6 ms·

The ACLU is not what it once was. I will not donate to them. Even the EFF is growing questionable. I would definitely be curious what recommendations people

The ACLU is not what it once was. I will not donate to them. Even the EFF is growing questionable. I would definitely be curious what recommendations people have.

hyyypr 5y ago
What is wrong with the EFF?
fragmede 5y ago
Perfect is the enemy of the good, so I'd recommend the EFF but you can donate to Signal directly in this case, if it serves you. https://signal.org/en/donate/ https://signal.org/en/donate/
nzrf 5y ago
Second this EFF is where I would go to support this myself snd do monthly. ACLU has lost its way picking civil rights to support or not.
- Bud 5y ago
  Which actual rights is ACLU supposedly failing to support?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    They have limited resources and so they cannot fight every single fight. Some people object to their current method of filtering. Apparently, groups tied to neo-nazi/white-supremacy are some of the ones they filter out of consideration, but they have done so in the past. Some people think the ACLU should fight specifically for such organizations to make a point that everyone, even hateful bigots, have the same rights. Personally? I'm on the fence. On the one hand, given limited resources & all else being equal in two cases, why not choose the group of people who are nicer? On the other hand, if you choose the hateful group & set a precedent that even the most hateful people have the same set of rights as others, it's close to irrefutable in future cases with nicer people that they get those rights too.
    - freeopinion 5y ago
      As soon as you identify a label that can be used to deny free speech, that label will be applied to everything and everybody in an effort to deny free speech. It is extremely important to defend free speech. Some people get confused and think that a defense of free speech is a defense of the label. Historically, the ACLU is one of the most well known organizations to defend free speech regardless of label. They should not create such a gaping vulnerability in their strategy. Don't announce to the world that any case involving the word "crypto" will not be defended. Or the words "carpentry", "space", or "elephant". The issue should be free speech, not miscellaneous labels.
    - repsilat 5y ago
      > they cannot fight every single fight I think "failing to support" in the grandparent comment is too weak for some. This is Glenn Greenwald on a recent ACLU amicus brief[1]: >> This is the first time, at least to my knowledge, that ACLU is explicitly arguing in court that the First Amendment's free speech clause has been interpreted *too broadly* by courts, and are advocating *a more restrictive view* of what free speech means. I'm not sure about that case in particular, but on your question of > why not choose the group of people who are nicer? I'd say the grim batman ACLU of my alternate-history fanfic cares more about precedent than it does about defendants. 1: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1449739621563346944 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1449739621563346944
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        There appear to be two different rights in conflict there, so there's some complexity to the situation. On the one hand there's the teachers' free speech rights, freedom from compelled speech. On the other hand are the students' civil rights protecting against discrimination. The ACLU in that situation has decided the later should prevail over the former when it pertains to government workers & their speech while on-the-job.
      - monetus 5y ago
        Does that type of speech, refusing to respect a person's identity, have any additional legal implications being that they seem to be public employees in a public school system? Discrimination as they argue in private businesses versus government ones? IANAL, just curious
- jkaplowitz 5y ago
  For supporting "this" very specifically, ACLU (in the form of their 501(c)(3) foundation) is directly involved as legal counsel to Signal, so donating to EFF would be less relevant to "this" than donating to either Signal (also a non-profit) or to the ACLU Foundation. But, sure, the EFF is also a good organization. If your concern is specifically the ACLU's disagreement with recent Supreme Courts on the intended scope of Second Amendment rights, the EFF isn't going to address that either since it's out of scope for their mission. But that's in no way relevant to what Signal had to deal with here, an area in which I think ACLU and EFF are pretty well aligned.
  - ByteJockey 5y ago
    > If your concern is specifically the ACLU's disagreement with recent Supreme Courts on the intended scope of Second Amendment rights, the EFF isn't going to address that either since it's out of scope for their mission. But that's in no way relevant to what Signal had to deal with here, an area in which I think ACLU and EFF are pretty well aligned. The comments about the ACLU probably aren't about the second amendment. That's never been the ACLU's thing. It's probably about the recent backing away from the 1st amendment which has historically been the ACLU's domain. NYT link covering the topic: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html Archive.org link in case you can't view the NYT link: https://web.archive.org/web/20211027082703/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://web.archive.org/web/20211027082703/https://www.nytim...
    - mhb 5y ago
      There's also the ACLU's support for non-biological females competing in girls' sports to the detriment of women's sports: https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/the-coordinated-attack-on-trans-student-athletes/ https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/the-coordinated-attac...
chrononaut 5y ago
I am out of the loop on this one. What has the ACLU become today, and why is the EFF growing questionable?
- willhinsa 5y ago
  For the ACLU, they have lost the institutional interest in fighting for free speech. Fighting for the rights of digital Nazis to march, so to speak, is not something the ACLU defends today. Here's a recent NYT article discussing this change in the organization: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    Yep... once noone defends the nazis, anyone can be branded a nazi, and you lose one more right (free speech). And sadly, the word 'nazi' has lost all of it's meaning in the last years, and has gone from swastika carrying Hitler supporters to someone who doesn't want illegals working below minimum wage to take his job.
    - hvdijk 5y ago
      If people come to a different country to make a better life for themselves than they would in the countries they were originally from, what's wrong with that? If you're regarding them as sub-humans who don't deserve to work to make a decent life for themselves, rather than directing your anger at the employers who exploit those unable to rise up against the poor pay/working standards/..., we could argue over whether "Nazi" is the best word to describe those views, but it's irrelevant, we should be talking about those views. Do you think you're entitled to a better life than someone else solely based on the fact that you're born in one place and they're born in another? Do you perhaps think the responsibility lies with them to get themselves fired so that that poor employer who always wanted to employ you and pay you a decent wage but was somehow tricked by them can now do so?
      - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
Meekro 5y ago
Since several people are asking why the ACLU isn't what it once was, let me answer that. In 1978, the ACLU successfully defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in the predominantly Jewish town of Skokie, Illinois. This action reflected their commitment to free speech, regardless of how offensive the speech might be. The movie "Skokie" and documentary "Mighty Ira" are based on this event-- I highly recommend them because this is an important piece of U.S. history. In contrast, the modern ACLU has backed away from this stance. A leaked ACLU memo[1] says that before they take a free speech case, they will consider the "context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur." [1] https://reason.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech/ https://reason.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech/
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  Freedom of speech is such a bizarre thing in USA. I understand citizens need the right to voice their opinion without fear of government repression; but citizens shouldn't believe they have the right to insult and behave antisocially to other citizens. Any kind of white supremacist behavior is not something to be treasured as freedom, because that enables their harmful behavior against other citizens.
  - DeathArrow 5y ago
    >Any kind of white supremacist behavior is not something to be treasured as freedom, because that enables their harmful behavior against other citizens. But inciting on harmful behavior against white people is somehow the right thing to do? I believe all people should be treated against the same set of rules.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    Can you define what “white supremacist behavior” is? I’ve heard that leveraged against African immigrants due to their meteoric success.
  - 5y ago
otterley 5y ago
The ACLU are providing legal services to Signal in this case. (See the signatories to Signal's response to the subpoena.)
systemvoltage 5y ago
FIRE is a good one: https://www.thefire.org/ https://www.thefire.org/ There are many in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Civil_rights_organizations_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Civil_rights_organiza... I usually never express it but this kind of stuff makes me proud of being an American. We need to double down on CR non-partisanly and non-negotiably.
diebeforei485 5y ago
The EFF takes weird policy positions. They're against speed cameras, but in favor of the status quo (police with guns manually pulling people over for speeding in cities).
- jdavis703 5y ago
  It’s even worse. The police don’t pull people over for speeding anymore (that’s good, at least from the “guys with guns” perspective). But the bad part is drivers are now emboldened to drive recklessly. These people now kill and injure more than the police — looking at the latest numbers police violence is down while traffic violence is up. IMO speed and red light cameras would do a lot to reduce the use of police while still seeing traffic safety enforced.
  - ryantgtg 5y ago
    Well said. But you could also state your final sentence as “… would do the job that police are supposed to do but aren’t…” I see what you’re getting at, though. Another related area where we could reduce their use is ticketing for vehicle window tint violations. In California, vehicles can’t have tint on the front windows because it’s quite dangerous when other people can’t see drivers. Tons violate it, and it’s historically been “enforced” as a broken tailight-esque reason to pull over POC and search them for drugs, etc. In areas where parking violations are enforced, the parking enforcement officers could easily check this and issue tickets.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  That isn't a weird policy position. The speed cameras do ALPR and can store all the results, so they build a location history of all the vehicles that weren't even breaking the law. That's bad. It's also bad that cops pull people over arbitrarily, but that's not the part in the EFF's bailiwick, and there are other solutions than putting ALPR cameras everywhere.
  - diebeforei485 5y ago
    > there are other solutions than putting ALPR cameras everywhere What are these solutions? For context, speed cameras have been very effective at reducing traffic deaths in cities- https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/camera-zones-curbed-nyc-speeding-cars-70-study-finds https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/camera-zones-curbed... Also, I think it's a bit of a weird argument to say that ALPR is alright for paying highway/tunnel/bridge tolls but not for speed cameras.

The ACLU is not what it once was. I will not donate to them. Even the EFF is growing questionable. I would definitely be curious what recommendations people have.

hyyypr 5y ago

What is wrong with the EFF?

fragmede 5y ago

Perfect is the enemy of the good, so I'd recommend the EFF but you can donate to Signal directly in this case, if it serves you. https://signal.org/en/donate/ https://signal.org/en/donate/

nzrf 5y ago

Second this EFF is where I would go to support this myself snd do monthly. ACLU has lost its way picking civil rights to support or not.

Bud 5y ago
Which actual rights is ACLU supposedly failing to support?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ineedasername 5y ago
  They have limited resources and so they cannot fight every single fight. Some people object to their current method of filtering. Apparently, groups tied to neo-nazi/white-supremacy are some of the ones they filter out of consideration, but they have done so in the past. Some people think the ACLU should fight specifically for such organizations to make a point that everyone, even hateful bigots, have the same rights. Personally? I'm on the fence. On the one hand, given limited resources & all else being equal in two cases, why not choose the group of people who are nicer? On the other hand, if you choose the hateful group & set a precedent that even the most hateful people have the same set of rights as others, it's close to irrefutable in future cases with nicer people that they get those rights too.
  - freeopinion 5y ago
    As soon as you identify a label that can be used to deny free speech, that label will be applied to everything and everybody in an effort to deny free speech. It is extremely important to defend free speech. Some people get confused and think that a defense of free speech is a defense of the label. Historically, the ACLU is one of the most well known organizations to defend free speech regardless of label. They should not create such a gaping vulnerability in their strategy. Don't announce to the world that any case involving the word "crypto" will not be defended. Or the words "carpentry", "space", or "elephant". The issue should be free speech, not miscellaneous labels.
  - repsilat 5y ago
    > they cannot fight every single fight I think "failing to support" in the grandparent comment is too weak for some. This is Glenn Greenwald on a recent ACLU amicus brief[1]: >> This is the first time, at least to my knowledge, that ACLU is explicitly arguing in court that the First Amendment's free speech clause has been interpreted *too broadly* by courts, and are advocating *a more restrictive view* of what free speech means. I'm not sure about that case in particular, but on your question of > why not choose the group of people who are nicer? I'd say the grim batman ACLU of my alternate-history fanfic cares more about precedent than it does about defendants. 1: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1449739621563346944 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1449739621563346944
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      There appear to be two different rights in conflict there, so there's some complexity to the situation. On the one hand there's the teachers' free speech rights, freedom from compelled speech. On the other hand are the students' civil rights protecting against discrimination. The ACLU in that situation has decided the later should prevail over the former when it pertains to government workers & their speech while on-the-job.
    - monetus 5y ago
      Does that type of speech, refusing to respect a person's identity, have any additional legal implications being that they seem to be public employees in a public school system? Discrimination as they argue in private businesses versus government ones? IANAL, just curious
jkaplowitz 5y ago
For supporting "this" very specifically, ACLU (in the form of their 501(c)(3) foundation) is directly involved as legal counsel to Signal, so donating to EFF would be less relevant to "this" than donating to either Signal (also a non-profit) or to the ACLU Foundation. But, sure, the EFF is also a good organization. If your concern is specifically the ACLU's disagreement with recent Supreme Courts on the intended scope of Second Amendment rights, the EFF isn't going to address that either since it's out of scope for their mission. But that's in no way relevant to what Signal had to deal with here, an area in which I think ACLU and EFF are pretty well aligned.
- ByteJockey 5y ago
  > If your concern is specifically the ACLU's disagreement with recent Supreme Courts on the intended scope of Second Amendment rights, the EFF isn't going to address that either since it's out of scope for their mission. But that's in no way relevant to what Signal had to deal with here, an area in which I think ACLU and EFF are pretty well aligned. The comments about the ACLU probably aren't about the second amendment. That's never been the ACLU's thing. It's probably about the recent backing away from the 1st amendment which has historically been the ACLU's domain. NYT link covering the topic: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html Archive.org link in case you can't view the NYT link: https://web.archive.org/web/20211027082703/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://web.archive.org/web/20211027082703/https://www.nytim...
  - mhb 5y ago
    There's also the ACLU's support for non-biological females competing in girls' sports to the detriment of women's sports: https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/the-coordinated-attack-on-trans-student-athletes/ https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/the-coordinated-attac...

chrononaut 5y ago

I am out of the loop on this one. What has the ACLU become today, and why is the EFF growing questionable?

willhinsa 5y ago
For the ACLU, they have lost the institutional interest in fighting for free speech. Fighting for the rights of digital Nazis to march, so to speak, is not something the ACLU defends today. Here's a recent NYT article discussing this change in the organization: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  Yep... once noone defends the nazis, anyone can be branded a nazi, and you lose one more right (free speech). And sadly, the word 'nazi' has lost all of it's meaning in the last years, and has gone from swastika carrying Hitler supporters to someone who doesn't want illegals working below minimum wage to take his job.
  - hvdijk 5y ago
    If people come to a different country to make a better life for themselves than they would in the countries they were originally from, what's wrong with that? If you're regarding them as sub-humans who don't deserve to work to make a decent life for themselves, rather than directing your anger at the employers who exploit those unable to rise up against the poor pay/working standards/..., we could argue over whether "Nazi" is the best word to describe those views, but it's irrelevant, we should be talking about those views. Do you think you're entitled to a better life than someone else solely based on the fact that you're born in one place and they're born in another? Do you perhaps think the responsibility lies with them to get themselves fired so that that poor employer who always wanted to employ you and pay you a decent wage but was somehow tricked by them can now do so?
    - ajsnigrutin 5y ago

Meekro 5y ago

Since several people are asking why the ACLU isn't what it once was, let me answer that. In 1978, the ACLU successfully defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in the predominantly Jewish town of Skokie, Illinois. This action reflected their commitment to free speech, regardless of how offensive the speech might be. The movie "Skokie" and documentary "Mighty Ira" are based on this event-- I highly recommend them because this is an important piece of U.S. history. In contrast, the modern ACLU has backed away from this stance. A leaked ACLU memo[1] says that before they take a free speech case, they will consider the "context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur." [1] https://reason.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech/ https://reason.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech/

ASalazarMX 5y ago
Freedom of speech is such a bizarre thing in USA. I understand citizens need the right to voice their opinion without fear of government repression; but citizens shouldn't believe they have the right to insult and behave antisocially to other citizens. Any kind of white supremacist behavior is not something to be treasured as freedom, because that enables their harmful behavior against other citizens.
- DeathArrow 5y ago
  >Any kind of white supremacist behavior is not something to be treasured as freedom, because that enables their harmful behavior against other citizens. But inciting on harmful behavior against white people is somehow the right thing to do? I believe all people should be treated against the same set of rules.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  Can you define what “white supremacist behavior” is? I’ve heard that leveraged against African immigrants due to their meteoric success.
- 5y ago

otterley 5y ago

The ACLU are providing legal services to Signal in this case. (See the signatories to Signal's response to the subpoena.)

systemvoltage 5y ago

FIRE is a good one: https://www.thefire.org/ https://www.thefire.org/ There are many in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Civil_rights_organizations_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Civil_rights_organiza... I usually never express it but this kind of stuff makes me proud of being an American. We need to double down on CR non-partisanly and non-negotiably.

diebeforei485 5y ago

The EFF takes weird policy positions. They're against speed cameras, but in favor of the status quo (police with guns manually pulling people over for speeding in cities).

jdavis703 5y ago
It’s even worse. The police don’t pull people over for speeding anymore (that’s good, at least from the “guys with guns” perspective). But the bad part is drivers are now emboldened to drive recklessly. These people now kill and injure more than the police — looking at the latest numbers police violence is down while traffic violence is up. IMO speed and red light cameras would do a lot to reduce the use of police while still seeing traffic safety enforced.
- ryantgtg 5y ago
  Well said. But you could also state your final sentence as “… would do the job that police are supposed to do but aren’t…” I see what you’re getting at, though. Another related area where we could reduce their use is ticketing for vehicle window tint violations. In California, vehicles can’t have tint on the front windows because it’s quite dangerous when other people can’t see drivers. Tons violate it, and it’s historically been “enforced” as a broken tailight-esque reason to pull over POC and search them for drugs, etc. In areas where parking violations are enforced, the parking enforcement officers could easily check this and issue tickets.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
That isn't a weird policy position. The speed cameras do ALPR and can store all the results, so they build a location history of all the vehicles that weren't even breaking the law. That's bad. It's also bad that cops pull people over arbitrarily, but that's not the part in the EFF's bailiwick, and there are other solutions than putting ALPR cameras everywhere.
- diebeforei485 5y ago
  > there are other solutions than putting ALPR cameras everywhere What are these solutions? For context, speed cameras have been very effective at reducing traffic deaths in cities- https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/camera-zones-curbed-nyc-speeding-cars-70-study-finds https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/camera-zones-curbed... Also, I think it's a bit of a weird argument to say that ALPR is alright for paying highway/tunnel/bridge tolls but not for speed cameras.