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

Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 550 posts

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#171

Post by mLuby »

Syonyk wrote: post #44

I wish I'd taken a photo of the "survey" they sent me the other day. I've managed to get junk mail from both sides of the political spectrum now, which has been interesting (the conservative groups have had me on their mailing list forever, and I think a subscription to Harpers got me on the liberal groups). Unfortunately, other than the issues involved, I can't really tell a big difference between fundraising styles…

> just in case you're a drooling moron who doesn't know how to read a letter, the attached letter highlighting the supposed problems will reliably include at the bottom of the pages, "Over!" "Next page please!" "Flip over to continue reading!" and other insulting directions that more or less imply I don't know how to read a multi-page document.

I haven't drooled in a while, but I do actually appreciate those kinds of hints.

I agree with everything else you said though. It's hard to imagine that debasing the very concept of surveys will be a net positive for democracy.

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#172

Post by p1necone »

happytoexplain wrote: post #85
istorical wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a gay man, I would have been despicable for most of the past 100+ years, but the ACLU would have defended me anyway. That version of the ACLU no longer exists. This precise thing is why it's baffling that people can suggest cancel culture is only something to complain about if you've done / said something wrong. What is considered wrong does not always age well. Sometimes we ourselves are the baddies.

>people ... suggest cancel culture is only something to complain about if you've done / said something wrong This is an oversimplification. What you might be extrapolating from is the common sentiment that complaining about cancel culture is not substantive in cases where an individual appears to have done something wrong enough to justify the consequences. Yes, "wrong enough" is of varying subjectivity in each case,…

The whole concept of cancel culture seems to just be used as a way to silence legitimate criticism of others as far as I can see. I'm sure it meant something at one point, but now it's just silly.

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#173

Post by javagram »

sammalloy wrote: post #54

There's not a single word about Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in this article, and how defending the free speech of this organization set them on this downward trajectory.

Citizens United was about banning an organization from publishing a political attack video on Hillary Clinton.

If Citizens United had gone the other way, nothing would stop the government from banning books or social media posts as well. (During oral arguments before the Supreme Court, the government lawyer admitted they believed they could ban books and YouTube videos as well)

Citizens United is frequently misunderstood - the main problem with it is that because restrictions on recognized political party fundraising still remain on the books, political money ends up flooding into third party organizations that are less under control of the institutional party and are more likely to be extreme. Meanwhile political candidates can plausibly deny their connection to the actions of such super PACs. Making the playing field even again by allowing larger or unlimited direct donations to candidates or parties would be the way toward a just but also effective solution.

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#174

Post by _-david-_ »

1986 wrote: post #109
_-david-_ wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure why they became a weird mix of Russians and the KKK. They didn't. The NRA supports the rights of all individuals to own gubs. The KKK supports gun control to stop minorities from owning guns.

Then why was the NRA so silent about Philando Castile?

Because he was in possession of a controlled substance and a gun which is illegal.

Edit: not sure why I am being down voted but here is the statement https://mobile.twitter.com/DLoesch/status/895508311193382912

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#175

Post by klyrs »

asabjorn wrote: post #123
UncleMeat wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd reveal my identity. More broadly, these faculty members include researchers who work in: * climate science (death threats, widespread media attacks, attempts from politicians to cancel grants) * digital privacy (death threats) * history of policing (death threats, attacks from Hannity, attacks from the Hoover institute trying to prevent her thesis from being accepted) * history of women in medieval europe (see b…

I am not sure how I am supposed to get your identity from you providing a few published examples. The UNC Chapel Hill case is a bad example as Nikole Hannah-Jones engaged in divisive political activism in her role instead of academic rigor and is the brains behind major indoctrination efforts such as the 1619 project. Someone like her that teach students what to think instead of how should not get tenure, and does no…

Is discussion of Critical Race Theory an exercise of free speech?

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#176

Post by leephillips »

Natsu wrote: post #103
rgbrenner wrote: post #90

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

There have been others. I join in the disappointment at the sad turn the ACLU has taken. But they have been consistent in their opposition to no-fly lists, as an end-run around due process, and have applied the same argument against proposals to create similar no-gun lists. They are right in both cases.

Then there was this case, which was mainly 1st amendment, but with strong 2nd amendment ingredients:

https://lee-phillips.org/aclu2/

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#177

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

tux3 wrote: post #130
WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can enable showdead in your settings, and even low contrast messages can be spoken aloud by your friendly neighborhood TTS or pasted somewhere friendly for your reading displeasure. Not to say that ample downvotes don’t show some particular biases of the HN crowd, but it’s not like those comments disappear and you can make your own mind if they are low quality drivel or inconvenient dissent.

It is, quite literally, like comments disappear. That's intentional, not an exageration.

Well, if they did disappear completely, you'd have no way to retrieve their contents. They are extremely faded, true, but I've spent many of my childhood years watching cartoons on an old B&W television set with an extremely faded CRT, so I may be a bit desensitized.

I'm not overflowing with boundless adoration for the HN forums (I've heard someone calling them "like Reddit, but made of galaxy brains" and it made me laugh out loud) and feel that the overall crowd here does display certain biases and flaws (myself included, of course), and that it has a set of wrongthink taboos for which you can be downvoted into oblivion, but at least there is a setting which will show you the downvoted, flagged, and dead comments at all so you can see for yourself and make your own judgement if it was fair.

Unsurprisingly, most of the flagged/dead content is a sort of toilet humor, or some memespeak interjections devoid of content at all. Some messages are interesting, but they are few and far between. (I enjoy reading dead/flagged stuff nevertheless.)

There exist forums which moderate messages in a way that the inconvenient/wrongthink/irrelevant/taboo/spam content disappears along with all the replies, as if it never appeared there. I doubt you'd want it quite like that.

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#178

Post by LatteLazy »

toiletfuneral wrote: post #132
asabjorn wrote: post #108

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 does the term “woke” mean in this comment? You use it like it has a specific set of definitions I should know, but it mostly looks like a catch-all for any uncomfortable positions someone would rather not confront.

I am not the person you replied to (I am the root commentor). As he's been down voted he won't be able to reply for a while I think.

As it is, I think a good faith reading of his comment would just require woke to mean "people who expect their work to conform to their politics".

I worked at an investment bank recently, they just wanted to make money -> not woke. After that I worked at a brokerage, the CEO announced she wanted more female managers, not just because it would be profitable but for her political beliefs -> woke.

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#179

Post by leephillips »

billforsternz wrote: post #84
IshKebab wrote: post #66

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.

Putting people in prison for years

Letting people out of prison so they can kill some more.

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#180

Post by mindslight »

_-david-_ wrote: post #170
mindslight wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With this new trajectory, they could end up picking up the 2nd amendment by fighting for justice for Breonna Taylor. The NRA seems to have dropped the ball.

Unless I am confusing cases Breonna Taylor did not shoot at the police or even have a gun.

Taylor's boyfriend was defending his home against intruders, in line with his second amendment rights. Rather than backing off, the police used this as justification to escalate their attack. "No knock" warrants are fundamentally incompatible with an armed citizenry, and are therefore a 2A issue.
Post reply on HN