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

221–230 of 550 posts

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

#221

Post by MikeUt »

tomlockwood wrote: post #124
Avshalom wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know free speech isn't the only civil liberty right?

It seems to me that certain people fixate on free speech because they have the luxury to be able to. It's like once they've progressed past a certain level of Maslow's hierarchy they forget about the previous levels. First step of the free speech agenda: Breathe.

Or maybe they don't have the luxury of ignoring free speech, that others take for granted.

Claiming a stance is a result of "luxury" is not the shortcut to win a debate that you imagine it to be.

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

#222

Post by a1369209993 »

wutbrodo wrote: post #19
creamytaco wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One has to wonder if the useful idiots (according to Lenin) that are propagating this wave of ideological censorship and intolerance realize what they are in for. The powers that be must surely be extremely pleased to see such hated - by corporate and financial kleptocracy - liberal bastions as free speech and open debate dismantled and destroyed. I fear it is already too late.

[flagged]

> In the meanwhile, for anyone who wasn't stupid enough to forget, the best you can do is try and stay out of the way.

This is indeed about the best plan I've been able to come up with. Based on history, I worry it's woefully insufficient.

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

#223

Post by krapp »

jetrink wrote: post #115
simonh wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvoting is a form of free speech too. You have the freedom to say what you like, but there’s no obligation on anyone else to listen to it or like it, or publish and distribute it.

However, in any community where the down vote is used for mere disagreement, there is no room for dissenting opinions. An open discourse requires that people are willing to listen to those whom they disagree with. Down voting liberally is counter to that principle.

People forget that Hacker News is explicitly not a forum for free speech or open discourse. It's a forum for curated speech, sometimes aggressively curated, preferring fewer comments of higher quality over more comments of lower quality, even at the cost of open discourse.

It gets on my nerves too but that's Chinatown, as it were.

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

#224

Post by busymom0 »

Relevant:

> ACLU Again Cowardly Abstains From an Online Censorship Controversy: The once-principled group issues P.R.-scripted excuses or engages in obfuscation to avoid taking stances that would offend its liberal donor base.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/aclu-again-cowardly-abstain...

Edit: HN always seems to downvote anything which doesn't go with the censorship of controversial view points.

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

#225

Post by tomerico »

p1necone wrote: post #172
happytoexplain wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Note how you have just did exactly what you criticized ( “silence legitimate criticism of others” by dismissing those that called out cancel culture)

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

#226

Post by a1369209993 »

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.

> What does the term "woke" mean in this comment?

Roughly speaking, it generally refers to a combination of progressive political goals with a you're-either-with-us-or-against-us intolerance of anyone who is neutral (or insufficiently supportive) toward those goals. I assume this is more or less what asabjorn meant.

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

#227

Post by koheripbal »

whymauri wrote: post #219
Avshalom wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know free speech isn't the only civil liberty right?

Yeah, this honestly seems like a nothingburger to me. They have institutional priorities right now for other civil liberties, and once they feel satisfied with progress there they'll probably re-invest resourced into their free speech cases to avoid churn or even grow that area. It's short term vs long term thinking and clearly they know way more about the Constitution and law than I do to identify major threats to l…

You're missing the issue.

They aren't ignoring Free Speech cases. They are actively fighting against them.

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

#228

Post by dmitrygr »

tomlockwood wrote: post #124
Avshalom wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know free speech isn't the only civil liberty right?

It seems to me that certain people fixate on free speech because they have the luxury to be able to. It's like once they've progressed past a certain level of Maslow's hierarchy they forget about the previous levels. First step of the free speech agenda: Breathe.

Or perhaps they come from a place where speech can get you jailed, and unlike you know what it is like to have no constitutional right to free speech? Perhaps they know the value of what you seem so eager to give up, because unlike you they've lived without it?

There are literally places in the world right now where wearing the wrong t-shirt color outside (Thailand, Belarus) Can get you jailed, tortured, or possibly killed.

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

#229

Post by akarma »

Applejinx wrote: post #196
yhoneycomb wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironic that there are so many deleted comments on a post about free speech

Not at all: functionally, there's a meta-gaming thing that goes on where 'free speech' is treated as sort of antifa Kryptonite. It's not being argued in good faith at all. It's a tactic. You'll find that the same people making a big noise about 'free speech' will do everything they possibly can to suppress and conceal the speech of those who are calling 'em out for arguing in bad faith… because they are arguing in ba…

If you're conspiratorial about everybody who supports free speech not really supporting free speech, and instead just saying it in bad faith(?), you're going to have a tough time with meaningful debate and enjoying HN. One of the core tenets is a belief in the principle of charity — assume the strongest interpretation of the commenter's argument, not the weakest.

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

#230

Post by a1369209993 »

lliamander wrote: post #92
this2shallPass wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation / explanation needed. ADL's stated mission is "To stop the defamation of the Jewish people, and to secure justice and fair treatment to all..." It seems like the ADL has legitimate work it can be doing, unless you think Jews and all people are treated fairly. I don't think you're saying that, and I do think you're saying it's not doing the work that it could be doing. Could you say more about that? "Of the 1…

ADL has engaged in lobbying for policies that unconstitutionally conflict with the first ammendment. Whatever their legitimate grievances, that's not an acceptable response.

> Whatever their legitimate grievances, [conflict with the first ammendment]'s not an acceptable response.

That's perfectly good reasoning, but:

> ADL has engaged in lobbying for policies that unconstitutionally conflict with the first ammendment.

as to your premises, again:

> > Citation / explanation needed.

Post reply on HN