If this become policy, the ACLU will have become a shell of its former self. Part of our bill of rights is the right to say repugnant things. I have said it before - society should shun you for you beliefs and words, but government must defend your right to say them.
Seems like they cherry picked one sentence, out of context, to base an entire article on. This is exactly what I would do if I were trying to chip away at support for the ACLU; fire off an article stating they are backing away from a core value, since most folks won't actually read the memo.
Have you read the memo yourself? I don't disagree that the post may be somewhat poorly presented, but it summarizes a large part of the memo in the one sentence it cites. The section "The impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression" on pages 5 and 6 as well as the note on the bottom of page 5 of the memo are exactly what the main post is pointing out.
If the ACLU loses it's commitment to its principles in favor of it's politics, it will eventually lose its credibility and mark the end of the ACLU as a defender of rights, rather than a promoter of policy. This could mark the end of the ACLU as we know it.
This article does not contain the text of the memo, and seems to mostly build on a WSJ opinion piece.
The blogger takes small parts and implies some substantial change or greater meaning. It ends with talk about the “anti-speech left” so this can hardly be considered a balanced source.
Liberty comes in many forms. Why should one particular right unconditionally take precedence over others? If speech promotes oppression of others (e.g. "put them in chains") should an organization devoted to liberty defend it? It's ridiculous to say that this represents an abandonment of principle. It might be unwise because it makes their mission less clear than pure first-amendment advocacy would be, or because of the effect it has on membership, but a general principle of defending liberty would require active opposition to anti-liberty speech. It makes me wonder about whether some of its critics actually believe in liberty or something less noble.
If speech promotes oppression of others (e.g. "put them in chains") should an organization devoted to liberty defend it?
How can you not see that the only answer to this is yes, unequivocally and absolutely yes?
Because there is absolutely, 100% no way to define what speech "promotes oppression" that isn't a slippery slope to thoughtcrime and totalitarianism. Period.
You know that "slippery slope" is a fallacy, right? The slope you talk about is no slipperier than the one that leads straight from talking about slavery to actual slavery. The Trumpian "Period" doesn't change that.
Also, note that I mentioned opposition, not censorship. The ACLU has no power to censor anyway. You're still free to spout whatever anti-liberty nonsense you want. The ACLU is free to devote their finite resources to cases and causes that don't have that complication. They're not your slaves, or any other first-amendment absolutist's. As I said, liberty comes in many forms - not just yours.
My comment was about an "organization devoted to liberty", not the ACLU. They can of course do as they please, but they won't be able to call themselves that any more.
They're not the American First Amendment Union. You want that, go start it yourself. Their mandate is broader, often involving complex interactions of different rights, and sometimes the rights that members of America's most privileged group consider important do not seem that way to others.
14 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 39.6 ms ] threadTldr of the article: SJWism is more important than defending free speech to the ACLU.
The blogger takes small parts and implies some substantial change or greater meaning. It ends with talk about the “anti-speech left” so this can hardly be considered a balanced source.
How can you not see that the only answer to this is yes, unequivocally and absolutely yes?
Because there is absolutely, 100% no way to define what speech "promotes oppression" that isn't a slippery slope to thoughtcrime and totalitarianism. Period.
The ACLU of Brandenberg v Ohio understood this.
Also, note that I mentioned opposition, not censorship. The ACLU has no power to censor anyway. You're still free to spout whatever anti-liberty nonsense you want. The ACLU is free to devote their finite resources to cases and causes that don't have that complication. They're not your slaves, or any other first-amendment absolutist's. As I said, liberty comes in many forms - not just yours.