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

351–360 of 550 posts

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

#351

Post by ravel-bar-foo »

losvedir wrote: post #211
IshKebab wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I think it's interesting to think what people of today will be cancelled for. My best guesses are eating meat, and doing business with China.

Maybe keeping a pet? Probably carbon intensive things like taking an international flight for vacation.

I doubt it on pets. Cats serve the valuable social purpose of keeping mice in check, which reduces disease and limits damage to property. That the domestication of cats has persisted for so long is a testament to its antifragility. I could side with you on more exotic pets, however.

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

#352

Post by [deleted] »

batch12 wrote: post #343
tomlockwood wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Both or none. Death. Are you being pedantic to win an internet debate or really trying to understand other perspectives? Edit: The thing you keep missing though is that one cannot choose. I have the right by default. I can choose not to exercise my rights, but by living I have the right to speech.

[deleted]

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

#353

Post by batch12 »

tomlockwood wrote: post #345
batch12 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both or none. Death. Are you being pedantic to win an internet debate or really trying to understand other perspectives? Edit: The thing you keep missing though is that one cannot choose. I have the right by default. I can choose not to exercise my rights, but by living I have the right to speech.

If by living, you have the right, then you don't need to fight for it. You already have it.

> If by living, you have the right, then you don't need to fight for it. You already have it.

Exactly. I would not fight _for_ my right, but to protect the rights I already have. In the US, thats why articles in the bill of rights are phrased as they are. The first amendment doesn't say, "congress grants the right speak freely." Instead it is -- congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech. This is because I have the right already and the amendment is there to protect it.

Edit: typos, grammar, and clarification

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

#354

Post by Barrin92 »

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…

no offense but since when was rights based discourse ever the focus of the left? The left's self-declared purpose is advancing material interests of ordinary and marginalized people, using collective institutions like the state to make that happen.

It seems like you're complaining about the fact that the left is not conservative at heart, which is odd. It's not exactly some sort of hidden agenda that the point of the left is to win elections and wield executive power rather than obstructing the government and focusing solely on individual rights.

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

#355

Post by trainsplanes »

borepop wrote: post #323
koheripbal wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There are many ways this can occur. Think of intimidating, racist language being used to discourage minorities from voting, for example. Or a public official whose expression of obnoxious views about women prevents female employees from feeling secure in the workplace. The overall tone of the comments here seems to regard speech as an obvious, unadulterated good. I think the reality is actually much more complex.

Nobody here is pretending all speech is good.

The point many people here have is that if you only defend non-offensive speech, you’re not for freedom of speech at all. Nowhere on earth bans what they consider non-controversial, inoffensive speech.

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

#356

Post by splitstud »

alecb wrote: post #283
smsm42 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So if you even make an argument that sounds like one an unperson made, you are also an unperson?

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

#357

Post by bitwize »

rgbrenner wrote: post #90
nzrf wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much like they just stay out of 2nd amendment… https://www.aclu.org/blog/civil-liberties/mobilization/aclus... As I support their efforts generally. I find picking and choosing seems counter to the what protecting our civil liberties means in a whole.

Theyve said previously that the reason they mostly stay out of the 2nd amendment is that there's already a well funded organization that has made the 2nd their sole focus. The NRA's budget is larger than the ACLUs.. so it makes sense for them to prioritize other constitutional issues.

The NRA is bankrupt and about to be dissolved.

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

#358

Post by tomlockwood »

batch12 wrote: post #353
tomlockwood wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by living, you have the right, then you don't need to fight for it. You already have it.

> If by living, you have the right, then you don't need to fight for it. You already have it. Exactly. I would not fight _for_ my right, but to protect the rights I already have. In the US, thats why articles in the bill of rights are phrased as they are. The first amendment doesn't say, "congress grants the right speak freely." Instead it is -- congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech. This i…

Ok, would you be able to protect your right to free speech if you were dead? Is being alive a requirement for protecting your right to free speech?

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

#359

Post by blacksmith_tb »

leephillips wrote: post #179
billforsternz wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting people in prison for years

Letting people out of prison so they can kill some more.

Not very many of them[1], though?

1: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offen...

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

#360

Post by BurningFrog »

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?

Without free speech, I can be killed, and you'll never know it happened. Even if I in theory had a right to life.

In that sense all other rights depend of free speech.

Post reply on HN