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

491–500 of 550 posts

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

#491

Post by wolverine876 »

vimacs2 wrote: post #441
wolverine876 wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure, I agree, but what are you going to do about the civil rights of minorities? The current system isn't working. The problem is that people focus only on free-speech-for-all and ignore the enormous elephant in the room.

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

#492

Post by wolverine876 »

d110af5ccf wrote: post #415
wolverine876 wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

> No. Such considerations are out of scope when defending against infringement of civil liberties.

That merely ignores the problem: It's (arguably) necessary for defending civil liberties. The old formulation now fails to defend civil liberties (and arguably always has, for minorities).

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

#493

Post by wolverine876 »

asabjorn wrote: post #406
wolverine876 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> major indoctrination efforts such as the 1619 project You may believe the 1619 Project is a "major indoctrination effort" and that it lacks "academic rigor", but that's not established fact at all. Many people think highly of it and of her work - including her potential UNC professional colleagues, who wanted her there in a tenured job at an excellent university. It does represent a point of view that disagrees wit…

> You may believe the 1619 Project is a "major indoctrination effort" and that it lacks "academic rigor", but that's not established fact at all. Many people think highly of it and of her work - including her potential UNC professional colleagues, who wanted her there in a tenured job at an excellent university. It does represent a point of view that disagrees with established ones, but that's almost the point of aca…

> 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).

Can you support that assertion? I got the sense of your position before; my question is, what makes it true?

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

#494

Post by dillondoyle »

koheripbal wrote: post #468
dillondoyle wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm no arguing either way - though personally I lean towards unrestricted speech at all costs. But just giving the example in the article.

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

#495

Post by tomlockwood »

WalterBright wrote: post #484
tomlockwood wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's a more fundamental right, life, or speech? Could you help me understand how "history shows us" that this question implies that the loss of free speech can't be a threat to life?

Sure. Nobody dared speak up against the Holocaust. (Those that did were sent to a labor camp or had their heads sliced off.) Lack of free speech meant the Nazis could (and did) kill anyone for any reason with complete impunity. There was no right to life under Hitler. The first thing dictators do is remove free speech. This is what enables removing all the other rights at the dictator's whim, because then nobody can…

Still not sure how the question implied that the loss of the right to free speech can't threaten life.

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

#496

Post by ladyattis »

I would say that those who sign up to be part of the ACLU should know that they will inevitably have to defend the rights of people they find repugnant. As much as I don't like Nazis, I surely don't want the government to have the power to enact what they would if they were in power (censorship, genocide, etc). So having the ACLU being an aggressive opponent to the government's overreach on civil liberties is fine. I just wish more folks would recognize this.

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

#497

Post by dillondoyle »

jl2718 wrote: post #419
dillondoyle wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

charlottesville was a pretty consequential event politically, which also result in a death.

this is not the first dismissive comment I've had on HN of people showing a disregard for knowledge & literally not caring to know the issue they comment on. both instances i've participated in involved race which is telling to me imho. Seems to go against the ideals of this forum.

I'm no trying to argue either way just point out the example in the article. Personally I lean more towards free speech at all costs.

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

#498

Post by asabjorn »

wolverine876 wrote: post #493
asabjorn wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You may believe the 1619 Project is a "major indoctrination effort" and that it lacks "academic rigor", but that's not established fact at all. Many people think highly of it and of her work - including her potential UNC professional colleagues, who wanted her there in a tenured job at an excellent university. It does represent a point of view that disagrees with established ones, but that's almost the point of aca…

> 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). Can you support that assertion? I got the sense of your position before; my question is, what makes it true?

Practically speaking, the idea behind the 1619 project is to make it impossible to think of the American Revolution or Founding without also thinking of slavery and a tendentiously, unnecessarily exaggerated notion of its significance both then and ever since, up to the present moment (where critical race Theorists say it, in effect, is still going on in many respects). This is achieved by forcing everyone who encounters the 1619 Project into a polarizing debate that isn’t interested in truth or falsity but instead which side of the politics of “oppression” and “liberation from oppression” one is willing to take.

As critical theories are self-critical only in accepting critiques from critical theories (all other criticism is deemed an application of hegemonic power), it is not possible to defeat a critical theory with matters of facts. They can only be problematized more severely, which, while it defeats the specific critical theory, ultimately replaces it with a stronger critical theory. The most obvious way to undermine the 1619 Project in specific, then, is not to argue about matters of historical fact around the events of 1619, 1776, 1863, or any such period; it’s to point out that it erases the earlier and more severe suffering of American indigenous people who were genuinely enslaved and subjected to genocide by the Spanish starting almost a century earlier.

Again, it is not the matter of fact here that will overturn the 1619 Project (as being, itself, problematic). It is specifically that the 1619 Project did harm to indigenous peoples by erasing their allegedly earlier and more consequential suffering (Again, because it’s so difficult to remember about critical theories, truth and falsity do not matter in these analyses; it just has to be forwarded forcefully enough while appealing to the lived experience of suffering of subjugated indigenous people).

Critical theory projects like the 1619 project is therefore not a tool to improve our historical understanding, and is inherently in conflict with the liberal projects ways of finding truth.

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

#499

Post by [deleted] »

wolverine876 wrote: post #485
jl2718 wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Very open minded. The GP post describes it.

[deleted]

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

#500

Post by wolverine876 »

asabjorn wrote: post #498
wolverine876 wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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). Can you support that assertion? I got the sense of your position before; my question is, what makes it true?

Practically speaking, the idea behind the 1619 project is to make it impossible to think of the American Revolution or Founding without also thinking of slavery and a tendentiously, unnecessarily exaggerated notion of its significance both then and ever since, up to the present moment (where critical race Theorists say it, in effect, is still going on in many respects). This is achieved by forcing everyone who encoun…

I get the idea; what I'm asking is, can you support these claims? More claims are not support for prior claims.

> The most obvious way to undermine the 1619 Project in specific, then, is not to argue about matters of historical fact ...

Well that is a convenient formulation for someone who disagrees and has no facts.

Post reply on HN