7 ms·

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 involveme

• 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.
    • atdrummond 4y ago
      There are plenty of orgs that tackle portions of what the ACLU used to - enough that I’m sure with 3 or 4 donations one could replace the former ACLU donations one made. For example, FIRE has done way more for campus free speech issues this last decade or two than the ACLU despite a considerably smaller budget. Between them, Institute for Justice, and EFF, I don’t miss my ACLU donations much.
      • vkou 4y ago
        And what has FIRE done for, say, minority voting rights in the south? Police harassment?
        • ethbr0 4y ago
          If you want to support those causes, wouldn't the SPLC be a better method?
          • vkou 4y ago
            Why the SPLC over the ACLU, if their missions largely overlap? I give to both, FYI. If you don't give a crap about all the social causes, and just care about alt-right speech, I agree, the ACLU is not the organization you should donate to! In that case, I also can't say I care very much for your vision of the problems in this country, but it's your opinion, everyone's free to have one.
            • ethbr0 4y ago
              I think the point of the article and general consensus here is that their missions should not overlap as much as they do. Or as the ACLU puts it, on why they defend abhorrent groups: "The ACLU is frequently asked to explain its defense of certain people or groups — particularly controversial and unpopular entities such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Nation of Islam, and the National Socialist Party of America. We do not defend them because we agree with them. Rather we defend their right to free expression and free assembly. Historically, the people whose opinions are the most controversial or extreme are the people whose rights are most often threatened. Once the government has the power to violate one person’s rights, it can use that power against everyone. We work to stop the erosion of civil liberties before it’s too late." https://www.aclu.org/about-aclu https://www.aclu.org/about-aclu Which is somewhat different than the SPLC: "The SPLC is a catalyst for racial justice in the South and beyond, working in partnership with communities to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance the human rights of all people." https://www.splcenter.org/about https://www.splcenter.org/about
  • snowwrestler 4y ago
    No, the frog doesn’t know it’s being boiled at all. Being fully aware of an organization’s good and bad behaviors is the opposite of being unknowingly boiled. Even if one chooses to continue supporting the organization in spite of some disagreement.
• nickff 4y ago
  If the article is correct that they’re selling their services to parties in private civil suits, along with positions in the organization (for use by the individual for publicity), I think you should reconsider your support. The ACLU was once an effective advocate for free speech, but the fact that they're selling themselves to either side of a private dispute should be a sign that the ACLU has changed. edit: this is all premised on the idea that you were supporting them for their old 'free speech' mission, rather than the new 'values', which I now realize may have been in error.
  • ternaryoperator 4y ago
    Thanks for your thoughtful comment. As you sensed, I supported their old mission and parts of their new mission. However, I agree that if they view their new mission to be "selling themselves" to one side or the other, that would indeed detract from my willingness to continue supporting them long-term.
    • nickff 4y ago
      Thanks for sharing more of your perspective. I just can't imagine what conversations happened inside the organization, where they were willing to ghost write for Heard and sell off a position to her, then switch to taking money from the other side; all of this in a completely private dispute with no public interest on either side, other than visibility. This whole situation seems absurd to me. Were they desperate for money? Or fans of Amber Heard? Or were they swept up in enthusiasm about a high-profile case of spousal abuse? I am not aware of the ACLU taking a general position on defamation suits between private parties in the past.
  • natch 4y ago
    “If the article is correct” The default position on most articles, especially critical ones, should be that they have utterly failed to accurately grasp and convey the key issues. This seems to be a universal law not just of journalism, but of knowledge sharing in general, especially where controversy exists.
  • thematrixturtle 4y ago
• stjohnswarts 4y ago
  I had a friend working with one of their lawyers and she was amazing. I can't agree with an article that says to quit helping a group that is still fighting for civil liberties, even if I don't agree with their following cancel culture hook, line, and sinker. Maybe someday they'll go too far though I suppose.
  • leephillips 4y ago
    Whether you think they are still fighting for civil liberties depends on what you think civil liberties are. Recently they have been supporting the “civil liberty” of men such as Lia Thomas to compete on women’s sports teams. I don’t see that as a defense of anyone’s liberties, but rather as an attack against the liberties of female athletes, and of women in general. They are on the attack against women’s sex-based rights. I’ve stopped supporting them. I used to support them even though I was disappointed in their 2nd amendment stances, because their work on 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment issues was so valuable. But now they’ve turned into a misogynist organization, actively campaigning against civil liberties.
    • grapeskin 4y ago
      > They are on the attack against women’s sex-based rights. One thing you'll find is a lot of people find this sentence very strange. Replace "sex-based rights" with "race-based rights" or any other trait passed on at birth and you'll find the ACLU's actions to be very consistent. People claimed the ACLU was anti-white decades ago. I guess now that that argument isn't working, misogyny is the new claim.
      • leephillips 4y ago
        But I didn’t claim that, so your comment has nothing to do with me or my statements.
        • grapeskin 4y ago
          Your claim that they’re misogynist is just outright bizarre. The idea of “sex based liberties” being something the American Civil Liberties Union is misogynist for not upholding is wild. It’s obvious why they wouldn’t based off their history and name.
• sumnuyungi 4y ago
  In Heard's case, the ACLU is creating an ambassador position and crafting the credentials for the ambassador they wish to hire (the op-ed). Knowing the level of deception they're engaging in - and not from a low-level employee but from their general counsel - how do you trust/verify any claims the ACLU makes?
• escapedmoose 4y ago
  Agreed. The ability to support a cause for the greater good, even if some of it makes you uncomfortable, is just a sign that you’re not totally brainwashed by one “camp” or another, imo. It’s a symptom of retaining individual thought while working toward collective progress. It would be far more troubling to be part of a movement that operates fully in lock—step. This being the internet, I feel the need to attach a disclaimer that there are limits to this general rule, but I don’t think the ACLU is currently crossing them.
• rocqua 4y ago
  I believe the complaint here is actually more "The ACLU is no longer defending my political enemies". The issue is not that the ACLU is taking on causes the author disagrees with. The issue is that the ACLU has switched away from "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" thinking. And instead they are taking a few cases of "I disapprove of what you say and will therefore not defend you". Let alone the weird Heard case that seems to be "You give me money so I give you backing and legitimacy".
  • wernercd 4y ago
    When you give "legitimacy" to illegitimate causes? You have now removed your claim to legitimacy.
• yes_really 4y ago
  What about the "poor and marginalized" students that were falsely accused and expelled from university over Title IX kangaroo courts? > When the Trump administration proposed in 2018 a new regulatory scheme for schools to follow in Title IX campus-sexual-assault cases that offered more protections to students defending themselves against these allegations, the ACLU responded in an angry tweet thread: “It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused.”. (The following year, the ACLU declared its support for new Title IX regulations’ “fair process requirements for live hearings, cross-examination, [and] access to all the evidence,” but it has never taken down the tweets or walked them back.)