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

231–240 of 550 posts

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

#231

Post by koheripbal »

throwaway2162 wrote: post #113
tpmx wrote: post #22

I like this idea: https://twitter.com/kittypurrzog/status/1401610476237197312 The ACLU should split into two groups: ACLU Sr, which fights for free speech rights, and ACLU Jr, which fights against them (Yes, I saw this when PG retweeted it.)

I wonder how large the generational divide is there. Are younger lawyers less likely to take cases of clients they deem detestable? The article alludes to some internal rift but the topic may deserve an article all on its own.

It doesn't seem like there's so much a rift as a complete change in policy.

Per the article, the old policy defending Free Speech was ...

> "we are committed to represent those whose views we regard as repugnant"

Whereas the new policy says...

> "lawyers should balance taking a free speech case representing right-wing groups whose “values are contrary to our values” against the potential such a case might give “offense to marginalized groups.” "

It's actually really sad. They've even explicitly paid for campaign ads for Democratic political candidates...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0aqKS3ihVM

It's really just the ACLU in name only. They've done what so many organizations have done, and sacrificed their principles to take sides in the GOP vs Dem battle. Shortsighted.

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

#232

Post by dale_glass »

refenestrator wrote: post #212
dale_glass wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't how most people actually work. Most of us see principles as a means to an end, even if we don't say so, or initially don't admit it. It's kind of a fairy tale of the kind Disney sells you: if you do the right thing, everything works out for the best. We like that idea because simplicity is appealing, but the real world is complicated and conflicts with such nice notions. In Disney movies when you do the ri…

Not sure if you're aware, but way back when the ACLU supported Nazis right to march on pragmatic as well as principled grounds. If WE are stopping the BAD GUYS from marching on OUR turf, then what precedent does that set for permitting a civil rights march in Selma?

The way I read that is that the pragmatic bit is the true reason, deep down.

Most of us aren't pure-logic Kantian robots. We have a goal in mind that's beyond simply being logically consistent. When we form an organization that sometimes defends the Nazis, we're not doing it because our only motivation is that some rights are absolutely inviolable no matter what. We do it for mostly pragmatic reasons, such as the one you've outlined. If the Nazis get a fair trial, then that helps ensure that we also do. If we make too bad of a law to use against the Nazis, we could end up as victims of it some day. Defending the Nazis is ultimately a means to the end of achieving a good society for us to live in.

That's why whenever the true end of doing such things starts being endangered, principles start faltering.

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

#233

Post by wearywanderer »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #162
wearywanderer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind,” That's nonsensical. If somebody leaves the First Amendment behind, they are leaving liberalism behind. If you do not support free speech, you simply are not liberal.

If you seek to use governance as a tool to strip citizens of their liberty you are demonstrably un-American. That doesn't stop many politicians from doing so and making it a foundation of their party's ideology.

Such politicians are not liberal, no matter which party they belong to.

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

#234

Post by PopePompus »

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…

It's particularly disheartening to get a letter like this from the office of a politician that you actually admire. Often it's not a fake survey, but rather an appeal to "fight voter suppression" (for the US left) or "defend our borders" (for the US right). Always ending by asking for money, of course. I wonder if the politicians are even aware their staffs are sending out spam mail like that, and making them seem like hucksters.

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

#235

Post by calcifer »

dale_glass wrote: post #169
calcifer wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But when people start dying that gets a lot harder to justify. Only for those who were unprincipled in the first place. Those who approach civil liberties from a point of subjective right vs wrong are doomed to failure - the moment a case comes up that clashes with their own viewpoints, they will abandon the liberties they claimed to defend. On the other hand, those who approach civil liberties as a matter of princ…

This isn't how most people actually work. Most of us see principles as a means to an end, even if we don't say so, or initially don't admit it. It's kind of a fairy tale of the kind Disney sells you: if you do the right thing, everything works out for the best. We like that idea because simplicity is appealing, but the real world is complicated and conflicts with such nice notions. In Disney movies when you do the ri…

> This isn't how most people actually work. Most of us see principles as a means to an end, even if we don't say so, or initially don't admit it.

I agree completely. This is exactly the reason why I believe most ACLU staff are thoroughly unqualified for the job. Defending civil liberties as a matter of principle is not something most people can do. That's perfectly fine. What annoys me is the hypocrisy of it. Don't believe in civil liberties for all? Fine, just don't pretend you do.

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

#236

Post by smsm42 »

throwaway2162 wrote: post #113
tpmx wrote: post #22

I like this idea: https://twitter.com/kittypurrzog/status/1401610476237197312 The ACLU should split into two groups: ACLU Sr, which fights for free speech rights, and ACLU Jr, which fights against them (Yes, I saw this when PG retweeted it.)

I wonder how large the generational divide is there. Are younger lawyers less likely to take cases of clients they deem detestable? The article alludes to some internal rift but the topic may deserve an article all on its own.

> Are younger lawyers less likely to take cases of clients they deem detestable

If only that. The younger lawyers would attack (sometimes physically, like with Molotov cocktails, as in the case of Urooj Rahman and Colinford Mattis) those they find detestable, and anybody in the law profession that dares to provide them with any service. Which once was considered a basic human right, but not anymore - now, if you defend the deplorables, you become unperson yourself.

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

#237

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway2162 wrote: post #113
tpmx wrote: post #22

I like this idea: https://twitter.com/kittypurrzog/status/1401610476237197312 The ACLU should split into two groups: ACLU Sr, which fights for free speech rights, and ACLU Jr, which fights against them (Yes, I saw this when PG retweeted it.)

I wonder how large the generational divide is there. Are younger lawyers less likely to take cases of clients they deem detestable? The article alludes to some internal rift but the topic may deserve an article all on its own.

[deleted]

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

#238

Post by smsm42 »

It's not ACLU's identity crisis, it's the Left's identity crisis. Civil rights are checks on government and institutional powers. When the left gained a massive institutional power and a lot of governmental power, it turned out it doesn't really like this power to be checked and challenged. It's one thing to fight for the free speech of people who are maybe abhorrent, but ultimately their speech won't change much, it's another thing when the speech is by your political rival, the fate of the power distribution in the nation depends on it, and you have all the tools to shut it down. It is hard to resist the temptation, and the Left didn't even try to resist it for long - in fact, they embraced it. Turns out, the hard question question wasn't "can you defend the Nazi's free speech", but "can you defend the Republican's free speech, if it could cost your favorite candidate the election?". Looks like the major part of the Left decided the right answer is "no", and winning is more important that preserving the liberties. After all, if the good guys are in power, who needs their powers to be checked? Only the bad guys.

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

#239

Post by throwaway0a5e »

bazooka_penguin wrote: post #217
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.

Didn't the NRA help form early gun control laws?

Yes but for all practical purposes it's not the same organization anymore.

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

#240

Post by api_or_ipa »

golemiprague wrote: post #164

As much as I like a good political debate I wish HN restrict itself to more tech related articles rather than this. Sometimes tech has some political aspecst or we discuss the politics of certain tech companies, but this has nothing to do with either tech or tech companies, so why is it even here?

I agree. Most of the comments are disappointingly poor and as a result there's little actual critical discussion.

I was really hoping to chime into a fruitful discussion about positive vs negative protection of the first amendment rights. 1A says "... Congress shall make no law ..." but California's Constitution (for example) goes farther to say "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right". This lead to the fascinating Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins Supreme Court case[0] which surfaced the careful distinction between the two senses of Free Speech and the government's obligation to protect it. Where does an org like ACLU stand on what precisely defines Free Speech, and, the responsibilities of each State, Federal Govt and NGO like itself to protect it?

IANAL, just someone who hoped we'd discuss things a bit more carefully on HN.

0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

Post reply on HN