5 ms·

In the past the ACLU has defended hate groups right to freedom of speech. Do you have evidence that they'd do something to the contrary?

Analemma_ 3y ago
That was before the ACLU got hollowed out and skinsuited by activist groups. I'd trust the ACLU of 10 years ago to fight this, but not the one of today.
drewcoo 3y ago
The ACLU fought Trump's "Muslim ban." That resulted in lots of funding from the anti-Trump crowd. "Trump derangement syndrome" meant previously unimaginable funding. They needed to do something with the money, so they staffed up, using the new staff to double down on the Trump-fighting. Before 2016, there were a few claims that the ACLU was biased toward liberals. Afterward, you'll find many articles even from outlets like the Atlantic and the New York Times lambasting the ACLU as openly partisan. Just do a search for them! So if this is censorship is intended to keep things safe and liberal, people suppose that the ACLU would support the censorship.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  This is exactly what happened. They were flooded with money at the same time they were being flooded with new graduates that had strange ideas about what people shouldn't be allowed to do.
yanderekko 3y ago
I mean, to be fair this doesn't really pertain to the sort of Constitutional legal questions that the ACLU famously takes a hardline stance on. I don't think the ACLU endorsing private censorship is clearly at odds with their overall mission. (As opposed to say their going soft on hate speech laws, which clearly has 1A implications.)
- JamesBarney 3y ago
  I'd rather have laws that prohibit free speech than have the government be able to stifle speech by pressuring large monopolistic organizations behinds closed doors.
  - yanderekko 3y ago
    Sure, there are 1A concerns there. But that's not part of the HE issue as far as I'm aware.
amiga386 3y ago
Their national director's statement in the immediate aftermath of the Charlottesville riots: https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazis-charlottesville https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazi... > The backlash has already spurred other ACLU chapters to declare that they don’t believe free-speech protections apply to events like the one in Charlottesville, and led the ACLU’s national director, Anthony Romero, to declare the group will no longer defend the right to protest when the protesters want to carry guns. > “Until now,” lawyer and blogger Scott Greenfield wrote, the ACLU has “never quite come out and announced that they will refuse to defend a constitutional right. This announcement says that when someone seeks to exercise two rights at the same time, the ACLU is outta there.” And their internal policy document listing out things that might stay their hand in an otherwise vigourous defense of free speech: https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.... > Considerations Specific to Speech Cases > * Whether the speaker seeks to engage in or promote violence > * Whether the speakers seek to carry weapons > * The impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression > * The extent to which we are able to make clear that even as we defend a speaker’s right to say what they want, we reserve our right to condemn the views themselves > * The extent to which we are able to mitigate any harm to our mission, values, priorities, and/or relationships
- JamesBarney 3y ago
  The first two I disagree with but could arguably see, but the last three are really the death of the ACLU as we knew it. I think that the ACLU had a bigger impact with 60m in funding as a nonpartisan organization with a respected reputation than as a soldier in the culture war.
- another_story 3y ago
  The first point is interesting to me. Choosing not to defend the 2nd amendment while defending the first. Thank for the info.
droptablemain 3y ago
The ACLU changed quite dramatically around 2016.

Analemma_ 3y ago

That was before the ACLU got hollowed out and skinsuited by activist groups. I'd trust the ACLU of 10 years ago to fight this, but not the one of today.

drewcoo 3y ago

The ACLU fought Trump's "Muslim ban." That resulted in lots of funding from the anti-Trump crowd. "Trump derangement syndrome" meant previously unimaginable funding. They needed to do something with the money, so they staffed up, using the new staff to double down on the Trump-fighting. Before 2016, there were a few claims that the ACLU was biased toward liberals. Afterward, you'll find many articles even from outlets like the Atlantic and the New York Times lambasting the ACLU as openly partisan. Just do a search for them! So if this is censorship is intended to keep things safe and liberal, people suppose that the ACLU would support the censorship.

pessimizer 3y ago
This is exactly what happened. They were flooded with money at the same time they were being flooded with new graduates that had strange ideas about what people shouldn't be allowed to do.

yanderekko 3y ago

I mean, to be fair this doesn't really pertain to the sort of Constitutional legal questions that the ACLU famously takes a hardline stance on. I don't think the ACLU endorsing private censorship is clearly at odds with their overall mission. (As opposed to say their going soft on hate speech laws, which clearly has 1A implications.)

JamesBarney 3y ago
I'd rather have laws that prohibit free speech than have the government be able to stifle speech by pressuring large monopolistic organizations behinds closed doors.
- yanderekko 3y ago
  Sure, there are 1A concerns there. But that's not part of the HE issue as far as I'm aware.

amiga386 3y ago

Their national director's statement in the immediate aftermath of the Charlottesville riots: https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazis-charlottesville https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazi... > The backlash has already spurred other ACLU chapters to declare that they don’t believe free-speech protections apply to events like the one in Charlottesville, and led the ACLU’s national director, Anthony Romero, to declare the group will no longer defend the right to protest when the protesters want to carry guns. > “Until now,” lawyer and blogger Scott Greenfield wrote, the ACLU has “never quite come out and announced that they will refuse to defend a constitutional right. This announcement says that when someone seeks to exercise two rights at the same time, the ACLU is outta there.” And their internal policy document listing out things that might stay their hand in an otherwise vigourous defense of free speech: https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.... > Considerations Specific to Speech Cases > * Whether the speaker seeks to engage in or promote violence > * Whether the speakers seek to carry weapons > * The impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression > * The extent to which we are able to make clear that even as we defend a speaker’s right to say what they want, we reserve our right to condemn the views themselves > * The extent to which we are able to mitigate any harm to our mission, values, priorities, and/or relationships

JamesBarney 3y ago
The first two I disagree with but could arguably see, but the last three are really the death of the ACLU as we knew it. I think that the ACLU had a bigger impact with 60m in funding as a nonpartisan organization with a respected reputation than as a soldier in the culture war.
another_story 3y ago
The first point is interesting to me. Choosing not to defend the 2nd amendment while defending the first. Thank for the info.

droptablemain 3y ago

The ACLU changed quite dramatically around 2016.