I like this idea:<p><a href="https://twitter.com/kittypurrzog/status/1401610476237197312" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/kittypurrzog/status/1401610476237197312</a><p><i>The ACLU should split into two groups: ACLU Sr, which fights for free speech rights, and ACLU Jr, which fights against them</i><p>(Yes, I saw this when PG retweeted it.)
Despite the sad loss of the ACLU as an institution that cares about civil liberties, we can remain hopeful due to other organizations like FIRE.<p><a href="https://www.thefire.org" rel="nofollow">https://www.thefire.org</a>
ACLU has been subverted by political correctness, mob mentality of internet, and the do-gooder activists. ACLU is a perfect example on how we ended up in the through the looking glass world.
One idea is that the generational change is like all generational political changes:<p>Unsatisfied with the world they've inherited, as they should be, the next generation wants revolution, not reform. They want to tear down the old system and build something new. They see the results of the old system and have little respect for its jaded, corrupt defenders.<p>The older people decry it, saying that the revolution is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, that reform is the best approach. The new movement responds that reform hasn't worked.<p>I think both sides have a point; the problem is winner-take-all outcomes for either side: Revolution does destroy, often more than it creates, and I think the principles of free speech must be preserved. But if you are satisfied with the old system, you are living a privileged life under a rock: Tens of millions or more in the U.S. alone are denied their rights, denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The old system has not delivered on its promises; reform has not delivered. And the new movement is right that older people are corrupt and jaded: I've seen myself that many of my peers, people who used to be honest and open, have aged to fit that description; it's worse than the younger people think.
I wish I'd taken a photo of the "survey" they sent me the other day.<p>I've managed to get junk mail from both sides of the political spectrum now, which has been interesting (the conservative groups have had me on their mailing list forever, and I think a subscription to Harpers got me on the liberal groups).<p>Unfortunately, other than the issues involved, I can't really tell a big difference between fundraising styles. "Assume the reader is an idiot and send <i>surveys</i> with the most leading questions you've ever heard of, then ask for money." Usually, they say "Please send us $15 to process the survey, and your best gift."<p>The questions are absolutely, loaded, leading questions that would be laughed out of any courtroom or actual attempt at a statistically accurate survey. They're things like "Do you agree that racial injustice and white supremacy is <i>the most important issue facing America today</i>?" and "Do you agree that widespread, unchecked illegal immigration is on a path to destroy the nation we love?"<p>One group actually has survey stickers you respond with - "Yes, illegal immigration is a huge concern!" and "No, I'm a <i>global elitist</i> who supports illegal aliens voting in our elections and overthrowing our Democracy." Or something of the sort.<p>I guess it works or they wouldn't do it, but it's absolutely insane how these "surveys" are worded. I'm sure all they do is look for a check on the inside instead of "processing" them.<p>Oh, and just in case you're a drooling moron who doesn't know how to read a letter, the attached letter highlighting the supposed problems will reliably include at the bottom of the pages, "Over!" "Next page please!" "Flip over to continue reading!" and other insulting directions that more or less imply I don't know how to read a multi-page document. Since it's apparently against federal law to leave whitespace in such a fundraising request, they fill the last page with "PS: This is an <i>URGENT</i> issue that requires your rushed donation to STOP THEM from DOING EVIL THINGS." "PPS: Please rush your donation back!" "PPSS: I'm still going to put stuff here so there's no whitespace."<p>But I do tend to respond in long form, usually expanding on answers, and often include 2-3 typed pages in response when the survey lacks nuance. I doubt it ever gets read, but it's good practice for being able to expand on issues.<p>In any case, the ACLU isn't getting my money. Neither is the Heritage Foundation, and neither are any other groups that send me these "surveys" where the only important question is "But how much can you afford to give?"
The ACLU has struggled for a really long time.<p>They've been accused of being racist and sexist for quite a few years. [1] is one example.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-11/black-attorney-accuses-aclu-of-flagrantly-racist-policies-in-discrimination-lawsuit" rel="nofollow">https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-11/black-at...</a>
It's not ACLU's identity crisis, it's the Left's identity crisis. Civil rights are checks on government and institutional powers. When the left gained a massive institutional power and a lot of governmental power, it turned out it doesn't really like this power to be checked and challenged. It's one thing to fight for the free speech of people who are maybe abhorrent, but ultimately their speech won't change much, it's another thing when the speech is by your political rival, the fate of the power distribution in the nation depends on it, and you have all the tools to shut it down. It is hard to resist the temptation, and the Left didn't even try to resist it for long - in fact, they embraced it. Turns out, the hard question question wasn't "can you defend the Nazi's free speech", but "can you defend the Republican's free speech, if it could cost your favorite candidate the election?". Looks like the major part of the Left decided the right answer is "no", and winning is more important that preserving the liberties. After all, if the good guys are in power, who needs their powers to be checked? Only the bad guys.
Liberalism and Identity Politics never really sorted out their relationship, and it turns out the latter won Twitter (and created excellent foot-holds for bad-actors doing information "warfare" now everyone has social media welded directly to their brains.)<p>Edit: A reply would be nice if down voting. The examples the first subject in the article uses are implicitly comparing liberty of speech to protected/disenfranchised classes or characteristics of people, and how ACLU seems to have changed disposition here. That's my point. My use of Identity Politics is not baiting -- it's a well studied topic in the social sciences.
I would say that those who sign up to be part of the ACLU should know that they will inevitably have to defend the rights of people they find repugnant. As much as I don't like Nazis, I surely don't want the government to have the power to enact what they would if they were in power (censorship, genocide, etc). So having the ACLU being an aggressive opponent to the government's overreach on civil liberties is fine. I just wish more folks would recognize this.
Free speech is the only “right” that matters. Thoughtcrime should not be allowed to be prosecuted, mob lynching is not justice. But if the ACLU is compromised maybe it is too late.
The right-wing angle of most of most of these comments, while not surprising considering the article, belies the fact that the right has a similar free speech problem to the left. In fact, the left response has been partially motivated by opposition to a notably authoritarian former president and his willing allies. Where is any discussion of things such as:<p>- Anti-BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) statues being written into state and local law in jurisdictions all over the country.<p>- Efforts to legally sanction corporations that exercise their free speech rights in opposition to certain political issues, such as repealing MLBs antitrust protection for moving the All-star game from Georgia.<p>- Even if there are not legal efforts, widespread outrage at similar exercises of free speech, such as the rights holders of Dr. Seuss books voluntarily deciding to discontinue publication of a small subset of his not-very popular books.<p>- Anti-protest bills that in some cases essentially decriminalize violent opposition to the free speech rights of people you may not agree with. (1)<p>- The Trump White House banning left-of-center media from attending certain events (2), and overall making numerous statements aiming to paint media they don't agree with as fake, lying, etc.<p>I can readily admit the left has a free speech problem, but this problem is in no way unique to the left.<p>(1) <a href="https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-legislature-oks-bill-to-crack-down-on-protesters/36123193" rel="nofollow">https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-legislature-oks-bill-t...</a>
(2) <a href="https://outline.com/dfhh9h" rel="nofollow">https://outline.com/dfhh9h</a>
I don't understand why you would join the ACLU if you don't actually support the first ammendment and the stances the ACLU has taken? Seriously. Why? Its like joining a bowling league and complaining that you want to play soccer.
They really have struggled lately with free speech, the difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism (which is "free speech that progressives approve"). I hope they figure it out.
You could write a similar article about a lot of nonprofits, lately. "Once a Developer of Web Browsers, Mozilla Faces an Identity Crisis." "Once a Free Online Encyclopedia, the Wikimedia Foundation Faces an Identity Crisis."
As much as I like a good political debate I wish HN restrict itself to more tech related articles rather than this. Sometimes tech has some political aspecst or we discuss the politics of certain tech companies, but this has nothing to do with either tech or tech companies, so why is it even here?
Since the organization doesn't take responsibility for the "consumption of free speech" by its staff under its name on Twitter, perhaps they should use two Twitter accounts - one for uncensored staff tweets and one for official statements that ACLU stands behind.
> One hears markedly less from the A.C.L.U. about free speech nowadays. Its annual reports from 2016 to 2019 highlight its role as a leader in the resistance against President Donald J. Trump. But the words “First Amendment” or “free speech” cannot be found.<p>I find it incredibly ignorant that this article (or anyone here for that matter) fails to mention the name George Soros. The dude literally did a hostile takeover of the ACLU a few years back in the form of overly-generous donations[1].<p>The ACLU isn't "facing an identity crisis", it's been strategically taken over to push a divide-and-conquer strategy within America. Notice how <i>everything</i> they do nowadays is focused around heated "us vs them" topics? This isn't a mistake, or a natural byproduct...it's 100% by design. Not really sure what the end-goal is, but the ACLU's current agenda (and most of George Soros funded organizations) is clearly to get everyone in America to hate each other.<p>[1] <a href="https://nonprofitquarterly.org/50-million-soros-grant-to-fund-aclu-for-reduction-of-incarceration/" rel="nofollow">https://nonprofitquarterly.org/50-million-soros-grant-to-fun...</a>
Popular speech doesn't need defending.<p>If the ACLU sacrifices its principles to earn the approval of the woke authoritarian left, then the people in charge never really had those principles.
This is why I stopped supporting the ACLU and instead support FIRE (<a href="https://www.thefire.org/" rel="nofollow">https://www.thefire.org/</a>). The ACLU is no longer a civil liberties organization but rather a progressive political organization that only pushes leftist political positions. They used their platform and large funds to betray their original mission and longtime supporters. I’m sad about how far they have fallen but also happy to move on instead of lending them my support.
They phoned me earlier this year and asked for $1500 USD. I asked them why we live in a country where people are starving, exposed, and sick in a country that has a bounty of food, housing, and healthcare. “Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind,” says a person who probably has all three of those things. Feed people, and <i>then</i> ask for virtues from them.
I honestly think they were compromised from the very beginning, with their mission of "defending every civil right... except the 2nd amendment, we don't like that one."<p>But they still fought lots of commendable battles, sticking up for people that nobody else would. I think that's what they've lost... they would be scared to stick up for somebody that might get the wrong people upset with them.
From 1989[0], about Amnesty International<p>> <i>O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church.</i><p>[0] <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100715191034/http:/old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20100715191034/http:/old.nationa...</a>
For free speech to be a reasonable thing to priorise over other things you have to have some more fundamental rules of society in place.
E.g. fighting for free speech during the rise of the nazi party in 1920s Germany might sound like a noble thing, but once the Nazis whos speech you defended are in power they will shoot you at your doorstep for defending that of their enemies.<p>That doesn't mean you have forbid Nazis from ever speaking (as if this would work), it means you have to make sure your democracy and your institutions are stable enough to survive their first period in government and manage to get a peaceful and fair transfer of power after that (instead of Nazis setting fire to the Reichstag, blaming it on communists, declaring an emergency and never have elections again).<p>I'd rather loose the right to utter certain inflamatory phrases than loose the right and the possibility to vote the next government out of office in a fair and representative election.
> Four years later at the University of Connecticut, two white students ...
> The A.C.L.U. of Connecticut demanded that the university hire 10 Black faculty and staff members<p>NYT's double standards are ridiculous
There's not a single word about Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in this article, and how defending the free speech of this organization set them on this downward trajectory.
Freedom of speech is often a euphemism these days for capitalism of megaphones. I actually want to move away from celebrity culture and privately owned platforms, means of distribution, and audiences, and towards platforms based on collaboration, where people have to duke it out and address all serious arguments before the public sees it. It might take slightly longer but our society wouldn't be so divided. Individual people can't all be expected to be experts on climate change, vaccines, 5G and so on.<p>I give an extensive explanation on the economics of free speech here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8HbvC6vqIY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8HbvC6vqIY</a><p>I interviewed Noam Chomsky on it last week here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUPZ8rSESZo" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUPZ8rSESZo</a><p>And we are building it here (sorry for the bad design so far): <a href="https://rational.app/" rel="nofollow">https://rational.app/</a>
Relevant:<p>> ACLU Again Cowardly Abstains From an Online Censorship Controversy: The once-principled group issues P.R.-scripted excuses or engages in obfuscation to avoid taking stances that would offend its liberal donor base.<p><a href="https://greenwald.substack.com/p/aclu-again-cowardly-abstains-from" rel="nofollow">https://greenwald.substack.com/p/aclu-again-cowardly-abstain...</a><p>Edit: HN always seems to downvote anything which doesn't go with the censorship of controversial view points.
Strange how no one bats an eye when any other advocacy group defines in their own way their goals or values, but when it’s the ACLU that does it, people lose their minds.<p>No one cares that the NRA only gives a crap about half of 2A. No one cares that the federalist Society has a very specific view of the judiciary… but when the ACLU defines a cause in their own way, people go nuts with accusations of hypocrisy because it doesn’t line up with their own personal definition of “civil liberties”.