Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Welcome, ACLU

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#601

Post by cphoover »

azernik wrote: post #308
eddieroger wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unfortunate thing is that the ACLU should be non-partisan and only fighting for those who are having their rights threatened. It just so happens that in the last week or so, it was Conservatives doing the threatening. There aren't a lot of incidents in recent memory of liberals taking away rights from folks, so you get a slant of ACLU vs Conservatives. The irony of wanting a small government I guess.

Theoretically, yes. However, the ACLU has historically been perceived (especially by the right-wing) as a left-wing organization, since it stood for things like racial equality, religious equality, and most importantly the end to (mostly anti-Communist) restrictions on political expression. Hence the attacks on Dukakis for being a member of the ACLU during his election campaign, and his joking self-labeling as a "car…

Here is an interesting paragraph from wikipedia:

``` The ACLU has been criticized by liberals, such as when it excluded Communists from its leadership ranks, when it defended Neo-Nazis, when it declined to defend Paul Robeson, or when it opposed the passage of the National Labor Relations Act.[62][63] Conversely, it has been criticized by conservatives, such as when it argued against official prayer in public schools, or when it opposed the Patriot Act.[64] The ACLU has supported conservative figures such as Rush Limbaugh, George Wallace, Henry Ford, and Oliver North; and it has supported liberal figures such as Dick Gregory, Rockwell Kent, and Dr. Benjamin Spock.[18][65][66][67][68][69][70][71] A major source of criticism are legal cases in which the ACLU represents an individual or organization that promotes offensive or unpopular viewpoints, such as the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, Nation of Islam, North American Man/Boy Love Association, or Westboro Baptist Church. The ACLU responded to these criticisms by stating "It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive."[72] ```

Also I found this article: http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

Seems like ACLU historically has not cared about partisan politics, left vs right, and care most about their mission of defending civil liberties, and individual rights.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#602

Post by rz2k »

lpolovets wrote: post #500

It upsets me to read negative comments about initiatives like this. My assumption is that most people agree that it'd be good for the ACLU to have more funding and to operate in a more efficient, higher leverage manner. If YC can help with that, great! They could be backing other areas instead, or they could be backing nothing. I, for one, am glad they're backing something good. I don't understand why people often br…

Maybe a little glib, but this came up on Reddit from Twitter:

> The left protest about Trump, but they're strangely silent about King Raedwald's invasion of Northumbria in AD 616[1]

It's a bizarre way to argue in favor of being politically detached.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/5r6zw0/the_left...

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#603

Post by Hydraulix989 »

I'll have more to say after work, but the timeline itself of tech companies' actions is telling.

First/day one (and same day as Muslim ban): The companies and people that actually cared stood up (Google)

Day Two+: Transition Period (when Lyft rushed in to capitalize on Uber's bad PR)

mid-this week (after Muslim ban): The companies that are pressured into doing so or are solely after PR karma stand up (Bezos, YC)

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#604

Post by cpburns2009 »

dentemple wrote: post #101
wtvanhest wrote: post #3

I remember when HN did not have a political agenda. Right or wrong, this used to be mainly about startups. Now its become a highly political message board

The travel ban disproportionally impacts the tech community, including "startups." From the hundreds of Big 4 employees who now can't return home or travel overseas, to the 110,000 answers submitted to StackOverflow from the now banned countries, this affects the industry.

I would like to know how many people in the tech community are actually impacted by this. A temporary ban on immigration from a few unstable counties is not an embargo.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#605

Post by danielsju6 »

19guid wrote: post #554
joshfraser wrote: post #427

I've been a long time supporter of the ACLU. While they're being politicized right now as being anti-Trump, the thing I admire most about them is their consistency in fighting for the rights of everyone. They stick to their principles of free speech and human equality no matter how unpopular the issue or unsavory their client. A good example is back in the 1930s when the ACLU simultaneously defended the rights of bla…

Unfortunately, the ACLU is not always consistent on the issue of free speech. For example, they have frequently argued in favour of compelling speech from Christian bakers, florists and photographers who, for reasons of conscience, are unwilling to provide their creative services for same-sex weddings. [1] [2] [3] [1] http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate... [2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Jus…

Refusal of service based race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation is not protected speech. It's discrimination. They gave up rights when they went into business.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#606

Post by grzm »

wtvanhest wrote: post #237
dang wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it hasn't. The rule has been the same for years: most politics are off topic. Check it out: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . The difference between "most" and "all" is significant. HN can't be immune to what's going on in the outside world and we've learned from years of experience that it doesn't make sense to try. At the same time, we're not going to let politics overwhelm the site, since that…

I used the word 'mainly' because I understand that HN has always had some political conversation in the background. I have personally learned about immigration issues, digital privacy, etc. etc. on HN. Those are valuable things to understand, and I enjoyed reading about them. Now, it is clear that YC leadership has taken a highly liberal stand. I won't make a judgement on liberal or republican, but it feels more and…

HN is reflecting that in YC's movement.

I think it's uncontroversial that there are likely a large number of HN members who have favorable opinions of Y Combinator. That said, I don't see evidence of Y Combinator exercising any kind of persuasion or manipulation of the members where one can reasonably say that HN members are following Y Combinator's lead. And there's enough vociferous, contentious, argumentative political discussion on HN that it's clear to me that HN doesn't represent a single bloc of anything other than all participating in the HN forums.

As for YC becoming the liberal version of the Koch brothers, I think it's hard to underestimate the difference in scale. In January 2015, the Koch brothers budge for the 2016 campaign was nearly $900 million.[0] Along with Rupert Murdoch, the Koch brothers largely bankrolled the Tea Party into national government[1] in 2010.

Another significant difference, in my opinion, is that the Koch brothers themselves are not very vocal or public. They operate largely behind the scenes. Y Combinator has been much more vocal about what they're doing.

And it bears keeping in mind that YC has kept Peter Thiel on as a part-time partner: if YC's motivations were purely political, I think it's fair to say they'd have cut ties with Thiel just as so many have been clamoring for them to do.

All said, I don't think the comparison has much merit.

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to...

[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#607

Post by endswapper »

The combination of relationships with Thiel and the ACLU sets a great example and creates tremendous potential for significant progress on issues.

Great mention for Watsi, I'm a fan.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#608

Post by linkregister »

coldpie wrote: post #569
CydeWeys wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To really spell it out, as these "pro-life/pro-choice" terms are somewhat esoteric and not always understood by foreign speakers, the ACLU is in favor of abortion rights and many conservatives are against abortion rights.

The terms I usually see are "pro-choice" and "anti-choice." Everyone on the planet is "pro-life" and thinks abortion is a bad thing, the question is whether outlawing abortion results in better outcomes than allowing it. I think there is room for reasonable disagreement, though legally speaking it's largely a settled issue.

Legally speaking, the situation could change drastically based off of new composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, legislation making abortion de facto banned, or an amendment to the Constitution explicitly banning it.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#609

Post by treehau5 »

ohitsdom wrote: post #378
coldpie wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on why that position excludes the ACLU from receiving your support? I don't understand your position.

Since they mentioned the womb, I'm assuming this person is pro-life. The ACLU is decidedly not pro-life. https://www.aclu.org/issues/reproductive-freedom/abortion

Not so much pro life, as I like to disassociate myself from that hypocritical stance, but I like to call myself "whole life" or basically pro life for the whole life, from beginning to end.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#610

Post by Paul-ish »

enitihas wrote: post #192
ucha wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am disappointed by these kind of comments. Being contrarian just for the sake of it doesn't get us anywhere. We cannot anytime someone does something good ask why something we consider better wasn't previously done.

I don't think he is being contrarian just for the sake of it. He is just using the platform to raise awareness about issues which are serious but don't make the same impact into public discussions and don't get similar levels of support. There is nothing bad in bringing more issues to light, and now seems the perfect time for this when the public appetite is ready for such issues.

The comment strikes me a concern trolling.
Post reply on HN