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

311–320 of 550 posts

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

#311

Post by UncleMeat »

fallingknife wrote: post #166
UncleMeat wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd reveal my identity. More broadly, these faculty members include researchers who work in: * climate science (death threats, widespread media attacks, attempts from politicians to cancel grants) * digital privacy (death threats) * history of policing (death threats, attacks from Hannity, attacks from the Hoover institute trying to prevent her thesis from being accepted) * history of women in medieval europe (see b…

How would FIRE defend these people from these things. Death threats are already illegal, and a police issue. The rest of what you are describing sounds like things that are protected by the first amendment rights of those people / groups who disagree with the conclusions of the researchers.

You don't think people having their careers threatened for their research is the sort of thing FIRE would have in their wheelhouse if it were a conservative?

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

#312

Post by oogabooga123 »

hayst4ck wrote: post #206
slowmovintarget wrote: post #31

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

Let's substitute into your sentence, a statement I feel is equivalent (please let me know if you think it's an unfair characterization): "Any government regulation of speech or published material is destructive to free society." Hopefully you immediately think of exceptions: illicit pornography, fire in a theater, ingredient labels/active ingredient listings, directly false marketing, misrepresenting contracts, direc…

> Reasonable people can come to different conclusions on what it means for speech to be "free", what counts as speech, what context around the speech matters, and what entities should get "free speech" protection.

This is why it is encoded as an absolute, so that one’s perspective on what is reasonable or not is irrelevant. If speech causes harm that person can be sued for harm in a civil case. But the government shall not make any law infringing on the right to free speech.

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

#313

Post by peteretep »

vageli wrote: post #300
peteretep wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America is a weird outlier in lifting worship of freedom of speech far far beyond where other rich, free countries do, so that’s not all that surprising.

It is bizzare to advocate for fewer rights.

Sounds like you’re advocating for removal of all laws?

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

#315

Post by agarden »

smsm42 wrote: post #260
thaumasiotes wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they? That would imply a model where the neighborhood watch is free (encouraged, even!) to own guns. My sense is that the collective rights people believe the police should be allowed to own guns, but certainly not local volunteers.

The design purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the people from government impositions. Do you think that people who wrote it, with that purpose in their minds, were worried that the State would ban their own State Police from carrying firearms, and that's what they should prevent? How would that even look like - the Government will issue an edict that no Government employee is allowed to carry firearms, even…

The overriding concern of the constitution is that the federal government not tromp all over the rights of the States. It would not be reasonable for the constitution to have provisions to secure the right of the federal government to arm its police, but it does seem reasonable to me to have provisions to ensure that the federal government does not interfere with the right of the several States to arm their police.

However, multiple states specify in their constitutions who comprises their militias. In Virginia, for example, it is "composed of the body of the people." In Illinois, "The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law." Given such constitutional provisions, it seems unreasonable to think that police were in view when speaking of a "well-regulated militia."

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

#316

Post by devman0 »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #31

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

True, but there is also the Paradox of Tolerance to contend with where defending certain types of free speech may be undermining support for other civil liberties. I honestly think this rift is just the organization trying to figure out which side of the paradox of tolerance they are on and I don't think there is a single correct answer to it.

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

#317

Post by igravious »

hayst4ck wrote: post #206
slowmovintarget wrote: post #31

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

Let's substitute into your sentence, a statement I feel is equivalent (please let me know if you think it's an unfair characterization): "Any government regulation of speech or published material is destructive to free society." Hopefully you immediately think of exceptions: illicit pornography, fire in a theater, ingredient labels/active ingredient listings, directly false marketing, misrepresenting contracts, direc…

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

>> Referring to free speech in indirect terms creates a problem, because it denies the grey. Free speech arguments are all about determining the correct gradient of grey for society. Being able to identify and understand grey area is a strong signal of being informed. The grey area is why people who are knowledgeable are unsure and people who know nothing are confident. One sees complexities, the other is blind to them.

"Free speech is table stakes for a free society" is not code for "I believe every entity should have the inviolable right to say whatever they want whenever they want." – I interpret it to mean "A society can't be free unless one of its founding principles is freedom of expression." Another sentiment it expresses is, "we should start from the position that what happens to be expressed is allowable unless it falls under a category where we deem it to be curtailed – versus – speech is strictly regulated, it's a privilege rather than a right, we need to explicitly enumerate the areas where it is unregulated". You're not interpreting what they said charitably in my opinion. And saying "You know things aren't black or white, they're grey" is rather pointless a lot of the time in because you can just counter the supposed argument without the additional lecturing meta-observation which to be honest comes across as kind of condescending to my ears.

Lastly – it's not some massive revelation that there are limitations to freedom of expression:

“Freedom of speech is not regarded as absolute by some with most legal systems generally setting limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other rights and protections, such as in the cases of libel, slander, pornography, obscenity, fighting words, and intellectual property.

Some limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction, and others may occur through social disapprobation.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitation

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

#318

Post by thaumasiotes »

smsm42 wrote: post #260
thaumasiotes wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they? That would imply a model where the neighborhood watch is free (encouraged, even!) to own guns. My sense is that the collective rights people believe the police should be allowed to own guns, but certainly not local volunteers.

The design purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the people from government impositions. Do you think that people who wrote it, with that purpose in their minds, were worried that the State would ban their own State Police from carrying firearms, and that's what they should prevent? How would that even look like - the Government will issue an edict that no Government employee is allowed to carry firearms, even…

I'm not sure why you replied to me, but to be more clear:

I'm saying that the second-amendment-means-collective-rights people are not concerned with what the second amendment said or with what it was meant to do. I am saying that their concern is preventing people from having guns, and their criteria for making an argument are, first, can this argument be used to prevent people from having guns, and, second, can it be connected -- however tenuously -- to the raw text of the second amendment. The goal is repeal-through-motivated-interpretation.

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

#319

Post by alfl »

devman0 wrote: post #316
slowmovintarget wrote: post #31

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

True, but there is also the Paradox of Tolerance to contend with where defending certain types of free speech may be undermining support for other civil liberties. I honestly think this rift is just the organization trying to figure out which side of the paradox of tolerance they are on and I don't think there is a single correct answer to it.

The "Paradox of Tolerance" is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

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

#320

Post by exporectomy »

Since the organization doesn't take responsibility for the "consumption of free speech" by its staff under its name on Twitter, perhaps they should use two Twitter accounts - one for uncensored staff tweets and one for official statements that ACLU stands behind.
Post reply on HN