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

391–400 of 550 posts

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

#391

Post by vmception »

TchoBeer wrote: post #295
vmception wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the most extreme proponents of the 2nd amendment have examples of it working The various police forces during the capital seige - in January, remember how that was this year - said they used less force because the participants were armed and knew they could shoot back Their whole thing is that they will make the state think twice, whereas the peaceful and unarmed protestors get knocked around with no recourse Wi…

Oh wow second amendment rights make it more easy for right wing extremists to overthrow our democracy? Surely the bastion of personal liberty!

And also left wing extremists, secessionists, centrists, people afraid of 5G

Americans have guns

Right wingers showed up with them and then said it was left wingers, who do also own them

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

#392

Post by stjohnswarts »

throwaway2162 wrote: post #113
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.)

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 seems more and more millenials and gen z care less about the idea of free speech that differs from theirs, just like the current GOP party.

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

#393

Post by wolverine876 »

xdennis wrote: post #307
koheripbal wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is made worse by the fact that they're partisan political. It would be somewhat better if they refused free speech cases from all extremist groups.

> This is made worse by the fact that they're partisan political.

What if the greatest threat to free speech is a political party? Should the ACLU allow that threat to advance unopposed so that the ACLU can claim to be non-partisan?

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

#394

Post by waddlesworth »

calcifer wrote: post #119
dale_glass wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I get from reading it. You could give that a try. Here's an interesting bit: > The A.C.L.U. of Virginia argued that this violated the free speech rights of the far-right groups and won, preserving the right for the group to parade downtown. With too few police officers who reacted too passively, the demonstration turned ugly and violent; in addition to fistfights, the far right loosed anti-Semitic and…

> At that point a lot of people started asking themselves "Are we really being a positive influence?". And a conflict began. Those people were clearly in the wrong though. After all, why join a civil liberties union if your support for said liberties is conditional on your whims?

No principle is beyond question. How can you be in the wrong for wanting to discuss the value of maintaining a position? Particularly in the face of such tragic circumstances.

Unwavering, unconditional support for an idea - any idea - seems like it could result in a bad time.

Personally, I'm not sure where I sit on this one, and I think there's a valuable, good-faith discussion to be had on whether free speech as we see it today, is actually a net good or not. It's an inherently complex question worthy of debate.

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

#395

Post by wolverine876 »

simonh wrote: post #361
koheripbal wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's evidence of a fundamental misunderstanding of what free speech is and why it's important at the highest levels. Free speech is the right to say things that others find offensive. If being offended is enough of an excuse to silence others, then anyone, at any time, can silence anyone else with impunity. If this power is only given to marginalised groups, then it becomes a matter of who defines marginalisation and…

I happen to favor the old interpretation of free speech, but I think there's a strong argument that the traditional approach of defending all free speech facilitates a system where black people and others have been denied their rights for generations, and that we must act now to ensure their rights - that waiting any more is criminal.

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

#396

Post by frumper »

b112 wrote: post #271
MattGaiser wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were fine with the court part. They just didn't think he should have representation as "he already had the power."

Well, they want punitive action against anyone doing the entirely legal, and correct thing by representing him, so they didn't want him having a fair day in court... Again, laws don't matter... the truth doesn't matter, have a trial of public option, and even make it hard to have his side heard. After all, they didn't want him to have a fair defense? Canadians pay too much attention to US politics. We're not perfect,…

So I looked up San Diego, not quite as big, but close in a liberal leaning state. Health and humans services get $2.7b vs $2.2b for public safety on a $7b total budget.

https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/openbudget.html

A smaller county I’m from in California the social services agency is about double the sheriffs dept.

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

#397

Post by wolverine876 »

One idea is that the generational change is like all generational political changes:

Unsatisfied with the world they've inherited, as they should be, the next generation wants revolution, not reform. They want to tear down the old system and build something new. They see the results of the old system and have little respect for its jaded, corrupt defenders.

The older people decry it, saying that the revolution is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, that reform is the best approach. The new movement responds that reform hasn't worked.

I think both sides have a point; the problem is winner-take-all outcomes for either side: Revolution does destroy, often more than it creates, and I think the principles of free speech must be preserved. But if you are satisfied with the old system, you are living a privileged life under a rock: Tens of millions or more in the U.S. alone are denied their rights, denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The old system has not delivered on its promises; reform has not delivered. And the new movement is right that older people are corrupt and jaded: I've seen myself that many of my peers, people who used to be honest and open, have aged to fit that description; it's worse than the younger people think.

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

#398

Post by phs318u »

smsm42 wrote: post #385
phs318u wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

smsm made a point that implied some facts. alecb rebutted those facts, added one of his own and made a critique on the rest of smsm's comment. Nowhere is that making smsm an "unperson". People are free to make a point. And others are free to critique that point. No one has the right to consequence/criticism-free speech.

There's a huge difference between "consequence of your speech is that you may be criticized and maybe shown you're wrong" and "consequence of your speech is that you will be fired from your job, physically attacked, denied access to business and services, and people who dare to support you will be attacked in a similar fashion". Pretending to not understand the difference and calling both "consequences" is plain disi…

> And no, none of the facts I stated were "rebutted". One incorrect comment was made about Rahman and Mattis, clearly quoting old (and also incorrect) press articles, which totally missed the point (I never claimed they work for ACLU), and I was then hilariously called "parroting Taibbi". That's not rebuttal.

A. I made no assertions as to who's statements were correct. Incorrect statements get made on the internet all the time. Incorrectness is clearly not a pre-requisite for making a comment or this discussion would be moot.

B. "That's not a rebuttal". Perhaps. But neither is it firing you from your job, physically attacking you, denying you access to business and services, and attacking those who support you. Your qualifying alecb's response as equivalent as cancellation and making you an "unperson" was clearly over the top.

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

#399

Post by peteretep »

stuart78 wrote: post #383
SECProto wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increased rights have consequences. Decreased rights have consequences. There are limits on rights everywhere, even the US. I think it's quite rational for people to favour one or another system or limitation. The first amendment in America protects speech (etc), while freedom of expression in Canada has stricter limits on speech w.r.t. hate speech. I'd argue that Canada's limits are more reasonable. I also accept th…

The issue is who gets to define 'hate' or any other limited category of speech. You might feel that Canada's limits are benevolent, but the existence of such laws codifies the avenue of their corruption. The risk is that such limits grow more and more restrictive until disagreement is unacceptable. Personally, I'll continue to defend the US model. Speech should have no legal limits, but that doesn't meant it doesn't…

> I'll continue to defend the US model. Speech should have no legal limits

And honestly this is the weirdest fucking thing: there’s _plenty_ of legal limits to free speech in the US, and yet there’s this loud section of Americans who believe the particular lines drawn in the US were etched in stone or something.

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

#400

Post by d110af5ccf »

wolverine876 wrote: post #393
xdennis wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is made worse by the fact that they're partisan political. It would be somewhat better if they refused free speech cases from all extremist groups.

> This is made worse by the fact that they're partisan political. What if the greatest threat to free speech is a political party? Should the ACLU allow that threat to advance unopposed so that the ACLU can claim to be non-partisan?

Yes, they should. The ACLU exists to defend civil rights regardless of how those rights might be used. They do not (or at least did not previously) exist in order to further a political agenda.

Your freedoms should _never_ be contingent on the expression (or lack thereof) of a particular political ideology.

Post reply on HN