The problem with this is that it's the mindset of a frog being boiled. Just one more degree won't hurt me.
Being fully aware of an organization’s good and bad behaviors is the opposite of being unknowingly boiled. Even if one chooses to continue supporting the organization in spite of some disagreement.
There's a lot of people in this thread complaining about how the ACLU is ruined because they are no longer free speech absolutists.
That's not why I give, or ever gave them money. I give them money because they solve all sorts of other problems. If the biggest problem in your life is 'the far american right can't speak as loudly as it likes', that's certainly terrible, but it pales in comparison to the harm of all the other civil liberty violations that the ACLU tackles.
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.
I give to both, FYI.
If you don't give a crap about all the social causes, and just care about alt-right speech, I agree, the ACLU is not the organization you should donate to! In that case, I also can't say I care very much for your vision of the problems in this country, but it's your opinion, everyone's free to have one.
Or as the ACLU puts it, on why they defend abhorrent groups:
"The ACLU is frequently asked to explain its defense of certain people or groups — particularly controversial and unpopular entities such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Nation of Islam, and the National Socialist Party of America. We do not defend them because we agree with them. Rather we defend their right to free expression and free assembly.
Historically, the people whose opinions are the most controversial or extreme are the people whose rights are most often threatened. Once the government has the power to violate one person’s rights, it can use that power against everyone. We work to stop the erosion of civil liberties before it’s too late." https://www.aclu.org/about-aclu
Which is somewhat different than the SPLC:
"The SPLC is a catalyst for racial justice in the South and beyond, working in partnership with communities to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance the human rights of all people." https://www.splcenter.org/about
Clearly not any more, especially if the ACLU were to have their way.
I care about free speech.
You mean conservative speech? Or has FIRE actually defended speech they despised, like the ACLU used to?
* https://www.thefire.org/cases/new-york-university-administra...
* https://www.thefire.org/cases/catholic-university-of-america...
* https://www.thefire.org/cases/suny-brockport-event-featuring...
There are more, for sure, but hopefully this points you in the right direction.
> FIRE has done way more for campus free speech issues this last decade or two ...
> You mean conservative speech? Or has FIRE actually defended speech they despised, like the ACLU used to?
It seems to imply that FIRE has done way more for conservative campus free speech issues. I supplied examples of times when FIRE supported non-conservative campus free speech. I'm not quite clear how else to read that comment, but would love your take.
It's not obvious to what you're referring. Can you explain?
[1] - https://prospect.org/education/conservatives-behind-campus-f...
[2] - https://www.alternet.org/2016/09/what-campus-free-speech-cru...
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.
Based just on that, I already get a red flag when someone says that an extreme free speech position, such as free speech absolutists, is the best solution to have a liberal society with civil liberties.
In my experience, balanced and nuanced is always better, and you must always have provisions to handle special cases, there will always be special cases.
Free speech is very important, like you said, beyond violence, how else you going to influence and assert any improvement or changes to defend, retain or ask for more liberties?
But speech can remain civil and respectful, it doesn't have to include slander, or threats to a person, insults, ridicule, raised voices, talking over people, etc.
And then you have the conflict with other liberties. Yes governement shouldn't be able to restrict anyone's speech, no matter what. But between themselves, citizens should be allowed recourse to slander for example. They should have ways to protect their reputation when it is being harmed by someone intending to harm it through misinformation, lies, and false accusations, and that would require the government to intervene and uphold someone's right to their reputation.
Also, we should be allowed to create communities with code of conducts that include speech behavior. If you come to my house and start bad-mouthing my daughter, insulting her, and I kick you out, you shouldn't be able to sue me for violating your free speech rights. I should be allowed to control the code of conduct of others in my own home. Similarly on my website, in my comment section, or if I am a company running a social community space I too should be allowed to do so in order to protect my business. Robo-calls, spammers, calling me or leaving spam in my email, website, I should be allowed to block them, or have some service that auto-censors them, it shouldn't be that their creator can prevent me from blocking them because it infringes on their creator's right to free speech. Same for bot accounts and all that. So clearly I feel there needs to be special provisions for exceptions to the right to free speech, and when exactly it applies, to whom, about what, and how the speech itself is conducted and what the speech is actually saying, is it false accusations, slander, threats, spam, etc.
Really? More important than the right to vote? Than the right not to be arbitrarily detained? Than the right to a fair trial?
I strongly believe in the importance of free speech when it comes to true statements or criticism of the government. But the idea that the right to spread deliberately false information or directly incite violence is not just a fundamental right, but the most important fundamental right? Honestly, I just don’t find the argument very compelling
But part of it is also the broader context: There's a contingent on the far-right who complain about their speed being limited as they actively campaign for stripping minorities of civil rights. I interpret the post as indirectly suggesting that siding with those minority groups means you are less committed to civil rights (because the right-wing folks are the primary ones concerned about speech restrictions, while minorities are concerned about everything). Which quite frankly is an absurd conclusion