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

281–290 of 550 posts

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

#281

Post by _ykl9 »

smsm42 wrote: post #238

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…

I don't think your conclusion that the majority of the left has adopted that position is founded, but I agree that this is a very interesting tension that you've perfectly described.

It's easy to be principled when it doesn't matter. To anyone who didn't live through it, the Nazis are an ancient demon that feels as relevant as Darth Vader or the Devil. What do I care if 4chan wants to name a soda "Hitler did nothing wrong" for the lols?

It's a lot harder when you perceive the speech that your principles would have you save to be a tangible threat to your safety. If some on the left (rightly or wrongly) see e.g. unmoderated alt-right social media activity as a risk factor for something bigger than 1/6, there would be an inherent tension between principles and pragmatism.

I'd be interested in seeing evidence as to whether the left has trended toward a particular side, but it's a shame that this has to become an issue in the first place.

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

#282

Post by tenebrisalietum »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #31

Free speech is table stakes for a free society. Those claiming otherwise are playing with fire.

Devil's Advocate: If I could trade quality UBI for some restrictions on speech I'd probably take the deal. The ability to tell a bad employer to go fuck himself/herself without the threat of homelessness, decent healthcare without bankruptcy, or a guarantee of affordable housing, is worth far more to me than the ability to spew racist or conspiratorial crap on forums, for example.

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

#283

Post by alecb »

smsm42 wrote: post #236
throwaway2162 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 defe…

Neither Rahman and Mattis worked for the ACLU and are having the book thrown at them (potentially 50+ years) for burning an empty NYPD van.

The rest of your comment is trite Taibbi-parroting about cancel culture.

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

#284

Post by teclordphrack2 »

bradleyjg wrote: post #277
Avshalom wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"he ACLU has been the premier organization fighting for free speech"

Just b/c the article says it does not make it so. The ACLU has a broad agenda of things they defend. "Civil Liberties" does not just mean speech.

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

#285

Post by mssundaram »

anitil wrote: post #276
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/

Thanks for sharing!

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

#286

Post by golemiprague »

twodai wrote: post #204
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?

Correct me if I'm incorrect but the idea of the hn forum is to discuss and share things which spark curiosity or something along those lines. I believe this article and conversation is incredibly curiosity inspiring. Also if hn was to deviate from that aim I think hn would really cease to be what it is.

Well almost any subject can spark curiosity but there is some understanding that it has to be within the realm of some technological aspects, otherwise we can all go to reddit. I am not saying it is against the rules to put such an article, just that we should be careful not to expand the net too much.

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

#287

Post by brigandish »

michaelt wrote: post #220
depaulagu wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, people fixate on free speech because no other right even makes sense if you don't have free expression. It's the foundation for our democratic society.

Eh, countries like Germany seem to have managed OK with banning nazi symbols - it hasn't proven to be a slippery slope leading to a ban on criticising the government, or anything like that.

It didn't work the first time[1]:

> Researching my book, I looked into what actually happened in the Weimar Republic. I found that, contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate.

and some are saying it's not working now[2]:

> For the Michalskis, all this was evidence that German society never truly reckoned with anti-Semitism after the war. Germany had restored synagogues and built memorials to the victims of the Holocaust, Wenzel said: “So for a lot of mainstream, middle-class people, that means: ‘We’ve done it. We dealt with anti-Semitism.’ But nobody really dealt with it within the families. The big, the hard, the painful questions were never asked.” In Wenzel’s view, the Muslim students who tormented his child were acting in an environment that was already suffused with native anti-Semitism. “A lot of conservative politicians now say, ‘Oh, the Muslims are importing their anti-Semitism to our wonderful, anti-anti-Semitic culture,’ ” he said. “That’s bull. They’re trying to politicize this.”

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-v...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/magazine/anti-semitism-ge...

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

#288

Post by skissane »

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…

That's a very extreme interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that it outlaws all limits on civilian weapons ownership except those which also apply to the military. Even among gun rights activists, few would go as far as you are going here.

The 2nd Amendment was originally only meant to apply to the federal government. Its original authors were happy for state and local government to regulate private firearms ownership, they just didn't want the federal government to be able to do it. At the time, various state and local laws existed restricting gun ownership, and the authors of the 2nd Amendment had no intention to disturb those laws. So they were a long way off the kind of gun rights absolutism that your views represent.

It was only in the 1920s that the US Supreme Court began to interpret the 14th Amendment to mean that the Bill of Rights applied to the states, an interpretation that the original authors of the 14th Amendment likely did not envision or intend. And it didn't apply that interpretation to the 2nd Amendment until 2010. It still hasn't to the 3rd or 7th Amendments, nor parts of the 5th or 6th.

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

#289

Post by bradleyjg »

teclordphrack2 wrote: post #284
bradleyjg wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"he ACLU has been the premier organization fighting for free speech" Just b/c the article says it does not make it so. The ACLU has a broad agenda of things they defend. "Civil Liberties" does not just mean speech.

This article is not the first time I’ve ever heard of the ACLU. I read dozens of their cases in law school and attended lectures and conferences they’ve organized. I’m well aware of their history.

It’s true that civil liberties means more than just free speech. They’ve also done very important work in defending the rights of the accused, for example.

What they never were, until the organization was stolen, was a generic left of center organization that advocated whatever happened to be popular among that sector of society regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with civil liberties, or indeed were outright opposed.

There’s always been ideologues that thought that anything and everything else should give way before their moral certainty about everything. It just unfortunate that they’ve destroyed an institution that stood up for specific meta-principles.

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

#290

Post by calcifer »

tzs wrote: post #267
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…

> On the other hand, those who approach civil liberties as a matter of principle face no such dilemma. ...until they remember that there are that there is more than one civil liberty, and more than one person who has civil liberties, and that sometimes one person exercising a particular civil liberty can prevent or conflict with another person exercising a different civil liberty. Once you are dealing with a society…

I don't see why that would be a dilemma for the civil-liberties-as-a-principle group. One can support the legal rights of both parties with opposing views. For example historically, the ACLU has defended both the NRA and the victims of policies that were funded by the NRA.
Post reply on HN