7 ms·

I'm surprised that this case hasn't received more attention: https://www.womensliberationfront.org/aclu-lawsuit-public-records https://www.womensliberationfront

I'm surprised that this case hasn't received more attention: https://www.womensliberationfront.org/aclu-lawsuit-public-records https://www.womensliberationfront.org/aclu-lawsuit-public-re... Here, the ACLU is suing to prevent citizens from getting public records released by the government. From ACLU: "We have filed for an emergency Temporary Restraining Order and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to prevent the disclosure of documents you have requested from the Department of Corrections." This really blew my mind–I never thought I'd see the day when the ACLU filed suit to protect government secrecy against FOIA sunshine. This seems to be a clear conflict between progressive causes (in this case: letting trans-identified male people access female prisons) and supporting government transparency. Here the ACLU decided transparency could and should be denied because the information was being requested by bad people, or for bad reasons, or something. If you only support free speech (or transparency) in cases where you agree with the actors, you don't really support free speech at all.

shadowgovt 5y ago
Here is the ACLU explainer on that suit: https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/faq-does-v-washington-department-corrections https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/faq-does-v-washington-departme... Privacy is also a civil liberty worth defending, and in this case, it appears the ACLU is defending that liberty where it is in conflict with transparency. (Probably worth noting: the right to free speech is not the right to know things. On the contrary, it also includes the right to remain silent; compelled speech is also a violation of the basic freedom of speech. The ACLU is not in conflict with defense of free speech in challenging a FOIA request on privacy-violation grounds).
- dwaltrip 5y ago
  Why is this comment downvoted? Can someone explain the reasoning?
rhinoceraptor 5y ago
> trans-identified male This is a pretty offensive term. It's mainly used by TERF/'gender critical' bigots to refer to trans women and describe their gender identity as fraudulent or inauthentic (along with its analogue for trans men).
- morelisp 5y ago
  Yes, WoLF is a TERF hate group.
- lesstenseflow 5y ago
  As far as I know, in order to qualify as a "transwoman" you must be male. If a female person identifies as a woman, they're not trans. So a transwoman is a trans-identified male person. I don't mean any offense here, I'm just trying to use clear and unambiguous language. Not everyone on HN is from the USA and this issue is confusing so it's helpful if everyone uses clear language in my opinion. Whether transwomen are "women" is a contentious question with a subjective answer, obviously people disagree about it. I prefer therefor to stick to observable facts: 1. the person is male 2. they identify as trans.
  - morelisp 5y ago
    Pretty much your entire comment history is transphobic propaganda.
    - lesstenseflow 5y ago
      If I'm advancing an argument you disagree with, I encourage you to explain why you disagree. Ad hominem is lazy and doesn't typically get much traction in this forum. My comment history on this account is mostly opinions that disagree with Silicon Valley corporate-woke hegemony precisely because these are opinions that can "get you in trouble,", which is why I have this anonymous account to discuss these topics. I comment on plenty of other thing but I'm not going to risk angering those people who will gleefully try to destroy your career for having the wrong opinions on these topics.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        Engaging with trolls is also discouraged by the HN guidelines. You're engaging in a tactic called "just asking questions"[0], they're loaded questions, and given your post history its unlikely you'll engaged in good faith if someone takes the time to respond to explain precisely why they're not simply wrong, but intended to harm people and erode their rights. [0]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
joshuamorton 5y ago
> This really blew my mind–I never thought I'd see the day when the ACLU filed suit to protect government secrecy against FOIA sunshine. I think prisoners should, like everyone else, have a right to privacy. Them being under government care shouldn't give random people the right to learn private medical information, anymore than it should be acceptable for an FOIA request to determine how many medicare/medicade users are trans.
- baseballdork 5y ago
  Agreed, and this is exactly what the ACLU is arguing [0]. > Such a disclosure would create a serious and unacceptable risk of harm to the people identified and violate their 8th and 14th Amendment rights. In addition, the requested information is exempt from disclosure under Washington’s Public Records Act. [0] - https://www.aclu-wa.org/cases/does-v-washington-department-corrections https://www.aclu-wa.org/cases/does-v-washington-department-c...
  - lesstenseflow 5y ago
    Taking male bodied people imprisoned for being found guilty of rape and putting them in women's prison is a radical (and probably extremely unpopular) public policy. WoLF is arguing that the public should be allowed to know what the corrections department is doing here. I find it highly ironic that defending the speech rights of Nazi's might be considered going too far because of the "harm" the speech might cause and consideration of the potential "victims" of the speech, but in a case where a male rapist is going to be put in a cell with a female prisoner with no means of escaping him, that male rapist's right to privacy is the only consideration. There is a legitimate debate about the rights of male people to be housed in prison with a female population. Maybe a male prisoner has that right, maybe he doesn't–society is still up in the air on this question. It's impossible to have that debate, however, if the entire process is being handled behind closed doors by fiat and then the information is hidden.
anigbrowl 5y ago
It seems that you are using 'government secrecy' to include 'individual (prisoners') privacy'. You don't have a right to access the medical records of any federal prisoner, for example, but that doesn't mean the government is suppressing the information; rather that it's upholding the general right to medical privacy. I suspect the reason it has received little attention is that the sponsoring organization, WoLF, is known for allying with rigorous Christian conservatives and seems to be motivated exclusively by dislike of trans people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Liberation_Front https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Liberation_Front
silicon2401 5y ago
Progressives are regressive, not progressive, when it comes to things like this. Their name is just a marketing label like any other political group. I am a staunch advocate of true free speech to the grave, and it's incredibly saddening to see Americans start attacking what I consider one of our greatest achievements.
- throwkeep 5y ago
  Yes, they're using the same naming tactic as demonstrated by the Patriot Act and the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. Old school liberals and progressives recognize that our labels are being usurped by illiberal regressives. Hence why ACLU has an identity crisis. There is a generational divide that's hollowing out liberalism and progressivism in service of political activism.
throwaway894345 5y ago
> If you only support free speech (or transparency) in cases where you agree with the actors, you don't really support free speech at all. I agree. Lately I've been seeing a lot of people arguing against free speech claiming that pro-free-speech people don't actually care about free speech, but rather they only want free speech for the views they care about. In other words, "we should get rid of free speech rights because people who appeal to them are insincere". Which is undoubtedly true for lots of people, and this isn't new to this cultural moment--hypocrites have been part of every movement forever. But "some of those people are disingenuous!" doesn't seem like a good reason to deny someone their rights. Indeed, free speech has been a boon to left-wing groups in the past and it certainly will be again in the future (to the extent it survives the present moment, anyway), even though they are clearly insincere in their free speech convictions (seeking to explicitly destroy it and all that). Destroying free speech just because you happen to have the cultural power is incredibly short-sighted. I will say that I'm happy the debate has moved beyond "but you free speech people don't get it--we're only talking about banning speech that I don't like" and "you can't support free speech and criticize my anti-free-speech advocacy" and so on.

shadowgovt 5y ago

Here is the ACLU explainer on that suit: https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/faq-does-v-washington-department-corrections https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/faq-does-v-washington-departme... Privacy is also a civil liberty worth defending, and in this case, it appears the ACLU is defending that liberty where it is in conflict with transparency. (Probably worth noting: the right to free speech is not the right to know things. On the contrary, it also includes the right to remain silent; compelled speech is also a violation of the basic freedom of speech. The ACLU is not in conflict with defense of free speech in challenging a FOIA request on privacy-violation grounds).

dwaltrip 5y ago
Why is this comment downvoted? Can someone explain the reasoning?

rhinoceraptor 5y ago

> trans-identified male This is a pretty offensive term. It's mainly used by TERF/'gender critical' bigots to refer to trans women and describe their gender identity as fraudulent or inauthentic (along with its analogue for trans men).

morelisp 5y ago
Yes, WoLF is a TERF hate group.
lesstenseflow 5y ago
As far as I know, in order to qualify as a "transwoman" you must be male. If a female person identifies as a woman, they're not trans. So a transwoman is a trans-identified male person. I don't mean any offense here, I'm just trying to use clear and unambiguous language. Not everyone on HN is from the USA and this issue is confusing so it's helpful if everyone uses clear language in my opinion. Whether transwomen are "women" is a contentious question with a subjective answer, obviously people disagree about it. I prefer therefor to stick to observable facts: 1. the person is male 2. they identify as trans.
- morelisp 5y ago
  Pretty much your entire comment history is transphobic propaganda.
  - lesstenseflow 5y ago
    If I'm advancing an argument you disagree with, I encourage you to explain why you disagree. Ad hominem is lazy and doesn't typically get much traction in this forum. My comment history on this account is mostly opinions that disagree with Silicon Valley corporate-woke hegemony precisely because these are opinions that can "get you in trouble,", which is why I have this anonymous account to discuss these topics. I comment on plenty of other thing but I'm not going to risk angering those people who will gleefully try to destroy your career for having the wrong opinions on these topics.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      Engaging with trolls is also discouraged by the HN guidelines. You're engaging in a tactic called "just asking questions"[0], they're loaded questions, and given your post history its unlikely you'll engaged in good faith if someone takes the time to respond to explain precisely why they're not simply wrong, but intended to harm people and erode their rights. [0]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

joshuamorton 5y ago

> This really blew my mind–I never thought I'd see the day when the ACLU filed suit to protect government secrecy against FOIA sunshine. I think prisoners should, like everyone else, have a right to privacy. Them being under government care shouldn't give random people the right to learn private medical information, anymore than it should be acceptable for an FOIA request to determine how many medicare/medicade users are trans.

baseballdork 5y ago
Agreed, and this is exactly what the ACLU is arguing [0]. > Such a disclosure would create a serious and unacceptable risk of harm to the people identified and violate their 8th and 14th Amendment rights. In addition, the requested information is exempt from disclosure under Washington’s Public Records Act. [0] - https://www.aclu-wa.org/cases/does-v-washington-department-corrections https://www.aclu-wa.org/cases/does-v-washington-department-c...
- lesstenseflow 5y ago
  Taking male bodied people imprisoned for being found guilty of rape and putting them in women's prison is a radical (and probably extremely unpopular) public policy. WoLF is arguing that the public should be allowed to know what the corrections department is doing here. I find it highly ironic that defending the speech rights of Nazi's might be considered going too far because of the "harm" the speech might cause and consideration of the potential "victims" of the speech, but in a case where a male rapist is going to be put in a cell with a female prisoner with no means of escaping him, that male rapist's right to privacy is the only consideration. There is a legitimate debate about the rights of male people to be housed in prison with a female population. Maybe a male prisoner has that right, maybe he doesn't–society is still up in the air on this question. It's impossible to have that debate, however, if the entire process is being handled behind closed doors by fiat and then the information is hidden.

anigbrowl 5y ago

It seems that you are using 'government secrecy' to include 'individual (prisoners') privacy'. You don't have a right to access the medical records of any federal prisoner, for example, but that doesn't mean the government is suppressing the information; rather that it's upholding the general right to medical privacy. I suspect the reason it has received little attention is that the sponsoring organization, WoLF, is known for allying with rigorous Christian conservatives and seems to be motivated exclusively by dislike of trans people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Liberation_Front https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Liberation_Front

silicon2401 5y ago

Progressives are regressive, not progressive, when it comes to things like this. Their name is just a marketing label like any other political group. I am a staunch advocate of true free speech to the grave, and it's incredibly saddening to see Americans start attacking what I consider one of our greatest achievements.

throwkeep 5y ago
Yes, they're using the same naming tactic as demonstrated by the Patriot Act and the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. Old school liberals and progressives recognize that our labels are being usurped by illiberal regressives. Hence why ACLU has an identity crisis. There is a generational divide that's hollowing out liberalism and progressivism in service of political activism.

throwaway894345 5y ago

> If you only support free speech (or transparency) in cases where you agree with the actors, you don't really support free speech at all. I agree. Lately I've been seeing a lot of people arguing against free speech claiming that pro-free-speech people don't actually care about free speech, but rather they only want free speech for the views they care about. In other words, "we should get rid of free speech rights because people who appeal to them are insincere". Which is undoubtedly true for lots of people, and this isn't new to this cultural moment--hypocrites have been part of every movement forever. But "some of those people are disingenuous!" doesn't seem like a good reason to deny someone their rights. Indeed, free speech has been a boon to left-wing groups in the past and it certainly will be again in the future (to the extent it survives the present moment, anyway), even though they are clearly insincere in their free speech convictions (seeking to explicitly destroy it and all that). Destroying free speech just because you happen to have the cultural power is incredibly short-sighted. I will say that I'm happy the debate has moved beyond "but you free speech people don't get it--we're only talking about banning speech that I don't like" and "you can't support free speech and criticize my anti-free-speech advocacy" and so on.