to see this statement. The ACLU has really lost its way lately, shunning the principles it used to embrace and just parroting progressive talking points on many issues.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lalaland1125 5y ago
> The ACLU has really lost its way lately People keep on saying this, but there doesn't appear to have been any actual changes at the ACLU? They also just recently defended the "F** Biden" person: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/court-vacates-charges-roselle-park-resident-wrongly-cited-under-obscenity-ordinance https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/court-vacates-charges-ro...
- jmeister 5y ago
  I’m sorry, have you been living under a rock? Even the New York Times acknowledges this change. Details here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html More at: https://www.twitter.com/search?src=typed_query&q=%40ggreenwald%20aclu https://www.twitter.com/search?src=typed_query&q=%40ggreenwa...
- causi 5y ago
  The ACLU has explicitly altered its case selection guidelines away from content-neutral rights protection in order to avoid protecting the rights of white supremacists or other prejudiced individuals. Moving forward, when deciding whether to take a free speech case, the organization will consider "factors such as the (present and historical) 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." http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf?mod=article_inline http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACL...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deadbolt 5y ago
    This quote (you're using italics to be a quote, right?) doesn't exist in the linked document.
    - causi 5y ago
      The quotes inside the italics is a quote. It begins in the last bullet point of page five in the PDF.

busterarm 5y ago

Most chilling to me here is that Project Veritas is in the middle of a defamation lawsuit with The New York Times and the FBI leaked Veritas' privileged attorney communications to that very same party. The Government colluding with private industry to subvert its own legal processes looks exactly like that dirty f-word that the NYT's main audience likes to casually throw around.

molyss 5y ago
I couldn’t find any info about that leak of veritas’ privileged info. Any sources? I looked at the NYT’s article and everything seemed to come from veritas themselves…
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  The NYT published an article based on their private legal information. They were also tipped off about the raid. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10193997/Lawyer-representing-Project-Veritas-boss-James-OKeefe-suggests-feds-leaked-legal-memos.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10193997/Lawyer-rep...
- cronix 5y ago
  > The documents, a series of memos written by the group’s lawyer, detail ways for Project Veritas sting operations — which typically diverge from standard journalistic practice by employing people who mask their real identities or create fake ones to infiltrate target organizations — to avoid breaking federal statutes such as the law against lying to government officials. It goes on, but they have PV's privileged communications. How else can they make those comments? Original: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/us/politics/project-veritas-journalism-political-spying.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/us/politics/project-verit... Archive: https://archive.md/wvkck https://archive.md/wvkck
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    This is so ridiculous. There is nothing wrong in asking lawyers on how not to stay within the law.

celeritascelery 5y ago

> “Project Veritas has engaged in disgraceful deceptions, and reasonable observers might not consider their activities to be journalism at all. Nevertheless, the precedent set in this case could have serious consequences for press freedom. It’s good to see the ACLU stand up for groups that are not “popular”. More and more it seems people only want civil liberties for those they agree with. But since we are all equal under the law (or at least should be), if it can happen to “then” then it can happen to “you”.

0xy 5y ago
The ACLU has vigorously defended the KKK on civil rights grounds, which is admirable. If nobody defends the KKK, the steamroller of censorship and oppression will continue until it reaches something you care about.
- jmeister 5y ago
  Evergreen Mencken quote: “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
  - db65edfc7996 5y ago
    I am also fond of Larry Flynt, "If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you."
Goety 5y ago
I hate that they have to preface it with "we hate these guys but..."
- pm90 5y ago
  There are very good reasons to find what Project Veritas has been credibly accused of quite distasteful. Institutions do no exist in a perfect vacuum, they consist of people, and people live in civil society. What they're saying here is analogous to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

TeeMassive 5y ago

The whole thing is insane. First Veritas (responsibly) refuse to publish the content of the alleged Biden's daughter diary (the fact that she was hidden from the public is a red flag by itself but I digress) that were given to them anonymously because they can't verify nothing. Then they try to give it back to Biden's daughter's attorney but he refuses because that would be considered as an admission of its authenticity. And then they give it back to the FBI. Then they get raided. Which is weird because the FBI can't have warrants based on fake documents. Then the New York Times had access leaked information about the raid from the FBI. At least the ACLU had the good sense to set aside their political bias for once.

0xy 5y ago
The fact they were raided lends credence to the documents authenticity, so I am baffled that it happened. They chose not to publish because it's outlandish and has no proof. Now, it looks more genuine.