4 ms·

The Atlantic[0][1] has run a number of articles about the ACLU's changing values, and refusal to grapple critically with more authoritarian voices in the halls

The Atlantic[0][1] has run a number of articles about the ACLU's changing values, and refusal to grapple critically with more authoritarian voices in the halls of power. There was also a New Republic article[2] discussing strife within the ACLU itself; "Finally, there are those within the ACLU who scoff at the First Amendment completely, arguing that it is “disproportionately enjoyed by people of power and privilege” and therefore, presumably, of little or no value to others. And Powell reports that some ACLU lawyers believe free speech (presumably meaning disagreement with the organization’s new direction) is now being suppressed within the organization itself." [0]: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/aclu-devos-title-ix/576142/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/aclu-devos... [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/aclu-johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial/629808/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/aclu-johnn... [2]: https://newrepublic.com/article/163073/first-amendment-fire https://newrepublic.com/article/163073/first-amendment-fire

bitwize 4y ago
> Finally, there are those within the ACLU who scoff at the First Amendment completely, arguing that it is “disproportionately enjoyed by people of power and privilege” and therefore, presumably, of little or no value to others. The thing about the First Amendment, as it is now interpreted, is that it's a bit like how the law bars rich and poor alike from sleeping on park benches and under bridges. The speech of the privileged is tremendously more powerful than the speech of the marginalized. Allowing the powerful to say any old thing without fear of consequence poses a direct threat of harm to marginalized groups. Therefore, an absolute right to free speech is more threatening to the marginalized than a more measured approach wherein the right of the privileged to spew hate is far less defensible. I suggest you read Andy Wingo's essay on this subject and let it really sink in: https://www.wingolog.org/archives/2017/09/04/the-hardest-thing-about-hiring-is-avoiding-the-fash https://www.wingolog.org/archives/2017/09/04/the-hardest-thi...
- nhchris 4y ago
  For example, as an immigrant to France, speech against immigrants in France is not simply an abstract topic to me. It means that my existence does not have the same value as someone that was born there. [..] now more than ever, when it comes to future collaborators, in any context, it is important for anyone for whom justice matters to probe candidates deeply for fascist tendencies. If they show a sign, pass. Yes, the problem with free speech is people might advocate immigration policies other than "open borders for all". That cannot be permitted - France belongs to everyone. Fortunately we have heroes such as Andy Wingo, that immigrate to France, then exclude the natives from employment if they suspect those natives don't want to share their homeland with even more immigrants. Thus a virtuous cycle is born - the more immigrants that come, the more marginalized the closed-borders fascists become.

bitwize 4y ago

> Finally, there are those within the ACLU who scoff at the First Amendment completely, arguing that it is “disproportionately enjoyed by people of power and privilege” and therefore, presumably, of little or no value to others. The thing about the First Amendment, as it is now interpreted, is that it's a bit like how the law bars rich and poor alike from sleeping on park benches and under bridges. The speech of the privileged is tremendously more powerful than the speech of the marginalized. Allowing the powerful to say any old thing without fear of consequence poses a direct threat of harm to marginalized groups. Therefore, an absolute right to free speech is more threatening to the marginalized than a more measured approach wherein the right of the privileged to spew hate is far less defensible. I suggest you read Andy Wingo's essay on this subject and let it really sink in: https://www.wingolog.org/archives/2017/09/04/the-hardest-thing-about-hiring-is-avoiding-the-fash https://www.wingolog.org/archives/2017/09/04/the-hardest-thi...

nhchris 4y ago
For example, as an immigrant to France, speech against immigrants in France is not simply an abstract topic to me. It means that my existence does not have the same value as someone that was born there. [..] now more than ever, when it comes to future collaborators, in any context, it is important for anyone for whom justice matters to probe candidates deeply for fascist tendencies. If they show a sign, pass. Yes, the problem with free speech is people might advocate immigration policies other than "open borders for all". That cannot be permitted - France belongs to everyone. Fortunately we have heroes such as Andy Wingo, that immigrate to France, then exclude the natives from employment if they suspect those natives don't want to share their homeland with even more immigrants. Thus a virtuous cycle is born - the more immigrants that come, the more marginalized the closed-borders fascists become.