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

461–470 of 550 posts

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

#461

Post by [deleted] »

bradleyjg wrote: post #457
saila wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this take. Were Boomers, for example, adamant defenders of free speech (on the whole)? Gen X might be an exception, but it seems to me that all prior generations attempted to squelch speech and other rights more so than Gen Z and Millenials.

In the Boomer and GenX generations the right wing opposed free speech and the left wing fought for it. In Millennials and GenZ it’s the opposite. If you have a group that’s mixed in age but most made up of left of center people from their respective generations then you are likely to see all the would be censures in the younger half.

[deleted]

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

#462

Post by pharmakom »

AwaAwa wrote: post #191
pharmakom wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see how the message is anti-white. The claim seems to be that “free speech” has become something of a dog whistle. It’s certainly true where I am, and as a supporter of free speech I dislike the association!

If 'free speech' is a 'dog whistle' what would be a viable alternative to get the same ideal, without falling afoul of a shift in the 'dog whistle' goalpost?

It’s not as simple as that. You need to look at when someone comes out in support of free speech. Do they only use it as way to defend people who they support (for other reasons) and never in support of people they disagree with?

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

#463

Post by api »

6foot4_82iq wrote: post #203
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.

Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of Politics are enough to explain the downfall of ACLU: 1. Everyone is conservative about what they know best 2. Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing 3. The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies

I don't know about others but I'm totally the opposite of #1. The more I know about a domain the more I am willing to propose new ways of doing things in that domain. I am conservative about things I don't understand because I don't feel like I know enough to break the rules effectively.

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

#464

Post by randompwd »

mindslight wrote: post #180
_-david-_ wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I am confusing cases Breonna Taylor did not shoot at the police or even have a gun.

Taylor's boyfriend was defending his home against intruders, in line with his second amendment rights. Rather than backing off, the police used this as justification to escalate their attack. "No knock" warrants are fundamentally incompatible with an armed citizenry, and are therefore a 2A issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html:

> While the department had received court approval for a “no-knock” entry, the orders were changed before the raid to “knock and announce,” meaning that the police had to identify themselves.

> The officers have said they did announce themselves, but Mr. Walker said he did not hear anything.

Amazing how in 2021, with an abundant of factually checked information available, some HN commenters can use the internet to write a comment, but cannot use the internet to fact check their assertions before posting.

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

#465

Post by Cthulhu_ »

alfl wrote: post #319
devman0 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but there is also the Paradox of Tolerance to contend with where defending certain types of free speech may be undermining support for other civil liberties. I honestly think this rift is just the organization trying to figure out which side of the paradox of tolerance they are on and I don't think there is a single correct answer to it.

The "Paradox of Tolerance" is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

Paradoxical, isn't it?

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

#466

Post by Cthulhu_ »

tpmx wrote: post #127
simonh wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvoting is a form of free speech too. You have the freedom to say what you like, but there’s no obligation on anyone else to listen to it or like it, or publish and distribute it.

You're conflating downvoting with flagging. Enough flagging + default reader settings on HN = distributed ability to censor HN stories/comments. Of course this is all by design - the moderators have been clear that they're not optimizing for freedom of speech, but rather interesting discussions.

And that's their right. Freedom of speech is not a requirement for a platform, it mainly means you won't be arrested and punished for things you say. And if you do, that's where the ACLU steps in.

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

#467

Post by koheripbal »

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?

The irony of your comment is that in this case is that they openly support the party that is a danger to free speech.

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

#468

Post by koheripbal »

dillondoyle wrote: post #349
koheripbal wrote: post #274

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

If you're making the case that protests should not be allowed because sometimes violence occurs, then no protests would ever be allowed.

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

#469

Post by bigbillheck »

trabant00 wrote: post #429
wolverine876 wrote: post #397

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…

If we talk about revolution we could take a look at the French one and see how things can turn up. I see a lot of parallels in terms of terms/narrative: privilege, virtue, reactionaries.

> If we talk about revolution we could take a look at the French one and see how things can turn up.

It's never a mistake to get rid of hereditary monarchs.

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

#470

Post by zaarn »

api wrote: post #460
saila wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this take. Were Boomers, for example, adamant defenders of free speech (on the whole)? Gen X might be an exception, but it seems to me that all prior generations attempted to squelch speech and other rights more so than Gen Z and Millenials.

The change many people are noting is that opposition to free speech used to be largely confined to the religious right. It's now much more broad. I think part of it is the rise of online echo chambers. People act like the media they consume, and latter generations grew up with online circle jerks being the norm. Another factor is the rise of so much bad faith disinformation coupled with the extreme virality of bullsh…

I think the answer is to view Free Speech as a positive right. Ie, something the state guarantees you have. As a logical consequence, the state must then also fight those who actively oppose you having the right to speak freely. Or any of your other rights. Those who seek to destroy your positive freedoms should have them taken away. Similarly, not being discriminated based on skin color or sex or gender is also a positive right in my view, so anyone who discriminates based on those categories should similarly be punished, otherwise their intolerance propagates.

Censorship of those who seek to oppress is necessary to require freedom (or to put it another way, the paradox of intolerance is that you must be intolerant of those who are intolerant, to guarantee that maximum tolerance is not only possible but guaranteed over a long time frame).

On the note of meme machines, I always liked to think that Memes ought to be studied in a university course, Memetics could become a serious field of study.

Post reply on HN