4 ms·
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 indivi
by 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 agoThanks 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 agoThanks 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 agoEh. If they exchange one lawyer's time for $3.5 million in donations that will be used for all their other causes, that's actually a pretty good deal. (Or at least would be if Heard paid up, which she apparently didn't.)
- wernercd 4y ago"which she didn't" The price of surrendering your core beliefs? Getting stabbed in the back by an otherwise upstanding member of the community /s When you sell your soul to the devil? Don't be surprised when promises aren't kept or turn sour.
- thematrixturtle 4y agoI don't see a fundamental conflict between the ACLU's core beliefs and offering legal aid to a woman accusing her ex-husband of domestic violence. (Although I'll readily admit I don't see much reason for ACLU to get involved either.)
- vba616 4y ago>offering legal aid That phrase makes it sound like their actions represented an expenditure rather than a revenue generating operation.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]