They said they skimmed the website. Not the page. Go to home page and you’ll find the second item is “ NCLA is Challenging Covid-19 Regulations and Orders Imposed by Executive Decree”
Keep in mind, it was not that long ago when some of us had regulations and orders that mandated you wear a mask... but allowed t-shirts over your face to count, which does absolutely nothing. Some other jurisdictions mandated that certain aisles in supermarkets be closed (yardwork / gardening tools), but others be allowed to remain open (alcohol aisle, where the entire aisle is dedicated to selling a known carcinogen specifically for human consumption).
The regulations in your jurisdiction being rational and sound does not mean that the regulations in everyone else's jurisdiction were equally as rational.
Consequently, an organization filing legal challenges against C19 regulations doesn't inherently mean they're a bunch of crazy conspiracy nuts who were opposed to things like mask mandates that required functional masks or social distancing.
I'm not saying they're guaranteed to be saints, but this doesn't exactly damn them either, at least not without a lot more context & information on the specifics.
You seem to be using the term "antivaxxer" pretty broadly. I read their COVID section and didn't see any claims that the vaccines don't work, or that you shouldn't take one. Rather, they seem to be against vaccine mandates and government-coerced social media censorship. Those are not fringe positions.
What many Americans think the 1st amendment should say:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, unless those people are anti-vaxxers, then screw em
> The varying ‘effectiveness’ rates miss the most important point: The vaccines were all 100 per cent effective in the vaccine trials in stopping hospitalisations and death.
Only mention of that "100 percent" in it.
Is that wrong? Were there hospitalizations or deaths among the vaccinated in the vaccine trials?
Agreed the headline sucks, but reporting in general is terrible so that's no surprise.
[EDIT] Oh there's also:
> The numbers Americans should be emphasising are that all three vaccines have proven 100 per cent effective at preventing deaths. The risk of hospitalisation also plummets to virtually zero for people who receive the vaccine.
But the article's so chopped-up and shitty that it's hard to tell what the context of this was. Probably similar to the other quote above.
That's a fair criticism of my point. But you bring up a great point of your own as well - it may be journalists who are chiefly responsible for the growing distrust for the medical establishment.
The same journalists who eagerly proclaim any finding from any single study == "The Science", when we all know that in reality, one study does not science make. The "replication crisis" is a feature of science, not a bug.
Maybe those concerned with misinformation and the decline of public trust in institutions should be a lot more interested in the behaviors of journalists.
Do you know what that judicial precedent actually was? That quote about "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is from Schenck v. United States, a Supreme Court decision that affirmed the conviction of person who was distributing flyers against the draft during WW1. So, it basically came with a slippery slope pre-assembled and deployed.
But the good news is that it's not active precedent, since it has been superceded by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which defines the threshold as "imminent lawless action". Thus, anti-vax sentiment is protected by 1A, except for any specific utterances that can be conclusively demonstrated to have influenced people to not only not vaccinate, but to do so in violation of the law.
(FWIW I'm pro-vaccine myself and think that anti-vax is stupid and harmful. That doesn't mean that they don't deserve the same rights we all do.)
Can you tell me any progressive (or merely non-right-wing) causes the organization has supported? Because it certainly looks highly partisan to me. I’d hope that any organization concerned with civil liberties would make the effort to act in a bipartisan, politically neutral way.
"a reason to decline taking a free-speech case “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values." In selecting speech cases to defend, the ACLU will now balance the “impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression.” Factors like the potential effect of the speech on “marginalized communities” and even on “the ACLU’s credibility” could militate against taking a case." [1] [2]
And yet you still haven’t provided any cases this organization has pursued that would further non-right-wong causes. Here we compare sizable number of cases to… zero.
I never said this organization is neutral. Merely that if you criticize this organization you should also criticize the ACLU for the same lack of neutrality.
It's well-known that ACLU has changed its freedom of speech stance recently, which greatly disappointed many long-standing members, and definitely had a negative effect on its reputation.
However, that was a very specific and rather recent change. ACLU before that change can still be seen as a model organization that threw its weight behind causes regardless of whether they were "left wing" or "right wing", so long as one of its principles were affected.
Can you tell me any right-wing causes Media Matters for America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America) has supported? Because it certainly looks highly partisan to me. I’d hope that any organization concerned with media fairness would make the effort to act in a bipartisan, politically neutral way.
I deliberately parodied your words. If you think a non-profit should be non-partisan (a reasonable argument, by the way), then Media Matters should be as well. Correct?
Or maybe a vast number of 501(c)(3) organizations support only causes associated with one side or the other, and your criticism is highly selective.
That's just your opinion, not any law or regulation.
Non-profits are free to adopt whatever slant on civil liberties or any other issue they care about, as long as they don't support political candidates or parties, or otherwise violate the IRS's rules.
> I’d hope that any organization concerned with civil liberties would make the effort to act in a bipartisan, politically neutral way.
That seems naive. LGBTQ organizations are going to naturally bias heavily liberal. The NRA is naturally going to bias heavily conservative. Quite a few of our civil liberties are deeply partisan.
They are a "right-wing" litigation group. But if you think everything "right-wing" is wrong (their stance on fossil fuels, gay rights, abortion is not my cup of tea), you need to step out of the echo chamber. "left-wing" is also wrong from my point of view on many things: starting with equity and positive discrimination.
There's plenty of cases of "left-wing" craziness, but I give most of 'em a partial pass because a) they are a fringe minority, b) they do mean well
"Right-wing" extremism is an identified threat(1), and seems to be more mainstream amongst those on that side of the aisle.
I abhor partisanship and my belief/value system is open to refinement as compelling information/insights become available. As someone who would likely be called a "leftist" (not my choice or identity) I yearn for a balance where thoughtful conservatism can keep the the excesses of the left in check, rather than the scorched earth policy I see today.
> NCLA represented a Virginia landlord, "arguing that the CDC did not have the legal authority to prevent Brown from evicting clients
Does the CDC have that authority. Support the action or not, seems weird that the CDC can do that.
> Filed Amicus Briefs in Support of Koch-Backed Organizations
No specific cases mentioned, just the Koch boogeyman. Koch is the left's Soros.
> NCLA filed an amicus brief supporting tech multinational Oracle against the Department of Labor and has represented FDRLST Media, LLC, _which owns The Federalist_, in a labor case.
More ad hominem. I bet they'd call the ACLU "right wing" for supporting the KKK.
> NCLA attacked the Supreme Court's Chevron decision in a 2019 legal challenge to a ban on bump stocks.
2nd Amendment seems in scope of a Civil Liberties charity.
___________
I think you can learn all you need to know about that website by just looking at their logo.
There are no concrete details in the press release. All the direct quotes in the press release are from the lawyers filing suit essentially saying, "the government is behaving so badly!" And then the linked court filing[0] is 700 pages long, so quite a task to parse through it.
It's a shame the NCLA couldn't summarize their key points more effectively.
Usually HN comments complain about secondary sources. Now people are complaining about using primary sources. On a website where it's normal to see Git commits and FTC filing documents.
There's a difference between outright censorship and not promoting garbage conspiracies and hate speech.
I've been on the wrong end of a FB ban for the stupidest reason and I get how that can be no fun. But then again, it's FB and it's a tire fire of trash. What ev er.
Based on the articles linked from the organization’s press releases page, and it does seem like this lawsuit is in service of furthering misinformation about covid.
I'm so very over people tying their identity to their takes on covid and the vaccines. It's unoriginal thought at best, at worst it's primitive and thoughtless tribalism.
can we agree that it’s mostly content free then? The text of the posted article is on par with cable television news, and I mean that derisively. I think we can do better here on HN.
Feel free to submit a link to the PDF directly, or at least something that talks about the merits of the case.
What is there to discuss without details? Should we accept the partisan framing presented by the article that there that the current administration across all levels of government are “secretly” instructing social networks to censor content, and go from there without any evidence or nuance? I think we can have a better discussion than that.
Now, someone pointed out that I overlooked a link to the court filing. That’s my mistake. That would maybe spur a better discussion.
I think if what the lawsuit's pleadings allege is true, then it is as serious a violation of the Constitution as if the government had sent police to a street corner to shut down a speaker directly. The marketplace for speech may be changing, but the protection for free speech does not.
The beaurocrats in the government should not be allowed to circumvent the Constitution by using 3rd parties.
62 comments
[ 501 ms ] story [ 5766 ms ] threadThe regulations in your jurisdiction being rational and sound does not mean that the regulations in everyone else's jurisdiction were equally as rational.
Consequently, an organization filing legal challenges against C19 regulations doesn't inherently mean they're a bunch of crazy conspiracy nuts who were opposed to things like mask mandates that required functional masks or social distancing.
I'm not saying they're guaranteed to be saints, but this doesn't exactly damn them either, at least not without a lot more context & information on the specifics.
I’m trying to parse your statement.
Kind of like the “Abusing democratic freedoms” that China accuses people of. Have to protect our freedoms you understand..by removing them.
See https://nclalegal.org/covid-19/
5G, Bill Gates, microchips, zombies!
That's low hanging fruit of characterization, but I've yet to see compelling research that shows these fears to be justified.
Herd immunity is the public commons of disease and that puts us in a collectively sticky situation in how to manage it.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, unless those people are anti-vaxxers, then screw em
Was Fauci wrong or are you wrong?
[0]: https://twitter.com/independent/status/1366125427144732672?l...
> The varying ‘effectiveness’ rates miss the most important point: The vaccines were all 100 per cent effective in the vaccine trials in stopping hospitalisations and death.
Only mention of that "100 percent" in it.
Is that wrong? Were there hospitalizations or deaths among the vaccinated in the vaccine trials?
Agreed the headline sucks, but reporting in general is terrible so that's no surprise.
[EDIT] Oh there's also:
> The numbers Americans should be emphasising are that all three vaccines have proven 100 per cent effective at preventing deaths. The risk of hospitalisation also plummets to virtually zero for people who receive the vaccine.
But the article's so chopped-up and shitty that it's hard to tell what the context of this was. Probably similar to the other quote above.
The same journalists who eagerly proclaim any finding from any single study == "The Science", when we all know that in reality, one study does not science make. The "replication crisis" is a feature of science, not a bug.
Maybe those concerned with misinformation and the decline of public trust in institutions should be a lot more interested in the behaviors of journalists.
Mocking politicians and bureaucrats and calling their decisions into question is an absolute, inalienable right
But the good news is that it's not active precedent, since it has been superceded by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which defines the threshold as "imminent lawless action". Thus, anti-vax sentiment is protected by 1A, except for any specific utterances that can be conclusively demonstrated to have influenced people to not only not vaccinate, but to do so in violation of the law.
(FWIW I'm pro-vaccine myself and think that anti-vax is stupid and harmful. That doesn't mean that they don't deserve the same rights we all do.)
The site describes them as "a 501(c)(3) right-wing litigation group"
Funny, because you could say the same about the ACLU, but swap progressive/conservative.
https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-w...
"a reason to decline taking a free-speech case “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values." In selecting speech cases to defend, the ACLU will now balance the “impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression.” Factors like the potential effect of the speech on “marginalized communities” and even on “the ACLU’s credibility” could militate against taking a case." [1] [2]
[1] https://www.axios.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speec...
[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-exp...
Your list looks impressive. But what cases did they choose to not accept that aren't listed there?
Now it apparently means "subscribes to currently trendy theories of social justice."
However, that was a very specific and rather recent change. ACLU before that change can still be seen as a model organization that threw its weight behind causes regardless of whether they were "left wing" or "right wing", so long as one of its principles were affected.
If you agree that NCLA is objectively right-wing in their supported causes, then that’s all that matters here.
I deliberately parodied your words. If you think a non-profit should be non-partisan (a reasonable argument, by the way), then Media Matters should be as well. Correct?
Or maybe a vast number of 501(c)(3) organizations support only causes associated with one side or the other, and your criticism is highly selective.
Notice I didn’t say all non-profits should be non-partisan.
I said that organizations concerned with civil liberties should pursue those rights in a non-partisan manner if their intentions are genuine.
Non-profits are free to adopt whatever slant on civil liberties or any other issue they care about, as long as they don't support political candidates or parties, or otherwise violate the IRS's rules.
Can they be credible if don't support any right wing causes?
That seems naive. LGBTQ organizations are going to naturally bias heavily liberal. The NRA is naturally going to bias heavily conservative. Quite a few of our civil liberties are deeply partisan.
"Right-wing" extremism is an identified threat(1), and seems to be more mainstream amongst those on that side of the aisle.
I abhor partisanship and my belief/value system is open to refinement as compelling information/insights become available. As someone who would likely be called a "leftist" (not my choice or identity) I yearn for a balance where thoughtful conservatism can keep the the excesses of the left in check, rather than the scorched earth policy I see today.
1. https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/confronting-white-suprema...
Does the CDC have that authority. Support the action or not, seems weird that the CDC can do that.
> Filed Amicus Briefs in Support of Koch-Backed Organizations
No specific cases mentioned, just the Koch boogeyman. Koch is the left's Soros.
> NCLA filed an amicus brief supporting tech multinational Oracle against the Department of Labor and has represented FDRLST Media, LLC, _which owns The Federalist_, in a labor case.
More ad hominem. I bet they'd call the ACLU "right wing" for supporting the KKK.
> NCLA attacked the Supreme Court's Chevron decision in a 2019 legal challenge to a ban on bump stocks.
2nd Amendment seems in scope of a Civil Liberties charity.
___________
I think you can learn all you need to know about that website by just looking at their logo.
The unholy alliance between SV executives and government bureaucrats is very scary to any believer in democracy.
Especially the revolving door between high-level executive positions in tech companies and presidential administrations deserves some explanation.
There are no concrete details in the press release. All the direct quotes in the press release are from the lawyers filing suit essentially saying, "the government is behaving so badly!" And then the linked court filing[0] is 700 pages long, so quite a task to parse through it.
It's a shame the NCLA couldn't summarize their key points more effectively.
[0] https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Joint-State...
Pretty sure that is what will happen in court. They don't need to summarize it to gain internet outrage.
https://reclaimthenet.org/emails-facebook-coordinating-with-...
Usually HN comments complain about secondary sources. Now people are complaining about using primary sources. On a website where it's normal to see Git commits and FTC filing documents.
I've been on the wrong end of a FB ban for the stupidest reason and I get how that can be no fun. But then again, it's FB and it's a tire fire of trash. What ev er.
https://nclalegal.org/2022/06/unchecked-by-courts-government...
Feel free to submit a link to the PDF directly, or at least something that talks about the merits of the case.
Now, someone pointed out that I overlooked a link to the court filing. That’s my mistake. That would maybe spur a better discussion.
The beaurocrats in the government should not be allowed to circumvent the Constitution by using 3rd parties.