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

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#901

Post by deeth_starr »

sidlls wrote: post #851
deeth_starr wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I'm saying the differences, especially on immigration, aren't that great. They're far more alike than not. And to see Hillary supporters suddenly take an active protest-level interest in politics just smacks of partisanship. Yes, I understand the argument is "so what if they're motivated by partisanship?" That's a facile argument, though, because movements like this require sincere dedication for the goal of the…

I'm still having a hard time.

Hillary never called for a ban on Muslims. Trump has many times. You can argue about the ban being a "muslim ban" or not, but the previous statement is fact.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#902

Post by josephagoss »

unethical_ban wrote: post #703
asveikau wrote: post #505

Pre-inauguration, discussion of Trump's immigration policies and their logical conclusion would have been shut down under the "no politics" rule. Seems it only takes ~10 days of this stuff being real for folks here to admit that politics affects everybody and is a valid topic of discussion.

It's allowed here now because banning foreign nationals from traveling to the US has an impact on industries that are associated with foreign workers. Say, IT, and engineering.

I think the point the OP was making (correct me if I am wrong) is that the banning of political discussion may have been a bad idea as it was obvious that this was going to happen.

The leading Republican candidate has been constantly talking about these types of bans yet discussion on HN was not allowed during a time where perhaps discussion could have prevented Trump gaining power.

Now we are in "cure" mode. It would have been better to prevent this from taking place.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#903

Post by jack9 »

baconner wrote: post #852
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 think it would be more accurate to say right now that Trump is anti ACLU and everything it stands for. They're the static object in this equation imo. They're not anti-Trump the person. They're against anyone who intends to ignore/damage civil liberties and Trump the candidate was pretty explicit about his thoughts there and is following through.

> I think it would be more accurate now that Trump is anti ACLU and everything it stands for.

That's less accurate. I don't think you understand what the ACLU "stands for", in context not in literal acronym. Not to say there isn't contention and opposition, but the hyperbole is not appreciated (e.g. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/lgbt-protections-trum...).

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#904

Post by mwfunk »

humanrebar wrote: post #873
Miner49er wrote: post #776

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not. That's a very different situation. Neo-nazis make a choice to be neo-nazis.

People don't pick whether God exists.

Of course they do. It's impossible to know whether or not God exists based on physical evidence; that's why religion is based on faith and not scientific research. People choose their religious beliefs, or (much more commonly) have them chosen for them. That's faith.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#905

Post by 19guid »

danielsju6 wrote: post #824
19guid wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The cases I listed above all involve sole proprietorships or closely-held companies, so compelling the business to engage in protected speech is tantamount to compelling the individual who owns the business to engage in protected speech.

I agree the states and Congress can regulate commerce, but those regulations are still subject to the First Amendment.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#906

Post by phil21 »

base698 wrote: post #868
dwaxe wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do people still not get this? The First Amendment is a limitation on the government of the United States. Period. It does not apply to other countries. It does not apply to private entities within the United States. It does not apply to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or any other social media.

Maybe it shouldn't be: "... a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself." --John Stuart Mill

Pretty much exactly this. If you don't have a practical right to exercise free speech, you effectively have lost the right in it's entirety.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#907

Post by 19guid »

lotu wrote: post #834
19guid wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Personally, I've always wondered if the people who don't want to make cakes for a gay wedding/provide flowers would be willing to subcontract that out to someone else. When you buy a cake you don't generally expect that specific person will be making that cake. This would allow them to not participate while at the same time protecting people from discrimination.

Alternatively, why doesn't the gay couple just go somewhere else? I would imagine that only a very small minority of bakers/photographers/florists have strong feelings on this issue, so it's not like it would be difficult to find equivalent service elsewhere.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#908

Post by refurb »

cle wrote: post #372
becarefulyo wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why it's even controversial to call this a Muslim ban. It's a ban on people from Muslim majority countries, except for religious minorities in those countries.

Because merely calling it a Muslim ban removes any plausible deniability and exposes the government to all kinds of legal challenges. If the government wants to do some bad or unethical, they won't be straight about it. They will use euphemisms and "newspeak" to disguise their intentions (e.g. "enhanced interrogation"). It's akin to parallel construction. Start with the party that is presumed guilty, then work backwa…

The fact remains that Jews or Christians from any of those seven countries are also banned.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#909

Post by grigjd3 »

josephagoss wrote: post #902
unethical_ban wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's allowed here now because banning foreign nationals from traveling to the US has an impact on industries that are associated with foreign workers. Say, IT, and engineering.

I think the point the OP was making (correct me if I am wrong) is that the banning of political discussion may have been a bad idea as it was obvious that this was going to happen. The leading Republican candidate has been constantly talking about these types of bans yet discussion on HN was not allowed during a time where perhaps discussion could have prevented Trump gaining power. Now we are in "cure" mode. It woul…

I suspect you dramatically overestimate the impact of the comment threads here.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#910

Post by orbitur »

dnautics wrote: post #839
danielsju6 wrote: post #829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You could make the exact same statement about Eric Garner: Eric Garner shouldn't be in the business of selling loose cigarettes, because our social contract prohibits that sort of activity. Commerce is a regulated activity, and Garner's death is an unfortunate but justifiable collateral damage of the police's clear duty to enforce the social contract.

> Garner's death is an unfortunate but justifiable collateral damage of the police's clear duty to enforce the social contract

No.

Post reply on HN