Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis • Hacker News Board

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

#441

Post by vimacs2 » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 10:13 AM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #395

simonh wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The exact same restrictions on free speech disproportionately impact black activist groups who might not have the same corporate backing as many right wing think tanks or organisations.

The only thing restrictions on free speech incentivise is conformity to the ruling party's policies and there is an implicit assumption here that the democratic parties values are really the correct ones - which many people of colour will dispute.

The moment the Republicans take over (which they will inevitably considering how few campaign promises Biden has so far delivered), they will turn this on groups like BLM and the Antifa movement in general.

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

#442

Post by ponow » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 10:19 AM UTC

tomlockwood wrote: post #261

dmitrygr wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So by your logic, as long as at least one murderer in the world exists, we are not allowed to discuss any other topic, liberty, or important subject?

The ACLU still has free speech lawyers, and I supported the ACLU to the tune of 1k last year. But logically it follows that supporting the right of African Americans to survive encounters with police, or for Transgender people to have healthcare, increases the amount of free speech in the world by ensuring their voices can speak in it. A decrease in the survival of people is necessarily a decrease in free speech.

The right of people not engaged in violence to survive police encounters is a natural/inalienable right and a right to healthcare are not similar classes of rights. The former is a "negative right", or liberty, from harm by others (the police), whereas the latter is a "positive right", or entitlement/privilege, to goods & services provided by others.

The Bill of Rights was primarily all about liberties / negative rights, whereas since the 20th century people have started talking about entitlements as rights, when they're not, because that entitlements ultimately must be provided by others (primarily through taxes, but also in constraints/mandates on the behavior of others, e.g., limitations on striking by police or other services, the requirement to register in the draft / Selective Service for men, & eminent domain). Government entitlements typically involve the involuntary actions and compelled behavior of people.

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

#443

Post by himinlomax » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 10:20 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #434

himinlomax wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The term "well regulated" in the second amendment means something like "in good working order". I'm sorry, but this is just laughable on the face of it. You see, I'm French (as hinted by the mis-autocorrect of "too"), and "regulated" (well, "régulé") means the same in contemporary French as in contemporary English. And the meaning comes straight from Latin (regula: rule, law), probably by way of 1066 like most lega…

What do you think you're saying? The fact that a word has the same meaning in contemporary French that it does in contemporary English is not relevant to whether it had another meaning in the English of three hundred years ago. > I can't fail to notice you don't provide any proof for this improbable claim. > Another unsubstantiated claim, and just as improbable on the face of it. I'm not responsible for the failures…

> What do you think you're saying? The fact that a word has the same meaning in contemporary French that it does in contemporary English is not relevant to whether it had another meaning in the English of three hundred years ago.

It had that meaning a thousand years ago. Nah, 2000 years ago ("regula"). You're saying that it meant something for a millennium, started meaning something else, and then went back to the original meaning -- all in good time to support your opinion. How convenient. And without any evidence. The rest of what you quote supports my interpretation, not yours, which is just weird.

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

#444

Post by simonh » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 10:30 AM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #395

simonh wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We should absolutely act now to ensure their right, including their free speech rights both now and into the future. I do not see how handing veto power over free speech rights to gatekeepers advances that agenda.

Even if doing so might advance that agenda in the short term, and I don't think that's the case to any great degree, all it takes is a shift in who the gatekeepers are for this to go very wrong.

Just look at how many countries outlaw all kinds of speech on the basis of this or that religious group being offended by it. Who gets to represent marginalised groups and say what they are offended by? How many or what proportion of them need to be offended for it to count? It's a quagmire.

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

#445

Post by GoblinSlayer » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 10:32 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #433

smsm42 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me from late 1930s Germany and we'll discuss it.

Take it as presumed that a questioner has a direct link to the side of the state or the opposition, or both, of 1930s Germany, and answer the question rather than dodge it.

It's not 1930s Germany, throwing a firebomb at the cop car out of hysteria is not justified.

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

#446

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 10:33 AM UTC

tomlockwood wrote: post #380

hallway_monitor wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an intentionally antagonistic line of questioning. The answer has been given clearly. Freedom of speech is equally important as freedom of life. To put it bluntly, you'll have to kill me to silence me.

I'm exercising my ability to speak freely, and it would be impossible for me to be here, speaking, if I was dead. However, it would be possible for me to live without freedom of speech. To put it bluntly, without life, my freedom of speech is useless. Being alive gives me the ability to exercise my right to live, and my right to speak freely. Its two rights for the price of one! Clearly a better deal!

[deleted]

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

#447

Post by ponow » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 10:36 AM UTC

tomlockwood wrote: post #334

ravel-bar-foo wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, those life essentials are not required _before_ getting the right to freedom-of-speech. Indeed, freedom of speech may be essential to discussing how to arrange a society to enable the procurement of those things. Holding off freedom of speech until "basic needs" are met is, to me, a way to guarantee that a tyrant in a poor country stays in power.

Ultimately, those life necessities must be provided by oneself or by someone else, or some combination. Freedom of speech can allow for the best ways of providing these things to be selected. The alternative is that only the prevailing view is considered or approved, often leading to much worse provision of these necessities, including starvation (feudal systems, communism, warlords, etc.).

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

#448

Post by WalterBright » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 10:36 AM UTC

tomlockwood wrote: post #304

MikeUt wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is simple but inane, and implies losing the right to speech cannot be life-threatening. Then once conditions progress and the right to life is directly under attack, there is "no one allowed to speak for you".

It doesn't imply that at all.

History shows us it does. The people who used to run the ACLU were very well aware of that.

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

#449

Post by asabjorn » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 10:57 AM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #384

fallingknife wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teachers are employees, and freedom of speech has never been recognized in that context. For example, it would be kind of ridiculous if a science teacher was allowed to teach students flat earth theory because of freedom of speech. Outside of the classroom, which was the subject of the comment above, obviously it would be covered by the 1st amendment.

> Teachers are employees, and freedom of speech has never been recognized in that context. In college, it certainly has and is recognized. Tenure, in particular, is at least partly designed to protect professors' ability to research and speak, free of censorship or influence.

> In college, it certainly has and is recognized. Tenure, in particular, is at least partly designed to protect professors' ability to research and speak, free of censorship or influence.

It is true that tenure is there to protect professors engaging in the liberal project on unpopular topics. However, many do not pass the bar to receive tenure.

Nikole Hannah-Jones of the 1619 project is not engaging in the liberal project tenure seek to protect. I've said elsewhere in this thread that the goal the 1619 Project is not, and never was, to improve our historical understanding. Rather, its goal was always to perpetrate a critical historiography that muddles and besmirches it (i.e. problematize). This includes undermining trust in the liberal ideas of individualism and human universality, wherein people are judged by the contents of their character and recognized for their common humanity, and forwarding identity-group thinking that is more useful for (radical) identity politics.

She is therefore in direct opposition to the liberal mission of the universities, and she does not deserve to receive tenure protection to continue subverting resources intended to further the university liberal mission to what is useful for (radical) identity politics. Protecting the universities liberal environment agains activists like her is a necessary precondition for continuing the liberal project.

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

#450

Post by syshum » Mon, Jun 07, 2021, 10:57 AM UTC

agarden wrote: post #315

smsm42 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. H…

At the time of the constitution most policing was done by a local sheriff that was elected and did not really have a "dept", the sheriff would enlist local volunteers if there needed to be a police action that required more than him and a single deputy.

For this reason the ability to local community members to be armed was required as they needed to defend themselves as well as the local community when called upon by the sheriff.