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

271–280 of 550 posts

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

#271

Post by b112 »

MattGaiser wrote: post #264
b112 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, considering how that trial ended up, with the women involved lying, colluding together on testimony, interacting with him after events, on and on... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Jian_Ghomeshi Well, it is an prime example of why we have trials.... instead of public opinion lynch mobs with a noose and tree. Frankly, those law students not wanting someone to have a fair day in court, should have been di…

They were fine with the court part. They just didn't think he should have representation as "he already had the power."

Well, they want punitive action against anyone doing the entirely legal, and correct thing by representing him, so they didn't want him having a fair day in court...

Again, laws don't matter... the truth doesn't matter, have a trial of public option, and even make it hard to have his side heard.

After all, they didn't want him to have a fair defense?

Canadians pay too much attention to US politics. We're not perfect, but for example "defund the police?

Look at a Toronto sized US city police, and social program budget. Now look at Toronto.

Surprise! Toronto's social programs almost rival the police budget. US city? Almost non-existent, and they get military surplus weaponry. No comparison. Not even remotely the same.

Yet Canucks run around, gibbering on about defund the police, when we've effectively always done that!

Perfect? No. But we should focus on our real issues, not transplant US issues here.

My point is, our courts are not US courts either.

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

#272

Post by MikeUt »

tomlockwood wrote: post #243
MikeUt wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is a more basic right: 1) Life 2) Free speech Which one do you feel precedes the other?

Ok, I'll play your game. Political enemies (in China, the USSR, other historic Eastern European states, Turkey.. maybe you'd prefer MLK as an example) are denied the right to life on the basis of their speech.

So if they fight for the right to not be sent to gulags (from which many did not return) on the basis of speech, you consider this an expression of "luxury"?

And do you think free speech might help fighting for their right to life? For example would BLM find fighting to end police killings of Black people easier, or harder, if they could be jailed for their advocacy?

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

#273

Post by bradleyjg »

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.

Lawyers sometimes have a duty of representation—-they can be appointed by a court, for example. People that are strictly unable to set aside their personal feelings in the name of professional responsibility are not fit to be admitted to the bar.

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

#274

Post by koheripbal »

beisner wrote: post #242
koheripbal wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the issue. They aren't ignoring Free Speech cases. They are actively fighting against them.

Sometimes rights conflict with one another.

Which civil right is diminished by someone's offensive speech?

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

#275

Post by _-david-_ »

a1369209993 wrote: post #214
_-david-_ wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> and a gun which is illegal. > not sure why I am being down voted Probably for stupid reasons, but a legitimate reason for downvoting you would be because that is no such thing as a gun which is illegal[0]; that's the whole point of the second amendment. 0: Except maybe something like a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) if applicable arms limitation treaties make it also illegal for the mi…

I meant having a controlled substance while also having a gun is illegal. I did not mean to suggest the gun was illegal. That was poor wording on my part.

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

#276

Post by anitil »

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.)

The poster (Katie Herzog) has a podcast 'Blocked and Reported' which you may find interesting [0]. It's broadly what I would consider in the small-el liberal bent.

[0] https://barpodcast.fireside.fm/

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

#277

Post by bradleyjg »

Avshalom wrote: post #49
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.)

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

The ACLU has been the premier organization fighting for free speech since its inception. This transformation is like the staff of the Muscular Dystrophy Association deciding it really ought to put its energy into fighting herpes. There’s nothing wrong with fighting herpes, but if staffers did that they’d be stealing the organization.

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

#278

Post by tomlockwood »

MikeUt wrote: post #272
tomlockwood wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a more basic right: 1) Life 2) Free speech Which one do you feel precedes the other?

Ok, I'll play your game. Political enemies (in China, the USSR, other historic Eastern European states, Turkey.. maybe you'd prefer MLK as an example) are denied the right to life on the basis of their speech. So if they fight for the right to not be sent to gulags (from which many did not return) on the basis of speech, you consider this an expression of "luxury"? And do you think free speech might help fighting for…

Are you playing my "game"? My question is pretty simple: what's a more fundamental right, life, or speech? Which one would you select if you could only select one? Which one is it possible to have without the other?

You simply cannot exercise free speech without life, you cannot fight for free speech if you are not alive. Free speech is totally dependent on existence.

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

#279

Post by bliteben »

arrosenberg wrote: post #153
syshum wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Further what the hell does a "collective right" even look like in the first place.... 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…

Riparian rights vary state by state, and can be attached to a piece of property and defended by the legacy of the property.

I am no expert in water rights at all, but this seems to be a pretty clumsy example.

I do get that you are trying to give an example of the "tragedy of the commons", but you are comparing civil liberties which while not ensconced as "inalienable rights", are supposed to be applied equally and non-revocable.

Almost every tragedy of the commons example I can think of is subject to government just doing its job and coming up with the best compromise (once they even realize it is a problem). In many cases what seems best for everyone today may change in the future.

How would you even apply this collective right to any other amendment from the Bill of Rights? Only give a fair trial if an entire community is arrested? Only stop unfair search and seizure if its for an entire town?

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

#280

Post by _-david-_ »

mindslight wrote: post #266
_-david-_ wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that, but Taylor was not accused of anything related to guns. I am not sure why the NRA should get involved with anything related to her. The charges against her boyfriend were dropped so they couldn't defend him if they wanted to. I do think if gun related charges are brought against him again the NRA should defend him.

Taylor was killed because her boyfriend exercised his second amendment rights. There are no charges to contest, because the police on the scene acted as judge, jury, and executioner. That there aren't charges against the extrajudicial killers ("murderers") to be litigated is exactly the problem. The NRA does plenty of activism that doesn't involve defending people against charges, but for this incident they've been s…

I am very much in favor of getting rid of no knock raids. I believe the NRA or other pro gun groups should defend any person who shoots cops who do no knock raids. If we are going to have no knock raids I believe they should be heavily restricted and need approval from the mayor, governor or president (depending on the law enforcement agency).

However, I do not believe a pro gun group should work to get rid of no knock raids. I think a more generalized civil liberty group should work on that. I am very much in favor of NRA working on 2nd amendment cases (and those related like 4th amendment cases where they are taking a person's gun). I am not sure what other activism you are talking about, but if it is not about guns I don't think the NRA should work on it.

Post reply on HN