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

661–670 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#661

Post by [deleted] »

morgante wrote: post #658
jessriedel wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nominally, but so are other organizations that are clearly partisan in practice. I don't think anyone disputes that members of the ACLU are overwhelmingly democrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... It's hard to imagine this doesn't have real-world consequences, e.g., strategically choosing to not defend right-leaning speech as vigorously as left-leaning speech.

The ACLU tries pretty hard to stick to their values, even when it puts them in opposition to Democrats. They've sued the Obama administration several times and have frequently defended groups (ex. Nazis) which liberals find repugnant. For example, the ACLU supports the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United even though the majority of liberals and democrats strongly oppose it.

[deleted]

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#662

Post by [deleted] »

morgante wrote: post #658
jessriedel wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nominally, but so are other organizations that are clearly partisan in practice. I don't think anyone disputes that members of the ACLU are overwhelmingly democrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... It's hard to imagine this doesn't have real-world consequences, e.g., strategically choosing to not defend right-leaning speech as vigorously as left-leaning speech.

The ACLU tries pretty hard to stick to their values, even when it puts them in opposition to Democrats. They've sued the Obama administration several times and have frequently defended groups (ex. Nazis) which liberals find repugnant. For example, the ACLU supports the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United even though the majority of liberals and democrats strongly oppose it.

[deleted]

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#663

Post by grzm »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #626
artmageddon wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACLU doesn't have a problem with 2A, but they see gun ownership as a collective right rather than an individual right. They have stood up for 2A rights in the past, but compared to the NRA and other 2A advocates, they have very limited resources, so they let the NRA / et. al. handle them.

The ACLU doesn't have a problem with 2A, but they see gun ownership as a collective right rather than an individual right. And that's a problem. It betrays either a gross misunderstanding on their part of the purpose of the Bill of Rights, which is unlikely, or other less transparent motivations, which aren't. There are other civil liberties organizations that don't argue for a state monopoly on the right to self def…

I appreciate your concern, but I also think it's misguided to dismiss the ACLU because of this single issue: it's not something they focus resources on. They're not actively campaigning against an individual's rights to bear arms. They're not even vocal about it. Gun rights or anti-gun rights are not what many people think of when they think of gun rights issues. You gotta pick your battles, and find allies where you can.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#664

Post by morgante »

mmckelvy wrote: post #650

I see SV and its ilk are doubling down on the actions and ideas that lost them the election. Perhaps something beyond a knee-jerk reaction is in order. Great article along these lines: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/nine-questions-protesti... Particularly salient quote: "If you decide that border restrictions are fascist then you are declaring the views of most people to be fascist, because most people believe…

Nobody is saying that "border restrictions" are fascist.

It's jeopardizing rule of law which reeks of fascism. This weekend, the rule of law was jeopardized though the:

- surprise invalidation and revocation of visas; people who had followed every law were still being detained and deported

- detention of permanent residents

- refusal to follow court orders

We could instigate far more stringent border restrictions (maybe no new visas to anywhere) and I wouldn't call it fascist. It's the implementation (without warning or judicial oversight) which is fascist. We're supposed to have 3 branches of government, not a dictator.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#665

Post by g_sch »

mmckelvy wrote: post #650

I see SV and its ilk are doubling down on the actions and ideas that lost them the election. Perhaps something beyond a knee-jerk reaction is in order. Great article along these lines: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/nine-questions-protesti... Particularly salient quote: "If you decide that border restrictions are fascist then you are declaring the views of most people to be fascist, because most people believe…

It's easy to poll high support numbers for things like "border security" if you avoid the details of what that means. For decades, border security did not mean explicitly banning the entry of all people coming from certain countries based on a campaign promise of religious-based discrimination.

I'm guessing that if you polled the approval of "ban all Muslims, including legal permanent residents", you may end up with lower numbers.

EDIT: this doesn't even mention that, at a certain point, it's necessary to draw the line at fundamental rights that cannot be voted away. Thankfully we have organizations such as the ACLU who fight to protect that line.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#666

Post by wootness »

ernestipark wrote: post #562
treehau5 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't donate to the ACLU because I believe in the civil rights for all people, outside the womb, and inside. Is there a similar organization I can donate to?

That this is being downvoted is extremely telling of the audience here. Engage in a discussion if you disagree. Downvoting unpopular opinions into oblivion is how you get a SV/liberal echo chamber.

There is no reasoning with people who don't use reason. Banning abortion would result in countless problems and if people aren't willing to do the research to understand that .... downvotes are indeed required.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#667

Post by [deleted] »

redblacktree wrote: post #623
brandon272 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I get the feeling conservatives may not feel welcome at YC. What we are seeing over the last week and what is expected to be coming from the Trump administration in the near future have little to do with liberal vs. conservative. I know many conservatives who are outright horrified by what they are seeing.

Who did they vote for?

[deleted]

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#668

Post by morgante »

dragonwriter wrote: post #660
morgante wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACLU tries pretty hard to stick to their values, even when it puts them in opposition to Democrats. They've sued the Obama administration several times and have frequently defended groups (ex. Nazis) which liberals find repugnant. For example, the ACLU supports the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United even though the majority of liberals and democrats strongly oppose it.

The ACLU has not defended the Nazi cause; the ACLU has defended the cause of free speech and peaceable assembly, even when those speaking and assembling peaceably are themselves Nazis. The distinction is quite critical.

You're right that "cause" is not quite the right word, but they have literally defended Nazis (a decision I absolutely applaud).

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#669

Post by zardeh »

problems wrote: post #335
jrmurad wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some "left-leaning" stances they take where I'm hard-pressed to see how they are defending civil rights, if not outright violating those of one party for the benefit of another: affirmative action: https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-justice/affirmative-actio... voter id (are all the other countries that have this violating their citizens' civil rights?): https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-...…

I feel like you could have a good argument about most of those, but the affirmative action one is pretty damning. That's blatantly political and in no way related to constitutional protections. There are plenty of good civil liberties related ways to look at race, but affirmative action is not one of them.

>but the affirmative action one is pretty damning

The supreme court agrees that affirmative action is constitutional (within certain bounds), see the recent Fisher v. UT case, or Bakke for the original example.

Post reply on HN