9 ms·

You wouldn't expect a civil liberties organization to have an opinion on containing a dangerous pandemic? In addition to working at the ACLU the people doing th

You wouldn't expect a civil liberties organization to have an opinion on containing a dangerous pandemic? In addition to working at the ACLU the people doing their work are also humans.

pclmulqdq 2y ago
When "containing a dangerous pandemic" means a restriction on civil liberties, I would expect the ACLU to comment on that matter. I am personally happy with vaccine requirements, but IMO the ACLU should have been defending the people who weren't.
- vharuck 2y ago
  Advocacy organizations shouldn't aspire to extremes. The ACLU should offer reasonable and practical help and commentary on civil liberties. Otherwise, you get the modern NRA that fights every law about firearms.
- addicted 2y ago
  Should the ACLU defend the rights of someone to blow up nuclear bombs in their backyard? That’s a clear curtailment of their civil liberties. And assuming they’re in a rural area may not harm anyone else either. This is an obviously extreme example but the point still stands. Any civil liberties organization cannot focus absolutely narrowly on that question in every situation but has to apply a broader approach.
  - remarkEon 2y ago
    Surely you see the difference between someone having Strategic weapons in their garage, and the government forcing someone to take a medicine that they don't want to take, right? >but the point still stands On what, exactly?
    - pixl97 2y ago
      You, actually, do not have the right to spread viruses around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon All individual rights are balanced with the rights of other individuals/society. You can be given the choice to vaccinate or be forcefully quarantined. This has occurred many times in the US and the right of the state to do this has been upheld. While corona was weak we will eventually seem some dangerous bullshit spread and the anti-vax dipshits are going figure out exactly what their rights entail as they are being drug from their house at gunpoint with the express will of the majority of the population.
      - pclmulqdq 2y ago
        Yes, the government has quarantine powers, which have been broadly established. They did not necessarily have the right to go about it how they did in 2020, which was through OSHA rules and other "soft power" rather than through their power to quarantine people. Almost nobody was actually quarantined in relation to COVID. A broad, sweeping quarantine in relation to COVID would have been so unpopular that you can see why they went about it in a "softer" way, but sometimes the government can't have its cake and eat it too. Those vaccine mandates were broadly ruled illegal, even in light of the quarantine power. These sorts of civil liberties are complicated, and the ACLU found themselves on the wrong side of this one.
      - josephcsible 2y ago
        There's a big difference between quarantining people who you know have a dangerous disease for a few weeks until they're better, and quarantining the entire country for years because you're not sure who has a dangerous disease.
        pclmulqdq 2y ago
        To be clear, they probably did have the legal power to quarantine the whole country, but after a week or so there might have been an armed revolt. Edit: Maybe they didn't.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    > Should the ACLU defend the rights of someone to blow up nuclear bombs in their backyard? If someone actually went to court over this, I would hope/expect that the NRA would send some lawyers. The ACLU isn't that into the second amendment and has never been. However, nobody has gone to court over this. They did go to court over vaccine mandates. By the way, the only grounds the government would have to stand on here are radiation-related. It is broadly legal to use explosives on your own property unless you're too close to someone else's property. It is also broadly legal to build your own weapons.

You wouldn't expect a civil liberties organization to have an opinion on containing a dangerous pandemic? In addition to working at the ACLU the people doing their work are also humans.

pclmulqdq 2y ago

When "containing a dangerous pandemic" means a restriction on civil liberties, I would expect the ACLU to comment on that matter. I am personally happy with vaccine requirements, but IMO the ACLU should have been defending the people who weren't.

vharuck 2y ago
Advocacy organizations shouldn't aspire to extremes. The ACLU should offer reasonable and practical help and commentary on civil liberties. Otherwise, you get the modern NRA that fights every law about firearms.
addicted 2y ago
Should the ACLU defend the rights of someone to blow up nuclear bombs in their backyard? That’s a clear curtailment of their civil liberties. And assuming they’re in a rural area may not harm anyone else either. This is an obviously extreme example but the point still stands. Any civil liberties organization cannot focus absolutely narrowly on that question in every situation but has to apply a broader approach.
- remarkEon 2y ago
  Surely you see the difference between someone having Strategic weapons in their garage, and the government forcing someone to take a medicine that they don't want to take, right? >but the point still stands On what, exactly?
  - pixl97 2y ago
    You, actually, do not have the right to spread viruses around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon All individual rights are balanced with the rights of other individuals/society. You can be given the choice to vaccinate or be forcefully quarantined. This has occurred many times in the US and the right of the state to do this has been upheld. While corona was weak we will eventually seem some dangerous bullshit spread and the anti-vax dipshits are going figure out exactly what their rights entail as they are being drug from their house at gunpoint with the express will of the majority of the population.
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      Yes, the government has quarantine powers, which have been broadly established. They did not necessarily have the right to go about it how they did in 2020, which was through OSHA rules and other "soft power" rather than through their power to quarantine people. Almost nobody was actually quarantined in relation to COVID. A broad, sweeping quarantine in relation to COVID would have been so unpopular that you can see why they went about it in a "softer" way, but sometimes the government can't have its cake and eat it too. Those vaccine mandates were broadly ruled illegal, even in light of the quarantine power. These sorts of civil liberties are complicated, and the ACLU found themselves on the wrong side of this one.
    - josephcsible 2y ago
      There's a big difference between quarantining people who you know have a dangerous disease for a few weeks until they're better, and quarantining the entire country for years because you're not sure who has a dangerous disease.
      - pclmulqdq 2y ago
        To be clear, they probably did have the legal power to quarantine the whole country, but after a week or so there might have been an armed revolt. Edit: Maybe they didn't.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  > Should the ACLU defend the rights of someone to blow up nuclear bombs in their backyard? If someone actually went to court over this, I would hope/expect that the NRA would send some lawyers. The ACLU isn't that into the second amendment and has never been. However, nobody has gone to court over this. They did go to court over vaccine mandates. By the way, the only grounds the government would have to stand on here are radiation-related. It is broadly legal to use explosives on your own property unless you're too close to someone else's property. It is also broadly legal to build your own weapons.