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

#521

Post by zaarn » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 1:30 PM UTC

tekknik wrote: post #520

zaarn wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oppressive is that which seeks removes your positive freedoms. Positive freedoms should be fairly uncontroversial, things like freedom of opinion, freedom to bodily autonomy, freedom to seek work, freedom to basic living conditions etc. To ensure they don't become politicized, any new positive freedom should require a 2/3rds approval by the government (and for the people in the US that means you need to figure out mu…

And you think this new gov department won’t become politicized? Whatever affiliation you are, imagine the opposite side running these offices. That is very scary. Then there’s the question about your so-called “nonpositive rights”. What does this include? What does it take to remove these? Your vision of the future here is terrifying, and I will personally fight against a truth dictator and the removal of rights with…

Positive and negative freedoms aren't something new and even the US has plenty of examples. They merely stipulate what the state has to do to ensure them. A positive freedom is one where the state has to act to preserve them. A negative freedom is one where the state has to not act to preserve them.

For example, owning property is a negative freedom, because the state must not act against your property to ensure this freedom.

Being free of violence is a positive freedom, as the state will have to act to ensure this freedom (by sending a police officer when you dial 911 for example). In this note, not being a victim of theft would be another positive freedom, as the state will act to prevent it or redress you as a victim.

Negative rights don't have to be removed, as you fear, they're simply rights that the state can passively guarantee without having to interfere. Generally, such negative rights/freedoms don't require protection from the state, (hence they're negative).

On the flipside, the positive rights and freedoms do need to be protected. You have a freedom of speech/opinion, which is positive in that the state should act that you can enjoy them. If it were a negative freedom, then they could be lost at the toss of a hat the next time a truth dictator comes to power, as they aren't required to be protected.

So by the very nature you say you fight the removal of these rights, you're already reinforcing that freedom of speech is a positive right. (I don't even get were truth dictator comes in?)

To point out, there is gov departments in a few countries that already do what I describe or very close to. While generally not perfect, they have been useful in digging out neonazi groups and fighting for your freedoms more than the armies of those countries.

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

#522

Post by api » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

zaarn wrote: post #470

api wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 po…

> Censorship of those who seek to oppress

I suppose one could argue that this amounts to a threat of violence, which is a form of limited speech. I am not free to make bodily threats of violence toward other named individuals. Threatening positive rights is threatening force, so it definitely gets at least near to that line.

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

#523

Post by pcvarmint » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 5:04 PM UTC

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-exp...

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disinte...

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/dont-wa...

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/22/aclus-david-cole-respon...

https://aclu.procon.org/did-you-know/

The Rutherford Institute is better than the ACLU today:

https://www.rutherford.org/

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

#524

Post by zaarn » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 5:39 PM UTC

api wrote: post #522

zaarn wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 po…

> Censorship of those who seek to oppress I suppose one could argue that this amounts to a threat of violence, which is a form of limited speech. I am not free to make bodily threats of violence toward other named individuals. Threatening positive rights is threatening force, so it definitely gets at least near to that line.

It doesn't have to be force at the start. If a politician were to run on the platform "no free speech for poor people", obviously they're not applying force or threatening it.

And even when elected, they threaten no force, they simply remove a right from the law.

At no point did they threaten force against poor people, only that their free speech be taken away. They got elected and are doing it non-violently.

Now poor people no longer have free speech.

Hence, either you must treat a threat against free speech as violence unconditionally of it's physical or psychological component (ie if it has a legal component) or you must acknowledge that free speech can be threatened by non-violent oppression.

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

#525

Post by ponow » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 6:41 PM UTC

peteretep wrote: post #440

ponow wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there should be any limitation on the right to freedom-of-speech except that strictly necessary to be compatible with other natural rights, like the right to your life. The classic ban on shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater can be justified entirely on this ground, because that utterance may cause people to be trampled when people panic. It is not clear that libel laws can be defended on similar…

> except that strictly necessary to be compatible with other natural rights Sure, and that’s exactly the basis for it in most rich free countries. You’ll find some social and historic wrinkles, but there’s very little you can’t say in Canada that you can say in America. The Canadians don’t make a whole dog and pony show over MY FREE SPEECH RIGHTS though, which is why Canadian politics is a little less completely beho…

The non-seriousness of Canadians about free speech is part of the reason I was happy to move to America. I used to defend hate speech laws (as in formal public debate), but in hindsight I was naive about putting the power to define hate speech in a political process. Such laws and their brethren in private organizations that nominally exist to promote public discourse, are used to silence opposition and therefore I find them repellent.

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

#526

Post by ponow » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 6:58 PM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #488

ponow wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it very easy to ignore the distinction between defending one's speech, and defending one's freedom-of-speech. ACLU's historical defense of freedom-of-speech is now regarded, very regrettably, as defense of the particular utterances being facilitated under that freedom. It's not unambiguously true that freedom-of-speech itself is substantially responsible for anyone's loss of other rights. We can't even have a…

> It's not unambiguously true that freedom-of-speech itself is substantially responsible for anyone's loss of other rights. It is unambiguously true that speech has caused it. Speech is the source of almost all political activity - guns rarely play a role.

The speech utterances are not transgressions of rights; it is the physical actions: assaults, lynchings, unequal imprisonment for identical crimes, etc. So riling up a bunch of people about how "Trump is a Nazi" ought not be a crime, but if someone immediately punched Trump after hearing that speech, then it was that punch that was the crime (violation of right to physical security / life of victim).

I'm assuming that you're not claiming anything like a natural right against exposure to offensive speech ("speech acts").

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

#527

Post by vimacs2 » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 7:23 PM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #491

vimacs2 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Civil rights are not granted from cancelling racists from exposing their hateful views online, it's from taking action against the racist systems and people in power that really impact their rights. This can take the form of both violent and non-violent struggle but the key word is struggle, not just speech or the curtailment of wrong speech.

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

#528

Post by coolgeek » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 8:48 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #293

xbar wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. We also need to keep soldiers from moving into our homes. More seriously, the ACLU has always faced an identity crisis and a consequent PR problem. If the ACLU embraced all civil liberties, wouldn't you expect more Bill-Of-Rights-T-Shirt wearers to be more supportive?

There used to be a grudging respect between the ACLU and the Federalist society. They disagreed on a lot, but not everything by a long shot. I saw ACLU officials speak at Federalist Society events and vice versa. RBG was famously friends with Scalia. But the current mood is absolutely moral certainty and off the charts self righteousness.

The goal of the Federalist Society is to replace every single member of the Judiciary with hand-picked candidates that strictly agree with a narrowly-defined canon of legal doctrine.

Their members may be less openly confrontational - more genteel - than some ACLU employees.

But if you think they're any less certain of their morality, or any less self-righteous than those ACLU employees, you're not seeing reality clearly.

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

#529

Post by wolverine876 » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #517

wolverine876 wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We should absolutely act now to ensure their right, including their free speech rights both now and into the future. Nice to hear, but how do you plan to do it? The rest of your comment ignores the problem, which is what has happened for generations.

I'm not ignoring the many problems marginalised groups face, I am simply addressing the current topic of conversation, free speech. Furthermore the ACLU isn't ignoring them, they have many excellent programs devoted to those issues. Talking about X doesn't imply ignoring Y, and I object to the blatantly hostile and manipulative language.

I don't see anything hostile or manipulative, but apologies if it seems that way.

> I'm not ignoring the many problems marginalised groups face, I am simply addressing the current topic of conversation,

That is an example of my point and (in my understanding) the point of the new 'movement' in the ACLU: Free speech is always the topic, and has been for generations, and the other civil rights of marginalized people are never the topic - or not enough to motivate anyone to solve the problems.

A sort of dramatic hypothesis: Free speech affects the people who sit at the table, so that's what they see and what they care about. The marginalized get table scraps.

I actually support the ACLU's 'old' stance on free speech, but that's not the topic of conversation IMHO.

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

#530

Post by wolverine876 » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 10:48 PM UTC

zpeti wrote: post #516

wolverine876 wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> political views I'm not talking about political views, but the civil rights of minorities. Calling civil rights 'political views' is an old, simple tactic of denying people's rights.

As soon as you make civil rights selective and for only certain people, it’s a political view. Either it’s civil rights for everyone or you are taking some sort of political stance. Whether that’s repressing a minority (past) or repressing a majority (current trend), it’s basically treating people unequally and it’s just as bad.

> As soon as you make civil rights selective and for only certain people ...

We agree (without getting into the weeds of the wording). My point is that the civil rights of marginalized people have long been highly 'selective'. The outrage when some rights of the majority are threatened is ironic, or something.

The majority usually doesn't need much help; look around, at successful people in almost every domain: white guys have tons of freedom, voice, opportunity, prosperity, safety, etc. Turn on the news and see who does the talking. I think concern for their rights is often (without talking about you in particular - I don't know you) cover for protecting their political and social power, protecting the established discriminatory system.

Civil rights are there for the vulnerable, who don't have power. 'Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.' People in the majority have rights, absolutely, but that's not a problem and it's a distraction from the serious issues.