The ACLU Has Lost Its Way

If you think something is wrong in the society, fixing it is your responsibility. You can of course ignore it if you think the issue is not particularly significant or if it looks like other people are already handling it. But if the issue is important and contested, you are expected to get involved.

The deeper issue behind polarization is that people don't agree on the principles the society is built on. The Constitution may codify some principles, but too many people consider them insufficient or illegitimate. There is no fix to this apart from the vast majority of people agreeing on some set of principles.

I think everyone should try living a few years as a non-citizen in a foreign country. It gives a different perspective on politics. You live somewhere in the long term and see the issues around you, but you don't have the same rights as most other people and your responsibilities are limited.

Then your only choice is an unfree world. Maintaining freesom requires constant vigilance because those who want power and control never sleep.

It always has been every individual's responsibility.

What is different now is the loss of individual agency. People no longer believe that they can make a difference individually, nor do they believe that individuals can be actually be responsible for their actions.

Instead we are taught we are part of a system and that system determines outcomes we face in our lives. That we are not individuals, but belong to a group that defines how we think and how we act and it is not something we can escape from.

And what happens is that the only people in a position to do anything about solving any of our world's problems is the ones in central state government. That it is up to the government to free us or solve world hunger or save the environment or whatever else we think is the problem with society.

And the result of this is the loss of individual agency. We don't feel in control nor do we feel that we can make a difference. Instead we feel as if we are dependent on an external locus of control; politics.

So this compels people to obsess about politics. The only control we have over government is vote, but our individual vote doesn't matter. So to make a difference we need to "game" the system, forced to create narratives and convincing arguments and debates and stories to convince everybody else to agree with us.

However this 'external locus of control' we place in government is illusionary.

The government can't solve poverty, it can't fix the environment, it can't provide universal health care. All they can do is seize the wealth generated by the public and repurpose it to try to address those problems while causing a whole raft of other problems along the way.

The truth of the matter is that society is not defined by government. It doesn't work because of government and it never did.

Instead society is constructed through the individual relationships and voluntary associations people have with one another. The places you work, the churches people go to, the stores you shop at. Your friends, associates, and neighbors and, in turn the relationships those people have with everybody else. with everybody else. These casual and formal groupings and links that individuals create between them are the fabric in which society is constructed.

It is also the place where problems get solved. It is from this social fabric we get grocery stores, truck drivers, policemen, hospitals, plumbers, construction workers, and every other type of person, profession and jobs that goes into creating the resources on which human life depends.

So your personal responsibility for actually "doing something" and "changing the world for a better place" resides in your relationships with those people. How well you do your job. How well you take care of your family. How often you are willing to help out other people. The volunteer jobs you take. The financial aid you provide for other people and other initiatives.

You can tell you are doing a good job when you profit and other people profit from your existence among them.

Arguing on twitter and "taking up causes" online accomplishes nothing. It is not the signaling, or arguing, or showing solidarity or icon changing that provides any meaning. It is in the doing. It is the same now as it was 200 years ago.

That world you pine for has never existed, except when others took up the burden that you did not realize you needed to bear, or chose to ignore.

Applying mob rules (as seen on Twitter and other social media) to the legal world is most certainly a step backwards from a civil liberties perspective.

Speaking of strawmen...

It is a hard turn to stop defending everybody's rights though. Where everybody includes the entire spectrum from Robert Byrd to Mother Teresa.

> or is the author just living in a world where people don’t grasp how truly outside of contemporary society that the KKK operates in?

Speaking from authority as a KKK member, what I have seen of the contemporary society that the KKK operates in is that there appears to perhaps be a tiny core group of people who voluntarily become KKK members. These people are largely viewed as sideshow freaks and circus clowns who (aside from perhaps Gov. Ralph Northam? /s) have basically zero power as a group . And then you have the other far larger cohort of us who have been unwittingly "volunteered" KKK membership by various "experts" who don't like our opinions but are otherwise incapable of rational discussion of them.

It's a great system. First you make some group so abhorrent that their rights should not be defended. Then crown yourself the sole expert and arbiter of who does and does not belong to that group. The best part about it is that you get to be the one defending the marginalized from bullies and discrimination, and defending human rights and democracy from fascists.

Do I have to cut and paste all Trump's comments and recorded statements? Politics are infuriating to discuss because you find yourself debate truth, things that are obvious but still denied.

A better way to reduce my position is "Republicans bad, Democrats slightly less bad". Or, perhaps more accurately, "Republicans bad but effective, Democrats slightly less bad but completley ineffective."

That all goes to my point: the Democrats as they exist in modern US politics are completely feckless. They are way more concerned with fundraising, the aesthetics of appearing to do something and doing everything they can to stamp out any remotely progressive or socialist element of the party. There's no better example of this than the concerted effort to coronate the only candidate in 2016 who could get Trump elected over an actual progressive.

Obama, who I personally like as a person and a statesman, was a pretty ineffective president. Obama the candidate was progressive. Obama the president was just another Democratic right centrist who reneged on many campaign promises (eg codifying Roe v. Wade).

And Bill Clinton was the architect of mass incarceration of Americans (particularly minorities) with the 1994 Crime Bill (which our current president was one of the primary architects of). The 1994 Crime Bill was an abomination.

But you see, all of that makes my point: there is no Left in America. That's why I find things like Elon Musk's tweet so ridiculous and why I dismiss any notion that both sides are now more extreme. They're not. The political spectrum as a whole has shifted right. That's why "both sides" is both a logical fallacy in general and quite ridiculous in this case in particular.

The progressives in SF can't even keep their tools on the school board sharp enough to avoid being kicked out of office in the most liberal city in the US.

In contrast, there are left wing parties in other countries that know how to run for office, hold positions, and get things done. You know - by actually doing things.

And there is a big difference between 7% being able to block a bill and 7% being able to pass a bill. A fair number of people view it as a feature that it can be hard to pass a law when there is only some opposition.

oh sweet, an open white supremacist.

Also, don't tell me it's important if you're more than willing (re: you're going out of your way to defend it being taken from you) to have it taken away from you. Don't tell me I'm being obtuse if you can say that it's unimportant for one of the most valuable portions of your life.

It is more dangerous when a totalitarian government infringes your rights. That doesn't mean when a private company infringes your right it's not dangerous too. Maybe less dangerous, relatively, but still very very bad.

And, btw, a lot of seemingly "private" actions turn out to be actions performed by private actors on behest of the government, which either forces or entices, by using their gigantic powers to both break and promote business, the "private" companies to act as their agents, "voluntarily" - or else.

Why does democracy require free speech? Can I not vote for whoever I want even if I'm mute?

> So, what concrete alternative do you propose?

You get that there are many other countries in Western Europe that don't have as much free speech as the US right? You get that the lock down policies of many other Western countries seem Draconian relative to our policies right?

You get that giving me some of the most extreme examples of alternatives makes it seem like you are arguing in bad faith right?

Why do we need a brand new form of government? We didn't need a new form of government to ban saying "fire" in a theater.

I don't understand how you can call my issues with it trivial when I've heard this same propaganda over and over again for decades. I think the issue is that people made this propaganda their religion and are now unable to see that nuance can be used to safely reduce free speech.

You can't yell fire in a crowded fire when there is no fire can you? Why do you act like these safeguards don't already exist for other things?

Something something paradox of tolerance

The ACLU can’t just sue for liberties that require legislation be passed, that is unless you’re in favor with more legislating from the bench. And in that case they have to support politicians that will further their mission.

Dental advancement never gets anywhere because drilling teeth makes money and it sucks so people put it off until they NEED more expensive procedures and that works great.

Dentist that want to really make a difference and use the latest techniques really can't afford it because of the regulatory burden and huge costs associated with everything.

Who is we? I think most donators understood what they were donating to and feel fine about it.

Totally with you about the licensing requirements, but the HR thing just seems like a rant. Corporate beurocracies are risk-adverse to a fault, HR's KPIs aren't related to company performance. I think they're trying not to get fired.

For example, FIRE has done way more for campus free speech issues this last decade or two than the ACLU despite a considerably smaller budget. Between them, Institute for Justice, and EFF, I don’t miss my ACLU donations much.

Speech is the most important non-violent right that we have, regardless of who is speaking or about what issue. Without Freedom of Speech, corporations or the government could simply censor the other liberties out of existence. You can't be a civil rights absolutist without being a free speech absolutist.

I just can't imagine what conversations happened inside the organization, where they were willing to ghost write for Heard and sell off a position to her, then switch to taking money from the other side; all of this in a completely private dispute with no public interest on either side, other than visibility. This whole situation seems absurd to me.

Were they desperate for money? Or fans of Amber Heard? Or were they swept up in enthusiasm about a high-profile case of spousal abuse? I am not aware of the ACLU taking a general position on defamation suits between private parties in the past.

When you sell your soul to the devil? Don't be surprised when promises aren't kept or turn sour.

One thing you'll find is a lot of people find this sentence very strange. Replace "sex-based rights" with "race-based rights" or any other trait passed on at birth and you'll find the ACLU's actions to be very consistent.

People claimed the ACLU was anti-white decades ago. I guess now that that argument isn't working, misogyny is the new claim.

This is Daughters of the Confederacy "states rights" levels of historical revisionism. The origins of the Second Amendment were rooted in quelling a potential slave uprising [1]:

> The Virginians were slave-owners. Jefferson had inherited 175 slaves and had purchased a few more. Henry ultimately had 76 slaves. Madison had dozens of slaves. Militia was necessary because from them, “slave patrols” were formed to keep order. Virginians also wanted to avoid what had happened during the Revolutionary War: slaves were invited to join the Continental Army and thereupon became free. Henry even feared that abolitionists would find a way to use the Constitution to manumit all slaves. “In this state,” Henry emphasized, “there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in other states.” It, therefore, was of paramount importance that State rights to maintain militias unregulated by the federal government be included as an amendment, if Virginia were to ratify the Constitution.

> So the Second Amendment was born. Not to protect individual rights from encroachment, but to guarantee states the right to keep armed militia free from federal interference, in order to maintain control over black slaves. Not the noble motivation one might have hoped for. But the truth about the need for a state Militia and the intent of the Second Amendment.

[1]: https://rantt.com/2nd-amendment-and-slavery

This argument doesn't hold water when we are talking about 2A though. Kids getting their heads blown off isn't the same as having an uncomfortable conversation with a Nazi.

There is a huge difference between allowing and endorsing, which is getting conflated in modern thought and discourse.

I don't have a solution, but we can't pretend that speech isn't much more powerful in today's society - if it were the profession "social media influencer" would not exist.

IMO we have systems today (social networks) that make previously unspreadable speech pathological by creating a brain-virus-spreading environment (which is why things go viral, literally). Furthermore the environment favors evolution towards short, poorly thought out, poorly reviewed, "engaging" (and enraging) yellow-press like content.

[several hot takes follow]

FREE SPEECH IS OVER!"

Do you not understand how silly you look?

American culture warriors desperately want to be oppressed.

The issue is, of course, the thorny problem of allowing illiberal speech. What would the above author say if someone told them: "I disagree with what you say, and I'll make it illegal to say and jail you for it in the future"

Are you, the original author, supposed to defend their right to threaten your freedoms with your own life?

From this paradox emerged the current debate over de-platforming and "free speech" because people are nervous that their liberties are at risk, and thus they shouldn't tolerate intolerance.

Personally I think it's tricky. We have many, many examples of nations where illiberal leaders abused their freedom of expression to gain power only to pull up that protection behind them and become a dictator while crushing dissent. We really only have a few counter-examples (namely the United States) where free speech absolutism has survived multiple regimes.

The model of free speech that is currently popular on the Right, namely freedom from public backlash as the result of open expression, is juvenile and not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. You have the right to say whatever you want from the perspective of the State, but you do not have the right to an audience or to escape the consequences of your speech. Nobody should ever be arrested for their political opinions, but this idea that the left has gone "woke" or mad by cancelling people they disagree with is simply their right as individuals. So long as the Government isn't making it illegal for you to appear on TV or have a cell phone provider (for example), there's no such thing as being cancelled by the government from a 1st amendment perspective.

On the left there's a bit more nuanced debate that basically pressures private institutions to cancel and de-platform actors that the left feels are attacking the foundation of their institutions. This is all above-board from a legal perspective, but can feel illiberal because it is largely mob-rule. Nuance is discarded and lives can be ruined by accusations that aren't researched in-depth before being blasted out into the world of social media. Here there also needs to be restraint, but again it's not like Verizon is cancelling someone's cell phone access because they had a bad tweet. It's ironically a very capitalist movement where the fear of affiliation hurting the economics of a business causes them to release a statement or "cancel" someone for their speech. Turns out being a racist isn't a great marketing tactic in our capitalist world.

In sum I think the danger to our democracy is still greater from actors who seek to use freedom of expression as a ladder to the top, and then kick away that ladder once in power. It's the biggest weakness of open democracies, and one that should be guarded against carefully. Thankfully a strong commitment and defense of the 1st Amendment from both parties should thwart strongman attempts. We need to make sure that political tradition stays alive.

This is just semantics of a legal argument. It is not some universal truth that ordering off menu puts any additional ethical strain on someone. If the baker would make those customizations for a straight couple and not a gay couple then the civil rights of the gay couple are being infringed.

It would be the equivalent of going to a restaurant and asking for something non-standard and off menu (say change a meal to vegan or gluten free), being denied that, noting that they seem only seem to be denying black patrons off menu orders, and then claiming the restaurant violated your rights.

The owner claimed that he would bake any cake, but the evidence shows he refused before they discussed any styling or even what the cake was. He would sell them cupcakes or prebaked items, but wouldn't bake any cake, arguing it was compelled speech. The problem is that in the absence of asking for a cake which specifically mentions gay people, the owner's line of argumentation works equally well for refusing to cook a burger for black people at a diner. By being a business owner in a community, you give up certain civil liberties because you have increased power to infringe upon the civil rights of others.

Your analogies all fail because they consider situations where the customer asks the seller for a different, non-standard product. But that didn't happen; they were refused before any products were discussed.

Only in specific, enumerated contexts, such as employment and public accommodations.

You have a civil right to associate with whomever you want to, for whatever reason you want. You also have a Constitutional right to live according to your religion even when participating in the economy.

You can argue that the ACLU made the wrong decision because maybe they were misinformed about the nature of the protest and whether it would lead to violence. But the principle behind their decision seems clear and obvious. They will support peaceful free speech and not support speech which incites violence.

(And for anyone else doubtful of parent commenter's intentions: seriously, try googling it.)

How many FB memes have you seen that say “annoy a liberal, turn off CNN”, or something similar? Why attack free speech when you can use marketing to convince people to censor themselves, and encourage others to do so?

There’s already no debate. Don’t need the power of the state when you have consent being manufactured every day by bad faith actors.

I mean the fact that they can run a false flag in order to incite hatred towards a major political party, get caught, and get away with it with zero consequences is just mind-blowing.

See: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/30/lincoln-proj...

I can see how someone might make take that as conservative friendly since they are mostly featuring conservative students expressing fear about talking about conservative ideas.

I'm not making a judgement on any of that.

[0] https://rankings.thefire.org/

I'm just tired of pretending any of it means anything anymore. Both parties won't fix the roads, both parties won't give us healthcare, both parties are pro-war. Why should anyone care who the president is?

I have a very clear memory of a fox news headline disparaging obama for taking his jacket off in the white house, because apparently that was against the custom or whatever. And I thought, who cares, and it was then I knew that I shouldn't take fox seriously. But then, when trump was elected, I saw cnn spend a whole day talking about how trump got two scoops of ice cream and everyone else only got one, and had the same realization.

But I have to disagree with the idea that these stories were spread to the same degree. Go on twitter, go on facebook, go on snapchat - name a platform, and that platform will promote ideas against a republican significantly more than stories against a democrat. And you can argue that "that's just the algorithm" or whatever, but it is what it is, which is biased.

I don't think there's a particular left/right/whatever bent to running this business model. It's just that there isn't a lot of news that engages people in this world, so you cannot sustain a 24/7 media empire unless you wrap them up in a conspiracy or create a false narrative that there's some evil group that their news is fighting against with the truth. Then, all of a sudden, some random person's Tweet about mixed sex bathrooms becomes an hour's worth of news to engage people with.

Not stopping the family separation at the southern border.

Sending bad medical advice and politicizing response to a national healthcare crisis with COVID-19.

Abandoning Puerto Rico after a devastating Hurricane.

Not offering a replacement for Obamacare as promised, instead only gutting the process to make it more expensive for people who still try to get insurance. Especially for not implementing a single payer healthcare system like the entire rest of the civilized world uses to offer much more efficient healthcare to the populace.

Not fixing the Social Security deficit.

Engaging in a trade war with China without an apparent exit strategy.

so even though GP tried to be accurate and progressive-enough in their admonishment of the ACLU to find a way to have a rational way of expressing and discussing their fear, the people involved have made a malformed FOIA request and are expressing their calcified opinion conflating sex and gender identity.

Possibly, but you're almost assuredly looking at a sample of N=10 or fewer, so the answer would be "*" anyway.

Any argument here about privacy is entirely independent of sex and gender. Prison is dehumanizing, address that. Don't be a transphobe.

Edit: There's a bunch of mistaken comments here assuming that this will protect women prisoners in some capacity. That's totally wrong! Women in prison are sexually assaulted, raped, and even impregnated by men all the time and have been for years. Those men are guards[0]. And this happens at a vastly higher rate per capita and overall than any assault by trans inmates. Anyone here with a legitimate interest in protecting women in prison would be attempting to address that harm, because it is far more dire for numerous reasons.

[0]: https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/the-rape-club-womens-priso...

Your sex is private information under GDPR. Why would the GDPR be stricter than than HIPAA in this case?

>Regarding the right to privacy, what's your take on the privacy rights of the (female) women who are being physically forced to house & sleep in a cell with males?

"But what about the children?" is never a good argument for taking the away the rights of others.

Keeping penises out of the same room with vaginas will not magically eliminate sexual assault because sexual assault is based on power and willingness to harm another, not whether not tab A physically fits into slot B.

If you think keeping penises away from vaginas will eliminate prison rape then clearly you don't know much about rape in mens' prisons.

The modern disease is that everyone seems to be running a keynesian beauty contest, trying to figure out what side the truth is better for, and pretending it's a lie if it's against their side. Principles aren't a means, they're an end.

It's a world of propagandists (public relations professionals.)

We're just seeing the natural progression of American individualism. What used to mean - be strong in the face of adversity, work toward a positive goal, and bring others along once you make it, has become a monstrosity. Winning means amassing resources, regardless of the steps you take to get those resources. Oh, and don't forget to pull the ladder up after you, because if someone else wins, you lose.

What we're seeing is the evolution, the simple, natural evolution of stoic individualism taken to the nth degree.

Heard never donated the balance of her divorce settlement she publicly pledged.

But during the height of #metoo, we weren’t “allowed” to ask those questions because we needed to “believe all women”.

Institutional misandry strikes again.

Side note: For anyone who doesn't know, they are available on Amazon Smile as a charity so you can support them with a few cents from every purchase you make at no additional cost to you.

However in general perception they are firmly "on the left" politically and socially whereas Libertarians are perceived as "on the right" in America. Therefore I don't think the label Libertarian is fitting in this case.

I know the idea that this is censorship might float with some, but I just can’t be fussed to stand for something I wouldn’t want for my children.

I don’t think this is censorship, I think this is defining what is appropriate for interactions with children.

Viewpoints like this are mostly gone these days in the US. Liberalism has become unpopular on the Left (and it's always been just a suggestion on the Right in my experience).

Also, by now I've seen so many breathless statements by leftists who are literally shaking rn that so-and-so "denies my right to exist" and "wants me dead" that it doesn't even look like anything to me anymore. It's just a slogan. Letters of the alphabet strung together.