Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Welcome, ACLU

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#821

Post by deeth_starr »

sidlls wrote: post #697
deeth_starr wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you google "black lives matter ACLU". They have fought data collection about BLM protesters as well as defended people unlawfully detained at protests. And we have been funding the ACLU individually. I like that YCombinator is now trying to help them as a org. This comment is unpopular because you're just being a troll. Edit: I get you are complaining about the recent swell of funding. And YCombinator proba…

What makes you think Hillary supported or supports Mexicans or Muslims? I mean, granted she used those groups as a foil to beat up on Trump with but as a rule her past actions (e.g. as Sec. Of State) indicate at best a casual (and in my view cruel) indifference to those communities.

OK. Are you saying Clinton = Trump? All I have to say here is I thought Gore = Bush. But 200k people died. So electing a president gets a little more nuanced.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#822

Post by grzm »

DashRattlesnake wrote: post #818
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They defend actual Nazis. That's about as right-leaning as you can possibly get.

Actually, I think a more telling test is "would they defend a Republican's civil rights (against liberals)?"

What would that meaningfully look like? Can you come up with an example? The majority of the ACLU cases are filed against a government or individual representing the government, so perhaps you can find one where it's against a Democratic administration or official.

https://www.aclu.org/defending-our-rights/court-battles

Can you see anything there that would be representative of what you're saying?

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#823

Post by grandalf »

bbctol wrote: post #718
alanh wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You used the passive voice, “the ACLU are being politicized right now as being anti-Trump.” The ACLU, in their official communications and advertisements, have been actively and explicitly anti-Trump. Witness their current 'pinned tweet' for example: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/825805289572151298 I don’t really mind that, but let’s not ignore that the ACLU intentionally earned their reputation as an opponent of t…

I would say the ACLU is by definition anti-government, though. Not in the sense that they want it destroyed, just in the sense that they'll always be the opposition to the executive branch. So they're "anti-Trump," but not in a way that's easily politicized; if any Democratic executives tried to punish people for being pro-Trump, the ACLU would be against them too.

> the ACLU is by definition anti-government

I'd rephrase that as "in favor of the rule of law". Governments break the law all the time and need some form of checks and balances to correct wrongdoing.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#824

Post by danielsju6 »

19guid wrote: post #707
danielsju6 wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refusal of service based race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation is not protected speech. It's discrimination. They gave up rights when they went into business.

I don't think refusal of service is itself protected speech either, but we're not talking about the government restricting protected speech. We're talking about the government compelling an individual to engage in protected speech, like taking a wedding photograph. > The U.S. Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the First Amendment protects an "individual freedom of mind"—e.g., (1943), which affirmed the right not…

Compelling a business, there's a big difference.

The government can't order you, as an individual, to bake someone a cake; but if you're a business discrimination is prohibited.

Engaging in commerce is a regulated activity per our Constitution.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#825

Post by toomanybeersies »

muninn_ wrote: post #41

Although I think the American Civil Liberties Union is incredibly valuable and I'm glad they have a lot more money now to fight for the American people, I'm questioning all of this. Where was the outpouring of funding when black people were being gunned down by cops from West Coast organizations? Where has YCombinator been as our own impoverished African-Americans are getting slaughtered in the streets of Chicago? Wh…

To the credit of Starbucks, who you didn't mention but could be criticised for the same reasons, they did implement a plan to hire 10,000 veterans in 2013 (https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/229828).

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#826

Post by sctb »

lol214365 wrote: post #720
wootness wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reasoning with people who don't use reason. Banning abortion would result in countless problems and if people aren't willing to do the research to understand that .... downvotes are indeed required.

"There is no reasoning with people who don't use reason. Banning slavery causes a lot of problems. Where are all these slaves going to live? Where are they going to work? Where are the 40 acres and a mule going to come from? What if they want to return to Africa? Educate yourself before you ban obviously immoral practices. Downvotes are indeed required." This is why you lost btw.

Please comment civilly (this kind of misquotation is not) and substantively or not at all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#827

Post by danielsju6 »

19guid wrote: post #761
literallycancer wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between the wedding photographer who won't take a picture of a gay couple, and a bar/shop owner with "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish" policy?

Serving drinks is not protected speech; taking a photograph is.

Being paid to take a photograph is different though. That's not speech, that's a professional service.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#828

Post by bjourne »

DashRattlesnake wrote: post #809
bjourne wrote: post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure you didn't tick the "Yes, send me information about related campaigns box"? Because this is what their privacy statement reads: "When we give you an opportunity to voluntarily submit information about yourself, we may give you the option of indicating that you permit us to share that data with other parties such as coalition partners or specific legislators. We will not share your data with such parties…

> Are you sure you didn't tick the "Yes, send me information about related campaigns box"? Because this is what their privacy statement reads: My donation happened more than 10 years ago (probably closer to 15), so who knows what their privacy stance was then . Quoting their current one certainly doesn't shed any light onto that. In any case, while the fact that they shared my info was annoying, it also wasn't the po…

It can be checked using the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20020802064342/http://www.aclu.o...

> However, the names and postal addresses of ACLU members, ... may be exchanged or rented to other organizations ... > members who join through the ACLU Freedom Network website are provided with an opportunity to opt out of this exchange.

That's from 2002 and they have similar paragraphs in all their updated privacy statements. But that's a moot point I guess, because your complaint wasn't that your data was shared.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#829

Post by danielsju6 »

gregw134 wrote: post #727
danielsju6 wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refusal of service based race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation is not protected speech. It's discrimination. They gave up rights when they went into business.

On the other hand, there's a significant number of religious people in the US that believe they can't ethically support an LGBT wedding by offering services as a photographer, baker, etc. There's a very real tension between the rights of LGBT people to not be discriminated against and the rights of religious business owners to act according to their conscience. It's a snaggly issue, but hearing this kind of rhetoric…

On the other hand... it's illegal.

They shouldn't be business owners if our social contract hurts their feelings. Commerce is a regulated activity.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#830

Post by egopulsus »

freehunter wrote: post #450
forgetsusername wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HackerNews loves to pat itself on the back about what a great community it is, but when it comes to politics (and other specific topics) the bullying and one-sidedness is as bad as anywhere on the internet. But this is exactly why half of America is in utter shock about what's happening: their discussion circles involve one "side", and the other isn't acceptable.

90% of what Trump and his supporters are saying truly is not acceptable, you're right. Banning people based on their religion, canceling visas that have already been granted, firing reasonable dissenters rather than working with them, discriminating against LGBTQ folks, destroying access to women's health care, those are all completely unacceptable ideas. It doesn't matter that some people believe in them, some peopl…

This comment precisely exemplifies what it's parent describes. One-sided self-righteous talking-point drivel. None of your points in the second sentence are based in reality. NONE. No one was banned by religion, green card holders and those with valid visas were let in. Trump came out last night and explicitly said he wants to protect lgbt -- he is the most pro-gay President let alone Republican in history yet the false narrative from the leftist media is contrarian.

I completely agree with the parent comment. Every single time I've seen a dissenting opinion on this site it is flagged (greys out the comment) into oblivion and downvoted to the bottom.

You're throwing out labels and name calling while reciting the same made-up garbage that led your party to lose, and will lead it to lose in 4 more year as well.

The left is NOT liberal, remember that. Classical Liberalism is dead, replaced by a faux-culture war fighting, race-baiting, self-righteous, entitled, and massively misguided maintstream media-driven movement that has completely gone off the rails.

Post reply on HN