Comment by aaomidi
4 years ago
> ACLU would do what's right 100% of the times
Have you considered that your values might've changed? Or their values of "what's right 100% of the time" has changed?
4 years ago
> ACLU would do what's right 100% of the times
Have you considered that your values might've changed? Or their values of "what's right 100% of the time" has changed?
However you choose to describe it, the ACLU's values have changed in recent years and there's internal disagreement about the right path forward for the organization. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
(alternate links to the article: https://archive.is/newest/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06... / https://web.archive.org/web/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/...)
I can't speak for tpmx, but I'm fairly certain that my values have changed less than the ACLU's. They recently edited a quote by Ruth Bader Ginsberg in a very 1984-esque way[1], and my values have always been that 1984 is a warning not an instruction manual. I think that any organistion with "Civil Liberties" in its name should believe the same.
[1]: see https://pontifex.substack.com/p/links-13-nandy-and-aclu-cont... , last item on the page.
Ah yes, exactly like 1984. The Ministry of Truth was infamous for putting []s around the changes it made when quoting people on its own Twitter account.
> exactly
I can't find anywhere in the parent comment or the parent's linked page where it was claimed that the ACLU's tweet of a modified false-quote-LARPing-as-the-actual-quote was "exactly" like 1984. The parent commenter appears to have used the adjective "esque", although perhaps it was run through the ACLU's false-quote converter first (in fairness to you, perhaps your comment was as well).
Might I suggest you edit your original quote ACLU-style and write something such as:
> Ah yes, [exactly like 1984].
Certainly, deliberate modification of words is fully acceptable as long as there are half-squares surrounding them.
I was critical of this at the time because it associated Ginsburg with a viewpoint that she may not have held, but there's nothing Orwellian about that. People smooth over the rough edges of their historical idols all the time. There's virtually nobody who quotes the US founders who is actually advocating for the precise same set of values and institutions those founders supported.
> advocating for the precise same set of values
The problem isn't advocacy, but quoting. They did use [brackets], so I hesitate to call the quote outright falsified, but since brackets are intended only for clarification, their use in this case is definitely deceptive.
> People smooth over the rough edges of their historical idols all the time.
They shouldn't tell lies about history. If a particular historical figure said something, say what they said, and don't put false words in their mouth.
Do you not understand that what ACLU did was showing deliberate contempt for the idea of truth itself?
> There's virtually nobody who quotes the US founders who is actually advocating for the precise same set of values and institutions those founders supported.
Yes, and that's fine, provided they quote them accurately and not deliberately misquote them.
> People smooth over the rough edges of their historical idols all the time
What exactly needs "smoothing over" in a quote about the female body, using the proper female pronouns, regarding something only females are capable of: that is, childbearing and childbirth?
Perhaps instead of 95%+ of society being admonished into not offending anyone based on today's ever-changing what-can-we-think-of-to-correct-you-for next, the 5% should learn to be a little less sensitive. When we raise children that cry about everything, good parenting typically involves lovingly, but firmly, teaching the child to not be so sensitive. Imagine if the child instead "raised" the parents by conditioning them into catering to their every tantrum?
1 reply →
Any organization willing to put "Civil Liberties" in their name should be foremost concerned with the individual liberties of Americans. So it worries me that their position on the Second Amendment is:
> Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.
https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment
Of course, they have their reasons. And they concede that there are some instances where the state goes too far with regulations and prohibitions. But I would want to see an organization which defends civil liberties to frequently err on the side of protecting the individual than the government.
The ACLU is supposed to defend free speech. Period. Even if we hate it.
Now they pick and choose, and that's not right.
Do I like people with hatred towards their fellow humans? Absolutely not. But I don't think we should muzzle them. One day, that'll come back and bite the rest of us.
Likewise, the EFF needs to focus on the incredibly important missions of keeping software accessible and our privacy paramount. They're getting distracted too.
edit: mistakenly mentioned FSF instead of EFF. I'm clear about the distinction, it was just a mistake. Thanks for pointing it out, mig39.
What do you mean by pick and chose? ACLU always has to pick their cases.. they cannot afford to be the nations lawyers nor should they be.
They are explicitly picking and choosing which speech they believe should be free - and it's not just selecting cases, but actively militating against some speech.
EDIT: Not just speech, but also other basic rights they have stood for, such as legal representation and rights of the accused.
3 replies →
He means that, in 2021, they are coming out against free speech in multiple instances.
2 replies →
For a good recap, watch JRE #1595 with Ira Glasser.
6 replies →
While they may now be more often on one side of the political divide, they have not completely stopped defending freedom of speech regardless of political message: https://lawandcrime.com/first-amendment/aclu-backs-n-j-woman...
Of course, this is just one case. But it at least shows they're not opposed to defending those they may otherwise disagree with.
Are you confusing the EFF and FSF?
Obligatory The Onion link: https://www.theonion.com/aclu-defends-nazis-right-to-burn-do...
[flagged]
Don't be silly.
It really hasn't been that long since the red scare, where people made comments just like yours, but warning about the dangers of those dirty pinkos towards god-fearing, decent Americans. The first amendment protects us from authoritarians of any political stripe.
Can you clarify how changing who they are willing to defend is not a change in values?
ACLUs values have definitely changed. They no longer support free speech. One thing that turned me off, was when one of their lawyers tried to cancel Sandmann. Sandmann was the kid, wrongfully accused of racism, simply because he stood his ground. And one of the ACLU lawyers publicly said the college shouldn't admit the kids... Because, well who knows.
They changed.
They went from defending Nazis to calling people Nazis.
I’ve always hated Nazis but I’ve also always wanted speech to be free, and the ACLU is the one who changed their tune.
> They changed.
So yeah, they realized some stances they had has fucked over a huge group of people that weren't listened to for centuries \o/.
For people like me, ACLU went from a pretty dangerous org to an org I actively support.
They went from an org, defending free speech, even speech that people don't like.. to a dangerous organization.
1 reply →