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

Post by jetrink » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 1:07 AM UTC

dv_dt wrote: post #208

jetrink wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree. Downvoting for disagreement is a way of saving time in the discussion from reading lower value comments. To much low value content can mask more thoughtful discussion.

Post by MikeUt » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 1:10 AM UTC

tomlockwood wrote: post #278

MikeUt wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by chmod600 » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 1:17 AM UTC

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.

Post by xdennis » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 1:19 AM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #231

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.

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 “offen…

Post by a1369209993 » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 1:23 AM UTC

skissane wrote: post #288

a1369209993 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…