44 ms·

The ACLU Has Lost Its Way

• pcvarmint 4y ago
  The Rutherford Institute [0] is much better than the ACLU on civil liberties issues these days, even though its founder, John W. Whitehead, was formerly associated with the Religious Right, and has since disavowed it [1]. [0] https://www.rutherford.org/ https://www.rutherford.org/ [1] https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Religious+right+about-face%3a+activists+Frank+Schaeffer%2c+John+Whitehead...-a0177175840 https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Religious+right+about-face%3a...
• NelsonMinar 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • Miner49er 4y ago
    This makes sense to me. They've basically bought into the idea of the Paradox of Tolerance. That still doesn't explain why they are involved with the Heard/Depp case. Or why they were supporting Stacey Abrams' campaign or campaigning against Brett Kavanaugh.
    • colinmhayes 4y ago
      Well Kavanaugh has some evidence accusing him of rape and Abrams fights incredibly hard for voting rights, which seems like a civil liberty to me.
    • NelsonMinar 4y ago
      I don't much care about the Heard/Depp case, it's a tabloid sideshow. The story the Atlantic author presents seems bad to me, maybe the ACLU made a mistake there. Supporting Stacey Abrams makes absolute sense; she's done more work on the ground for voting rights than any politician at her level. As for Kavanaugh, the ACLU's explanation for their opposition satisfies me. https://www.aclu.org/blog/civil-liberties/executive-branch/why-aclu-opposes-brett-kavanaughs-nomination-supreme-court https://www.aclu.org/blog/civil-liberties/executive-branch/w...
      • shuckles 4y ago
        I think the argument in the Atlantic piece is roughly that these “one-off” exceptional blog posts justifying their decision is largely just-so stories with little principled reasoning. For example, this is their defense for why they opposed the justice nomination: “Board members were clear that if the same concerns were raised about a Democratic Supreme Court nominee — inadequately investigated credible allegations of sexual assault supported by credible testimony and met by nominee testimony showing angry partisanship — we would similarly oppose that nominee.” That’s a lot of qualifiers! Would they do the same for any potential crime? What about other crimes whose severity, from a social perspective, has changed in the other direction in the years since they were committed? For example, smoking weed was probably considered, contemporaneously, as less forgivable than making unwanted sexual advances. Should we try to dig into whether a nominee passed a blunt in college, since surely that’s a sign of poor past judgment? By wading into these waters, the ACLU should have airtight argumentation, ideally proactive not reactive. It hasn’t offered much of that, which is why its integrity is being credibly questioned.
      • yetanother4968 4y ago
        Their explanation you linked which says: “Does this decision change ACLU policy? No. ACLU policy is not to support or oppose any candidate for elected or appointed office, including Supreme Court justices.” And supporting Stacey Abrams is in keeping with that…how? Edit: typos
  • shuckles 4y ago
    How do you frame the episode where they sell defamation services in exchange for donations, a sort of extortion scheme?
    • colinmhayes 4y ago
      If you're talking about the op-ed I don't even think that was Heard's idea. It really sounds like she wasn't involved in it at all. They sold her the ambassadorship title I guess, but after that they were just trying to cash in on me too. Heard was a useful figure because they already had a relationship with her and she had a public messy divorce.
  • mlindner 4y ago
    Being wrong one time doesn't usually mean you should throw out an entire ideology.
• phendrenad2 4y ago
  Glad someone else noticed this. The ACLU has worked against several causes (such as freedom of the press and free speech) that it would have supported once upon a time. The question is why. Possibilities I can think of are: (A) it's become controlled opposition, the leaders are secretly libertarians (unlikely) (B) it's become bloated with bureaucrats who just want to collect a paycheck and are guided by trails of money (meh) (C) It's become bloated with trend-chasers who are passionate about the latest cause de jure, and don't think about or care about other causes (D) the organization is holding on for dear life, donations are down, and they can't afford to be picky with what causes they support, whatever keeps the justice ship afloat
  • lliamander 4y ago
    > it's become controlled opposition, the leaders are secretly libertarians (unlikely) Hold up. Are you suggesting that libertarians are against free speech and freedom of the press?
    • lukas099 4y ago
      Right, hasn't the ACLU always been a libertarian organization?
      • BitwiseFool 4y ago
        I suppose if you critically examine the definition of Liberty / Libertarian you could say they are such an organization. You could also get creative with definitions and claim that because they want to maintain and preserve constitutional rights they are actually a 'conservative' institution. However in general perception they are firmly "on the left" politically and socially whereas Libertarians are perceived as "on the right" in America. Therefore I don't think the label Libertarian is fitting in this case.
        • lukas099 4y ago
          Interesting, thanks. I know that people who identify as 'libertarians' in the USA tend to be right-wing, but I thought that the definition was much closer to that of 'liberal', as in 'favoring the rights of the individual'.
• finiteseries 4y ago
  Core: …since Trump’s election, according to The New York Times, the organization’s annual budget has grown threefold and its lawyer staff has doubled—but only four of its attorneys specialize in free-speech issues, a number that has not changed in a decade. Instead, the ACLU has expanded its services—and filled its coffers—as it takes partisan stances or embraces dubious causes. Meanwhile, when it comes to the red-hot culture-war issues squarely within its wheelhouse, such as the right to free, albeit hateful, speech on campus, the ACLU has stayed largely on the sidelines.
  • Clubber 4y ago
    It seems our corrupt political class has rotted one of our most venerable institutions. Those who want to be rich, however, fall into temptation and become ensnared by many foolish and harmful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. By craving it, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows. But you, O man of God, flee from these things and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance, and gentleness. I'm not an overly religious person, but this seems to ring true as much today as it ever has.
    • colpabar 4y ago
      I think it's more than just the political class. It seems like the entirety of american culture revolves around the idea that everyone should want to get rich by any means necessary.
      • Loughla 4y ago
        It's like those pictures of bulldogs from the early 20th century. They look like real dogs, they don't have the health problems, and they just seem to be better. But then it becomes a competition. There is a public standard for success. And now we have flat faced monsters that can't breed on their own and need surgery just to breathe. We're just seeing the natural progression of American individualism. What used to mean - be strong in the face of adversity, work toward a positive goal, and bring others along once you make it, has become a monstrosity. Winning means amassing resources, regardless of the steps you take to get those resources. Oh, and don't forget to pull the ladder up after you, because if someone else wins, you lose. What we're seeing is the evolution, the simple, natural evolution of stoic individualism taken to the nth degree.
• megaman821 4y ago
  I was a long-time ACLU supporter until a couple of years when they pivoted away from their free-speech mission. Is there any organization that carries that mantle now? The Trump era really broke something in people's brains. Politics started invading everywhere at a level much greater than had ever existed before. I don't go to work, watch sports, or share pictures with the intent to engage in politics.
  • brightball 4y ago
    EFF seems to be the closest thing these days.
    • Jiro 4y ago
      The EFF wanted to kick Richard Stallman out of the FSF based on fake sexual harassment accusations. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-richard-stallman-fsf-board https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-...
      • TotempaaltJ 4y ago
        How do you know they're fake? If you were to be convinced they were real, would you then share the EFF's opinion, or do you believe Stallman shouldn't be judged on this?
  • colpabar 4y ago
    > The Trump era really broke something in people's brains. The mainstream media did a great job of outraging liberals because whenever trump said anything even remotely controversial, it was covered nonstop until he said the next thing. I think a lot of people ended up being outraged for 5 straight years, and came to the conclusion that the idea of free speech is "a danger to our democracy".
    • chaosharmonic 4y ago
      > The mainstream media did a great job of outraging liberals because whenever trump said anything even remotely controversial, it was covered nonstop until he said the next thing. To be fair, I bet you could measure the average interval of those events in hours.
• colpabar 4y ago
  >The heart of Depp’s claim is that Heard ruined his acting career when she published a 2018 op-ed in The Washington Post describing herself as “a public figure representing domestic abuse”—a thinly veiled reference to much-publicized accusations of assault she made against Depp in court filings toward the end of their short-lived marriage. But Heard hadn’t pitched the idea to the Post—the ACLU had. Terence Dougherty, the organization’s general counsel, testified via video deposition that the ACLU had spearheaded the effort and served as Heard’s ghostwriter in exchange for her promise to donate $3.5 million to the organization. The promised donation also bought Heard the title of ACLU “ambassador on women’s rights with a focus on gender-based violence.” When Heard failed to pay up, Doughtery said, the ACLU collected $100,000 from Depp himself, and another $500,000 from a fund connected to Elon Musk, whom Heard dated after the divorce. I have not been paying much attention to this case (I actually thought it was just a messy divorce case), but man, fuck the ACLU. How is anyone supposed to take any of this seriously anymore? She didn't even write the piece herself? How was the ACLU able to "collect" money from both Johnny Depp and Elon Musk?? What a disgrace the ACLU has become, and unfortunately I think most people still see them as the freedom-fighters they used to be.
  • sumnuyungi 4y ago
    The article's phrasing is a mischaracterization: Depp and Musk made donations on behalf of Heard, the ACLU didn't go after them to "collect".
    • _ktx2 4y ago
      > When Heard failed to pay up, Doughtery said, the ACLU collected $100,000 from Depp himself, and another $500,000 from a fund connected to Elon Musk, whom Heard dated after the divorce. It doesn't really specify what the ACLU said or did to get that money. I'm curious what those methods were and if Depp (or Musk) were aware of the ACLU's involvement or the pay to play relationship between Heard and the ACLU.
      • zmgsabst 4y ago
        In Depp’s case, he paid the first $100,000 of the $7M divorce settlement directly to the ACLU — and she flipped out and demanded the money go to her, rather than directly to the charities she pledged it to: the ACLU and a children’s hospital. Heard never donated the balance of her divorce settlement she publicly pledged.
• all2well 4y ago
  Time to pull out the dril tweet: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things"
  • lesstenseflow 4y ago
    The ACLU is not above criticism. Is there something in particular you object to in this article?
    • all2well 4y ago
      I take issue with calling the desire to do violence against people like me an "ideological difference"
      • BitwiseFool 4y ago
        As a counterpoint, accusations of "violence" get thrown around with little restraint. "Silence is Violence" but I've also found that disagreements can equate to "denying my right to exist".
      • Karrot_Kream 4y ago
        That was the point of Ira Glasser's stance. Him and other ACLU members defended the right of Neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois. Glasser himself and many of the other attorneys on the case were Jewish. They were protecting the rights of people demonstrating to advocate for doing violence against people like them. Viewpoints like this are mostly gone these days in the US. Liberalism has become unpopular on the Left (and it's always been just a suggestion on the Right in my experience).
        • all2well 4y ago
          Most liberal countries have restrictions on outright hate speech. It's definitely possible to be a liberal and also oppose the right of Nazis to advocate for mass genocide.
          • 4y ago
• pfkurtz 4y ago
• Splendor 4y ago
  > In 1978, the ACLU succcessfully [sic] defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, a community populated by Holocaust survivors. But in 2018, following the ACLU’s successful litigation to obtain a permit for white supremacists to march in Charlottesville, Virginia, which ended in death and disaster, the ACLU issued new guidelines. Citing concerns about “limited resources” and “the potential effect on marginalized groups,” the organization cautioned its lawyers to take special care when considering whether to represent groups whose “values are contrary to our values.” First off. A professor writes a mere 1,000 word article for a major publication and it has typos. Yikes. Second, the author points to action the ACLU took to defend the right of white supremacists to march in Charlottesville in 2018 and then tries to say they've changed position but doesn't demonstrate that with any proof of similar action or inaction -- just words. IMO actions are more important than words and if the ACLU's actions are still in line with the mission you say you agree with, this is much ado about nada.
• twofornone 4y ago
  >I view the ACLU’s hard-left turn with alarm. It smacks of intolerance and choosing sides, precisely what a civil-liberties organization designed to defend the Bill of Rights is meant to oppose. The ACLU has clearly been infiltrated and coopted by the same authoritarian ideologues running amok in almost all of our other institutions. Manufactured by degree mills where children take on tens of thousands in debt for the privilege of progressive indoctrination. >Progressive causes are near and dear to my heart. I am a feminist and staunch Democrat. As a federal public defender turned law professor, I have spent my career trying to make change in a criminal legal system that is riven with racism and fundamentally unfair to those without status and financial resources The author is complicit but in typical progressive fashion totally oblivious to her role in the rise of this activist class. She made her bed and now we all get to lay in it, surrounded by irrational diversity propaganda while forced to keep quiet in the face of genuine systemic racism under implicit threat of retaliation.
  • cr__ 4y ago
    Can you elaborate on this “genuine systemic racism” and on who you feel is perpetrating it?
    • twofornone 4y ago
      Overt discrimination against straight white males? Mandated by investors through ESG contingent funding and pushed down the chain by C-suite executives who have attended mandatory "diversity" reeducation seminars (literal racial/gendered propaganda), implemented by (overwhelmingly female) degree mill graduates in HR who viciously suppress any dissent against this particular systemically sanctioned discrimination. That would fit the bill for systemic racism/sexism and it isn't merely alleged like that of D&I proponents.
      • dillondoyle 4y ago
      • rrradical 4y ago
        Discrimination against straight white males? Presumably everyone would agree straight white males were given huge privileges in the long tail history of America. (That's a pretty easy reading of history.) So, if your claim is that they are now discriminated against- what was the inflection point where they were treated with no net bias? Perhaps the reason it feels like discrimination is because those privileges are eroding?
• bell-cot 4y ago
  Vague memory is that the ACLU ran off into the organization disfunction weeds quite a few years ago, with the CEO and Board suing each other, and other fun. But at least from a quick skim of their Wikipedia page, there's no sign of that being true. Anyone else have a similar memory? Or "true story, but it actually was {name of some other organization here}"?
  • ksherlock 4y ago
    You might be thinking of the Southern Poverty Law Center - "In 2019, founder Morris Dees was fired, which was followed by President Richard Cohen's resignation. An outside consultant, Tina Tchen, was brought in to review workplace practices, particularly relating to accusations of racial and sexual harassment. Margaret Huang, who was formerly the Chief Executive at Amnesty International USA, was named as president and CEO of the SPLC in early February 2020."
    • mlindner 4y ago
      > Southern Poverty Law Center That organization is one of the most harmful organizations in the US. In my opinion.
      • tenpies 4y ago
        Tough call between them and the Lincoln Project. I mean the fact that they can run a false flag in order to incite hatred towards a major political party, get caught, and get away with it with zero consequences is just mind-blowing. See: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/30/lincoln-project-glenn-youngkin-virginia-event https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/30/lincoln-proj...
        • LordDragonfang 4y ago
          They're exercising their right to free speech (specifically free political expression, which is more or less the same thing under US law). If you think that's a bad thing, you're arguing that there should be limits to it, which is counter to what seems to be the majority opinion of... well, the members the Lincoln Project oppose, judging by this thread. I'm not just pointing this out to be smug, but because I genuinely believe a majority of the people on the right who claim to be free speech absolutists in this thread would agree with you upon reading your comment, because it's a reasonable concern to have. Almost no one is actually a free speech absolutist, when push comes to shove it usually comes down to an objection to which speech is being censored, and how often.
• PedroBatista 4y ago
  The ACLU lost its way a long time ago and that's not really news because it's in the "good" company of most non-profits. We all "know" they are rotten but we are still "shocked" when we learn exactly what they do - aka "How the sausage is made". It reminds me that time ( possibly now ) when Politico's "journalists" went around the World asking money from Governments and other public institutions in order for them to write good things about them ( visibility!! ) but also "asking" money to not write bad things about them.. Sometimes the drunk bums around the corner are 100% right: this shit stinks!!!
  • daniel-cussen 4y ago
    • paywallasinbeer 4y ago
      [flagged]
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  • dillondoyle 4y ago
    Tell me what I know about this rot?!
  • ellen364 4y ago
    Can you remember where you read the allegation about Politico? It isn’t in the “controversies” section of the Politico Wiki page [0] and a couple of Google searches for things like “politico corruption” and “politico pay for articles” weren’t helpful. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico#Controversies
• commandlinefan 4y ago
  There's a really disturbing movement against freedom of speech in the US that I never thought I would see.
  • Miner49er 4y ago
    It's not the first time, though, look at McCarthyism. We mostly bounced back from that, we'll probably do the same this time.
    • LewisVerstappen 4y ago
      Sure, but people have to fight for their rights. The world doesn't swing towards freedom automatically. The rise of authoritarianism around the world (China, Russia, etc.) makes that clear.
  • mandmandam 4y ago
    It's a small but crucial part of a wider class war, which is beyond belief in its scale and sheer evil. "Vote blue no matter who" isn't gonna get us out of this one, and neither is donating to the ACLU and NPR.
    • SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
      Out of? It’s how we got it. I can’t be the only one left that is wondering how the window shifted so far left so quickly. Well, I guess me and Elon.
      • colpabar 4y ago
        It shifted because the powers that be saw an actual unified, targeted movement aimed against the ultra rich (occupy), and got scared. So now, instead of fighting against the people who own the government, we are fighting each other based on skin color. So progressive!
        • sli 4y ago
• DanAtC 4y ago
  ACLU has also been campaigning against San Francisco Prop H (ballot measure to recall DA). Seems way out of their wheelhouse. https://www.aclunc.org/norecall https://www.aclunc.org/norecall
  • SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    I’ve always enjoyed that even in their hayday of “in wheelhouse” they would pretend that 2A wasn’t/isn’t a civil right. I mean… guys… it’s #2. I wouldn’t be surprise to hear that ACLU defended more people against 3A violations than 2A.
    • gizmo686 4y ago
      Ignoring actual disagreement about what the 2nd amendment means and what policy should be, why would the ACLU invest in 2nd amendment rights in a world where there is already a a strong lobby dedicated to them.
      • kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
        That "strong" lobby is dangerously corrupt and currently bleeding membership because of it. They've also turned themselves into a form of religion and not capable of being a rational actor.
        • padseeker 4y ago
          are you referring to the NRA or the ACLU here?
        • SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
          NRA yes. However, it’s about time. In it’s place are a much more modern groups of smaller, more motivated, more focused, and entirely grassroots. SAF and GOA have done more than NRA in the past 10 years anyhow. The only people sad about NRA dissolving are the people internally doing it.
      • SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
• jimt1234 4y ago
  Debate is dead, replaced by the echo chamber. Sadly, the ACLU has adapted to this.
• _23sd 4y ago
  A fairly short piece that makes the same points that have been made a million times about the ACLU’s apparent changes, using the typical examples of the group defending the freedom of assembly rights of neo-nazis during the 1970s (other articles often mention they were well known for simultaneously defending the same rights for communists). The 2021 NYT article linked within is a more interesting read. What I’d be curious to see on this topic is a review of what the ACLU was up to during the 90s and 00s, when anti war and environmental activism were the biggest targets for suppression, and privacy and LGBT rights became major issues. Would people today see the ACLU’s activity in those periods as still too focused on “partisan” causes, or is this really a post-Trump phenomenon?
  • photochemsyn 4y ago
    Just look up ACLU's response to the federal government's effort to describe environmental groups like the Sierra Club as "mainstream organizations with known or possible links to eco-terrorism" in the Bush-Cheney Era, c.2008. They definitely seem to have lost their minds and their historical agenda post-Trump. For example, it's worth reading their response to the 2001 attacks: https://www.aclu.org/other/defense-freedom-time-crisis https://www.aclu.org/other/defense-freedom-time-crisis My own view is that the leadership of both parties really would like to install Chinese-style mass surveillance practices, and the motivation primarily seems to be the desire to contain popular anger over declining standards of living across the USA. The creation of the Rust Belt via the implementation of neoliberal trade policies played a key role in the rise of Trump, and leaders of both parties pushed that through on the behalf of their corporate masters. Of course, Trump did nothing about it, so the populist anger is still smoldering. If implementing draconian mass surveillance is the plan, then buying off the ACLU is a step in that direction.
    • tiahura 4y ago
      The list of the formerly respectable that lost their minds in the rise of Trump is depressingly long.
• cronix 4y ago
  Here is the testimony of the ACLU for this trial, if you're curious about it. I watched it live and was beside myself. There are a lot more shenanigans than listed in the article. It's important to listen to the actual words spoken and changes in voice, see the facial expressions, watch the dancing around the questions, hear the contradictions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRkLmKJCKbw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRkLmKJCKbw
  • colpabar 4y ago
    It really sucks that our entire legal system is completely ineffective if someone is good enough at lying.
    • lostcolony 4y ago
      And doesn't keep/already destroyed records, per Jan 6th investigation.
    • fmajid 4y ago
      Which is pretty much the job definition of an actor...
    • sumnuyungi 4y ago
      You can impeach someone and/or offer up other witnesses to chip away at a liar's credibility. "Good enough" doesn't come close to describing the level of deception necessary to render our entire legal system completely ineffective.
      • nyanpasu64 4y ago
        The legal system fails in cases such as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30838149 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30838149, with motivated convincing liars and/or corruption. Is there a better alternative?
    • ROTMetro 4y ago
      Just look at the 'good faith' allowances granted when government officials violate the legal system's own laws and requirements. Not only is it ineffective if someone is good at lying, it just voids it's own laws and requirements if the liar is a government official because 'good faith'.
• newaccount2021 4y ago
• dahdum 4y ago
  Trump's election handed them an extra ~$100m a year, but advocating for free speech in Charlottesville put that all at risk. Their Director, Anthony Romero, implemented a new ideological and political backlash test for those they represent. It was his decision. His interviews show he'd much rather be in charge of sprawling, well funded partisan organization than a smaller crotchety one. I see the appeal. He's becoming a Democratic power player, funding campaigns and helping define the Democratic agenda. Why would he ever go back? He has more personal impact than he ever could under the old ACLU, can become much wealthier, fraternize with celebrities and politicians, and all while being consistent with his personal politic views. I used to support the ACLU and I support progressive causes. Now that they are one and the same, I'd rather donate to candidates and causes directly instead of letting Romero pick for me.
  • api 4y ago
    It reminds me a bit of what happened to the National Rifle Association honestly. The money is in being hyper-partisan, not being objective and standing for some principle. The NRA is now basically a far-right Republican lobby group that is only incidentally about second amendment rights. Seems true in media too. Look at what happened to Joe Rogan when he got his big deal. His move down-market and toward a more partisan position is just going where the money is, I'm sure at the behest of his new owners. Objectivity doesn't pay. Standing for principles doesn't pay. Selling out to partisan or corporate agendas pays.
    • jerkstate 4y ago
      There are gun advocacy groups which are issues-focused and compromise far less than the NRA, which is kind of a joke among younger gun advocates. Gun Owners of America is one who frequently supports legal funds for gun advocacy issues. Occasionally, a state gun rights group escalates a case up through circuit courts to the supreme court and deserves financial support. This past year, the California Rifle & Pistol association fought a case around standard-capacity magazine bans, and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association fought a case regarding restrictions on carrying and transporting firearms. I believe CRPA is a 501(c)3 organization so donations are tax-deductible. I am sure there are others but I would be fine if the ACLU focused on the 1st amendment and left gun advocacy to other more focused groups (although I would appreciate if those groups also got 501(c)3 certification)
• user982 4y ago
  When the ACLU rewrote a Ruth Bader Ginsburg quote ("The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a [person's] life, to [their] well-being and dignity..."[1]), all I could think of was The Onion ("I've always believed that one [homosexual] really can make a difference."[2]). [1] https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1439259891064004610 https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1439259891064004610 [2] https://www.theonion.com/area-homosexual-saves-four-from-fire-1819564017 https://www.theonion.com/area-homosexual-saves-four-from-fir...
  • my69thaccount 4y ago
    What made you think of that?
  • puffoflogic 4y ago
    RBG is being misquoted and misremembered a lot again in the past week or so. She publicly stated on many occasions that she thought Roe vs Wade was bad law. Now her name is being invoked to defend it.
    • LordAtlas 4y ago
      > She publicly stated on many occasions that she thought Roe vs Wade was bad law. Interesting. Do you have link(s) to read more about this?
      • puffoflogic 4y ago
        Not for you, and not for anyone else engaged in such obvious sea lioning. Just Google it, or at least pretend to write a substantive comment before going, "Sauce? Sauce? Sauce?" (And for anyone else doubtful of parent commenter's intentions: seriously, try googling it.)
• aeturnum 4y ago
  I totally agree that the ACLU is getting into things that seem silly, but it seems equally silly to claim they are 'losing their way' based on that. This article complains the ACLU is not taking right-wing speech cases but admits they still do take cases and lists no examples where they refused. It cites the ACLU reacting to the protest where a protester was killed by nazis as anti-speech, but the ACLU was not saying they are against legal speech! They reflected, correctly, that backing groups that seek to silence (and kill) others is not straightforward. Considering the number of people in here who are decrying a "movement against freedom of speech" I would think people would support that policy! If the article is to be believed and the ACLU has gotten a lot more money in recent years - wouldn't it make sense that they get into new areas? Should the ACLU have more speech lawyers? Maybe! Are there cases they couldn't take? I would love to see some examples. Should the ACLU stay out of politics? It's worth debating and I'm glad the article brings it up - but given the anti-democratic (and anti-individual rights) policy goals of the republican party I understand the approach. The article doesn't even ask what we do when one party is against proportional representation! In general I just don't feel like this is actually responding to the ACLU's positions. She accuses the organization of hypocrisy around Title IX because they criticized changes but then later said they supported some updates - but of course it is perfectly coherent to criticize overall changes AND support parts of them. Here is their statement: > We filed comments on Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ Title IX rule that supported fair process requirements for live hearings, cross-examination, access to all the evidence, and delays in proceedings if the student accused of wrongdoing also faced a student criminal investigation, even as we criticized the rule for reducing the obligations of schools to respond to reports of sexual harassment. Like seriously, I encourage everyone to check the case selection guidelines linked in the article[1]. Here are the things that might lead them to not take an otherwise suitable case: the group seeks to engage in violence, the group seeks to carry weapons, if the speech would lead to direct harm, if the ACLU support would appear to damage the orgs' overall mission. These aren't even vetos. They're areas of concern, and they seem pretty reasonable - especially considering this article criticized the ACLU for getting involved with Amber Heard because she sees their support for Heard as damaging to the ACLUs' mission! Which is exactly their concern. [1] https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu_case_selection_guidelines.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu...
• tempnow987 4y ago
  "First Amendment protections are disproportionately enjoyed by people of power and privilege" - Dennis Parker, ACLU Police are white supremacist and defunding police big focus "We need to defund the budgets - It’s the only way we’re going to take power back." - Mr Romero (head of the org). 400+ lawsuits against trump. Started trying to stop circulation of books they don't agree with: "Stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.” - https://twitter.com/donovancleckley/status/1327490159076585477?lang=en https://twitter.com/donovancleckley/status/13274901590765854... They are a nonpolitical (edited: should be nonpartisan) (required by charitable status) group running ads like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0aqKS3ihVM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0aqKS3ihVM "Stacey Abrams will end dependence on private prisons which will save millions" Stacey Abrams did some deal with someone that will do X. etc. On title IX issues, where you had some crazy stories around due process, the ACLU pushed back on more due process rights: "It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused and letting schools ignore their responsibility ..." https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1063456843706585089?lang=en https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1063456843706585089?lang=en Also doing a lot more twitter lecturing I think then in the past. "There’s no one way to be a man. Men who get their periods are men. Men who get pregnant and give birth are men. ... " It's been lucrative to the ACLU. $750K in salaries and benefits to ED, he used to be at $340K range.
  • tempnow987 4y ago
    For those looking for other civil liberties orgs you might look at Institute for Justice - good project on adding some limits to civil asset forfeiture: https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/ https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/ They were attorneys on the Timbs case (not ACLU) which they won at the Supreme Court. They've had lots of success in this in lower courts with some crazy cases. ACLU used to do a lot to improve policing (ie, look at how line-ups are conducted etc). Some other groups taking that on - this is less about defunding / abolishing police and more about improving accuracy of policing (ie, still catch a murderer but do it in ways with less collateral damage / fewer false allegations). I'm actually trying to explore the question of other groups as I've been an ACLU member since the 90's so just know so much more about them! I was drawn to some of their earlier policing work (I volunteered in some prisons) in particular because certain approaches just result in real problems in policing (project innocence helped prove I think many of the ACLU's earlier points here). That said, I think no question a change with Romero. I might describe it as a change from a "civil liberty" type org to a more traditional "human rights" type org more along the lines of NAACP, Sierra Club etc? And a LOT more politically focused than in the past from a feeling standpoint? They do things like anti-trump ads etc. Historically they might have cheered some of the due process protections in Title IX, now they denounce them. Internally worth noting that some efforts around free speech issues are seen as "white supremacist" - that may make it harder for folks there to take on classic campus type free speech issues just internally. Speech = violence type stuff. DEI is a big push. They are doing interesting work around trying to push employers to take identity characteristics into account when making employment decisions, including numerical goals / targets which historically folks were cautious about. They have some good examples here, like reserving 50% of new hire slots for black workers only as still being in compliance with non-descrimination law as long as black workers are not equally represented etc.
• lesstenseflow 4y ago
  I stopped giving to ACLU years ago when it became clear their mission to champion a grab-bag of lefty causes had superseded their free-speech defending goal. This pivot has lead them, at times, to actually defend the government against citizen requests for public records! I never thought I'd see the ACLU fighting on the government's behalf against FOIA/open records type requests but here it is: https://www.womensliberationfront.org/aclu-lawsuit-public-records https://www.womensliberationfront.org/aclu-lawsuit-public-re... In the above case, some female prisoners in Washington state wanted to know how many male prisoners had been transferred to women's prisons. The state didn't want to share that information (even in aggregate) and the ACLU defended the state's assertion that this information should be kept secret from the public, including from the imprisoned women whom this policy impacted directly. Why the government would want to keep this secret is a good question, but the main point here is: did people donating to the ACLU realize their money is being used to fight private citizen information requests & defend government secrecy? How the mighty have fallen.
  • joshuamorton 4y ago
    These are citizens private healthcare information. You shouldn't be able to foia this anymore than my medicare records. Citizens don't lose their right to privacy because they're in prison. Goodness.
    • Clubber 4y ago
      If you read his link, it states the request is for counts, not individual names. 1. A complete and accurate count of inmates who identify as transgender (gender identity differs from sex identified at birth) in the custody of the Washington Department of Corrections [please break this information down by location] 2. Number of inmates that have been transferred from a men’s facility to a women’s facility since January 01, 2021 3. Total number of male persons who identify as female, non-binary, or any other gender identity that are currently housed in a women’s facility 4. Number of inmates who have transferred from a women’s facility to a men’s facility from January 01, 2021 to March 18, 2021 5. Number of female persons who identify as male, non-binary or any other gender identity that are currently housed in a men’s facility
• ternaryoperator 4y ago
  I'm a lifelong member of the ACLU. During all the years, I've disagreed with numerous things they have done and that they do presently, including this involvement in politics. However, there are few organizations doing the legal representation that they do on behalf of the poor and the marginalized, and for that I continue to support them. Insisting that an organization perfectly fit my personal preferences is a fool's errand. As with everything in life, I don't want to fall into the trap that perfect becomes the enemy of good. The ACLU ain't perfect, but it's certainly doing good work that IMHO merits my continued support.
  • ss108 4y ago
    What areas re: "poor and marginalized" are you referring to? Seems like there are numerous focused orgs for all of the issues they work on, no?
    • ternaryoperator 4y ago
      Sure. But I don't have the time (nor realistically the ability) to review each one and determine which one is as effective at the ACLU in that representation.
  • jimbokun 4y ago
    They will only support poor and marginalized that say the things the ACLU likes and don't say things the ACLU doesn't like.
  • dnissley 4y ago
    The problem with this is that it's the mindset of a frog being boiled. Just one more degree won't hurt me.
    • vkou 4y ago
      The problem with this problem is that there isn't a better alternative. There's a lot of people in this thread complaining about how the ACLU is ruined because they are no longer free speech absolutists. That's not why I give, or ever gave them money. I give them money because they solve all sorts of other problems. If the biggest problem in your life is 'the far american right can't speak as loudly as it likes', that's certainly terrible, but it pales in comparison to the harm of all the other civil liberty violations that the ACLU tackles.
• toothrot 4y ago
  It's interesting that the author refers to unspecified "partisan stances". Many of the political positions of the last year that have been described as partisan are actually globally regarded as human rights. Human rights are nonpartisan. The ACLU has stuck to it's guns on that, despite the the overwhelmingly biased political climate. I think it's silly that this thinly sourced hit-piece is on the front page of hacker news.
  • baobabKoodaa 4y ago
    If it truly were nonpartisan, I would have absolutely no ability to guess which way you lean politically. Right? And yet I can tell with a near 100% certainty that you lean left. Can you explain to me why is that, and how that's consistent with your claim?
• giantg2 4y ago
  I suppose that's why the ACLU didn't want to get involved with the rights violations I reported a couple years ago. I suppose if i had $3.5M it could have been different.
  • ROTMetro 4y ago
    It's funny in prison. So many guys come in thinking the ACLU is going to help them. The ACLU will not take on prison cases. You can try local chapters, but they don't even refer you to them. Check out this joke: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/prisoners-rights https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/prisoners-rights If you have been assaulted by an officer in prison, they want you to file a grievance through the prison process. Thanks for having people's backs ACLU. No reason people who has been assaulted by those in power in the system should fear reporting that assault to those people in power. So the ACLU doesn't see themselves as protecting Eighth amendment rights. But if you keep reading... If you have religious discrimination, you should contact the ACLU. Sexual abuse and torture in a prison? Trust the prison administrators, they will take care of resolving it. But if they violate your religion, oh man, that's when the high power ACLU lawyers are needed.
• incomingpain 4y ago
  Wow comments are heated in here. Going to put my oven gloves on to type this one. Check out these other articles: ACLU is split by internal debate over First Amendment support for hate speech https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/aclu-is-split-by-internal-debate-over-first-amendment-support-for-hate-speech https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/aclu-is-split-by-int... Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html?smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html?... The Left Needs the A.C.L.U. to Keep Defending Awful Speech https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/07/opinion/aclu-free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/07/opinion/aclu-free-speech.... The ACLU made the decision to change. You can agree with that or not; if you dont like it... dont give them your money. That isn't the biggest concern. The bigger concern is 'who the nazis are'. Google has an employee who wrote: “Today it is often 1 or 2 steps to nazis. If we understand that PragerU, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro et al are nazis using the dog whistles you mention in step 1. I can receive these recommendations regardless of the content of what I’m looking at, and I have recorded thousands of internet users sharing the same experience..” Which spawned a hilarious article: https://babylonbee.com/news/notorious-nazi-leader-ben-shapiro-outed-as-jew/ https://babylonbee.com/news/notorious-nazi-leader-ben-shapir... The problem with the political polarization is that you attribute your political opponents as being 'the worst'. There's plenty of examples of right-wing folks calling people nazis. Elon Musk called Trudeau Hitler. So did lefties, Bill Maher, russel brand, and several others: https://globalnews.ca/news/8627659/elon-musk-justin-trudeau-hitler-tweet/ https://globalnews.ca/news/8627659/elon-musk-justin-trudeau-... It's not that the ACLU lost their way or for that matter all those people calling everyone nazis. It's that virtually all of north america has lost their way. We need to get back to talking to each other again.
  • native_samples 4y ago
    In the Trudeau case the comparison is at least not 100% wrong, as is usually the case when the N-word crops up. Hitler famously engaged in forced medical experiments on people who were deemed disposable classes of society, and he brooked no dissent or resistance. Regardless of how you personally feel about the COVID vaccines they were and are based on experimental new medical technology, which was then forced on people against their will including on people who thought it might harm them. And as we saw, the protestors were then destroyed by a leader who gave so few shits that he didn't even bother to turn up and talk to them, and who then engaged in vengeful financial attacks on family members or anyone who tried to support the protestors. Obviously that doesn't make Trudeau literally Hitler, but the point of talking about WW2 is to try and learn lessons so it never repeats. If you're only allowed to notice similarities by the time there are no differences left at all, it's already far too late. That's why the comparisons are always so tricky and fraught with controversy. On one hand, comparing everything to the Nazis is a tired rhetorical trick designed to shut down thought. On the other hand, to ensure something like that never happens again, people have to be willing to say -wait. That looks bad. That looks like something the Nazis did. That shouldn't be happening and maybe the people who are making it happen are bad people, they should be stopped. But the bar for it has to be high.
• pfortuny 4y ago
  “Terence Dougherty, the organization’s general counsel, testified via video deposition that the ACLU had spearheaded the effort and served as Heard’s ghostwriter in exchange for her promise to donate $3.5 million to the organization.” Sorry but a donation is either free (donare: give as a gift) or it is no such thing. What a travesty.
  • kolbe 4y ago
    Also an interesting way in which the rich avoid taxes. If she had paid for the writing, it would have been taxed as a service, but instead there was a wink/nod service then donation.
  • givemeethekeys 4y ago
    Thats not how donations work in the New Age / Arts community. If you go to a "free" yoga class, they "suggest" a "donation" of $10. You see, they're suggesting because being explicit about the cost puts a ceiling on how much they could receive while using shaming as the tactic for the price floor. Being explicit also makes them come across as capitalists, and capitalists are evil. Calling it a donation makes it a favor. They're doing you a huge favor .. a priceless service. Won't you donate a little bit of your money to support the greater "mission"?
    • notpachet 4y ago
      It's not as if they conjured this approach out of whole cloth. Religions have functioned like this for millennia.
    • pfortuny 4y ago
      Yes I know but that is a lawyer we are talking about.
  • cuteboy19 4y ago
    In India there is something called "donation fee". It is paid in exchange for admission to a university (as opposed to admission by merit for free). It's pretty ironic https://www.careers360.com/question-what-is-donation-feeand-admission-feeconfuse#answer-630327 https://www.careers360.com/question-what-is-donation-feeand-...
• rmason 4y ago
  The ACLU is a sad case. When I was growing up they were a bipartisan organization that were fierce advocates for free speech. Now it seems they only defend the speech of those on the Left side of the aisle. Here's a critique of those currently running the ACLU by their legendary former leader Ira Glasser (edited): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10458777/Former-ACLU-head-Ira-Glasser-blasts-organization-failing-defend-free-speech.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10458777/Former-ACL...
  • everly 4y ago
    Not to be a pedant, but you’re apparently referring to Ira Glasser (Ira Glass being the mild-mannered host of This American Life).
    • Jgrubb 4y ago
      The day that pedantry becomes an offense on this board will be a sad day indeed.
    • ss108 4y ago
      If his comment initially said "Ira Glass", it would not be pedantic to point that out. Nontrivial error given that there is a famous Ira Glass lol
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • defgeneric 4y ago
    See also the 2020 documentary Mighty Ira: https://www.mightyira.com/ https://www.mightyira.com/
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • Gordonjcp 4y ago
• a_shovel 4y ago
  The debacle with the Depp/Heard case is really concerning, I'll say that right up front. That whole event is a good argument for the article's point. But many of the other criticisms are the same ones that didn't convince me the first few times I saw them. The author says that the ACLU can't be beholden to a political ideology, but that's an obvious contradiction. Support for civil liberties is an inherently political position. If a political party adopts policies that limit civil liberty, then defending CL becomes a partisan issue as well. If one candidate in a race for office is in favor of CL and the other is opposed, which one could easily argue for in the case of the Abrams Vs. Kemp race, [0] then it is entirely appropriate for a CL organization to support one candidate over the other. To claim that the ACLU ought to be, that it could be, apolitical, is to categorically refuse to prepare for or fight against the most powerful attacks on civil liberties. In general, I've come to value neutrality and apoliticality less and less. What's "political" and what's not is loosely defined and socially constructed, and I suspect it's occasionally deliberately constructed and redefined by the media to shut down certain discussions or criticisms as "inappropriate". Neutrality is likewise poorly defined, and it's often just a form of cowardice from media groups unwilling to take an obviously correct stance because they're afraid to lose subscriptions from people who disagree with the evidence. Plus, one should note that it's the American Civil Liberties Union, not the American Free Speech Union. The author implies that it is somehow inappropriate for the ACLU to fight for civil liberties other free speech. "Immigrant rights, LGBTQ rights, reproductive freedom, and racial justice" as named by the article are all as much civil liberties as the right to free speech, and thus it is within the organization's mission to champion them. Yet the author describes the ACLU as unable "uphold its core values" by supporting these causes. Plus, there's this: > But in 2018, following the ACLU’s successful litigation to obtain a permit for white supremacists to march in Charlottesville, Virginia, which ended in death and disaster, the ACLU issued new guidelines. There's good logic to the idea that an attack on the free speech of Nazis could weaken the rights of the rest of us, but an organization that regularly defends Nazis (a group of people noted for their desire to commit genocide) will eventually have something like this happen. It's an area where the cost-benefit analysis may well not turn out in its favor. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kemp#Accusations_of_voter_suppression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kemp#Accusations_of_vote...
  • 4y ago
• ivraatiems 4y ago
  I continue to support the ACLU and I agree with the argument that even if it's lost its way on some things, its overall mission remains important, and it continues to do a lot of really great work. However, if you feel you can't support the ACLU, there are a couple of related organizations you can and should support instead: The EFF - https://www.eff.org/ https://www.eff.org/ - the ACLU but for computers The FIRE - https://thefire.org/ https://thefire.org/ - the ACLU but for college campuses Would love to hear from people here who might know of others. My personal criteria would just be that they're genuinely non-partisan (no "the ACLU but for people I agree with), and that they fill a niche the ACLU doesn't already fill (though a more general "competitor" might be a good thing too).
  • pcvarmint 4y ago
    The Rutherford Institute [0], which defended Brandon Raub against forced psychiatric "treatment" (imprisonment) after he posted naughty FaceBook messages [1], is the best civil liberties organization today. John Whitehead hosts 10-minute podcasts about every other week. [2] Wendy Kaminer has written WSJ articles and even a book, Worst Instincts, about the ACLU's illiberal decline. [3] [4] [5] [6] [0] https://www.rutherford.org/ https://www.rutherford.org/ [1] https://www.rutherford.org/issues/free_speech/brandon_raub https://www.rutherford.org/issues/free_speech/brandon_raub [2] https://www.rutherford.org/podcast https://www.rutherford.org/podcast [3] https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/25/wendy-kaminer-responds-on-the-aclu-and-f/ https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/25/wendy-kaminer-responds-... [4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-expression-1529533065 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-exp... [5] https://www.amazon.com/Worst-Instincts-Cowardice-Conformity-ACLU/dp/0807044369 https://www.amazon.com/Worst-Instincts-Cowardice-Conformity-... [6] https://reason.com/2018/06/26/will-the-aclu-defend-controversial-speec/ https://reason.com/2018/06/26/will-the-aclu-defend-controver...
  • eltondegeneres 4y ago
    FIRE has historically been associated with conservatives, but I don't know if that's changed in recent years.
    • 4y ago
• daenz 4y ago
  >In 1978, the ACLU successfully defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, a community populated by Holocaust survivors. Is it any surprise that the ACLU has succumbed to the tide of public opinion? Their support of free speech in 1978 meant supporting the rights of literal neo-Nazis. Do people understand how unpopular that is? Their adherence to higher principles (free speech), when it results in those actions, cannot be tolerated in the modern era. The ACLU simply wouldn't survive.
  • JasonFruit 4y ago
    Your attitude is completely wrong in the same way the ACLU has gone wrong. Defending speech _as a right_ means defending it for everyone in all cases, most especially when it is unpopular. Otherwise you're not acting as a defense of free speech, but as an amplifier of speech you agree with. You become the Committee In Favor Of Speech We Like, which is pretty worthless.
    • daenz 4y ago
      I think I miscommunicated my point. I agree with you, I am merely providing my perspective as to why they no longer hold those principles: because it "cannot be tolerated" in the modern era. We're still in an era of "punch people whose views i don't like."
      • munk-a 4y ago
        We see such bias within the Twitter sphere - but outside of that people are still a lot more reasonable. There is a fair bit of fear, I think, that mainstream allowance of neo-nazi groups is empowering recruitment but the real core of the issue is extremism being fed by a lack of general education.
      • JasonFruit 4y ago
        I see what you are saying. Glad we agree. That attitude sets people who could make common cause at each other's throats instead.
  • 4y ago
• daenz 4y ago
  >Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made. -attributed to JRR Tolkien
• jdkee 4y ago
  "I used to be a proud card-carrying member of the ACLU. Today, when its fundraising mailers and pleas to re-enroll arrive in my mailbox, I toss them in the recycling." Well said.
• mudil 4y ago
  The ACLU lost its legitimacy when it stopped defending the civil liberties of people they don't agree with.
• rdl 4y ago
  ACLU membership and staff have always been fairly left, but they were impressively focused on (IMO) the most important civil rights as rights through their work at ACLU, and largely kept their personal politics out of that. A "mission driven organization", as it were. Pretty sad to see what's happened over the past few decades (accelerating; not sure when it started, but it got really bad around 2012-2016, and then far worse). They always believed in "all civil rights except 2A", but I could overlook that since there are other 2A-specific organizations. I still support them on specific issues, but they're often on the anti-liberty side on other issues, or just actually crazy. Sad.
  • tablespoon 4y ago
    > ACLU membership and staff have always been fairly left, but they were impressively focused on (IMO) the most important civil rights as rights through their work at ACLU, and largely kept their personal politics out of that. If that's true, their fundraising was less focused. I made one or two donations to them in the late 90s or early 2000s, and got piles of junk mail for every liberal cause for decades after. Never made any other political donation, except to the EFF, so I know it's the ACLU that distributed my name (I've made EFF donations from other addresses, and have never gotten any extra junk due to that).
  • bliteben 4y ago
    Maybe they now believe in a collective approach to all rights.
• jrochkind1 4y ago
  I've been a member of the ACLU since probably 1996, and have always admired the ACLU, so I'm not some johnny-come-lately GenZ wanting the ACLU to be something different than a past ACLU I don't like. And I still love the ACLU. I don't think they have lost their way or changed their values. I don't agree with every thing the national or state ACLU's do (never have), but I think what they are doing now is upholding and further the core values they have always had, I don't see it as a departure, and in fact I think the things they are doing that look like changes are steps to better uphold their fundamental core values, I think they are steps in the right direction, I'm very happy with the direction they are going. I'm not even sure I entirely follow what this article is complaining about.
  • r3trohack3r 4y ago
    You’ve said a lot of words - but have said mostly nothing other than “I disagree” > And I still love the ACLU. I don't think they have lost their way or changed their values. I don't agree with every thing the national or state ACLU's do (never have), but I think what they are doing now is upholding and further the core values they have always had, I don't see it as a departure, and in fact I think the things they are doing that look like changes are steps to better uphold their fundamental core values, I think they are steps in the right direction, I'm very happy with the direction they are going. What made you originally love the ACLU? What things have you disagreed with? What changes have you seen? What core values? How do those changes better uphold those core values? What is the right direction you’re referring to?
• throwaway09223 4y ago
  I've been a relatively big ACLU donor, big enough to have been appointed an "Individual Giving Officer." I've met with some of their leadership. They've begun taking positions against individual civil rights. They've always been anti-2nd amendment, which I can understand, but this has escalated to the point that I think they're often on the wrong side of 1a issues as well. I won't donate to them anymore. I regret that I did in the past.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • countvonbalzac 4y ago
    [flagged]
    • marcusverus 4y ago
      The ACLU site explicitly says that they don't recognize the 2A as an individual right.[0] > Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008. > In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. [0]https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment
      • ikiris 4y ago
        That doesn't mean they're against the amendment, just that they disagree with your interpretation of it.
• car_analogy 4y ago
  Has it? That is the charitable view. The uncharitable view is that their stated ideals were conditional on advancing their unstated goals. Once they started jeopardizing those goals instead, they were selectively abandoned. When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• stjohnswarts 4y ago
  It has but I keep donating because they do some good work as well. I'm also a member of EFF, NRA, Planned Parenthood, and TFTP and contribute semi-annualy to the causes. You'll never agree with everyone's full point of view, but there are groups fighting for liberty still.
• manesioz 4y ago
  Relevant past thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414920 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414920
• actusual 4y ago
  > Progressive causes are near and dear to my heart. I am a feminist and staunch Democrat. As a federal public defender turned law professor, I have spent my career trying to make change in a criminal legal system that is riven with racism and fundamentally unfair to those without status and financial resources. Yet, as someone who understands firsthand that the fundamental rights to free speech and due process exist only as long as competent lawyers are willing to vigorously defend extreme positions and people, I view the ACLU’s hard-left turn with alarm. It smacks of intolerance and choosing sides, precisely what a civil-liberties organization designed to defend the Bill of Rights is meant to oppose. What an incredibly level headed take. It's so level headed that it seems fake when projected onto the landscape of modern political discourse.
  • rayiner 4y ago
    Lara Bazelon is a rigorous thinker and a staunch believer in procedural justice. This leads to heterodox takes like, for example, supporting Betsy DeVoss’s efforts to roll back Obama’s Title IX reforms: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/opinion/-title-ix-devos-democrat-feminist.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/opinion/-title-ix-devos-d.... (As a conservative, I disagree with more her than I agree with her, ironically including with respect to Title IX, where I agree with Obama for conservative reasons.)
    • darkerside 4y ago
      I remember there being a ton of conversation about these issues. What happened to these reforms in particular?
      • rayiner 4y ago
        These are being promulgated by executive actions--the Department of Education issuing guidance using its authority over federal educational funding as the hook for enforcement. Thus they have been flipping back-and-forth between administrations. The Obama-era guidance was significantly rolled back by Trump, to include things like not allowing evidence to be admitted from a witness not subject to cross examination. Biden then undid certain parts of the Trump rule, specifically getting rid of the cross-examination requirement: https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2022/03/activists-experts-speak-on-biden-era-title-ix-changes https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2022/03/activists-e...
• WalterBright 4y ago
  The right to free speech is the lynchpin that holds together all the other rights. Throwing that under the bus - the rest will soon follow.
  • revscat 4y ago
    This is certainly what we’re taught, isn’t it. Try this on for size, as abhorrent as you’ll initially find it: speech doesn’t matter. Marketing does. Ideas aren’t about debate. They’re about memetics. Why ban speech when you have Fox News? Why worry about climate change when you can just… not ever talk about it.
    • WalterBright 4y ago
      When you lose free speech, there won't be any debate about losing the rest of your rights. You won't hear about any rights violations. You won't be able to talk when your rights are violated. Without free speech, you have no rights.
      • revscat 4y ago
        No one cares. You’re standing for a shibboleth. How many FB memes have you seen that say “annoy a liberal, turn off CNN”, or something similar? Why attack free speech when you can use marketing to convince people to censor themselves, and encourage others to do so? There’s already no debate. Don’t need the power of the state when you have consent being manufactured every day by bad faith actors.
• lesgobrandon 4y ago
• pessimizer 4y ago
  Considering the outlet, if the Atlantic thinks that the ACLU is too aligned with Democratic Party politics, it probably is. I don't even know how this got published unless there's some behind-the-scenes jostling going on to replace the leadership, staged internally or by whale donors.
  • zerocrates 4y ago
    You mean the leadership of the Atlantic? Their traditional brand is "left-center" so this is pretty squarely in the wheelhouse for them, I'd say.
• jmyeet 4y ago
  > Terence Dougherty, the organization’s general counsel, testified via video deposition that the ACLU had spearheaded the effort and served as Heard’s ghostwriter in exchange for her promise to donate $3.5 million to the organization. This is interesting, especially given the interest in the trial, but largely irrelevant. First, no matter who actually ghostwrote the op-ed piece in WaPo, Amber Heard put her name on it. Second, charities engage in fundraising activities. It doesn't surprise me at all that the ACLU was actively involved in the op-ed piece. You have to remember that prior to the current trial, Depp's reputation was really in tatters. Heard was seen as the victim so getting broader circulation for her story probably seemed both a good idea and consistent with the ACLU's perceived values. > When Heard failed to pay up, Doughtery said, the ACLU collected $100,000 from Depp himself So here I believe the article has made a factual error. I can't find an exact date for this but from watching the trial, the check Depp sent to the ACLU for $100,000 was part of the divorce settlement, which would put it more than 2 years prior to the op-ed piece. > Progressive causes are near and dear to my heart. I am a feminist and staunch Democrat. This is a contradiction. Democrats not only aren't progressives, they do their utmost to eliminate and ostracize any actual progressives from their ranks. Consider right at the time the Supreme Court draft was leaked, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of the 3 most powerful Democrats in the country, was in Texas campaigning for the only anti-choice Democrat in the House in a primary over progressive candidates [1]. The author doesn't really explain what issues they have with the ACLU other than some off-the-cuff statements about supporting Stacy Abrams. Given Georgia's voter suppression bill [2] that her opponent ultimately signed into law, this actually does seem consistent with protecting "civil liberties". The author meanders about the point that the ACLU should be protecting "free speech" without saying how it isn't. It's really a complaint about other causes but remember it's the American Civil Liberties Union not the American Free Speech Union. Voter rights, as an example, fall directly under the umbrella of civil liberties. More often than not, when someone has a take like this, it usually means they're a TERF but I can't find anything she's publicly written that's obviously transphobic so I'm scratching my head as to what the actual issue is here. I've found some complaints about Kamala Harrais being more progressive as a prosecutor than VP (which is legitimate) but nothing obvious. As for her complaints about ACLU opposition to Title IX, I honestly don't know a lot about this but the ACLU's original suit seemed to be to opposed a higher standard for sexual harassment investigations and claims [3]. That seems a legitimate complaint, no? Whatever the cause, it doesn't seem like the author is explicit about what her actual issue is. [1]: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/23/nancy-pelosi-henry-cuellar/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/23/nancy-pelosi-henry-c... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/us/politics/georgia-voting-law-annotated.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/us/politics/georgia-votin... [3]: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-betsy-devos-allowing-schools-ignore-sexual-harassment-and-assault https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-betsy-devos-al...
• jscipione 4y ago
  How did this article get published? I always thought that the Atlanta was a yellow journalism outlet, but this article defies that belief. Bravo Atlantic for pointing out this important issue and its detrimental effects on the freedom of speech.
  • uxp100 4y ago
    The Atlantic publishes things like this pretty frequently. People on their staff who are not liberals: Connor Freidersdorf, David Frum (eww), and (well, she is a liberal but has some edgy feminism takes) Caitlin Flanagan. It's a fairly enjoyable magazine, that used to have a (really ugly and hostile) comment section that the writers would actually engage with. Which was pretty cool. In a truly embarrassing ethical mistep a former editor allowed Hillary's campaign to dictate some details about his coverage (he had to use the word muscular lol) in exchange for giving him access to a speech ahead of time so he could start writing his article early, IIRC. That was less cool.
• unityByFreedom 4y ago
  Are there any reputable firms or organizations who do stand for speech rights?
  • sillypuddy 4y ago
    FIRE is in higher ed. https://www.thefire.org/ https://www.thefire.org/
• walkhour 4y ago
  Every new generation of left leaning people thinks the subsequent generation of left leaning people is going too far.
• nobodyandproud 4y ago
  It’s a singular leadership issue. Ira Glasser stood for something; current leadership does not.
• s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Consider what the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had to say about pandemic management in 2008: “The notion that we need to ‘trade liberty for security’ is misguided and dangerous. Public health concerns cannot be addressed with law enforcement or national security tools.” 13 years later, in a guest essay in The New York Times, the ACLU proclaimed that: “the real threat to civil liberties comes from states banning vaccine and mask mandates”. Think what you want about these policies, but the shift in ACLU values is real.
• irrational 4y ago
  The ACLU has often made voting easier for me. I live in a state with mail voting. We get a big booklet with all the issues to be voted on spelled out with pros and cons submitted by people and organizations. Typically I just flip through each one to see if the ACLU is for or against it, then I vote the opposite. There has only been a single time that I agreed with them and voted the way they want me to vote. They are a great litmus test of most issues.
• slibhb 4y ago
  Compare to https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html (by Emily Bazelon, the sister of this article's author). Bazelon family Thanksgivings must be interesting!
• wonderwonder 4y ago
  I consider myself socially liberal, am a non religious jew, and vote democrat. I used to donate to the aclu monthly for ~2 years. The ACLU has absolutely lost its way. It should defend freedom of speech and the Bill of Rights regardless of the message its clients are attempting to spread. I donated to it specifically for that reason as I believe the Bill of Rights to be amongst the most perfect set of laws in existence. I stopped donating once the ACLU started openly choosing sides. Did not know about the Heard / Depp thing but if true that is absolutely outrageous and representative of an organization that is a shell of its former self.
  • ohCh6zos 4y ago
    I am an observantly religious person who contributed to the ACLU for identical reasons. I think it's sad to see how far they appear to have fallen. Maybe it's time to look to see if there are any strong replacements?
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• mdavis6890 4y ago
  I think I might finally subscribe to The Atlantic now.
• celeritascelery 4y ago
  I heard this quote (I think from PG) that said something like this: “the ACLU should split into groups; the old-ACLU that defends civil liberties, and the new-ACLU that fights against them.”
• braingenious 4y ago
  I’m personally blown away by the weird shit that went on and the Amber Heard case. I’m reticent to call that inherently politically “left” and more of “an incredibly scummy cash grab that apparently didn’t even work very well but happened to appeal to a slice of left-leaning people” Whoever came up with, pitched and signed off on that whole silly scheme should be excised from the organization immediately. As for them deciding not to help out the Unite The Right folks after their blatant violent rhetoric and blatant violent (if vague) plans led to an actual death… uh, so what? I’m kind of amused by the “both sides are equal!” rhetoric — as if the nazis somehow are lacking funding, political goodwill and sympathetic judges. Anyway, serious question: Is everyone entitled to ACLU resources? For example, if I organize a rally about how it’s cool to kill people that I think are subhuman and one of the attendants goes ahead and follows through with that line of reasoning, is it a violation of my rights if the ACLU doesn’t trip over themselves making sure that I can do it again? If I’m entitled to ACLU money then I’ve got free legal representation for life, right? Disregard the fact that in this scenario I’m maybe in the hook for criminal incitation of violence — it doesn’t matter. Incitation is speech and speech is a civil liberty and that’s in the name of the organization. checkmate, losers. I do think funding silly leftist causes is about as dumb as funding certain righty causes, but at the end of the day the ACLU is an organization that has, and has always had, the civil liberty of free speech themselves, including the right to pick who and what they work with and on. Anyway, I’m glad the author is an experienced federal defense attorney. Maybe she can spend her personal time helping out the members of Christopher Cantwell’s various Telegram channels since she cares more about their wellbeing than her own feminist and Democrat ideals.
• smsm42 4y ago
  In other news, we're in 21st century, there's this new thing called "internet" that is getting popular, and Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. I mean, it's good they finally noticed, but it didn't happen recently. ACLU has turned from "CL" to just "L" (meaning "Left") years ago, by now probably a decade ago.
• jollybean 4y ago
  'Free Speech' a bit of an American term, I wish people would start using the broader term 'Freedom of Expression', and, thinking outside the bounds of 2cnd Amendment, which is fairly specific. Also, the term 'Free Speech' in 2022 feels a bit as though it's been usurped by specific libertarian-ish hardliners, even just using the term 'Freedom of Expression' just feels more inclusive to groups that aren't 'libertarian' etc..
• themitigating 4y ago
  Why is this on Hackernews?
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• hitovst 4y ago
  AS long as we tolerate the world reserve fiat global enslavement system, everything that can be corrupted will be corrupted. With some perspective, you'll see most things are the opposite of what they were intended, or claim, to be.
• mhb 4y ago
  ACLU: “Elon Musk's Decision to Re-Platform President Trump Is the Right Call” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31334300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31334300
• chernevik 4y ago
  They have to choose between "progressive" causes and civil liberties.
• sillypuddy 4y ago
  The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has taken the place of ACLU in higher ed. https://www.thefire.org/ https://www.thefire.org/
• galaxyLogic 4y ago
  Why shouldn't ACLU be involved in politics? Isn't Civil Rights all about politics? If you are fighting for civil rights you must also support politicians who support civil rights. No?
• bob_roberts 4y ago
  The author's main complaint is that the ACLU has prioritized "immigrant rights, LGBTQ rights, reproductive freedom, and racial justice." But the opposition to these issues (aka the Republican party) is rolling in dark money. The forces against social progress are doing just fine without the ACLU.
• pentae 4y ago
  Pretty sure they'll designate The Atlantic as a "Hate Group" after this ..
• jrochkind1 4y ago
  ACLU reply published in the Atlantic, HN page at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31491262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31491262