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

701–710 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#701

Post by int_19h »

joshred wrote: post #254
JCzynski wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Authoritarians are very possibly not welcome. Non-authoritarian members of the religious right, cultural conservatives, etc. are very likely welcome. (And of course any variety of libertarian.)

Cultural conservatives are authoritarian. They argue for restricted social liberty.

There are some people out there that are culturally conservative personally, but don't believe in forcing their beliefs on other via laws. Not many, but they do exist. And they generally vote libertarian.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#702

Post by delecti »

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.

I feel like you have that backwards. All evidence indicates that legal abortion results in no more abortions occurring, but those that do occur will be safer. Legally speaking there seem to be a fair number of people who want to outlaw it anyway.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#703

Post by unethical_ban »

asveikau wrote: post #505

Pre-inauguration, discussion of Trump's immigration policies and their logical conclusion would have been shut down under the "no politics" rule. Seems it only takes ~10 days of this stuff being real for folks here to admit that politics affects everybody and is a valid topic of discussion.

It's allowed here now because banning foreign nationals from traveling to the US has an impact on industries that are associated with foreign workers. Say, IT, and engineering.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#704

Post by Arizhel »

jMyles wrote: post #693
village-idiot wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like castigating someone who volunteers at a soup kitchen for not volunteering at every soup kitchen.

It's more like, in a world with exactly eight soup kitchens, the "soup kitchen support union" specifically excluding one from its support network and issuing a statement that, despite its soup having similar origins and ingredients, doesn't qualify as soup in to today's palette unless consumed collectively by all of society.

I don't see the problem there, when that one particular soup kitchen, for various reasons, has several other support unions which are dedicated exclusively to supporting that soup kitchen, and ignore all the other ones.

It makes perfect sense that the "soup kitchen support union" would then concentrate all their efforts on the other 7 soup kitchens which don't get nearly as much support.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#705

Post by bb611 »

giardini wrote: post #695
bb611 wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. The president of the United States just signed an order legally barring hundreds of millions of people from entering the US on the basis of their country of origin, which is in fact unprecedented. > This topic now is yet another gathering point for all unhappy with the election results. Accurate.…

bb611 says> "The president ...signed an order legally barring hundreds of millions of people from entering the US ..." But the reality is http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-anti-trum... "The fact of the matter is 325,000 people from foreign countries came into the United States" on Saturday, Priebus told NBC's "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd. "And 109 people were detained for further questioning."

What in your reply contradicts the facts presented in mine?

I'm happy to debate whether the topic is appropriate for HN, but that requires at least bilateral application of intellect.

Even if your fact was contradictory, it's from a member of an administration that routinely lies about basic facts to make them support its viewpoint, and this is no different: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/...

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#706

Post by lol214365 »

Miner49er wrote: post #615
19guid wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The line between free speech and discrimination was drawn long ago. Would you also have people deny service to Black Americans like we did before the Civil Rights movement?

They are not denying service. Any gay customer can go into an aforementioned bakery and order any of the goods any other customer might order. They just cannot order a cake for a gay wedding -- nor can any straight customer.

That is completely different than categorically denying service to black customers.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#707

Post by 19guid »

danielsju6 wrote: post #605
19guid wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think refusal of service is itself protected speech either, but we're not talking about the government restricting protected speech. We're talking about the government compelling an individual to engage in protected speech, like taking a wedding photograph.

> The U.S. Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the First Amendment protects an "individual freedom of mind"—e.g., (1943), which affirmed the right not to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance—which the government violates whenever it tells a person that she must or must not speak. Forcing a photographer to create a unique piece of art violates that freedom of the mind.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/choosing-what-to-photograph...

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#708

Post by EternalData »

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…

Skokie, IL. The epitome of a principled defense of civil rights.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#709

Post by giardini »

bb611 wrote: post #705
giardini wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

bb611 says> "The president ...signed an order legally barring hundreds of millions of people from entering the US ..." But the reality is http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-anti-trum... "The fact of the matter is 325,000 people from foreign countries came into the United States" on Saturday, Priebus told NBC's "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd. "And 109 people were detained for further questioning."

What in your reply contradicts the facts presented in mine? I'm happy to debate whether the topic is appropriate for HN, but that requires at least bilateral application of intellect. Even if your fact was contradictory, it's from a member of an administration that routinely lies about basic facts to make them support its viewpoint, and this is no different: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01…

Dear YC: I told you so!8-))

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#710

Post by lol214365 »

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…

The ACLU has completely deviated from their declared mission -- protecting civil liberties -- in recent weeks.

The ACLU opposes a border wall. Who's civil liberties are violated by a border wall?

The ACLU opposes the immigration and refugee EO. Who's civil liberties are violated by foreign nationals not being permitted into the United States?

Post reply on HN