The ACLU Has Lost Its Way

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/aclu-johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial/629808/

by tysone • 4 years ago

764 810 4 years ago

Glad someone else noticed this. The ACLU has worked against several causes (such as freedom of the press and free speech) that it would have supported once upon a time. The question is why. Possibilities I can think of are: (A) it's become controlled opposition, the leaders are secretly libertarians (unlikely) (B) it's become bloated with bureaucrats who just want to collect a paycheck and are guided by trails of money (meh) (C) It's become bloated with trend-chasers who are passionate about the latest cause de jure, and don't think about or care about other causes (D) the organization is holding on for dear life, donations are down, and they can't afford to be picky with what causes they support, whatever keeps the justice ship afloat

lliamander3• 4 years ago

it's become controlled opposition, the leaders are secretly libertarians (unlikely)

Hold up. Are you suggesting that libertarians are against free speech and freedom of the press?

lukas0993• 4 years ago

Right, hasn't the ACLU always been a libertarian organization?

function_seven• 4 years ago

No, the phrase "controlled opposition" implies that they're for these ideals, and take up losing cases against them as a means of advancing them.

It's not very plausible, but it's a theory :)

For example, if I—a dyed-in-the-wool free speech advocate—bring a weak case against someone who wrote something unpopular, I can control the opposition within the case and ensure that I lose (and therefore my ideals are upheld).

Again, not very plausible with respect to the ACLU's drift, but that's what parent seems to be suggesting as one of the possibilities.

chromaton• 4 years ago

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy suggests something like B.

drpgq• 4 years ago

There's also one of Robert Conquest's laws:

Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

AbrahamParangi• 4 years ago

The principles on which the organization was founded are not (at least not to the same degree) the principles of the people who now comprise it. Leaving aside why this is the case, I think it is clear that the ACLU trades on a reputation that they no longer entirely deserve.

dehrmann• 4 years ago

Censorship has become popular on both sides of the aisle as of late. The obvious difference is they disagree about what should be censored.

Loughla3• 4 years ago

I do genuinely wonder what it is in humans that makes them seem to inherently want a 'strong' (read: a flavor of fascist but with views that agree with mine personally) leader.

juve1996• 4 years ago

Of course - when everything is made into this "battle for America", everything matters, censorship becomes "justified" and the further the division grows.

moduspol6• 4 years ago

Well, and they also disagree on where the censorship should occur.

One side is trying to prevent kindergarteners from having teachers discuss gender and sexual identity issues with them. The other is openly claiming free speech is problematic on widely available public discussion platforms, with thought leaders claiming that strict moderation of these platforms is necessary to preserve democracy.

But yes, arguably both sides are supporting some degree of censorship.

baggy_trough• 4 years ago

E) The organization has become dominated by young progressives that no longer believe in core civil liberties.

clairity• 4 years ago

my impression is that some chapters/local offices are more focused on traditional civil liberties than others. but fashion is oh-so-hard to resist, especially in places like CA or TX that see themselves as being at the forefront of culture.

side note: "de jure" (by law) should be "du jour" (of the day). i just used this phrase in another post, a funny little coinky-dink (coincidence).

benmmurphy2• 4 years ago

This is just Conquest's second law in action:

'Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.'

notacoward3• 4 years ago

Are you sure it's not just that they seem left-wing as the actual right wing continues to move further right?

cameldrv• 4 years ago

IMO the answer as to why is that Ira Glasser was replaced by Anthony Romero as executive director in 2001, and Romero substantially reoriented the organization.

finiteseries• 4 years ago

Core:

…since Trump’s election, according to The New York Times, the organization’s annual budget has grown threefold and its lawyer staff has doubled—but only four of its attorneys specialize in free-speech issues, a number that has not changed in a decade.

Instead, the ACLU has expanded its services—and filled its coffers—as it takes partisan stances or embraces dubious causes. Meanwhile, when it comes to the red-hot culture-war issues squarely within its wheelhouse, such as the right to free, albeit hateful, speech on campus, the ACLU has stayed largely on the sidelines.

Clubber5• 4 years ago

It seems our corrupt political class has rotted one of our most venerable institutions.

Those who want to be rich, however, fall into temptation and become ensnared by many foolish and harmful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. By craving it, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows. But you, O man of God, flee from these things and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance, and gentleness.

I'm not an overly religious person, but this seems to ring true as much today as it ever has.

colpabar18• 4 years ago

I think it's more than just the political class. It seems like the entirety of american culture revolves around the idea that everyone should want to get rich by any means necessary.

nullc• 4 years ago

ACLU mostly killed itself through a disastrous mishandling of succession.

megaman8212• 4 years ago

I was a long-time ACLU supporter until a couple of years when they pivoted away from their free-speech mission. Is there any organization that carries that mantle now?

The Trump era really broke something in people's brains. Politics started invading everywhere at a level much greater than had ever existed before. I don't go to work, watch sports, or share pictures with the intent to engage in politics.

brightball4• 4 years ago

EFF seems to be the closest thing these days.

Jiro• 4 years ago

The EFF wanted to kick Richard Stallman out of the FSF based on fake sexual harassment accusations. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-...

colpabar18• 4 years ago

The Trump era really broke something in people's brains.

The mainstream media did a great job of outraging liberals because whenever trump said anything even remotely controversial, it was covered nonstop until he said the next thing. I think a lot of people ended up being outraged for 5 straight years, and came to the conclusion that the idea of free speech is "a danger to our democracy".

chaosharmonic• 4 years ago

The mainstream media did a great job of outraging liberals because whenever trump said anything even remotely controversial, it was covered nonstop until he said the next thing.

To be fair, I bet you could measure the average interval of those events in hours.

djmips2• 4 years ago

You are getting downvoted but I wonder why. It seems quite plausible what you are suggesting.

xboxnolifes2• 4 years ago

While 2016-2020 did seem particularly crazy in how every little thing got outrage coverage, I remember similar things from Obama's presidency. Things like the week long outrage over him asking for dijon mustard on his burger. I also felt a lot of parallels between Trump and his tax returns / ties with Russia and Obama with his citizenship conspiracies/outrage.

I don't know if recency bias plays into the Trump stuff feeling way more covered, or if it actually was, but I'm not sure media did particularly more this time around compared to last. Maybe it was just who the target audience for outrage was this time, instead of the amount of coverage.

Not really sure of my point, but food for thought to the lurkers I guess.

brightball4• 4 years ago

There were times when that was going on that I honestly wondered whether Trump was a genius. I can't thing of anything he did from a legislative perspective that was really problematic but he exerted almost total control of the media cycle 140 characters at a time.

jandrese5• 4 years ago

whenever trump said anything even remotely controversial, it was covered nonstop until he said the next thing.

Which was typically the next day. Trying to follow the Trump White House was exhausting.

Trump knew how to play the media like a fiddle. Say something outrageous, get loads of coverage, before anybody has time to really think about it or offer rebuttals he says something else outrageous and the first statement is instantly old news and forgotten.

News organizations made huge profits while Trump was in office, and their ratings have slipped considerably since electing President Biden and especially since Trump was kicked off of Twitter.

dotnet00• 4 years ago

Makes me really miss the days when the biggest outrage in media was which flavor of ice cream Obama liked. It felt like people were a lot more open to just laughing at things back then. Now so much political discourse is about calling the opposition evil in some way.

Could also just be the fact that I was a young teen then with little care for the world beyond school and friends.

titzer3• 4 years ago

It was an intentional distraction from the real story, which was the vast theft of trillions of dollars through bullshit tax cuts and pointed neglect for the key things that keep society functioning, like boring stuff--infrastructure, education, generational investments, rule of law, international politics, energy policy, environmental issues, etc. Nope, the rage grabbed eyeballs. Eyeballs meant ads. Ads meant dollars. Dollars meant kaching for the media powers. And the stock market! So much shareholder value!

mlindner5• 4 years ago

I'd really love an answer to this question myself as I was similiarly a moderate supporter of the ACLU. Also I completely agree on your thoughts on the Trump era.

janeerie• 4 years ago

Within the sphere of education, FIRE (https://www.thefire.org/) is pursuing this mission.

puffoflogic4• 4 years ago

Is there any organization that carries that mantle now?

It depends on whether you're willing to support an organization which also cares about other rights too. If you can stomach the defense of property rights, ij.org and pacificlegal.org both defend free speech rights alongside other rights.

megaman8212• 4 years ago

Those are good suggestions, thanks.

specialp• 4 years ago

I recall when Trump was elected a huge amount of money went to the ACLU and that is when they really took a turn towards who was paying them. Recall this was the organization that would represent white supremacists as an absolutist for free speech.

Conservatives have historically had problems with free speech when it came to things they view as contrary to "family values", and later on with Trump branding the press as "The enemy of the people". But in the last 5-10 years liberals have as well had a problem with free speech with things they determine is "hate speech".

So now there aren't many people left that support the cause of absolute free speech regardless of whether you agree or disagree, and we have the ACLU catering more towards liberal causes and less on free speech cases.

titzer3• 4 years ago

The Trump era really broke something in people's brains.

It was mass experiment in what specific types of rage they love subjecting themselves to, fueled by an ungodly amount of computational power, in order to prop up and expand a vast ad-delivery network that masquerades as news.

The daily rage was hugely profitable for all media participants and don't let them tell you anything different. The internet found its crack cocaine and us poor subjects are just tweaking for another hit.

They'll never let us chill out again, ever.

colpabar18• 4 years ago

The heart of Depp’s claim is that Heard ruined his acting career when she published a 2018 op-ed in The Washington Post describing herself as “a public figure representing domestic abuse”—a thinly veiled reference to much-publicized accusations of assault she made against Depp in court filings toward the end of their short-lived marriage. But Heard hadn’t pitched the idea to the Post—the ACLU had. Terence Dougherty, the organization’s general counsel, testified via video deposition that the ACLU had spearheaded the effort and served as Heard’s ghostwriter in exchange for her promise to donate $3.5 million to the organization. The promised donation also bought Heard the title of ACLU “ambassador on women’s rights with a focus on gender-based violence.” When Heard failed to pay up, Doughtery said, the ACLU collected $100,000 from Depp himself, and another $500,000 from a fund connected to Elon Musk, whom Heard dated after the divorce.

I have not been paying much attention to this case (I actually thought it was just a messy divorce case), but man, fuck the ACLU. How is anyone supposed to take any of this seriously anymore? She didn't even write the piece herself? How was the ACLU able to "collect" money from both Johnny Depp and Elon Musk??

What a disgrace the ACLU has become, and unfortunately I think most people still see them as the freedom-fighters they used to be.

sumnuyungi4• 4 years ago

The article's phrasing is a mischaracterization: Depp and Musk made donations on behalf of Heard, the ACLU didn't go after them to "collect".

kodah4• 4 years ago

When Heard failed to pay up, Doughtery said, the ACLU collected $100,000 from Depp himself, and another $500,000 from a fund connected to Elon Musk, whom Heard dated after the divorce.

It doesn't really specify what the ACLU said or did to get that money. I'm curious what those methods were and if Depp (or Musk) were aware of the ACLU's involvement or the pay to play relationship between Heard and the ACLU.

colpabar18• 4 years ago

Ah, okay, thanks for the clarification! That actually makes it kind of funny. I guess there's the possibility of some kind of blackmail, but I don't think musk would let himself be blackmailed quietly.

But still, it doesn't seem like the ACLU should be involved in this.

wdb2• 4 years ago

It's a mess. Looks like that Miss Heard promised $3.5m to ACLU and $3.5 to a children hospital but didn't pay anything to the hospital and only donated like $350k herself to the ACLU. It's pretty wild when Miss Heard told on public television that she donated the full $7m to both parties (in 2018). You wonder what else she is lying about.

all2well4• 4 years ago

Time to pull out the dril tweet: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things"

lesstenseflow14• 4 years ago

The ACLU is not above criticism. Is there something in particular you object to in this article?

all2well4• 4 years ago

I take issue with calling the desire to do violence against people like me an "ideological difference"

rajin4442• 4 years ago

That tweet is almost as bad as people who bring up the paradox of tolerance.

Morals have always and will always be relative to who’s alive at the time. Dril is just speaking power to truth, since their morals are winning for now.

Splendor• 4 years ago

In 1978, the ACLU succcessfully [sic] defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, a community populated by Holocaust survivors. But in 2018, following the ACLU’s successful litigation to obtain a permit for white supremacists to march in Charlottesville, Virginia, which ended in death and disaster, the ACLU issued new guidelines. Citing concerns about “limited resources” and “the potential effect on marginalized groups,” the organization cautioned its lawyers to take special care when considering whether to represent groups whose “values are contrary to our values.”

First off. A professor writes a mere 1,000 word article for a major publication and it has typos. Yikes.

Second, the author points to action the ACLU took to defend the right of white supremacists to march in Charlottesville in 2018 and then tries to say they've changed position but doesn't demonstrate that with any proof of similar action or inaction -- just words. IMO actions are more important than words and if the ACLU's actions are still in line with the mission you say you agree with, this is much ado about nada.

twofornone3• 4 years ago

I view the ACLU’s hard-left turn with alarm. It smacks of intolerance and choosing sides, precisely what a civil-liberties organization designed to defend the Bill of Rights is meant to oppose.

The ACLU has clearly been infiltrated and coopted by the same authoritarian ideologues running amok in almost all of our other institutions. Manufactured by degree mills where children take on tens of thousands in debt for the privilege of progressive indoctrination.

Progressive causes are near and dear to my heart. I am a feminist and staunch Democrat. As a federal public defender turned law professor, I have spent my career trying to make change in a criminal legal system that is riven with racism and fundamentally unfair to those without status and financial resources

The author is complicit but in typical progressive fashion totally oblivious to her role in the rise of this activist class. She made her bed and now we all get to lay in it, surrounded by irrational diversity propaganda while forced to keep quiet in the face of genuine systemic racism under implicit threat of retaliation.

cr__• 4 years ago

Can you elaborate on this “genuine systemic racism” and on who you feel is perpetrating it?

twofornone3• 4 years ago

Overt discrimination against straight white males? Mandated by investors through ESG contingent funding and pushed down the chain by C-suite executives who have attended mandatory "diversity" reeducation seminars (literal racial/gendered propaganda), implemented by (overwhelmingly female) degree mill graduates in HR who viciously suppress any dissent against this particular systemically sanctioned discrimination.

That would fit the bill for systemic racism/sexism and it isn't merely alleged like that of D&I proponents.

bell-cot• 4 years ago

Vague memory is that the ACLU ran off into the organization disfunction weeds quite a few years ago, with the CEO and Board suing each other, and other fun.

But at least from a quick skim of their Wikipedia page, there's no sign of that being true.

Anyone else have a similar memory? Or "true story, but it actually was {name of some other organization here}"?

ksherlock• 4 years ago

You might be thinking of the Southern Poverty Law Center -

"In 2019, founder Morris Dees was fired, which was followed by President Richard Cohen's resignation. An outside consultant, Tina Tchen, was brought in to review workplace practices, particularly relating to accusations of racial and sexual harassment. Margaret Huang, who was formerly the Chief Executive at Amnesty International USA, was named as president and CEO of the SPLC in early February 2020."

mlindner5• 4 years ago

Southern Poverty Law Center

That organization is one of the most harmful organizations in the US. In my opinion.

ffggvv• 4 years ago

yeah the guy who made them a big deal "ira glasser" basically chose some guy he had known for not that long as his successor. mostly because he was gay and latino. and that guy ended up not believing anything that the ACLU stood for and taking it to just be an arm of the democratic party. (Anthony d romero)

https://nypost.com/2022/01/31/ex-aclu-head-ira-glasser-slams...

tempnow9876• 4 years ago

Not sure if directly relevant but they are focusing on DEI so this is across staff. That has led to some tension between the old guard (white supremacist / civil rights supporters depending on view) and new guard (equality / human rights focus).

They had bylaws historically which emphasized "wholly without political partisanship" as well, though I think that's probably long gone by now.

PedroBatista• 4 years ago

The ACLU lost its way a long time ago and that's not really news because it's in the "good" company of most non-profits.

We all "know" they are rotten but we are still "shocked" when we learn exactly what they do - aka "How the sausage is made".

It reminds me that time ( possibly now ) when Politico's "journalists" went around the World asking money from Governments and other public institutions in order for them to write good things about them ( visibility!! ) but also "asking" money to not write bad things about them..

Sometimes the drunk bums around the corner are 100% right: this shit stinks!!!

dillondoyle• 4 years ago

Tell me what I know about this rot?!

ellen364• 4 years ago

Can you remember where you read the allegation about Politico? It isn’t in the “controversies” section of the Politico Wiki page [0] and a couple of Google searches for things like “politico corruption” and “politico pay for articles” weren’t helpful.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico#Controversies

commandlinefan• 4 years ago

There's a really disturbing movement against freedom of speech in the US that I never thought I would see.

Miner49er• 4 years ago

It's not the first time, though, look at McCarthyism. We mostly bounced back from that, we'll probably do the same this time.

LewisVerstappen• 4 years ago

Sure, but people have to fight for their rights. The world doesn't swing towards freedom automatically. The rise of authoritarianism around the world (China, Russia, etc.) makes that clear.

mandmandam2• 4 years ago

It's a small but crucial part of a wider class war, which is beyond belief in its scale and sheer evil.

"Vote blue no matter who" isn't gonna get us out of this one, and neither is donating to the ACLU and NPR.

SV_BubbleTime6• 4 years ago

Out of? It’s how we got it. I can’t be the only one left that is wondering how the window shifted so far left so quickly. Well, I guess me and Elon.

dorfsmay4• 4 years ago

I'm outside the US, but I see similar issues everywhere. I think it's time modern democracies stoped having "representative of the people" voting on laws. Laws should be considered each on their own value, and everybody should be able to vote for/against them.

ranger207• 4 years ago

It's really a shame that my options right now are either the anti-freedom "no abortions, no weed, and absolutely no criticizing us" party, or the anti-freedom "no critical thinking, no guns, and absolutely no criticising us" party. Unfortunately under first past the post tribalism is rewarded, and moving to the center only gives room for a more radical same-party challenger to appear making you both lose. In my opinion, the greatest boost to freedom in current American politics would be the introduction of a better voting system[0] to allow third parties to exist and encourage them to work together to legislate.

[0] I prefer score voting, but I'll vote for anyone who will get any alternate form of voting out there. For an easy explanation of the different voting systems, look at https://ncase.me/ballot/

jgeada• 4 years ago

Because freedom of speech has never been quite what it says. It is basically only immunity from consequences for the rich and powerful. Only they're allowed to have substantive influential speech without consequences, and only they are allowed to reclassify bribery as "speech".

Anybody not in that set saying something the rich and powerful don't agree with gets sued into oblivion and/or gets their soap box taken away.

All that is happening is that people want everyone to live by the same rules. Either nobody has consequences or everybody can have the soapbox taken away if the general public doesn't agree with them.

Billionaires have been too blatant with media manipulation for everyone else to be OK with the rules as they are.

BTW I'd also note that "free speech" American style is almost like a religion, you can't argue against it. I'd just note that no other country Europe (or the world) subscribes to this absolutist version of free speech. So it is reasonable that questions ensue questioning how great this "free speech" really is. Is lying by corporations really speech?

mlindner5• 4 years ago

This is a great post illustrative of the currently widespread misunderstanding of freedom of speech in the US. It's not about the powerless wanting to control the speech of the rich and powerful. It's about the powerful of one side wanting to control the speech of the powerful of the other side by weaponizing ignorant masses of the populace to do their fight for them in defeating the ability of their opponents to have speech.

It's a scary precedent and even more scary that so many don't see what's happening.

Billionaires have been too blatant with media manipulation for everyone else to be OK with the rules as they are.

The powerful have controlled the media in the past WAY more than they do now or even in recent decades. Even the people gaining control of the media recently are outside of the normal historical rich as they're all of the nouveau riche class.

This is all one more example of the recent trend of not wanting to bring UP the less privileged but to tear DOWN the privileged to the level of the less privileged. The former is beneficial for society the latter is self-destructive.

The result of lack of speech is violence. If people (parts of the rich) can't voice their opinion with words they do so with actions by galvanizing people into violent actions.

JackFr• 4 years ago

It is basically only immunity from consequences for the rich and powerful. Only they're allowed to have substantive influential speech without consequences, and only they are allowed to reclassify bribery as "speech".

This is simply not true and I'm curious if you have any examples to support this.

Anybody not in that set saying something the rich and powerful don't agree with gets sued into oblivion and/or gets their soap box taken away.

Again that is simply not true. In fact compared with the UK for instance it is _far_ harder to sue for libel or defamation in the US.

Billionaires have been too blatant with media manipulation for everyone else to be OK with the rules as they are.

Rich people have access to resources the poor don't. That's not new.

BTW I'd also note that "free speech" American style is almost like a religion, you can't argue against it. I'd just note that no other country Europe (or the world) subscribes to this absolutist version of free speech.

In general we are free speech absolutists. Honestly along with fast food, very entertaining movies and our love affair with guns it's quintessentially American.

lliamander3• 4 years ago

Could you please provide specific examples of how this current trend of wanting to outlaw hate speech, "disinformation", etc., applies to billionaires, rather than the common people?

"Free speech absolutism" is a nonsensical slur. There are sensible restrictions on the freedom of speech that have been engrained into American jurisprudence. There actually used to be more exceptions (for instance, anti-war speech was illegal during World War 1) but, to their credit, the political left pushed for expanding those rights.

But yes, we do take our free speech with religious seriousness. That is because many of our ancestors came here to escape religious persecution from Europe (and other places). We do not wish to return to the bad old days where our beliefs could again be criminalized.

brudgers• 4 years ago

First they came for the communists…

rrradical4• 4 years ago

What are some examples of this? (Aside from the posted article, which is debated in other comments.)

native_samples6• 4 years ago

One might think the recently announced Disinformation Board would count.

jandrese5• 4 years ago

Notable examples include kicking people who post white supremacist articles off of Twitter and Facebook. Or DirectTV dropping OAN from their lineup because their ratings have tanked after Trump left office. Or when Marjorie Taylor Green lost her committee assignments for merely stating her belief that white genocide is a major problem that Congress must take action against the Jewish space lasers immediately before they cause more wildfires that kill white people.

jollybean3• 4 years ago

Banning people from Twitter, App Store, AWS, VISA being cancelled, kicked out of distribution etc...

Private institutions are narrowing their versions of what was considered normative 'crude' behaviour into 'hate speech' which has implications. Netflix, Hulu etc. spend a lot of time defining what's appropriate and not in their programming, and someone uttering something 'counter narrative' is problematic for them (unless it makes them a lot of money).

That said, with Trump lying about the election, and others lying about vaccines, and foreign actors 100% trying to influence electoral outcomes (these are real things), it's an actual problem.

I mean, I don't care if RT.com is punted from anywhere, it's not relevant, but it's a slippery slope.

DanAtC• 4 years ago

ACLU has also been campaigning against San Francisco Prop H (ballot measure to recall DA). Seems way out of their wheelhouse.

https://www.aclunc.org/norecall

SV_BubbleTime6• 4 years ago

I’ve always enjoyed that even in their hayday of “in wheelhouse” they would pretend that 2A wasn’t/isn’t a civil right.

I mean… guys… it’s #2. I wouldn’t be surprise to hear that ACLU defended more people against 3A violations than 2A.

gizmo686• 4 years ago

Ignoring actual disagreement about what the 2nd amendment means and what policy should be, why would the ACLU invest in 2nd amendment rights in a world where there is already a a strong lobby dedicated to them.

newsclues• 4 years ago

That DA is the son of left wing terrorists.

The FBI refers to the Weather Underground organization as domestic terrorists. [1]

If you rob an armoured car and kill people for a terrorist organizations that sounds like being a terrorist to me.

But you have the right, along with the ACLU, to defend terrorists.

compiler-guy• 4 years ago

Regardless, that isn't the ACLU's normal fight.

colpabar18• 4 years ago

Ummmm fact check time! Actually they were never convicted of terrorism so even though they murdered people and bombed government offices they're technically not terrorists. Stop spreading misinformation!

my69thaccount4• 4 years ago

Damn he sounds rad

jimt1234• 4 years ago

Debate is dead, replaced by the echo chamber. Sadly, the ACLU has adapted to this.

_23sd• 4 years ago

A fairly short piece that makes the same points that have been made a million times about the ACLU’s apparent changes, using the typical examples of the group defending the freedom of assembly rights of neo-nazis during the 1970s (other articles often mention they were well known for simultaneously defending the same rights for communists). The 2021 NYT article linked within is a more interesting read.

What I’d be curious to see on this topic is a review of what the ACLU was up to during the 90s and 00s, when anti war and environmental activism were the biggest targets for suppression, and privacy and LGBT rights became major issues. Would people today see the ACLU’s activity in those periods as still too focused on “partisan” causes, or is this really a post-Trump phenomenon?

photochemsyn• 4 years ago

Just look up ACLU's response to the federal government's effort to describe environmental groups like the Sierra Club as "mainstream organizations with known or possible links to eco-terrorism" in the Bush-Cheney Era, c.2008. They definitely seem to have lost their minds and their historical agenda post-Trump. For example, it's worth reading their response to the 2001 attacks:

https://www.aclu.org/other/defense-freedom-time-crisis

My own view is that the leadership of both parties really would like to install Chinese-style mass surveillance practices, and the motivation primarily seems to be the desire to contain popular anger over declining standards of living across the USA. The creation of the Rust Belt via the implementation of neoliberal trade policies played a key role in the rise of Trump, and leaders of both parties pushed that through on the behalf of their corporate masters. Of course, Trump did nothing about it, so the populist anger is still smoldering.

If implementing draconian mass surveillance is the plan, then buying off the ACLU is a step in that direction.

tiahura3• 4 years ago

The list of the formerly respectable that lost their minds in the rise of Trump is depressingly long.

cronix• 4 years ago

Here is the testimony of the ACLU for this trial, if you're curious about it. I watched it live and was beside myself. There are a lot more shenanigans than listed in the article. It's important to listen to the actual words spoken and changes in voice, see the facial expressions, watch the dancing around the questions, hear the contradictions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRkLmKJCKbw

colpabar18• 4 years ago

It really sucks that our entire legal system is completely ineffective if someone is good enough at lying.

lostcolony• 4 years ago

And doesn't keep/already destroyed records, per Jan 6th investigation.

fmajid• 4 years ago

Which is pretty much the job definition of an actor...

sumnuyungi4• 4 years ago

You can impeach someone and/or offer up other witnesses to chip away at a liar's credibility. "Good enough" doesn't come close to describing the level of deception necessary to render our entire legal system completely ineffective.

ROTMetro17• 4 years ago

Just look at the 'good faith' allowances granted when government officials violate the legal system's own laws and requirements. Not only is it ineffective if someone is good at lying, it just voids it's own laws and requirements if the liar is a government official because 'good faith'.

qart• 4 years ago

The video is about the length of a feature film. Any particular timestamps that you might want viewers to pay attention to?

dahdum• 4 years ago

Trump's election handed them an extra ~$100m a year, but advocating for free speech in Charlottesville put that all at risk.

Their Director, Anthony Romero, implemented a new ideological and political backlash test for those they represent. It was his decision. His interviews show he'd much rather be in charge of sprawling, well funded partisan organization than a smaller crotchety one.

I see the appeal. He's becoming a Democratic power player, funding campaigns and helping define the Democratic agenda. Why would he ever go back? He has more personal impact than he ever could under the old ACLU, can become much wealthier, fraternize with celebrities and politicians, and all while being consistent with his personal politic views.

I used to support the ACLU and I support progressive causes. Now that they are one and the same, I'd rather donate to candidates and causes directly instead of letting Romero pick for me.

api• 4 years ago

It reminds me a bit of what happened to the National Rifle Association honestly. The money is in being hyper-partisan, not being objective and standing for some principle. The NRA is now basically a far-right Republican lobby group that is only incidentally about second amendment rights.

Seems true in media too. Look at what happened to Joe Rogan when he got his big deal. His move down-market and toward a more partisan position is just going where the money is, I'm sure at the behest of his new owners.

Objectivity doesn't pay. Standing for principles doesn't pay. Selling out to partisan or corporate agendas pays.

jerkstate• 4 years ago

There are gun advocacy groups which are issues-focused and compromise far less than the NRA, which is kind of a joke among younger gun advocates. Gun Owners of America is one who frequently supports legal funds for gun advocacy issues. Occasionally, a state gun rights group escalates a case up through circuit courts to the supreme court and deserves financial support. This past year, the California Rifle & Pistol association fought a case around standard-capacity magazine bans, and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association fought a case regarding restrictions on carrying and transporting firearms. I believe CRPA is a 501(c)3 organization so donations are tax-deductible. I am sure there are others but I would be fine if the ACLU focused on the 1st amendment and left gun advocacy to other more focused groups (although I would appreciate if those groups also got 501(c)3 certification)

SV_BubbleTime6• 4 years ago

The NRA is now basically a far-right Republican lobby group that is only incidentally about second amendment rights.

As someone who has extensively followed the missteps of the NRA under Wayne LaPierre… I don’t believe you understand what Far-Right is, nor the actual details of the NRA.

Allow me to give you a primer that isn’t built off of media fear mongering…

NRA is very much Establishment Right. That’s part of the problem. They wanted to snuggle with McConnell and Graham and hated Trump just as much as the afore mentioned do. The NRA wants status quo. Don’t actually do anything because we can’t campaign on that. Go to galas, make important calls and meetings in DC, have the company buy a house for you.

As both sides have abandoned compromise solutions, the NRA is still playing the 2A game as if it was bowling pin matches and skeet clubs.

Guess what though? The young people that make up modern gun owners have different concerns. The Hearing Protection Act and National Reciprocity should have gone through on Trump Day 1. But the NRA didn’t really care about either. Almost every gun owner in the county was pissed off when NRA didn’t storm the fucking gates when Philando Castile was killed by a twitchy cop. That was a fucking home run to prove gun ownership isn’t about skin color and they did absolutely nothing. GOA and SAF took an immediate stand despite many members and groups being police affiliated.

GOA and SAF have been building their ranks with young, motivated, and politically active members. The NRA Old Guard is dying of age, not by bullets real or political, by bloat.

Anyone that is anti-gun should not be celebrating the slow dissolve of the NRA. And likewise, if you (seriously!?) think the NRA is “Far Right” you really aren’t going to like the ambitious and motivated direction of the new guard. They’ll compromise when it makes sense, but real compromise, where you give something up for something they want.

user982• 4 years ago

When the ACLU rewrote a Ruth Bader Ginsburg quote ("The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a [person's] life, to [their] well-being and dignity..."[1]), all I could think of was The Onion ("I've always believed that one [homosexual] really can make a difference."[2]).

[1] https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1439259891064004610 [2] https://www.theonion.com/area-homosexual-saves-four-from-fir...

puffoflogic4• 4 years ago

RBG is being misquoted and misremembered a lot again in the past week or so. She publicly stated on many occasions that she thought Roe vs Wade was bad law. Now her name is being invoked to defend it.

LordAtlas• 4 years ago

She publicly stated on many occasions that she thought Roe vs Wade was bad law.

Interesting. Do you have link(s) to read more about this?

my69thaccount4• 4 years ago

What made you think of that?

aeturnum• 4 years ago

I totally agree that the ACLU is getting into things that seem silly, but it seems equally silly to claim they are 'losing their way' based on that.

This article complains the ACLU is not taking right-wing speech cases but admits they still do take cases and lists no examples where they refused. It cites the ACLU reacting to the protest where a protester was killed by nazis as anti-speech, but the ACLU was not saying they are against legal speech! They reflected, correctly, that backing groups that seek to silence (and kill) others is not straightforward. Considering the number of people in here who are decrying a "movement against freedom of speech" I would think people would support that policy!

If the article is to be believed and the ACLU has gotten a lot more money in recent years - wouldn't it make sense that they get into new areas?

Should the ACLU have more speech lawyers? Maybe! Are there cases they couldn't take? I would love to see some examples.

Should the ACLU stay out of politics? It's worth debating and I'm glad the article brings it up - but given the anti-democratic (and anti-individual rights) policy goals of the republican party I understand the approach. The article doesn't even ask what we do when one party is against proportional representation!

In general I just don't feel like this is actually responding to the ACLU's positions. She accuses the organization of hypocrisy around Title IX because they criticized changes but then later said they supported some updates - but of course it is perfectly coherent to criticize overall changes AND support parts of them. Here is their statement:

We filed comments on Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ Title IX rule that supported fair process requirements for live hearings, cross-examination, access to all the evidence, and delays in proceedings if the student accused of wrongdoing also faced a student criminal investigation, even as we criticized the rule for reducing the obligations of schools to respond to reports of sexual harassment.

Like seriously, I encourage everyone to check the case selection guidelines linked in the article[1]. Here are the things that might lead them to not take an otherwise suitable case: the group seeks to engage in violence, the group seeks to carry weapons, if the speech would lead to direct harm, if the ACLU support would appear to damage the orgs' overall mission. These aren't even vetos. They're areas of concern, and they seem pretty reasonable - especially considering this article criticized the ACLU for getting involved with Amber Heard because she sees their support for Heard as damaging to the ACLUs' mission! Which is exactly their concern.

[1] https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu...

tempnow9876• 4 years ago

"First Amendment protections are disproportionately enjoyed by people of power and privilege" - Dennis Parker, ACLU

Police are white supremacist and defunding police big focus

"We need to defund the budgets - It’s the only way we’re going to take power back." - Mr Romero (head of the org).

400+ lawsuits against trump.

Started trying to stop circulation of books they don't agree with:

"Stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.” - https://twitter.com/donovancleckley/status/13274901590765854...

They are a nonpolitical (edited: should be nonpartisan) (required by charitable status) group running ads like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0aqKS3ihVM

"Stacey Abrams will end dependence on private prisons which will save millions" Stacey Abrams did some deal with someone that will do X. etc.

On title IX issues, where you had some crazy stories around due process, the ACLU pushed back on more due process rights:

"It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused and letting schools ignore their responsibility ..."

https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1063456843706585089?lang=en

Also doing a lot more twitter lecturing I think then in the past.

"There’s no one way to be a man.

Men who get their periods are men.

Men who get pregnant and give birth are men.

... "

It's been lucrative to the ACLU. $750K in salaries and benefits to ED, he used to be at $340K range.

tempnow9876• 4 years ago

For those looking for other civil liberties orgs you might look at

Institute for Justice - good project on adding some limits to civil asset forfeiture:

https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/

They were attorneys on the Timbs case (not ACLU) which they won at the Supreme Court. They've had lots of success in this in lower courts with some crazy cases.

ACLU used to do a lot to improve policing (ie, look at how line-ups are conducted etc). Some other groups taking that on - this is less about defunding / abolishing police and more about improving accuracy of policing (ie, still catch a murderer but do it in ways with less collateral damage / fewer false allegations).

I'm actually trying to explore the question of other groups as I've been an ACLU member since the 90's so just know so much more about them! I was drawn to some of their earlier policing work (I volunteered in some prisons) in particular because certain approaches just result in real problems in policing (project innocence helped prove I think many of the ACLU's earlier points here).

That said, I think no question a change with Romero. I might describe it as a change from a "civil liberty" type org to a more traditional "human rights" type org more along the lines of NAACP, Sierra Club etc? And a LOT more politically focused than in the past from a feeling standpoint? They do things like anti-trump ads etc. Historically they might have cheered some of the due process protections in Title IX, now they denounce them.

Internally worth noting that some efforts around free speech issues are seen as "white supremacist" - that may make it harder for folks there to take on classic campus type free speech issues just internally. Speech = violence type stuff.

DEI is a big push. They are doing interesting work around trying to push employers to take identity characteristics into account when making employment decisions, including numerical goals / targets which historically folks were cautious about. They have some good examples here, like reserving 50% of new hire slots for black workers only as still being in compliance with non-descrimination law as long as black workers are not equally represented etc.

Hasu2• 4 years ago

They are a nonpolicial (required by charitable status) group running ads like this

They're a 501(c)(4), not a 501(c)(3). They aren't nonpolitical and have no obligation not to engage in politics. In fact, engaging in politics is the entire point of the ACLU

tempnow9876• 4 years ago

A 501c4 is a social welfare org. Political activities are generally prohibited

"Political or social activities. The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.501(c)(4)-1

I think this is a fair confusion currently however given their strong dem tie-in recently and their current approach of taking on individual politicians (for and against) by name.

Note: If you are active in the ACLU they have a related ACLU Foundation they use to collect 501c3 money, is run by the same people out of the same offices, and actually brings in more money I think than the c4 if that matters.

lesstenseflow14• 4 years ago

I stopped giving to ACLU years ago when it became clear their mission to champion a grab-bag of lefty causes had superseded their free-speech defending goal. This pivot has lead them, at times, to actually defend the government against citizen requests for public records! I never thought I'd see the ACLU fighting on the government's behalf against FOIA/open records type requests but here it is: https://www.womensliberationfront.org/aclu-lawsuit-public-re...

In the above case, some female prisoners in Washington state wanted to know how many male prisoners had been transferred to women's prisons. The state didn't want to share that information (even in aggregate) and the ACLU defended the state's assertion that this information should be kept secret from the public, including from the imprisoned women whom this policy impacted directly.

Why the government would want to keep this secret is a good question, but the main point here is: did people donating to the ACLU realize their money is being used to fight private citizen information requests & defend government secrecy? How the mighty have fallen.

joshuamorton6• 4 years ago

These are citizens private healthcare information. You shouldn't be able to foia this anymore than my medicare records. Citizens don't lose their right to privacy because they're in prison. Goodness.

Clubber5• 4 years ago

If you read his link, it states the request is for counts, not individual names.

  1. A complete and accurate count of inmates who identify as transgender (gender identity differs from sex identified at birth) in the custody of the Washington Department of Corrections [please break this information down by location]

  2. Number of inmates that have been transferred from a men’s facility to a women’s facility since January 01, 2021

  3. Total number of male persons who identify as female, non-binary, or any other gender identity that are currently housed in a women’s facility

  4. Number of inmates who have transferred from a women’s facility to a men’s facility from January 01, 2021 to March 18, 2021

  5. Number of female persons who identify as male, non-binary or any other gender identity that are currently housed in a men’s facility

prepend5• 4 years ago

Aggregate counts are not private healthcare information when released in a way that limits reidentification. The Privacy Act (and HIPAA) allows for deidentified data to be shared broadly.

Anyway, prisoner gender is not healthcare data, it’s administrative data that describes prisoner population demographics.

I would agree with you if the request was for individual medical information on treatment or procedures or something.

deathanatos• 4 years ago

It sounded like aggregate numbers were being requested, not names. (Though, the link is only one side of the story.) Assuming that is correct (that it is merely an aggregate count), does that not maintain medical privacy, while allowing public access to the information on how the state is running prisons?

lesstenseflow14• 4 years ago

I don't think your sex is "private healthcare information." How would sharing the total number of males in various facilities violate an individuals privacy rights? (sidebar: if you think you retain your right to privacy in prison... all I can say is you've clearly never been to prison :)

Regarding the right to privacy, what's your take on the privacy rights of the (female) women who are being physically forced to house & sleep in a cell with males?

giantg26• 4 years ago

They're asking for aggregate data, not personal data.

cluedos11• 4 years ago

No, these are important questions regarding policy around sex-based rights.

The FOIA requestor did not ask for any private information, merely for the number of the people.

Clubber5• 4 years ago

Why the government would want to keep this secret is a good question

It's because if the public found out, it would be either be considered illegal or unethical or ultimately make them look bad. That's the general rule of why anyone in government keeps an action secret. Now consider how much stuff the government wants to keep secret.

bko• 4 years ago

I guess the follow up question would be why the government transferred biological men to a women's prison, especially if it could be illegal, unethical and make them look bad?

lr4444lr• 4 years ago

IIRC, FOIA does not grant you a right to personal information collected on citizens. The agencies have the right to redact that in whole or in part from the records sought. I don't deny your main concern about left wing issues potentially derailing the ACLU's chief mission, but that isn't the example I'd cite.

giantg26• 4 years ago

You are correct. However, the request did not request personal information and only aggregate counts.

giantg26• 4 years ago

"Why the government would want to keep this secret is a good question"

That's an easy one - they always hide anything that could be controversial. This is definitely a hot topic in recent years.

"did people donating to the ACLU realize their money is being used to fight private citizen information requests & defend government secrecy?"

Due to the scope of the ACLU's actions and the variability of its members personal beliefs, it's almost guaranteed that they engage in things that some member disagree with.

Edit: why disagree?

thrwy_ywrht• 4 years ago

some female prisoners in Washington state wanted to know how many male prisoners had been transferred to women's prisons

This is such an incredibly bad-faith and transphobic representation of the case that I can only conclude you are intentionally trolling. Even if you believe that trans women should not be housed in prisons with cis women, it is beyond bad faith choose the words you chose to use.

lesstenseflow14• 4 years ago

I'm not following you at all. From the text of the request, the petitioners want to know: "Number of inmates that have been transferred from a men’s facility to a women’s facility since January 01, 2021" This is almost identical to what I wrote.

I would appreciate it if you would explain to me and others what part of my argument you disagree with rather than simply saying "incredibly bad-faith" "transphobic" "you are trolling" "beyond bad faith" without any explanation of what you think I did wrong or would prefer I do differently.

For what it's worth, I think you are acting in bad faith by calling me names and speculating unkindly about my motives without actually explaining what assertion or argument you object to and why. What you're doing is just bullying.

cluedos11• 4 years ago

How so? 'Trans women' are male, by definition.

ternaryoperator3• 4 years ago

I'm a lifelong member of the ACLU. During all the years, I've disagreed with numerous things they have done and that they do presently, including this involvement in politics. However, there are few organizations doing the legal representation that they do on behalf of the poor and the marginalized, and for that I continue to support them. Insisting that an organization perfectly fit my personal preferences is a fool's errand. As with everything in life, I don't want to fall into the trap that perfect becomes the enemy of good. The ACLU ain't perfect, but it's certainly doing good work that IMHO merits my continued support.

dnissley• 4 years ago

The problem with this is that it's the mindset of a frog being boiled. Just one more degree won't hurt me.

vkou3• 4 years ago

The problem with this problem is that there isn't a better alternative.

There's a lot of people in this thread complaining about how the ACLU is ruined because they are no longer free speech absolutists.

That's not why I give, or ever gave them money. I give them money because they solve all sorts of other problems. If the biggest problem in your life is 'the far american right can't speak as loudly as it likes', that's certainly terrible, but it pales in comparison to the harm of all the other civil liberty violations that the ACLU tackles.

snowwrestler• 4 years ago

No, the frog doesn’t know it’s being boiled at all.

Being fully aware of an organization’s good and bad behaviors is the opposite of being unknowingly boiled. Even if one chooses to continue supporting the organization in spite of some disagreement.

nickff2• 4 years ago

If the article is correct that they’re selling their services to parties in private civil suits, along with positions in the organization (for use by the individual for publicity), I think you should reconsider your support. The ACLU was once an effective advocate for free speech, but the fact that they're selling themselves to either side of a private dispute should be a sign that the ACLU has changed.

edit: this is all premised on the idea that you were supporting them for their old 'free speech' mission, rather than the new 'values', which I now realize may have been in error.

ternaryoperator3• 4 years ago

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. As you sensed, I supported their old mission and parts of their new mission.

However, I agree that if they view their new mission to be "selling themselves" to one side or the other, that would indeed detract from my willingness to continue supporting them long-term.

natch• 4 years ago

“If the article is correct”

The default position on most articles, especially critical ones, should be that they have utterly failed to accurately grasp and convey the key issues. This seems to be a universal law not just of journalism, but of knowledge sharing in general, especially where controversy exists.

thematrixturtle3• 4 years ago

Eh. If they exchange one lawyer's time for $3.5 million in donations that will be used for all their other causes, that's actually a pretty good deal. (Or at least would be if Heard paid up, which she apparently didn't.)

stjohnswarts2• 4 years ago

I had a friend working with one of their lawyers and she was amazing. I can't agree with an article that says to quit helping a group that is still fighting for civil liberties, even if I don't agree with their following cancel culture hook, line, and sinker. Maybe someday they'll go too far though I suppose.

leephillips2• 4 years ago

Whether you think they are still fighting for civil liberties depends on what you think civil liberties are.

Recently they have been supporting the “civil liberty” of men such as Lia Thomas to compete on women’s sports teams. I don’t see that as a defense of anyone’s liberties, but rather as an attack against the liberties of female athletes, and of women in general. They are on the attack against women’s sex-based rights.

I’ve stopped supporting them.

I used to support them even though I was disappointed in their 2nd amendment stances, because their work on 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment issues was so valuable. But now they’ve turned into a misogynist organization, actively campaigning against civil liberties.

jimbokun5• 4 years ago

They are now selectively fighting for some civil liberties for some people, and actively fighting against some civil liberties for other people.

ss1086• 4 years ago

What areas re: "poor and marginalized" are you referring to? Seems like there are numerous focused orgs for all of the issues they work on, no?

ternaryoperator3• 4 years ago

Sure. But I don't have the time (nor realistically the ability) to review each one and determine which one is as effective at the ACLU in that representation.

sumnuyungi4• 4 years ago

In Heard's case, the ACLU is creating an ambassador position and crafting the credentials for the ambassador they wish to hire (the op-ed). Knowing the level of deception they're engaging in - and not from a low-level employee but from their general counsel - how do you trust/verify any claims the ACLU makes?

escapedmoose• 4 years ago

Agreed. The ability to support a cause for the greater good, even if some of it makes you uncomfortable, is just a sign that you’re not totally brainwashed by one “camp” or another, imo. It’s a symptom of retaining individual thought while working toward collective progress. It would be far more troubling to be part of a movement that operates fully in lock—step.

This being the internet, I feel the need to attach a disclaimer that there are limits to this general rule, but I don’t think the ACLU is currently crossing them.

jimbokun5• 4 years ago

They will only support poor and marginalized that say the things the ACLU likes and don't say things the ACLU doesn't like.

rocqua• 4 years ago

I believe the complaint here is actually more "The ACLU is no longer defending my political enemies".

The issue is not that the ACLU is taking on causes the author disagrees with. The issue is that the ACLU has switched away from "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" thinking. And instead they are taking a few cases of "I disapprove of what you say and will therefore not defend you". Let alone the weird Heard case that seems to be "You give me money so I give you backing and legitimacy".

wernercd2• 4 years ago

When you give "legitimacy" to illegitimate causes? You have now removed your claim to legitimacy.

yes_really• 4 years ago

What about the "poor and marginalized" students that were falsely accused and expelled from university over Title IX kangaroo courts?

When the Trump administration proposed in 2018 a new regulatory scheme for schools to follow in Title IX campus-sexual-assault cases that offered more protections to students defending themselves against these allegations, the ACLU responded in an angry tweet thread: “It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused.”. (The following year, the ACLU declared its support for new Title IX regulations’ “fair process requirements for live hearings, cross-examination, [and] access to all the evidence,” but it has never taken down the tweets or walked them back.)

toothrot• 4 years ago

It's interesting that the author refers to unspecified "partisan stances". Many of the political positions of the last year that have been described as partisan are actually globally regarded as human rights.

Human rights are nonpartisan. The ACLU has stuck to it's guns on that, despite the the overwhelmingly biased political climate.

I think it's silly that this thinly sourced hit-piece is on the front page of hacker news.

baobabKoodaa5• 4 years ago

If it truly were nonpartisan, I would have absolutely no ability to guess which way you lean politically. Right? And yet I can tell with a near 100% certainty that you lean left. Can you explain to me why is that, and how that's consistent with your claim?

giantg26• 4 years ago

I suppose that's why the ACLU didn't want to get involved with the rights violations I reported a couple years ago. I suppose if i had $3.5M it could have been different.

ROTMetro17• 4 years ago

It's funny in prison. So many guys come in thinking the ACLU is going to help them. The ACLU will not take on prison cases. You can try local chapters, but they don't even refer you to them. Check out this joke:

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/prisoners-rights

If you have been assaulted by an officer in prison, they want you to file a grievance through the prison process. Thanks for having people's backs ACLU. No reason people who has been assaulted by those in power in the system should fear reporting that assault to those people in power. So the ACLU doesn't see themselves as protecting Eighth amendment rights. But if you keep reading...

If you have religious discrimination, you should contact the ACLU.

Sexual abuse and torture in a prison? Trust the prison administrators, they will take care of resolving it. But if they violate your religion, oh man, that's when the high power ACLU lawyers are needed.

incomingpain2• 4 years ago

Wow comments are heated in here. Going to put my oven gloves on to type this one.

Check out these other articles:

ACLU is split by internal debate over First Amendment support for hate speech https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/aclu-is-split-by-int...

Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html?...

The Left Needs the A.C.L.U. to Keep Defending Awful Speech https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/07/opinion/aclu-free-speech....

The ACLU made the decision to change. You can agree with that or not; if you dont like it... dont give them your money. That isn't the biggest concern.

The bigger concern is 'who the nazis are'.

Google has an employee who wrote:

“Today it is often 1 or 2 steps to nazis. If we understand that PragerU, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro et al are nazis using the dog whistles you mention in step 1. I can receive these recommendations regardless of the content of what I’m looking at, and I have recorded thousands of internet users sharing the same experience..”

Which spawned a hilarious article: https://babylonbee.com/news/notorious-nazi-leader-ben-shapir...

The problem with the political polarization is that you attribute your political opponents as being 'the worst'. There's plenty of examples of right-wing folks calling people nazis. Elon Musk called Trudeau Hitler. So did lefties, Bill Maher, russel brand, and several others: https://globalnews.ca/news/8627659/elon-musk-justin-trudeau-...

It's not that the ACLU lost their way or for that matter all those people calling everyone nazis. It's that virtually all of north america has lost their way. We need to get back to talking to each other again.

native_samples6• 4 years ago

In the Trudeau case the comparison is at least not 100% wrong, as is usually the case when the N-word crops up. Hitler famously engaged in forced medical experiments on people who were deemed disposable classes of society, and he brooked no dissent or resistance. Regardless of how you personally feel about the COVID vaccines they were and are based on experimental new medical technology, which was then forced on people against their will including on people who thought it might harm them. And as we saw, the protestors were then destroyed by a leader who gave so few shits that he didn't even bother to turn up and talk to them, and who then engaged in vengeful financial attacks on family members or anyone who tried to support the protestors.

Obviously that doesn't make Trudeau literally Hitler, but the point of talking about WW2 is to try and learn lessons so it never repeats. If you're only allowed to notice similarities by the time there are no differences left at all, it's already far too late. That's why the comparisons are always so tricky and fraught with controversy. On one hand, comparing everything to the Nazis is a tired rhetorical trick designed to shut down thought. On the other hand, to ensure something like that never happens again, people have to be willing to say -wait. That looks bad. That looks like something the Nazis did. That shouldn't be happening and maybe the people who are making it happen are bad people, they should be stopped. But the bar for it has to be high.

jandrese5• 4 years ago

Regardless of how you personally feel about the COVID vaccines they were and are based on experimental new medical technology

This is not technically true. They were based on research from 1984, which started development in 2005 and was more or less ready and waiting for an application by 2010. They were much less experimental than the Polio or Smallpox vaccines were when they were introduced.

incomingpain2• 4 years ago

Even the WEF denounced Trudeau for totalitarian antidemocratic behaviors.

This is the past though. We must work together in the present and get back together as team Canada. The liberals had many greats like Chretien despite his handshakes... lol. There was other good leaders even during the ottawa protest like joel lightbound who is a quebec liberal mp. He said exactly what was needed. He said we just needed a date for when these human rights are returned. A roadmap to normal.

We still don't have this. Practically the whole world has opened up and given this responsibility to the individual where it belongs. We are the only country that disallows their citizens to leave. Worse yet those Canadians are mocked and told to leave.

It feels to me trudeau's quebec sovereignty has taken to a new tactic. Become hostile to your fellow Canadians and make us hate quebec and want you out of Canada. Trudeau doesn't understand economics. He doesn't know that if Quebec became their own country they would have such a huge deficit they would not be able to afford an education or healthcare system. Bombardier and SNCLavalin basically own the country and you're fighting to keep them in Quebec. Terrible. You would have immediate revolution to return to Canada.

https://angusreid.org/new-west-fractured-federation/

This is such a bad thing. We need to unite again. We are obviously stronger together. No matter the past, you can't change the past, we need to get working and talking together again.

devonkim• 4 years ago

If we look back on US public health policy it wasn't really a liberal democracy until maybe about 1970 given such strong government institutions that shut down dissent. It turns out that the US back to the polio vaccine forcibly vaccinated many, many populations. The demographic differences in the groups affected were interesting - the primary resistance came from the black community that distrusted the government. We can go back to the Spanish Flu period and it turns out that we had the same exact problems of 2020 in terms of popular public health policy debate as well with anti-maskers and pro-maskers.

The problems I see is that public discourse has become the same thing as the old Internet in all the bad ways from decades past with almost none of the good parts. Bad faith arguments, Godwin's Law everywhere, slippery slope fallacies everywhere, etc. are now _standard_ and expected making all but the simplest discussions impossible.

pfortuny2• 4 years ago

“Terence Dougherty, the organization’s general counsel, testified via video deposition that the ACLU had spearheaded the effort and served as Heard’s ghostwriter in exchange for her promise to donate $3.5 million to the organization.”

Sorry but a donation is either free (donare: give as a gift) or it is no such thing. What a travesty.

kolbe2• 4 years ago

Also an interesting way in which the rich avoid taxes. If she had paid for the writing, it would have been taxed as a service, but instead there was a wink/nod service then donation.

givemeethekeys• 4 years ago

Thats not how donations work in the New Age / Arts community. If you go to a "free" yoga class, they "suggest" a "donation" of $10.

You see, they're suggesting because being explicit about the cost puts a ceiling on how much they could receive while using shaming as the tactic for the price floor. Being explicit also makes them come across as capitalists, and capitalists are evil.

Calling it a donation makes it a favor. They're doing you a huge favor .. a priceless service. Won't you donate a little bit of your money to support the greater "mission"?

notpachet• 4 years ago

It's not as if they conjured this approach out of whole cloth. Religions have functioned like this for millennia.

pfortuny2• 4 years ago

Yes I know but that is a lawyer we are talking about.

cuteboy192• 4 years ago

In India there is something called "donation fee". It is paid in exchange for admission to a university (as opposed to admission by merit for free). It's pretty ironic

https://www.careers360.com/question-what-is-donation-feeand-...

rmason• 4 years ago

The ACLU is a sad case. When I was growing up they were a bipartisan organization that were fierce advocates for free speech. Now it seems they only defend the speech of those on the Left side of the aisle.

Here's a critique of those currently running the ACLU by their legendary former leader Ira Glasser (edited):

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10458777/Former-ACL...

everly• 4 years ago

Not to be a pedant, but you’re apparently referring to Ira Glasser (Ira Glass being the mild-mannered host of This American Life).

Jgrubb• 4 years ago

The day that pedantry becomes an offense on this board will be a sad day indeed.

ss1086• 4 years ago

If his comment initially said "Ira Glass", it would not be pedantic to point that out. Nontrivial error given that there is a famous Ira Glass lol

defgeneric• 4 years ago

See also the 2020 documentary Mighty Ira: https://www.mightyira.com/

a_shovel2• 4 years ago

The debacle with the Depp/Heard case is really concerning, I'll say that right up front. That whole event is a good argument for the article's point. But many of the other criticisms are the same ones that didn't convince me the first few times I saw them.

The author says that the ACLU can't be beholden to a political ideology, but that's an obvious contradiction. Support for civil liberties is an inherently political position. If a political party adopts policies that limit civil liberty, then defending CL becomes a partisan issue as well. If one candidate in a race for office is in favor of CL and the other is opposed, which one could easily argue for in the case of the Abrams Vs. Kemp race, [0] then it is entirely appropriate for a CL organization to support one candidate over the other. To claim that the ACLU ought to be, that it could be, apolitical, is to categorically refuse to prepare for or fight against the most powerful attacks on civil liberties.

In general, I've come to value neutrality and apoliticality less and less. What's "political" and what's not is loosely defined and socially constructed, and I suspect it's occasionally deliberately constructed and redefined by the media to shut down certain discussions or criticisms as "inappropriate". Neutrality is likewise poorly defined, and it's often just a form of cowardice from media groups unwilling to take an obviously correct stance because they're afraid to lose subscriptions from people who disagree with the evidence.

Plus, one should note that it's the American Civil Liberties Union, not the American Free Speech Union. The author implies that it is somehow inappropriate for the ACLU to fight for civil liberties other free speech. "Immigrant rights, LGBTQ rights, reproductive freedom, and racial justice" as named by the article are all as much civil liberties as the right to free speech, and thus it is within the organization's mission to champion them. Yet the author describes the ACLU as unable "uphold its core values" by supporting these causes.

Plus, there's this:

But in 2018, following the ACLU’s successful litigation to obtain a permit for white supremacists to march in Charlottesville, Virginia, which ended in death and disaster, the ACLU issued new guidelines.

There's good logic to the idea that an attack on the free speech of Nazis could weaken the rights of the rest of us, but an organization that regularly defends Nazis (a group of people noted for their desire to commit genocide) will eventually have something like this happen. It's an area where the cost-benefit analysis may well not turn out in its favor.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kemp#Accusations_of_vote...

dolni2• 4 years ago

In general, I've come to value neutrality and apoliticality less and less. What's "political" and what's not is loosely defined and socially constructed, and I suspect it's occasionally deliberately constructed and redefined by the media to shut down certain discussions or criticisms as "inappropriate". Neutrality is likewise poorly defined, and it's often just a form of cowardice from media groups unwilling to take an obviously correct stance because they're afraid to lose subscriptions from people who disagree with the evidence.

I take your point about some values potentially running counter to a political party's platform. But the piece you have glossed over here (and why political neutrality is important) is because those values generally aren't applied consistently between political parties.

Claiming to support free speech, only to turn around and demand the censorship of someone who says something you don't like is a disgusting practice that we should call out and shame. These sorts of double standards are quite common in the modern political sphere, unfortunately.

a_shovel2• 4 years ago

I'm referring to neutrality in the sense of not taking a side in a disagreement, and I think you're referring to neutrality in the sense of having a single, consistent standard applied to everyone equally. They're slightly different concepts. We should certainly hold everyone to the same standard, but I'm what I'm saying is that, for example, a standard isn't unfair just because it affects one political group more than another; it might be unfair, but it could also be the case that the more affected group is just worse.

rory• 4 years ago

Nazis (a group of people noted for their desire to commit genocide)

Do Charlottesville-type alt-righters actually advocate genocide, though? It seems like their thing is more moaning that they are being genocided.

ivraatiems• 4 years ago

I continue to support the ACLU and I agree with the argument that even if it's lost its way on some things, its overall mission remains important, and it continues to do a lot of really great work.

However, if you feel you can't support the ACLU, there are a couple of related organizations you can and should support instead:

The EFF - https://www.eff.org/ - the ACLU but for computers

The FIRE - https://thefire.org/ - the ACLU but for college campuses

Would love to hear from people here who might know of others. My personal criteria would just be that they're genuinely non-partisan (no "the ACLU but for people I agree with), and that they fill a niche the ACLU doesn't already fill (though a more general "competitor" might be a good thing too).

eltondegeneres• 4 years ago

FIRE has historically been associated with conservatives, but I don't know if that's changed in recent years.

lynndotpy• 4 years ago

Yeah. If ACLU is too biased for someone, I really can't see FIRE being much better.

But the EFF is excellent in my experience. They're probably most known for Certbot / Let's Encrypt

margalabargala• 4 years ago

Looking through their website, it doesn't look right-leaning (to someone unfamiliar with FIRE before just now).

They recently started organizing against Florida's "Stop WOKE Act": https://www.thefire.org/fire-calls-on-florida-institutions-a...

scythe• 4 years ago

FIRE absolutely does speak up for liberals, as seen e.g. here:

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/03/16/oklahoma-christian-univ...

not_really• 4 years ago

Nice

yucky2• 4 years ago

That's just due to the nature of who finds themselves on the wrong side of college administrations. They are non-partisan though, see some of the sources posted in this thread.

colpabar18• 4 years ago

The ACLU has historically been associated with nazis :^)

pessimizer9• 4 years ago

The litmus test for that would be if they're defending Palestinians.

odessacubbage4• 4 years ago

the ACLU has been historically associated with nazis and terrorists. FIRE, to my knowledge has not discriminated in their advocacy for the plaintiffs in title ix disputes which is one of their primary areas of focus so it seems like a reach to call them a conservative-aligned organization

notacoward3• 4 years ago

I realized that the ACLU had lost its way many years ago, and went looking for alternatives. The most direct alternative I could find at the time was the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, which has since merged with another group to become Defending Rights and Dissent.

https://www.rightsanddissent.org/about/

While their tight focus on individual rights might appeal to those who identify as libertarians, I personally favor organizations that acknowledge the existence of threats to liberty other than government, and that consequently balance their concern for individual/corporate rights with concern for things like justice and equality. In that context, I find the Center for Constitutional Rights much more amenable and perhaps others will too.

https://ccrjustice.org/

pavon• 4 years ago

I'll add another:

The Institute for Justice - https://ij.org/ - a "libertarian" ACLU

I consider their core focus to be on issues that are universal and non-partisan like Free Speech, Police Abuse, Civil Forfeiture, while also veering into more partisan issues like Educational Choice. I haven't found any truly non-partisan organizations like you are asking for, but feel that the IJ fills in some gaps in cases that ACLU used to or should be focusing on, and the areas where I disagree with it "balances" out the areas where I disagree with the ACLU.

Dracophoenix• 4 years ago

I would also add:

Institute of Justice - https://www.ij.org

The Cato Institute - https://www.cato.org

pcvarmint2• 4 years ago

The Rutherford Institute [0], which defended Brandon Raub against forced psychiatric "treatment" (imprisonment) after he posted naughty FaceBook messages [1], is the best civil liberties organization today.

John Whitehead hosts 10-minute podcasts about every other week. [2]

Wendy Kaminer has written WSJ articles and even a book, Worst Instincts, about the ACLU's illiberal decline. [3] [4] [5] [6]

[0] https://www.rutherford.org/

[1] https://www.rutherford.org/issues/free_speech/brandon_raub

[2] https://www.rutherford.org/podcast

[3] https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/25/wendy-kaminer-responds-...

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

[5] https://www.amazon.com/Worst-Instincts-Cowardice-Conformity-...

[6] https://reason.com/2018/06/26/will-the-aclu-defend-controver...

daenz4• 4 years ago

In 1978, the ACLU successfully defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, a community populated by Holocaust survivors.

Is it any surprise that the ACLU has succumbed to the tide of public opinion? Their support of free speech in 1978 meant supporting the rights of literal neo-Nazis. Do people understand how unpopular that is? Their adherence to higher principles (free speech), when it results in those actions, cannot be tolerated in the modern era. The ACLU simply wouldn't survive.

JasonFruit2• 4 years ago

Your attitude is completely wrong in the same way the ACLU has gone wrong. Defending speech _as a right_ means defending it for everyone in all cases, most especially when it is unpopular. Otherwise you're not acting as a defense of free speech, but as an amplifier of speech you agree with. You become the Committee In Favor Of Speech We Like, which is pretty worthless.

daenz4• 4 years ago

I think I miscommunicated my point. I agree with you, I am merely providing my perspective as to why they no longer hold those principles: because it "cannot be tolerated" in the modern era. We're still in an era of "punch people whose views i don't like."

AdamJacobMuller2• 4 years ago

Their adherence to higher principles (free speech), when it results in those actions, cannot be tolerated in the modern era.

Why not?

I remember when the definition of supporting free speech was supporting speech you find repugnant and I really can't think of a group who's speech I find more repugnant than Nazis, both conceptually and contextually.

daenz4• 4 years ago

It cannot be tolerated because people are willing to commit and support acts of violence against those that use repugnant free speech. Whether it can be tolerated is orthogonal to whether or not it should be tolerated. I am merely commenting on the observation that more people than ever cannot tolerate free speech.

daenz4• 4 years ago

Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made.

-attributed to JRR Tolkien

jdkee• 4 years ago

"I used to be a proud card-carrying member of the ACLU. Today, when its fundraising mailers and pleas to re-enroll arrive in my mailbox, I toss them in the recycling."

Well said.

mudil• 4 years ago

The ACLU lost its legitimacy when it stopped defending the civil liberties of people they don't agree with.

rdl• 4 years ago

ACLU membership and staff have always been fairly left, but they were impressively focused on (IMO) the most important civil rights as rights through their work at ACLU, and largely kept their personal politics out of that. A "mission driven organization", as it were. Pretty sad to see what's happened over the past few decades (accelerating; not sure when it started, but it got really bad around 2012-2016, and then far worse). They always believed in "all civil rights except 2A", but I could overlook that since there are other 2A-specific organizations.

I still support them on specific issues, but they're often on the anti-liberty side on other issues, or just actually crazy. Sad.

bliteben2• 4 years ago

Maybe they now believe in a collective approach to all rights.

tablespoon8• 4 years ago

ACLU membership and staff have always been fairly left, but they were impressively focused on (IMO) the most important civil rights as rights through their work at ACLU, and largely kept their personal politics out of that.

If that's true, their fundraising was less focused. I made one or two donations to them in the late 90s or early 2000s, and got piles of junk mail for every liberal cause for decades after.

Never made any other political donation, except to the EFF, so I know it's the ACLU that distributed my name (I've made EFF donations from other addresses, and have never gotten any extra junk due to that).

jrochkind12• 4 years ago

I've been a member of the ACLU since probably 1996, and have always admired the ACLU, so I'm not some johnny-come-lately GenZ wanting the ACLU to be something different than a past ACLU I don't like.

And I still love the ACLU. I don't think they have lost their way or changed their values. I don't agree with every thing the national or state ACLU's do (never have), but I think what they are doing now is upholding and further the core values they have always had, I don't see it as a departure, and in fact I think the things they are doing that look like changes are steps to better uphold their fundamental core values, I think they are steps in the right direction, I'm very happy with the direction they are going.

I'm not even sure I entirely follow what this article is complaining about.

r3trohack3r2• 4 years ago

You’ve said a lot of words - but have said mostly nothing other than “I disagree”

And I still love the ACLU. I don't think they have lost their way or changed their values. I don't agree with every thing the national or state ACLU's do (never have), but I think what they are doing now is upholding and further the core values they have always had, I don't see it as a departure, and in fact I think the things they are doing that look like changes are steps to better uphold their fundamental core values, I think they are steps in the right direction, I'm very happy with the direction they are going.

What made you originally love the ACLU? What things have you disagreed with? What changes have you seen? What core values? How do those changes better uphold those core values? What is the right direction you’re referring to?

throwaway092232• 4 years ago

I've been a relatively big ACLU donor, big enough to have been appointed an "Individual Giving Officer." I've met with some of their leadership.

They've begun taking positions against individual civil rights. They've always been anti-2nd amendment, which I can understand, but this has escalated to the point that I think they're often on the wrong side of 1a issues as well.

I won't donate to them anymore. I regret that I did in the past.

mike006324• 4 years ago

To be fair to the ACLU, the interpretation of the Second Amendment as granting an individual the right to have personal guns independent of a militia is a very recent interpretation (Heller, 2008). It's also had disastrous consequences. It would be like expecting the ACLU to soon advocate against women's bodily rights in a few years because a new Supreme Court decision changed the long-held interpretation of the Constitution.

javagram5• 4 years ago

Correction: until 2008 in Heller, the Supreme Court had never clearly and definitively ruled the 2A is an individual right. It had previously referred to the 2A as an individual right in dicta (non binding opinions) that date back to the 19th century, and many courts and legislators back to the 19th century had also done so.

The interpretation of the 2A as a “collective” right associated with membership in the national guard/militia is largely a creation of 20th century lawyers.

That said, I personally believe the 2A as intended by the founders is likely no longer suited for the modern world and some amendment to limit its scope would be reasonable.

karaterobot• 4 years ago

To be fair to the ACLU, the interpretation of the Second Amendment as granting an individual the right to have personal guns independent of a militia is a very recent interpretation

I'm sure they've heard about it, though, so that's no defense. The question raised in that article is: should they be picking and choosing which rights they defend? The admirable thing about the ACLU was that they would always defend civil liberties, because the loss of any of those is worse in the long run than the distastefulness of supporting someone you may disagree with in the short run.

rayiner8• 4 years ago

It’s not a “recent interpretation.” There was a long period during the 20th century when a narrow view of the second amendment was favored, but in earlier eras it was regarded as a personal right. It was actually liberal scholars like Akhil Amar that did critical work laying the foundation for Heller: https://newrepublic.com/article/73718/second-thoughts

The key subject-nouns were simply different ways of saying the same thing: at the Founding, the militia was the people and the people were the militia. Indeed, the earlier draft of the amendment linked the two clauses with linchpin language speaking of “a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people.” The linchpin was later pulled out as clumsy and redundant. A modern translation of the amendment might thus be: “An armed and militarily trained citizenry being conducive to freedom, the right of the electorate to organize itself militarily shall not be infringed.”

Recall that the Constitution bars maintaining a standing army in peace time. The Framers obviously thought that the way to go was to round up a bunch of armed yokels (sorry, citizens) in times of war, instead of maintaining a permanent army. That is, in fact, what they did during the Revolutionary War.

There's contours to that--I kind of think that the Swiss system where you're required to have guns, but there are measures for keeping them secure in peace time would be Constitutional. But random individuals need to be able to own guns without belonging to a formal "militia" because random individuals are supposed to be the militia.

WalterBright3• 4 years ago

Personally, I don't really care about gun rights. But I care very much about trying to deny the 2nd Amendment without a Constitutional Amendment. If that right can be cast aside as being outdated or inconvenient, what about our other rights?

Which one is next to be discarded? Free speech? (That's under constant assault today.)

tablespoon8• 4 years ago

the interpretation of the Second Amendment as granting an individual the right to have personal guns independent of a militia is a very recent interpretation

IIRC, in colonial America, the militia was understood as basically "all male citizens," and its members typically used personal weapons.

That makes the text and structure of the Second Amendment make a lot of sense: if a militia is necessary for security, and an armed populace is required for a militia, then to protect the militia you have to protect the right of the populace to be armed.

devman0• 4 years ago

1a issues have gotten a lot more complicated in recent years as people try to use 'free speech' as cover to rally for causes that marginalize, harass, and ultimately remove rights from others that the ACLU also wishes to protect.

They are basically experiencing a "Paradox of Tolerance" problem at an organizational level and still haven't really figured it out, and to be fair it's a tough problem.

eweise• 4 years ago

"people try to use 'free speech' as cover to rally for causes that marginalize, harass, and ultimately remove rights from others" Isn't that the point of the article? The ACLU used to promote free speech for Nazis. Now its political.

dionidium• 4 years ago

I don't accept that this is new. This has always been the tension in this debate. It was the tension when they supported the Nazi's right to march in Skokie and it was the tension for 200-years-worth of arguing about it before that.

And it's a tension that the ACLU once took a clear (and extremely controversial) position on.

gameman1443• 4 years ago

I hear the Paradox of Tolerance whipped out in discussions of how best to curb free speech before it harms others. I'm always genuinely curious about this, since it seems to me that this curb is already really well-defined: free speech does not imply free action inspired by that speech.

We already have laws against speech which causes imminent and material harm (e.g. libel laws, incitement of violence), and beyond that it seems like the Paradox of Tolerance doesn't actually apply here: nobody is advocating that we should tolerate the whole slippery slope of action, most advocates (myself included) carve out tolerance explicitly for speech alone.

odessacubbage4• 4 years ago

how is it any more complicated now than during skokie or brandenburg v. ohio? the aclu threaded the needle, successfully in my opinion, for decades and it is only in the trump era where they seem to have reneged on a maximal commitment to preserving civil liberties based on the 'who' of the case. i believe that change has been to the detriment of everyone.

archhn2• 4 years ago

If someone says they don't want millions of illegal immigrants pouring into the country, are they "rallying for causes that marginalize, harass, and remove rights from others?" If someone says they don't support gay marriage on religious grounds, are they engaging in hate speech?

What issue is free from being percieved as an attack on someone else?

Want to put price controls on rent? You're stampeding on property rights. You are marginalizing landlords!

Want to create a company and hire people you want to hire? You're discriminating against those you don't want to hire.

So on, and so forth. All contentious issues involve granting the advantage to one party over another. That's why they are incendiary.

If we don't have free speech, then people will go underground and you'll have subterranean political battles with a banal surface counterpart. In other words, public speech will become completely insincere and everyone will be holding a knife behind their back while they wear big gregarious smiles and say the nicest things.

This has already happened. Free speech has already been effectively eliminated by dumbing down the population. We cannot expect any nuanced public debate. All political speech is reduced to slogan after slogan, "hope and change," laws that have catchy names like "the Patriot act," etc.

It's practically already gone and the underground pressure that one would expect in such a dysfunctional political climate is already at an eruption point.

I don't know what free speech means when most people are too stupid to understand anything above grade school level.

StanislavPetrov3• 4 years ago

1a issues have gotten a lot more complicated

Nothing ever has, or could be, simpler than the concept of free speech and free thought.

rajin4442• 4 years ago

It’s a shame because society needs examples of institutions that represent values as important as free speech. If we want to move forward we have to tolerate nazi speeches as long as they obey the law.

When institutions like that disappear it’s a lot harder for individuals to keep up the fight.

UnpossibleJim2• 4 years ago

The hard thing about defending Nazi's marching is that people have to understand that it sets a precedent for the Black Power movement to march or women's rights movements to march or pro-choice movements to march. If you let these horrible people's rights be stripped away, then when a new power sits in the driver's seat, those causes that you care about can be stripped away because of the short sighted, greedy view taken.

EDIT: changed "you" to "people"

slg4• 4 years ago

They've begun taking positions against individual civil rights... this has escalated to the point that I think they're often on the wrong side of 1a issues as well.

Isn't this because civil rights of one individual are often in conflict with the civil rights of another?

A common example is the baker tasked with making a wedding cake for a gay couple. Should the baker have the civil right to practice their religion which does not condone gay marriage? Or should the gay couple have the civil right to not be discriminated against for their sexuality? You can't take a position in this situation without being against someone's civil rights.

As the political environment in the US becomes more polarized, these conflicts become more common and the apolitical path becomes less tenable.

EDIT: I wasn't trying to start a debate about this specific court case. But the fact that simply mentioning it did spark that debate basically proves my point. There is no universal agreed upon line between the civil rights of one individual and the civil rights of another. When these conflicts arise, the ACLU's work will be inherently political because an apolitical compromise is rarely possible.

ROTMetro17• 4 years ago

For the record I am pro-gay marriage, but your example is BS. The baker in your example was willing to bake them a cake. They were never denied a cake. What the baker was not willing to do was bake them the exact cake that they wanted, claiming that fancier cakes were artistic expression and not the same as the standard priced on their menu cakes, and that forcing them to create an art piece cake they didn't want to make was the equivalent of compelled speech. It would be the equivalent of going to a restaurant and asking for something non-standard and off menu (say change a meal to vegan or gluten free), being denied that, and then claiming the restaurant violated your rights. Or going to an artist who sells t-shirts with their standard art and saying they denied me service when they wouldn't let me commission a custom piece that they didn't like to content of.

parkingrift• 4 years ago

No one has a "civil right" to discriminate in the United States. The default law in the United States is that discrimination is illegal. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 spells out protections against discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin.

Sexual orientation is not explicitly protected, but that does not mean you have a "civil right" to discriminate against gay people. You just... have a right to be an asshole.

throwaway092232• 4 years ago

Isn't this because civil rights of one individual are often in conflict with the civil rights of another?

Kind of, yes. I think where things go off the rails is where projection and extrapolation come into play.

Recall: one of the key defining cases of the ACLU was their defense of (actual) neo-nazis marching in Skokie in the 70s.

Contrast this with the ACLU in 2017 arguing that San Francisco should prevent an alt-right protest because of theorized violence (the protest went forward. No violence materialized). Volokh wrote a bit about it here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

There's a lot of inconsistency in the modern day ACLU. I think they've walked some of it back in the last few years, but from 2016-2020 I think they kind of lost their mind and I saw a lot of strong advocacy for these sort of projected societal norms -- don't let the bad people protest -- rather than the staunch defense of individual rights no matter who the individuals may be.

I want an ACLU that isn't polarized by politics. With a focus on individual rights.

puffoflogic4• 4 years ago

Bringing religion into the gay cake thing is just gish galloping. No one should be forced to make any cake, no questions asked. (And no, WElL yUo CoulD jUST sTOp MaKInG ALL caKeS does not work, that's just force with a pretty bow on top.) But by bringing irrelevant religion into it, this gives the slavers - er, excuse me, the people who think it's okay to force other people to do things - the moral high ground of defending against a bunch of fundies. Just fucking stop trying to force other people to conform to your beliefs, even if those beliefs are as morally righteous as LGBT rights. Not making someone a cake is not violence.

bliteben2• 4 years ago

How can you understand a right being only collective? I bet you don't believe in a collective right to privacy?

car_analogy3• 4 years ago

Has it? That is the charitable view. The uncharitable view is that their stated ideals were conditional on advancing their unstated goals. Once they started jeopardizing those goals instead, they were selectively abandoned.

When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.

stjohnswarts2• 4 years ago

It has but I keep donating because they do some good work as well. I'm also a member of EFF, NRA, Planned Parenthood, and TFTP and contribute semi-annualy to the causes. You'll never agree with everyone's full point of view, but there are groups fighting for liberty still.

manesioz• 4 years ago

Relevant past thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414920

actusual• 4 years ago

Progressive causes are near and dear to my heart. I am a feminist and staunch Democrat. As a federal public defender turned law professor, I have spent my career trying to make change in a criminal legal system that is riven with racism and fundamentally unfair to those without status and financial resources. Yet, as someone who understands firsthand that the fundamental rights to free speech and due process exist only as long as competent lawyers are willing to vigorously defend extreme positions and people, I view the ACLU’s hard-left turn with alarm. It smacks of intolerance and choosing sides, precisely what a civil-liberties organization designed to defend the Bill of Rights is meant to oppose.

What an incredibly level headed take. It's so level headed that it seems fake when projected onto the landscape of modern political discourse.

rayiner8• 4 years ago

Lara Bazelon is a rigorous thinker and a staunch believer in procedural justice. This leads to heterodox takes like, for example, supporting Betsy DeVoss’s efforts to roll back Obama’s Title IX reforms: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/opinion/-title-ix-devos-d.... (As a conservative, I disagree with more her than I agree with her, ironically including with respect to Title IX, where I agree with Obama for conservative reasons.)

darkerside• 4 years ago

I remember there being a ton of conversation about these issues. What happened to these reforms in particular?

javajosh4• 4 years ago

It's so level headed that it seems fake when projected onto the landscape of modern political discourse.

Yes, and we need more of this sort of thinking, from everyone capable of it. I believe we have to stop thinking that "keeping your head down" is a solution. It is not. We must challenge unfairness itself, even if, especially if it yields an outcome we would prefer. This means principle over loyalty, and it won't make you popular but it may save our civilization.

throw_nbvc12342• 4 years ago

Personally I'd like to get back to a world where the fate of civilization is not the responsibility of every individual to worry about on a daily basis. That same mindset is underneath all the polarization as well; are you really a good (or loyal or principled) person if you're not actively fighting for causes X, Y and Z? Could be correlation instead of causation though.

spikels• 4 years ago

This means principle over loyalty

This is the essence of the problem. Human nature favors loyalty but human progress requires principals.

monksy• 4 years ago

I'm not sure I agree with you that this is a levelheaded take. The individual identified with 2 different groups and defers the individual's personal beliefs. It's hard to see if the reason why he/she believes in these things as a personal stance or to maintain membership within those groups.

Associating with groups, esp like these, means alignment to the groups priorities. I see this tribalism as part of what has really destroyed the modern political landscape.

RC_ITR3• 4 years ago

The new definition of levelheaded is “straw man assertion I don’t back up with facts” then “somber toned analysis of straw man impacts”

The internet revealed that facts are real, but interpretations are extremely up for grabs. I mean is is really a “hard left turn” to stop defending the KKK or is the author just living in a world where people don’t grasp how truly outside of contemporary society that the KKK operates in?

jmyeet7• 4 years ago

I don't see this as level-headed at all. This is really an extension of the "both sides" logical fallacy. It reminds me of Elon Musk's ridiculous tweet [1].

Why is this ridiculous? Because there is no extreme left in US politics. There's like 4 members of Congress you could consider leftist. The Democratic Party as it exists now is a center right party that makes just enough progressive noises to fundraise without actually doing anything legislatively.

In the last 10 years the only things that have really changed are legalizing of gay marriage (long overdue), #MeToo, some attention to the institutional racism that black people continue to live under and a long overdue reevaluation of widespread transphobia. That's literally it.

On the right, we reacted to the first black US president by electing a bona fide white supremacist [2]. The #1 show on the #1 "news" network openly pushes Nazi propaganda [3]. And what was the supposd left doing? Pelosi is campaigning for the only anti-choice Democrat in Congress [4] (ironically in Texas when the Supreme Court draft leaked).

The right has been massively successful in creating wedge issues to make people care about things that don't matter (eg trans people in college sports)

We've had 49 years to Federally codify Roe v. Wade but the supposed part of the Left has refused to do so despite numerous opportunities to do so.

Which brings us back to the ACLU: what hard-left turn?

[1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519735033950470144/phot...

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-d...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/30/us/tucker-carlson-gop-rep...

[4] https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/23/nancy-pelosi-henry-c...

froggertoaster5• 4 years ago

In the last 10 years the only things that have really changed are legalizing of gay marriage (long overdue), #MeToo, some attention to the institutional racism that black people continue to live under and a long overdue reevaluation of widespread transphobia. That's literally it.

Um... that's literally it?

Bad take my guy. Just because you can copy/paste links and make citations doesn't make your take any more true. It smacks of extreme ignorance. And saying things like "on the right, we reacted to the first black US president by electing a bona fide white supremacist" just discredits you further - this is a highly politically charged statement that tells on your positions (and frankly, your mental state).

throwawaylinux6• 4 years ago

Bill Clinton and Obama would both be considered homophobic nazis, white supremacists (a black white supremacist in the latter case, I've been assured that's a real and extremely dangerous variant of white supremacist by many foremost self-proclaimed experts), and woman haters for their views and policies on gay marriage, border control and immigration, even abortion (they said that abortions should be rare). So I'd say we've come a good way since electing those two bigoted old hatemongering dinosaurs, haven't we?

smsm427• 4 years ago

It's an interesting set of opinions, which would be great if you didn't think these are indisputable facts that any reasonable person would agree to. Which they are definitely not.

refurb• 4 years ago

"Because there is no extreme left in US politics."

The irony of this statement is too delicious to not call out.

hedora4• 4 years ago

There is an extreme left in US politics, and it's a large percentage of the population.

The problem is the electoral college. You only need 50% of the votes in the smallest twenty states to fillibuster legislation in congress, twenty five states to withold funding, and sixty to overcome a filibuster.

It turns out 7% of people are all that's needed for a filibuster, and 12% can block one, assuming you have the right people. Those "super voters" are in the most conservative states in the US.

I think the populous cities should demand constitutional changes to ensure each vote counts equally. Failing that, they should work towards secession. As it is, the majority of the population is in states that send more money to the federal government than they get back, and the states running the biggest deficits are trying to claw everyone else down to their (fascist, fundamentalist, and antidemocratic) level.

I'm far more moderate than the liberal bogeymen the Republicans like to demonize.

car_analogy3• 4 years ago

Because there is no extreme left in US politics.

No extreme economic left. Instead, the left concentrates on racial issues, which is how enforcing even existing immigration law has become taboo, whites have been a minority among births since 2016 [1], and the white supremacist president campaigned with a "platinum plan" for Blacks.

Except for the 2nd amendment and abortion opponents, the right has been an utter failure. A puppet for corporate interests pushing overseas invasions and tax cuts.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/23/its-officia...

grover35• 4 years ago

Are you sure? I was always under the impression that the democratic party is alt-right and the republican party is neo Nazi.

raxxorraxor10• 4 years ago

As someone from outside the US I agree that the "left" in the US are mostly just corporate stooges with empty promises. I think progressive causes are mostly a distraction and don't really help most people that would need state support the most.

But subjecting yourself to the left - right dichotomy is disabling to yourself for the most part.

Gay marriage is a point, although on a state level that is pretty much a tax adjustment today. There were no real other demands. Perhaps gender neutral passports, but honestly that isn't really a foundation for policy crafting. Which demands did #metoo have and which were realized? Same with the question for the movements against racism? There is no result because there are no demands. Or at least I didn't hear any.

There are women in low wage jobs that could use support. How is #metoo helping them. How is removing police helping regions with crime problems. Ending prosecution of drug users was on the plan since decades and is sensible in contrast to recent demands.

rxhernandez4• 4 years ago

It doesn't feel remotely level-headed. Just about anyone in my AP English class could have made all of that up 12 years ago. That is, using circular logic to defend something like freedom of speech is something I expect any high school senior to be able to do.

What I would like to know is, why it's so important if, for most of us, for the best and most capable parts of our lives, we don't have anything that resembles free speech. In fact, we expect to have our income and Healthcare cutoff if we really speak our minds often in the workplace.

What I would like to know is, why it's okay for a few people to lie about the gravity of a pandemic and cost us 1M of our countrymen.

What I would like to know is, how countries just as capable as us manage to lead better lives despite not having free reign over discussions on Nazis.

What I would like to know is, why the staunchest proponents of freedom of speech choose to hit that down vote button to push comments like mine into oblivion rather than have an honest set of questions seen.

I haven't really heard anyone use anything but propaganda based circular logic or slippery slope fallacies to answer why unbridled free speech is necessary.

Moreover, it's hard to believe there is much substance to people's positions on unbridled freedom of speech when people are so religious about it. It's hard to believe that we have the right answer when we don't allow an ounce of nuance in the discussion.

gunfighthacksaw• 4 years ago

Those countries don’t give you the freedom to get into a gunfight with a SWAT team though.

blueprint• 4 years ago

the 'slippery slope' is not a fallacy. they are real. I'm sure you'd agree if I cited some examples.

mpalczewski• 4 years ago

What I would like to know is, why it's okay for a few people to lie about the gravity of a pandemic and cost us 1M of our countrymen.

1M people died but the way your sentence is framed is that without those lies 1M people wouldn't have died. That looks like quite the intent to deceive, which makes it look like you are the liar. Why is it ok for you?

Furthermore it's quite obfuscated. Yes people lied about the pandemic(every politician lies, it's like a contest to elect the best liar). I'm willing to bet some of those lies saved lives(just by chance, who knows).

So directly in answer to your question. Speech should be free because that's how society advances, free speech is how you question the current dogma, it's how society moves forward. There's costs and benefits. Charlatan will con people. The way you deal with charlatans is by exposing them with better speech.

Banning speech is weak sauce for people that don't know how to be convincing.

What I would like to know is, how countries just as capable as us manage to lead better lives despite not having free reign over discussions on Nazis.

I live a pretty good life as an immigrant. Can't complain. Great country, wouldn't want to be anywhere else. The country where I come from does not have "free reign over discussions on Nazis".

I haven't really heard anyone use anything but propaganda based circular logic or slippery slope fallacies to answer why unbridled free speech is necessary.

That's an admission that you really haven't heard or considered the best argument for free speech. If you can only state arguments from one side of an issue, you haven't made up your mind, it was made for you.

causality0• 4 years ago

Pretending the actions of the government and the actions of private entities are equivalent borders on being deliberately obtuse. There is an enormous difference between being fired because you called a coworker the n-word and having uniformed men with guns show up at your front door because you taught a dog to sieg heil.

hedora4• 4 years ago

Democracy requires free speech. So, if you're against free speech, then you're also against Democracy.

What form of government would you prefer? The biggest modern alternate examples are China (I'm guessing you disapprove of their zero covid policy, but your comment is ambiguous), and Russia (which also seems worse than the US according to the criteria I could tease out from your comment).

So, what concrete alternative do you propose?

raxxorraxor10• 4 years ago

What I would like to know is, why the staunchest proponents of freedom of speech choose to hit that down vote button to push comments like mine into oblivion rather than have an honest set of questions seen.

I didn't downvote you and don't like if someone does it without leaving criticism. That said, I understand the objection to your reasoning very well and maybe people refrain from answering because the pitfalls of your model for speech are trivial. It comes down to who get the power to define truth. That is not a problem if anyone is allowed to leave their opinion. There will be people that abuse that right and that is the cost of it.

And we have seen intentional lying which I believe was a great mistake in current times when information moves that fast. Because the lie will come to light at some point anyway.

tehwebguy• 4 years ago

Weirdly enough I don't see anything the ACLU is doing in the article that's particularly left or even progressive, just barely Democrat. My guess is there's 100x as much money available to an org fighting for a particular party's most important items at a given moment vs actually looking for free speech violations.

randbox• 4 years ago

Yes, the level-headed take is that an organization has not taken a "hard-left turn" unless they are calling for redistributing the land and cancelling the debt.

cjsplat6• 4 years ago

The ACLU on Northern California is the #3 donor (over $300k) for the effort to reject the recall of the progressive DA in SF. (sfethics.org list of actual donors, not guesswork).

Regardless of one's position on the recall, it seems an odd thing for the N. Cal ACLU to be putting over 5% of it's operating budget into this campaign.

paisawalla• 4 years ago

One of their most visible (on Twitter) attorneys is a transgender person who openly called for "stopping the circulation" of a book discussing critically the transgender phenomenon [0]. This is the same org that once fought for a neo-Nazi organization's right to hold a march. From "I may not agree with your opinion, but I'll defend your right to say it," to "we must prevent opposing views from being heard" in under a decade.

0: https://www.iwf.org/2020/11/16/some-in-aclu-have-new-cause-b...

RickJWagner• 4 years ago

For me, this was the 'whoa!' paragraph

"... in 2018, the ACLU spent $800,000 on a campaign ad for Stacey Abrams during her run for governor in Georgia and $1 million in an attack-ad campaign against Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings."

There's more of the same, but it's enough to get the picture.

That's all you need to know. The ACLU is not about fairness for everyone.

toomuchtodo• 4 years ago

ACLUs’ political donations aside, the world is not fair, and some are playing to win to inflict suffering on others. Arguing for fairness for everyone doesn’t necessarily mean you want fairness; it can also mean you’re looking for a system vulnerability to exploit. Revealed intent matters.

I would not enable fairness for someone attempting to harm a family member, a loved one, the general public, or myself, for example. To do so would be to empower their harm projection.

arrosenberg3• 4 years ago

They aren’t the American Fairness Union. Stacey Abrams is a proponent of expanding civil liberties. Brett Kavanaugh has repeatedly demonstrated contempt for them, exemplified by the coming decision that overturns Roe.

smsm427• 4 years ago

I remember when this approach was considered normal, and even people that were unable to raise to it at least tried to fake it. I'm not being facetious here, I really remember it, and I'm not even that old. I wish those times would return one day.

yowzadave• 4 years ago

The game-theory problem is: unilateral disarmament is a recipe for losing in today's political world. If progressives choose not to use the tools available for them to exercise power, you can be sure that conservatives won't make the same mistake. Could one convince conservatives to give up a supreme court seat? Because that's an entire branch of government (and perhaps the most powerful) that is likely to be controlled by conservatives for the rest of our lifetimes. Likewise, the Senate awards outsized power to rural states; what are the odds that conservatives would agree to a more equal representation? That they would vote for a federal ban on gerrymandering? Historically conservatives have been more strategic at preserving their political power; it's hard to see how we overcome many of the current dysfunctions the US is facing.

galaxyLogic4• 4 years ago

Right. One party is fighting for fairness and democracy, the other for domination and autocracy. But I believe it is still possible to be fair by those who fight for fairness, and to be democratic by those who fight for democracy. And they can still win, eventually. It is called progress and it has been going on for centuries.

HonestOp001• 4 years ago

Simple, stop wasting money, get rid of licensing requirements, and fire HR departments en banc.

We wasted $xxx millions on BLM. They could have helped the justice system by taking that money and forcing every interaction with the public to be recorded through body cameras. Instead the money is being used on influence studios. How are we going to get rid of bad cops if we cannot identify or categorize them.

Licensing requirements are ridiculous, it causes wastes of time and hiking of wages to meet the ridiculousness. Someone who is in a bad neighborhood looking to go straight would need 500 hours of cosmetology school to weave hair. Why? There is no licensing requirement for aeronautic engineers!

HR departments are full of scared losers. We all know this. They are the people who were not smart enough in high school, got a non real degree, be then entered the corporate work environment. Because they do not have the capability to think, they have to rely on mimicry. That is why when a job needs to be filled, instead of doing a good job, they simply look at what everyone else posts at other firms. Then the HR departments make sure to hire someone with a degree so if things do not work out, HR can say: we did our best. This credentialing keeps good candidates out and causes cribbing to happen. Don’t have a degree, don’t apply. I have had to fight to get non degreed people promoted out of their current position with HR because the candidate was not “one of us.”

rayiner8• 4 years ago

Historically conservatives have been more strategic at preserving their political power

Only if your recollection of history starts in 1994. When Biden was elected to the Senate, Democrats had almost 10 percentage points greater representation in the House than their share of the House popular vote, a feat the GOP has never matched: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Popular_vote_vs_actual_...

And look at how many Republican Supreme Court appointees went wobbly. The majority that upheld abortion rights in Casey in 1992 consisted of five Republican appointees, with the lone Democrat voting with Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.

In terms of strategy, the GOP was a complete tire fire until the Gingrich Congress of the 1990s.

raxxorraxor10• 4 years ago

True, I had my doubts after the initial introduction. Although I don't understand the remark about extreme positions that need and get legal defense. Because those statements are indeed the ones needing it the most and what is considered extreme can change on a day to day basis.

But the essence is correct. What I find most interesting about some of these "left" causes are that they don't argue for any liberties. They most often do the exact opposite and advocate putting people under new rules. I think that is missing the mark.

Freedom of speech always needs defendants and that will never change. But that is not what the ACLU is doing.

WalterBright3• 4 years ago

The right to free speech is the lynchpin that holds together all the other rights. Throwing that under the bus - the rest will soon follow.

revscat2• 4 years ago

This is certainly what we’re taught, isn’t it.

Try this on for size, as abhorrent as you’ll initially find it: speech doesn’t matter. Marketing does. Ideas aren’t about debate. They’re about memetics.

Why ban speech when you have Fox News? Why worry about climate change when you can just… not ever talk about it.

WalterBright3• 4 years ago

When you lose free speech, there won't be any debate about losing the rest of your rights. You won't hear about any rights violations. You won't be able to talk when your rights are violated.

Without free speech, you have no rights.

pessimizer9• 4 years ago

Considering the outlet, if the Atlantic thinks that the ACLU is too aligned with Democratic Party politics, it probably is. I don't even know how this got published unless there's some behind-the-scenes jostling going on to replace the leadership, staged internally or by whale donors.

zerocrates• 4 years ago

You mean the leadership of the Atlantic? Their traditional brand is "left-center" so this is pretty squarely in the wheelhouse for them, I'd say.

jmyeet7• 4 years ago

Terence Dougherty, the organization’s general counsel, testified via video deposition that the ACLU had spearheaded the effort and served as Heard’s ghostwriter in exchange for her promise to donate $3.5 million to the organization.

This is interesting, especially given the interest in the trial, but largely irrelevant.

First, no matter who actually ghostwrote the op-ed piece in WaPo, Amber Heard put her name on it.

Second, charities engage in fundraising activities. It doesn't surprise me at all that the ACLU was actively involved in the op-ed piece. You have to remember that prior to the current trial, Depp's reputation was really in tatters. Heard was seen as the victim so getting broader circulation for her story probably seemed both a good idea and consistent with the ACLU's perceived values.

When Heard failed to pay up, Doughtery said, the ACLU collected $100,000 from Depp himself

So here I believe the article has made a factual error. I can't find an exact date for this but from watching the trial, the check Depp sent to the ACLU for $100,000 was part of the divorce settlement, which would put it more than 2 years prior to the op-ed piece.

Progressive causes are near and dear to my heart. I am a feminist and staunch Democrat.

This is a contradiction. Democrats not only aren't progressives, they do their utmost to eliminate and ostracize any actual progressives from their ranks. Consider right at the time the Supreme Court draft was leaked, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of the 3 most powerful Democrats in the country, was in Texas campaigning for the only anti-choice Democrat in the House in a primary over progressive candidates [1].

The author doesn't really explain what issues they have with the ACLU other than some off-the-cuff statements about supporting Stacy Abrams. Given Georgia's voter suppression bill [2] that her opponent ultimately signed into law, this actually does seem consistent with protecting "civil liberties".

The author meanders about the point that the ACLU should be protecting "free speech" without saying how it isn't. It's really a complaint about other causes but remember it's the American Civil Liberties Union not the American Free Speech Union. Voter rights, as an example, fall directly under the umbrella of civil liberties.

More often than not, when someone has a take like this, it usually means they're a TERF but I can't find anything she's publicly written that's obviously transphobic so I'm scratching my head as to what the actual issue is here. I've found some complaints about Kamala Harrais being more progressive as a prosecutor than VP (which is legitimate) but nothing obvious.

As for her complaints about ACLU opposition to Title IX, I honestly don't know a lot about this but the ACLU's original suit seemed to be to opposed a higher standard for sexual harassment investigations and claims [3]. That seems a legitimate complaint, no?

Whatever the cause, it doesn't seem like the author is explicit about what her actual issue is.

[1] https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/23/nancy-pelosi-henry-c...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/us/politics/georgia-votin...

[3] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-betsy-devos-al...

cluedos11• 4 years ago

More often than not, when someone has a take like this, it usually means they're a TERF but I can't find anything she's publicly written that's obviously transphobic so I'm scratching my head as to what the actual issue is here.

Sorry the witch hunt didn't work out like you'd hoped.

jscipione• 4 years ago

How did this article get published? I always thought that the Atlanta was a yellow journalism outlet, but this article defies that belief. Bravo Atlantic for pointing out this important issue and its detrimental effects on the freedom of speech.

uxp100• 4 years ago

The Atlantic publishes things like this pretty frequently. People on their staff who are not liberals: Connor Freidersdorf, David Frum (eww), and (well, she is a liberal but has some edgy feminism takes) Caitlin Flanagan.

It's a fairly enjoyable magazine, that used to have a (really ugly and hostile) comment section that the writers would actually engage with. Which was pretty cool. In a truly embarrassing ethical mistep a former editor allowed Hillary's campaign to dictate some details about his coverage (he had to use the word muscular lol) in exchange for giving him access to a speech ahead of time so he could start writing his article early, IIRC. That was less cool.

unityByFreedom• 4 years ago

Are there any reputable firms or organizations who do stand for speech rights?

sillypuddy2• 4 years ago

FIRE is in higher ed. https://www.thefire.org/

walkhour• 4 years ago

Every new generation of left leaning people thinks the subsequent generation of left leaning people is going too far.

nobodyandproud• 4 years ago

It’s a singular leadership issue. Ira Glasser stood for something; current leadership does not.

s1artibartfast2• 4 years ago

Consider what the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had to say about pandemic management in 2008:

“The notion that we need to ‘trade liberty for security’ is misguided and dangerous. Public health concerns cannot be addressed with law enforcement or national security tools.”

13 years later, in a guest essay in The New York Times, the ACLU proclaimed that:

“the real threat to civil liberties comes from states banning vaccine and mask mandates”.

Think what you want about these policies, but the shift in ACLU values is real.

irrational• 4 years ago

The ACLU has often made voting easier for me. I live in a state with mail voting. We get a big booklet with all the issues to be voted on spelled out with pros and cons submitted by people and organizations. Typically I just flip through each one to see if the ACLU is for or against it, then I vote the opposite. There has only been a single time that I agreed with them and voted the way they want me to vote. They are a great litmus test of most issues.

slibhb• 4 years ago

Compare to https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html (by Emily Bazelon, the sister of this article's author).

Bazelon family Thanksgivings must be interesting!

wonderwonder• 4 years ago

I consider myself socially liberal, am a non religious jew, and vote democrat. I used to donate to the aclu monthly for ~2 years. The ACLU has absolutely lost its way. It should defend freedom of speech and the Bill of Rights regardless of the message its clients are attempting to spread. I donated to it specifically for that reason as I believe the Bill of Rights to be amongst the most perfect set of laws in existence. I stopped donating once the ACLU started openly choosing sides. Did not know about the Heard / Depp thing but if true that is absolutely outrageous and representative of an organization that is a shell of its former self.

ohCh6zos2• 4 years ago

I am an observantly religious person who contributed to the ACLU for identical reasons. I think it's sad to see how far they appear to have fallen.

Maybe it's time to look to see if there are any strong replacements?

mdavis6890• 4 years ago

I think I might finally subscribe to The Atlantic now.

celeritascelery• 4 years ago

I heard this quote (I think from PG) that said something like this: “the ACLU should split into groups; the old-ACLU that defends civil liberties, and the new-ACLU that fights against them.”

braingenious• 4 years ago

I’m personally blown away by the weird shit that went on and the Amber Heard case. I’m reticent to call that inherently politically “left” and more of “an incredibly scummy cash grab that apparently didn’t even work very well but happened to appeal to a slice of left-leaning people”

Whoever came up with, pitched and signed off on that whole silly scheme should be excised from the organization immediately.

As for them deciding not to help out the Unite The Right folks after their blatant violent rhetoric and blatant violent (if vague) plans led to an actual death… uh, so what?

I’m kind of amused by the “both sides are equal!” rhetoric — as if the nazis somehow are lacking funding, political goodwill and sympathetic judges.

Anyway, serious question: Is everyone entitled to ACLU resources? For example, if I organize a rally about how it’s cool to kill people that I think are subhuman and one of the attendants goes ahead and follows through with that line of reasoning, is it a violation of my rights if the ACLU doesn’t trip over themselves making sure that I can do it again?

If I’m entitled to ACLU money then I’ve got free legal representation for life, right? Disregard the fact that in this scenario I’m maybe in the hook for criminal incitation of violence — it doesn’t matter. Incitation is speech and speech is a civil liberty and that’s in the name of the organization. checkmate, losers.

I do think funding silly leftist causes is about as dumb as funding certain righty causes, but at the end of the day the ACLU is an organization that has, and has always had, the civil liberty of free speech themselves, including the right to pick who and what they work with and on.

Anyway, I’m glad the author is an experienced federal defense attorney. Maybe she can spend her personal time helping out the members of Christopher Cantwell’s various Telegram channels since she cares more about their wellbeing than her own feminist and Democrat ideals.

smsm427• 4 years ago

In other news, we're in 21st century, there's this new thing called "internet" that is getting popular, and Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

I mean, it's good they finally noticed, but it didn't happen recently. ACLU has turned from "CL" to just "L" (meaning "Left") years ago, by now probably a decade ago.

jollybean3• 4 years ago

'Free Speech' a bit of an American term, I wish people would start using the broader term 'Freedom of Expression', and, thinking outside the bounds of 2cnd Amendment, which is fairly specific.

Also, the term 'Free Speech' in 2022 feels a bit as though it's been usurped by specific libertarian-ish hardliners, even just using the term 'Freedom of Expression' just feels more inclusive to groups that aren't 'libertarian' etc..

themitigating• 4 years ago

Why is this on Hackernews?

hitovst• 4 years ago

AS long as we tolerate the world reserve fiat global enslavement system, everything that can be corrupted will be corrupted.

With some perspective, you'll see most things are the opposite of what they were intended, or claim, to be.

mhb• 4 years ago

ACLU: “Elon Musk's Decision to Re-Platform President Trump Is the Right Call”

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31334300

chernevik2• 4 years ago

They have to choose between "progressive" causes and civil liberties.

sillypuddy2• 4 years ago

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has taken the place of ACLU in higher ed. https://www.thefire.org/

galaxyLogic4• 4 years ago

Why shouldn't ACLU be involved in politics? Isn't Civil Rights all about politics? If you are fighting for civil rights you must also support politicians who support civil rights. No?

bob_roberts• 4 years ago

The author's main complaint is that the ACLU has prioritized "immigrant rights, LGBTQ rights, reproductive freedom, and racial justice." But the opposition to these issues (aka the Republican party) is rolling in dark money. The forces against social progress are doing just fine without the ACLU.

pentae• 4 years ago

Pretty sure they'll designate The Atlantic as a "Hate Group" after this ..

pcvarmint2• 4 years ago

The Rutherford Institute [0] is much better than the ACLU on civil liberties issues these days, even though its founder, John W. Whitehead, was formerly associated with the Religious Right, and has since disavowed it [1].

[0] https://www.rutherford.org/

[1] https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Religious+right+about-face%3a...

jrochkind12• 4 years ago

ACLU reply published in the Atlantic, HN page at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31491262

The ACLU Has Lost Its Way

Related Stories