3 ms·

> it's become controlled opposition, the leaders are secretly libertarians (unlikely) Hold up. Are you suggesting that libertarians are against free speech and

> 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'.
    - BitwiseFool 4y ago
      There has been a significant shift in what "liberal" means in the vernacular. I suspect this is because there is a habit of reducing everything down to either "liberal vs conservative" - in the US at least. I know many libertarians have started qualifying themselves as "classical liberals" in order to try and distinguish their ideology.
- briandear 4y ago
  Not when it comes to the second amendment. They cherry-pick the Bill of Rights to suit their donors’ politics. They also seem to ignore the 10th as well.
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  Not particularly. For example their policy document "A Pro-Liberty Case for Gun Restrictions" is very much the opposite of the libertarian take on the issue. Their support of net neutrality laws & regulations is also un-Libertarian, although maybe you could make the argument that net neutrality is only necessary because ISPs don't operate in a true free market.
  - lukas099 4y ago
    I can see that being true for those particular issues, but in general, don't they support strong Constitutional protections for individuals?
    - Rebelgecko 4y ago
      For many parts of the Constitution and for many individuals, sure (with the additional caveat that the ACLU has somewhat controversial opinions about which constitutional rights don't apply to individuals)
function_seven 4y ago
No, the phrase "controlled opposition" implies that they're for these ideals, and take up losing cases against them as a means of advancing them. It's not very plausible, but it's a theory :) For example, if I—a dyed-in-the-wool free speech advocate—bring a weak case against someone who wrote something unpopular, I can control the opposition within the case and ensure that I lose (and therefore my ideals are upheld). Again, not very plausible with respect to the ACLU's drift, but that's what parent seems to be suggesting as one of the possibilities.
- lliamander 4y ago
  That makes sense.
- benmmurphy 4y ago
  That's some extreme 4D chess. An organization originally founded to support free speech is infiltrated by people who support free speech who start promoting anti-free speech ideals or cases in order to weak man the anti-free speech argument.

> 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'.
  - BitwiseFool 4y ago
    There has been a significant shift in what "liberal" means in the vernacular. I suspect this is because there is a habit of reducing everything down to either "liberal vs conservative" - in the US at least. I know many libertarians have started qualifying themselves as "classical liberals" in order to try and distinguish their ideology.
briandear 4y ago
Not when it comes to the second amendment. They cherry-pick the Bill of Rights to suit their donors’ politics. They also seem to ignore the 10th as well.
Rebelgecko 4y ago
Not particularly. For example their policy document "A Pro-Liberty Case for Gun Restrictions" is very much the opposite of the libertarian take on the issue. Their support of net neutrality laws & regulations is also un-Libertarian, although maybe you could make the argument that net neutrality is only necessary because ISPs don't operate in a true free market.
- lukas099 4y ago
  I can see that being true for those particular issues, but in general, don't they support strong Constitutional protections for individuals?
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    For many parts of the Constitution and for many individuals, sure (with the additional caveat that the ACLU has somewhat controversial opinions about which constitutional rights don't apply to individuals)

function_seven 4y ago

No, the phrase "controlled opposition" implies that they're for these ideals, and take up losing cases against them as a means of advancing them. It's not very plausible, but it's a theory :) For example, if I—a dyed-in-the-wool free speech advocate—bring a weak case against someone who wrote something unpopular, I can control the opposition within the case and ensure that I lose (and therefore my ideals are upheld). Again, not very plausible with respect to the ACLU's drift, but that's what parent seems to be suggesting as one of the possibilities.

lliamander 4y ago
That makes sense.
benmmurphy 4y ago
That's some extreme 4D chess. An organization originally founded to support free speech is infiltrated by people who support free speech who start promoting anti-free speech ideals or cases in order to weak man the anti-free speech argument.