Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

411–420 of 550 posts

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

#411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know free speech isn't the only civil liberty right?

The ACLU has been the premier organization fighting for free speech since its inception. This transformation is like the staff of the Muscular Dystrophy Association deciding it really ought to put its energy into fighting herpes. There’s nothing wrong with fighting herpes, but if staffers did that they’d be stealing the organization.

It's really more like the staff of an anti AIDs org trying to organize to give as many people AIDs as possible

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

#412
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure how I am supposed to get your identity from you providing a few published examples. The UNC Chapel Hill case is a bad example as Nikole Hannah-Jones engaged in divisive political activism in her role instead of academic rigor and is the brains behind major indoctrination efforts such as the 1619 project. Someone like her that teach students what to think instead of how should not get tenure, and does no…

Is discussion of Critical Race Theory an exercise of free speech?

She is free to continue doing activism and even continue her indoctrination efforts, she just can't expect to subvert university resources under tenure to achieve her activist goals. Note however that she was still offered an untenured position.

The importance of the point that her 1619 Project is not a serious attempt at historical understanding but a project within critical race Theory is beyond calculability. This is because the standard approach to challenging the 1619 Project’s bogus claims and attempts to roll itself out into our society and educational system is to challenge its historical legitimacy, and this is unfortunately a necessary part of engaging with it. The trouble is, because the 1619 Project neither is history nor claims to be history, this necessary activity is ultimately severely limited in its purposed utility.

Letting political activism like this into the universities therefore makes it harder to continue the Universitys original mission of continuing the liberal project of real knowledge seeking and research. Not everyone is fit for research and teaching, and you do have to protect the liberal system from efforts such as this for them to remain centers of knowledge production and truth seeking.

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

#413

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 thr…

What is this ‘revolution’ revolting against? All I see is a violent astroturfed corporate-funded government-supported mob demanding more wealth and freedom to be taken from the average individual, and given to the already most powerful. It doesn’t look like a revolution to me; it looks like the same old parasitism moving from host equilibrium to final harvest.

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

#414

Despite the sad loss of the ACLU as an institution that cares about civil liberties, we can remain hopeful due to other organizations like FIRE. https://www.thefire.org

FIRE is a joke if you care about bipartisanship. I know a lot of faculty who have been attacked or even fired for "left wing" research and FIRE hasn't spread a peep. Heck, I know people who've been put on blast by Hannity and received death threats from strangers and had their students call them slurs in legally protected channels just because the kids know they can. Silence from FIRE.

So you want a campus free speech organization to remove students’ freedom of speech???

Maybe you should re-read your comment a few times and think critically about it.

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

#415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. Again, what if a party or politician is a significant threat to civil rights, and necessary to the defense of those rights is the defeat of that party? I think the ACLU would be abandoning its duties if they stood helpless on principle. Proba…

No. Such considerations are out of scope when defending against infringement of civil liberties. Limits and exceptions are defined by law; the courts can and do enforce them.

The ACLU did not previously, and should not going forward, make value judgments about a defendant when deciding whether or not to take a case. Such value judgments run directly counter to the notion of equal rights under the law which is what they supposedly stand for. The ACLU should quite literally defend enemies of the state in the event that their civil rights are violated. If they are no longer willing or able to act in such a principled manner then we are in sore need of a replacement.

It is imperative that your legal rights not depend on others agreeing with or liking your views. You don't enjoy freedom of political speech "while saying the right things", you enjoy freedom of political speech "full stop".

(Do note that I have nothing at all against organizations that lobby for political change. The ACLU has historically done that as well! What set them apart was their commitment to defending the civil liberties of anyone and everyone, no matter what.)

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

#416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> he 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. The former is inconsistent with the latter. The preservation of any set of civil rights you might conceive of is, absolutely, a “political agenda”.

Yes, perhaps that was worded somewhat poorly. The ACLU certainly does lobby for political change as well! They did not historically, however, take into consideration the degree to which one's political agenda aligned with theirs when deciding whether to render aid in the defense of (legally guaranteed!) civil liberties.

It's also worth noting that the meaning of the word "political" is overloaded here. I did not use it in the same sense that you did - I hope that doesn't escape your notice. (Still though, a potentially ambiguous wording is nonetheless a shortcoming. It's on me to ensure that my communications are as clear as possible.)

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

#417
post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no offense but since when was rights based discourse ever the focus of the left I am old enough to remember times where at least some individual rights - speech, association, honest elections, equality in the eyes of the law for all people regardless of their identity, due process - were the causes that most of the left would support. There were people on the left that genuinely supported Civil Rights movement beca…

and I don't think that's even been sidelined to the degree that people argue (as the article points out the ACLU did take up numerous free speech issues including the NRA or even Trump's social media ban), but one thing ought to be recognized I think. There is a big difference however between the traditional old American left largely coming out of an academic, fairly elite milieu, and the much more diverse left today…

ACLU is just beginning its transformation. If I were asked 10 years ago "would ACLU take a free speech case?" I'd say "duh, it's ACLU, of course they would!". Now it's more like "depends on whose case it is and what Twitter thinks about it". What would happen in 10-15 years, when the old guard has retired? Who knows.

> For a lot of Asian working class people, proliferation of hate-speech is a very real threat today.

Anti-Asian hate speech has the history over a century long, at least, in America - sad, but true. It's not a new thing. And for all those years, Asian community managed to achieve huge success and become very prosperous, in fact so much that now the woke higher education institutions discriminate against this community (as they did against Jewish community years ago) - because they are too successful and make their formalistic "diversity" goals harder to achieve! Clearly, abandoning the ideals of the free speech is not necessary for the community to succeed, even in the presence of haters.

> there is a tension between formal equality in front of the law and genuine equality in the real world

No, there's no tension. Of course, the former does not guarantee the latter - it's only a necessary condition, but never a sufficient one. There's much more that a society needs to achieve equality of opportunity - if it's at all possible, and it will never achieve the equality of outcomes, of course. But the paradoxical conclusion the new left is making from this - completely common in human affairs - difference between the ideal and the worldly practice falling short of it - that the ideal has to be abandoned completely, since our inability to achieve it - even witnessing the huge progress that has been achieved - means it's a false ideal.

Even worse is that to replace this ideal, the old and tired ideas of racial division, segregation, racial hate and unequal treatment depending on skin color and ethnic identity, are unearthed, dusted off, and paraded as some kind of solution for inequality. Not only it could never work - forced inequality can't lead to equality - it is morally repugnant, and will cost us as a society a lot to drive those ghosts of the past back underground where they belong.

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

#418
post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 al…

> Your qualifying alecb's response as equivalent as cancellation

I am sorry, what? I never qualified that response as cancellation, you must be confused here. When I talked about cancel culture, I did not mean any of the discussion here - which is completely ok, and even the comments that I completely disagree with, are part of proper and normal discussion that I have no issue about at all. I will of course argue against ones that are wrong - but that's completely not what I meant by cancel culture, and I never said otherwise.

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

#419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The article uses charlottesville as an example where their actions to guarantee free speech ended up inciting violence and got someone killed. But that's always been the line right and hindsight is 20/20

> speech ... killed

I’m not familiar with the incident (save it, don’t care), but I can promise you that no honest coroner has ever given “free speech” as a cause of death.

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

#420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This said, European police generally gets away with a degree of prevarication that North Americans would find unconceivable. Not to be inflammatory, but North American police generally gets away with a degree of murder that Europeans find inconceivable.

Stop the straw man please. No one is going around killing citizens. Something like nine unarmed people per year are killed by US police out of 10 million interactions.

Nice statistic, but killings by police are 28 per million in the states versus 1.3 in Germany/France:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enfo...

Post reply on HN