4 ms·

Indeed, the ACLU have lost their way. https://web.archive.org/web/20210608004853/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://web.archiv

Indeed, the ACLU have lost their way. https://web.archive.org/web/20210608004853/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210608004853/https://www.nytim... > the organization finds itself riven with internal tensions over whether it has stepped away from a founding principle — unwavering devotion to the First Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#Waning_interest_in_defending_white_supremacists.27_first_amendment_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... > Beginning in 2017, some individuals claimed the ACLU was reducing its support of unpopular free speech (specifically by declining to defend speech made by conservatives) in favor of identity politics, political correctness, and progressivism.

_lvbh 3y ago
Meanwhile in the rest of the world, we don’t even have free speech. If only America could export their constitution like they do their weapons
- justrealist 3y ago
  I mean that's basically this history of the US in Latin America, but everyone complains anyway.
  - ForgottenPwd 3y ago
    What? I don't recall ever having heard the US spread democracy in Latin America. The US destabilized democratically elected governments and propped up violent regimes in Latin America to benefit private industry and "combat Communism". The US Army School of the Americas was a finishing school for Latin American dictators and strongmen, as well as other murderers. https://irp.fas.org/crs/soa.htm https://irp.fas.org/crs/soa.htm
- MathMonkeyMan 3y ago
  Here's part of an English translation of the Russian constitution: http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm and the Chinese constitution: http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372964.htm http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/... It's not about the constitution.
  - baobabKoodaa 3y ago
    Just because Russia has a piece of paper that says something, doesn't mean they have free speech.
    - j_maffe 3y ago
      Same in the US, evidently
  - 5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
    Who cares what they say, the Russian constitution can be rewritten in a couple of days when a certain person needs something from it.
  - logicchains 3y ago
    The Chinese constitution explicitly says all rights exists only where they don't conflict with what the party wants.
    - MathMonkeyMan 3y ago
      I was looking for something like that, but didn't find it at a glance. Not surprising, I suppose.
- Nursie 3y ago
  > in the rest of the world, we don’t even have free speech. It exists to varying degrees in various places. It's not absolute in the US, as much as people like to pretend it is - incitement to violence, the old "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" canard, criminal conspiracy, defamation etc etc. There is a line drawn, it's a fuzzy one that people pretend does not exist, but it's there just as it is in other nations. For more information on how freedom of speech is codified in Europe, for instance, see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#E...
  - chroma 3y ago
    The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" metaphor was coined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr in the Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, in which Holmes and the majority of justices sent a man to prison for distributing flyers protesting the draft in World War I. Anyone today who references the metaphor without sarcasm reveals themselves to be ignorant of the history of the First Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
    - Nursie 3y ago
      It's been a popular metaphor for decades. And your link says (amongst other things) - "Ultimately, whether it is legal in the United States to falsely shout fire in a theater depends on the circumstances in which it is done and the consequences of doing it. The act of shouting fire when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. However, if it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as involuntary manslaughter..." I was not trying to make the point that it is always illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, that such an act is by itself subject to prohibition, but that it is one of several circumstances in which an act of speech may not be 100% protected by the first amendment in the USA. I even called it a "canard" because it's something of a cliche and not 100% true as commonly understood. The point, if anything, is reinforced by this - there is a fuzzy edge to freedom of speech in the USA, even where it is portrayed as absolute. Another example of illegal speech would be perjury.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  They seem to mostly sell that as a package.
- metalspot 3y ago
  Many countries have recognized free speech as a right through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is much broader than the 1st amendment. "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... But just because governments have recognized the right does not mean that they are complying with this recognition. This is par for the course though. The 1st amendment was ratified in 1791 and the Alien and Sedition Acts which violated the constitution in the most blatant way were passed 8 years later. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedit... Governments never give freedom. People take it.
  - gnopgnip 3y ago
    Freedom of opinion and expression won't protect hate speech that is protected in the US
jasonlotito 3y ago
> Indeed, the ACLU have lost their way. Indeed, they haven't. > The memo listed several factors to consider, including "the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values." i.e. Consider whether we'd be arguing against our own goals. How anyone reasonable could consider this a bad thing, I don't know. https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-we-hate https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-w... They've defended people and organizations I oppose, but their reasoning has always been sound. That the ACLU debates and reflects is admirable.
- Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
  > How anyone reasonable could consider this a bad thing, I don't know. Because it's completely unproven. Their theory is that 'free speech advances the goals of [others whose views are contrary to our values]' but that's not proven, that's just their theory. It's held for ages that free speech works as it allows for the 'disinfectant of sunlight' i.e. that ideas stand and fall on their merits with all relevant parties allowed to discuss freely. They _posit_ that this theory no longer holds true but they never seem to actually explain how they came to that conclusion. You, similarly, just say that is 'is right' but... how did you get there? What's your proof of concept? Do you have examples? It seems very much to me like they've just turned around and said 'yeah actually free speech is bad because it helps the bad guys more than the good guys, trust us, it's no good' and left it at that. > reasoning has always been sound They've done a complete 180 on this position. By definition either their reasoning before was unsound or their reasoning today is unsound. Pick one.
  - digging 3y ago
    > It's held for ages that free speech works as it allows for the 'disinfectant of sunlight' i.e. that ideas stand and fall on their merits with all relevant parties allowed to discuss freely. Also not proven ?
    - Dan_Sylveste 3y ago

_lvbh 3y ago

Meanwhile in the rest of the world, we don’t even have free speech. If only America could export their constitution like they do their weapons

justrealist 3y ago
I mean that's basically this history of the US in Latin America, but everyone complains anyway.
- ForgottenPwd 3y ago
  What? I don't recall ever having heard the US spread democracy in Latin America. The US destabilized democratically elected governments and propped up violent regimes in Latin America to benefit private industry and "combat Communism". The US Army School of the Americas was a finishing school for Latin American dictators and strongmen, as well as other murderers. https://irp.fas.org/crs/soa.htm https://irp.fas.org/crs/soa.htm
MathMonkeyMan 3y ago
Here's part of an English translation of the Russian constitution: http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm and the Chinese constitution: http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372964.htm http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/... It's not about the constitution.
- baobabKoodaa 3y ago
  Just because Russia has a piece of paper that says something, doesn't mean they have free speech.
  - j_maffe 3y ago
    Same in the US, evidently
- 5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
  Who cares what they say, the Russian constitution can be rewritten in a couple of days when a certain person needs something from it.
- logicchains 3y ago
  The Chinese constitution explicitly says all rights exists only where they don't conflict with what the party wants.
  - MathMonkeyMan 3y ago
    I was looking for something like that, but didn't find it at a glance. Not surprising, I suppose.
Nursie 3y ago
> in the rest of the world, we don’t even have free speech. It exists to varying degrees in various places. It's not absolute in the US, as much as people like to pretend it is - incitement to violence, the old "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" canard, criminal conspiracy, defamation etc etc. There is a line drawn, it's a fuzzy one that people pretend does not exist, but it's there just as it is in other nations. For more information on how freedom of speech is codified in Europe, for instance, see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#E...
- chroma 3y ago
  The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" metaphor was coined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr in the Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, in which Holmes and the majority of justices sent a man to prison for distributing flyers protesting the draft in World War I. Anyone today who references the metaphor without sarcasm reveals themselves to be ignorant of the history of the First Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
  - Nursie 3y ago
    It's been a popular metaphor for decades. And your link says (amongst other things) - "Ultimately, whether it is legal in the United States to falsely shout fire in a theater depends on the circumstances in which it is done and the consequences of doing it. The act of shouting fire when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. However, if it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as involuntary manslaughter..." I was not trying to make the point that it is always illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, that such an act is by itself subject to prohibition, but that it is one of several circumstances in which an act of speech may not be 100% protected by the first amendment in the USA. I even called it a "canard" because it's something of a cliche and not 100% true as commonly understood. The point, if anything, is reinforced by this - there is a fuzzy edge to freedom of speech in the USA, even where it is portrayed as absolute. Another example of illegal speech would be perjury.
raxxorraxor 3y ago
They seem to mostly sell that as a package.
metalspot 3y ago
Many countries have recognized free speech as a right through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is much broader than the 1st amendment. "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... But just because governments have recognized the right does not mean that they are complying with this recognition. This is par for the course though. The 1st amendment was ratified in 1791 and the Alien and Sedition Acts which violated the constitution in the most blatant way were passed 8 years later. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedit... Governments never give freedom. People take it.
- gnopgnip 3y ago
  Freedom of opinion and expression won't protect hate speech that is protected in the US

jasonlotito 3y ago

> Indeed, the ACLU have lost their way. Indeed, they haven't. > The memo listed several factors to consider, including "the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values." i.e. Consider whether we'd be arguing against our own goals. How anyone reasonable could consider this a bad thing, I don't know. https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-we-hate https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-w... They've defended people and organizations I oppose, but their reasoning has always been sound. That the ACLU debates and reflects is admirable.

Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
> How anyone reasonable could consider this a bad thing, I don't know. Because it's completely unproven. Their theory is that 'free speech advances the goals of [others whose views are contrary to our values]' but that's not proven, that's just their theory. It's held for ages that free speech works as it allows for the 'disinfectant of sunlight' i.e. that ideas stand and fall on their merits with all relevant parties allowed to discuss freely. They _posit_ that this theory no longer holds true but they never seem to actually explain how they came to that conclusion. You, similarly, just say that is 'is right' but... how did you get there? What's your proof of concept? Do you have examples? It seems very much to me like they've just turned around and said 'yeah actually free speech is bad because it helps the bad guys more than the good guys, trust us, it's no good' and left it at that. > reasoning has always been sound They've done a complete 180 on this position. By definition either their reasoning before was unsound or their reasoning today is unsound. Pick one.
- digging 3y ago
  > It's held for ages that free speech works as it allows for the 'disinfectant of sunlight' i.e. that ideas stand and fall on their merits with all relevant parties allowed to discuss freely. Also not proven ?
  - Dan_Sylveste 3y ago