151–160 of 550 posts
Free speech is table stakes for a free society. Those claiming otherwise are playing with fire.
Most societies function perfectly fine without a constitutional protection for speech. In fact a few countries rank better than the United States on press freedom without it.
Free speech is the only “right” that matters. Thoughtcrime should not be allowed to be prosecuted, mob lynching is not justice. But if the ACLU is compromised maybe it is too late.
There’s lots of “speech” that’s already illegal in the US. Please, define where the actual line should be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once they came out after Heller and stated they still believed it was a collective right, I knew my relationship with them was over. ACLU (and others) cite it as a 5-4 decision but even the dissenters on the case believed it was an individual right, they just still thought it could be regulated / scrutinized. In that sense the individual right won 9-0.
The collective right never made any sense in the first place, not a single other amendment in the bill of rights is viewed as a "collective right" so why in the hell would this lone amendment be a "collective right" Further what the hell does a "collective right" even look like in the first place.... the ACLU hates guns, does not believe anyone outside the government should have guns, the "collective right" was just…
I'll give a non-gun example - you buy a piece of property near the headway of an important river. You have an individual right to improve the property, and really use it any way you want. HOWEVER - the people who live downstream of you ALSO have a collective right to use the river, which puts a limit on your individual rights. You can't dump pollutants or trash in the river, nor can you divert the waterway. You have an individual right to use your own property, but your neighbors (depending on the issue, this may be local or global) have a collective right not to suffer damage or externalities from that use.
In the context of the gun discussion, the collective rights people believe that gun ownership is intended to defend the neighborhood, not for individual self-defense.
I don't understand why you would join the ACLU if you don't actually support the first ammendment and the stances the ACLU has taken? Seriously. Why? Its like joining a bowling league and complaining that you want to play soccer.
When those you exile move to a new organization/group/fandom either attempt to shut that down before it grows, or if grows to become powerful Join an organization/group/fandom that is popular/powerful, and complain ....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s probably reasonable for an organization to choose not to conflate the civil liberties they stand for with amendments. In an ideal world the people would happily eliminate or modify laws that do harm, and of the existing US civil liberties, the 2nd amendment is likely the most debatable on whether it is a net win for liberty.
Even the most extreme proponents of the 2nd amendment have examples of it working The various police forces during the capital seige - in January, remember how that was this year - said they used less force because the participants were armed and knew they could shoot back Their whole thing is that they will make the state think twice, whereas the peaceful and unarmed protestors get knocked around with no recourse Wi…
I think this is mostly inaccurate? The Jan 6 protestors/rioters mostly left their guns at home due to fear of D.C.‘s strict gun laws. Even the oathkeepers planned to keep their guns in Virginia and ferry them over by boat only once “called up as militia”.
The Capitol police are used to dealing with protestors and demonstrators and have never opened fire on a crowd with live ammo before. The one time it did look like a rioter (Ashlii Babbit) was going to get too close to members of Congress they used their firearm without hesitation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There has never been a society where this is true. Certainly where I live, in the US, free speech is code for "white men are allowed to say whatever they want" while the speech of other groups can be violently repressed without consequence.
IF you are right, that just means we need MORE free speech for those who don't have it, NOT less for those who do!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I think it's interesting to think what people of today will be cancelled for. My best guesses are eating meat, and doing business with China.
Raising children at home. In the near future an idea will arise that trained professionals will be better to train children as they grow up and parents would provide more value to society if they continued to work and not had to spend time with their children. Human animal relationships. Animals will gain rights and it will be a natural outcome. Robot phobia, followed by robot acceptance and relationships. Kissing or…
Then fetuses raised outside of the womb in an apparatus.
"Brave new world", indeed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Theyve said previously that the reason they mostly stay out of the 2nd amendment is that there's already a well funded organization that has made the 2nd their sole focus. The NRA's budget is larger than the ACLUs.. so it makes sense for them to prioritize other constitutional issues.
There's mostly downside for them because a significant fraction of their members are not fans of the 2nd amendment. The closest I think they've gotten to gun cases is probably this one, which was more of a 4th amendment issue: https://www.aclu.org/cases/caniglia-v-strom
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its got a huge endowment and a strong brand that can be subverted into fighting for progressive causes instead of what it used to do. It's woke 101 playbook. Basecamp and coinbase showed that you either choose to have zero tolerance of politics in the workplace, or the woke will make you spend as many resources as possible on political activism instead of whatever you used to do. A dynamic that has been so toxic to w…
What the ACLU does is inherently political, talking about basecamp and coinbase here doesn’t make much sense to me. The question facing the ACLU is should they be partisan (fight for the rights of just one side) or merely political (fight for all side’s rights, even the sides that you disagree with).
And becoming partisan isn't just a way of pushing for the core mission more/less effectively. It means dropping huge chunks of the core mission (rights for anyone you disagree with).
Free speech is table stakes for a free society. Those claiming otherwise are playing with fire.
Most societies function perfectly fine without a constitutional protection for speech. In fact a few countries rank better than the United States on press freedom without it.