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

331–340 of 550 posts

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

#331

Post by tomlockwood »

batch12 wrote: post #328
tomlockwood wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Both are inalienable and therefore not granted to me by anyone. I have them by default. However, I would easily choose to risk my life to defend my right to speak.

Ok, but your existence precedes both your ability to speak and your ability to fight for your right to speak. Inalienable or no, both rights can be taken from you, but only one is a requirement for you to have the other. Existence is therefore a fundamental requirement for freedom of speech to exist. People who don't exist can neither speak nor fight for the right to speak.

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

#332

Post by Ar-Curunir »

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…

Boohoo muh NYPD police can

Tell me, when is property destruction justified, and when is it not? The USA was founded on the basis of property destruction; was that unjustified? When do you go from “freedom fighter” to terrorist?

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

#333

Post by ravel-bar-foo »

tomlockwood wrote: post #215
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.

No, without existence, there can be no democracy or democratic representation. Being allowed to exist is the most fundamental right.

If you don't exist you don't have rights to defend. Did you mean the right to life, as in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

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

#334

Post by tomlockwood »

ravel-bar-foo wrote: post #333
tomlockwood wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, without existence, there can be no democracy or democratic representation. Being allowed to exist is the most fundamental right.

If you don't exist you don't have rights to defend. Did you mean the right to life, as in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

That's precisely my point. Food, water, shelter, air, and good health, are all required before one can begin to pursue the right to free speech.

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

#335

Post by emmelaich »

From 1989[0], about Amnesty International

> O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20100715191034/http:/old.nationa...

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

#336

Post by batch12 »

tomlockwood wrote: post #331
batch12 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both are inalienable and therefore not granted to me by anyone. I have them by default. However, I would easily choose to risk my life to defend my right to speak.

Ok, but your existence precedes both your ability to speak and your ability to fight for your right to speak. Inalienable or no, both rights can be taken from you, but only one is a requirement for you to have the other. Existence is therefore a fundamental requirement for freedom of speech to exist. People who don't exist can neither speak nor fight for the right to speak.

You asked which would one select. I choose the right to exist with my rights intact. Personally, I feel that the alternative isn't life or an existence worth living.

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

#337

Post by this2shallPass »

xdennis wrote: post #326
this2shallPass wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation / explanation needed. ADL's stated mission is "To stop the defamation of the Jewish people, and to secure justice and fair treatment to all..." It seems like the ADL has legitimate work it can be doing, unless you think Jews and all people are treated fairly. I don't think you're saying that, and I do think you're saying it's not doing the work that it could be doing. Could you say more about that? "Of the 1…

The ADL has opposed the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. If you wouldn't take a Holocaust-denying organization seriously, you shouldn't take the ADL seriously.

It has, but it quite clearly recognizes it as genocide currently.

"So, let me be crystal clear: the first genocide of the 20th century is no different. What happened in the Ottoman Empire to the Armenians beginning in 1915 was genocide. The genocide began with the ruling government arresting and executing several hundred Armenian intellectuals. After that, Armenian families were removed from their homes and sent on death marches. The Armenian people were subjected to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre and starvation.

What happened to the Armenian people was unequivocally genocide.

We believe that remembering and educating about any genocide – Armenian, the Holocaust, Bosnia, Rwanda, and others is a necessary tool to prevent future tragedies."

https://www.adl.org/blog/adl-on-the-armenian-genocide

"In 2007, Abraham Foxman came under criticism for his stance on the Armenian genocide. ADL had previously described it as a "massacre" and an "atrocity", but not as a "genocide".[134] Foxman had earlier opposed calls for the US Government to recognise it as a "genocide".[135]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League#Armenia...

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

#338

Post by jb775 »

> One hears markedly less from the A.C.L.U. about free speech nowadays. Its annual reports from 2016 to 2019 highlight its role as a leader in the resistance against President Donald J. Trump. But the words “First Amendment” or “free speech” cannot be found.

I find it incredibly ignorant that this article (or anyone here for that matter) fails to mention the name George Soros. The dude literally did a hostile takeover of the ACLU a few years back in the form of overly-generous donations[1].

The ACLU isn't "facing an identity crisis", it's been strategically taken over to push a divide-and-conquer strategy within America. Notice how everything they do nowadays is focused around heated "us vs them" topics? This isn't a mistake, or a natural byproduct...it's 100% by design. Not really sure what the end-goal is, but the ACLU's current agenda (and most of George Soros funded organizations) is clearly to get everyone in America to hate each other.

[1] https://nonprofitquarterly.org/50-million-soros-grant-to-fun...

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

#339

Post by tomlockwood »

batch12 wrote: post #336
tomlockwood wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but your existence precedes both your ability to speak and your ability to fight for your right to speak. Inalienable or no, both rights can be taken from you, but only one is a requirement for you to have the other. Existence is therefore a fundamental requirement for freedom of speech to exist. People who don't exist can neither speak nor fight for the right to speak.

You asked which would one select. I choose the right to exist with my rights intact. Personally, I feel that the alternative isn't life or an existence worth living.

By choosing to "exist with your rights intact" you're choosing both, so you haven't answered the question. Which would you prefer if you could only have one: Life, or Freedom of Speech?

Could you explain to me how you'd exercise freedom of speech, while dead?

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

#340

Post by dv_dt »

jetrink wrote: post #301
dv_dt wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just because I don't agree with someone's perspective, doesn't inherently make it low value or not thoughtful. I find I often learn much from people I disagree with, even if their argument didn't change my mind.

No the disagreement doesn’t make it inherently make it low value, and I personally don’t downvote purely for disagreement, but for disagreement with argument methods wether I agree with the positions or not.
Post reply on HN