Glad someone else noticed this. The ACLU has worked against several causes (such as freedom of the press and free speech) that it would have supported once upon a time. The question is why. Possibilities I can think of are: (A) it's become controlled opposition, the leaders are secretly libertarians (unlikely) (B) it's become bloated with bureaucrats who just want to collect a paycheck and are guided by trails of money (meh) (C) It's become bloated with trend-chasers who are passionate about the latest cause de jure, and don't think about or care about other causes (D) the organization is holding on for dear life, donations are down, and they can't afford to be picky with what causes they support, whatever keeps the justice ship afloat
The principles on which the organization was founded are not (at least not to the same degree) the principles of the people who now comprise it. Leaving aside why this is the case, I think it is clear that the ACLU trades on a reputation that they no longer entirely deserve.
Well, and they also disagree on where the censorship should occur.
One side is trying to prevent kindergarteners from having teachers discuss gender and sexual identity issues with them. The other is openly claiming free speech is problematic on widely available public discussion platforms, with thought leaders claiming that strict moderation of these platforms is necessary to preserve democracy.
But yes, arguably both sides are supporting some degree of censorship.
Also if we allow teachers to teach about any topics due to freedom of speech. Is that necessarily a good thing or even something we want? This could lead very varying things being taught and probably some that one side agrees and some that other side agrees with...
I think age appropriate centrally planned general plan what should be taught is entirely reasonable. Anything else just leaves to mess and unevenness.
Wow. There's literally legislation intended to have a chilling effect on certain kinds of speech - outlawing it - and you "don't think it's censorship" because you happen to disagree with said speech. It would be difficult to conjure a more prototypical example of censorship.
It's definitely censorship, just in the same way that a police department might also have rules about officers not swearing at children. Yes it restricts speech, but no, it's not inappropriate or stifling of discussion.
A more prototypical example of censorship would be government-sanctioned banning of the selling or distribution of books critical of its policies... and not just in libraries at schools for children.
You probably saw the video of Russian protesters being taken away by henchmen immediately after speaking out [1], or the video of the Chinese police interrogation for the guy who criticized them on WeChat [2]. It'd be a little obtuse to compare these to controlling what sexual education topics kindergarteners are exposed to.
I concede that your examples are more prototypical examples of censorship. That said, a law banning what teachers can or can't teach is also censorship. While it's not appropriate for teachers to teach to kindergarteners about sexual identity topics, it really shouldn't be lawmakers making those decisions (what schools should or shouldn't teach).
Of course - when everything is made into this "battle for America", everything matters, censorship becomes "justified" and the further the division grows.
I do genuinely wonder what it is in humans that makes them seem to inherently want a 'strong' (read: a flavor of fascist but with views that agree with mine personally) leader.
my impression is that some chapters/local offices are more focused on traditional civil liberties than others. but fashion is oh-so-hard to resist, especially in places like CA or TX that see themselves as being at the forefront of culture.
side note: "de jure" (by law) should be "du jour" (of the day). i just used this phrase in another post, a funny little coinky-dink (coincidence).
IMO the answer as to why is that Ira Glasser was replaced by Anthony Romero as executive director in 2001, and Romero substantially reoriented the organization.
No, the phrase "controlled opposition" implies that they're for these ideals, and take up losing cases against them as a means of advancing them.
It's not very plausible, but it's a theory :)
For example, if I—a dyed-in-the-wool free speech advocate—bring a weak case against someone who wrote something unpopular, I can control the opposition within the case and ensure that I lose (and therefore my ideals are upheld).
Again, not very plausible with respect to the ACLU's drift, but that's what parent seems to be suggesting as one of the possibilities.
That's some extreme 4D chess. An organization originally founded to support free speech is infiltrated by people who support free speech who start promoting anti-free speech ideals or cases in order to weak man the anti-free speech argument.
Not when it comes to the second amendment. They cherry-pick the Bill of Rights to suit their donors’ politics. They also seem to ignore the 10th as well.
Not particularly. For example their policy document "A Pro-Liberty Case for Gun Restrictions" is very much the opposite of the libertarian take on the issue. Their support of net neutrality laws & regulations is also un-Libertarian, although maybe you could make the argument that net neutrality is only necessary because ISPs don't operate in a true free market.
I suppose if you critically examine the definition of Liberty / Libertarian you could say they are such an organization. You could also get creative with definitions and claim that because they want to maintain and preserve constitutional rights they are actually a 'conservative' institution.
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.
Interesting, thanks. I know that people who identify as 'libertarians' in the USA tend to be right-wing, but I thought that the definition was much closer to that of 'liberal', as in 'favoring the rights of the individual'.
There has been a significant shift in what "liberal" means in the vernacular. I suspect this is because there is a habit of reducing everything down to either "liberal vs conservative" - in the US at least. I know many libertarians have started qualifying themselves as "classical liberals" in order to try and distinguish their ideology.
What does “further right” mean? Positions the left would have never taken 10 years ago are now commonplace. The idea that a Supreme Court nominee is too afraid to even define what a woman is (due to her lack of biology credentials apparently) — that would have been laughable 10 years ago. The Democrat position on abortion, during the Clinton admin was “safe, legal, rare.” Now it’s “abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy, even up to the moment of birth.” That’s an extreme position. And on illegal immigration — Barbara Jordan’s position is identical to the position republicans have maintained for decades. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3qjdZUx7fUw
So a world without Roe v Wade (for example) with the threat of Dred Scott style extradition for those who cross state borders, isn't a further-right position than when Roe was still in place? Immigration policies/attitudes aren't further right than in the days when "bring me your tired" meant something? You don't remember the days when finance and media and airlines were more tightly regulated? When unions were stronger? Do you really need me to cite the many studies from actual political scientists and sociologists showing the rightward trend, vs. your cherry picked anecdata? I thought this was all well known, but perhaps it's not so obvious behind HN's own rightward shift.
I live in the southeast and talk to a lot of right wing people. Nothing has really changed in my lifetime as far as right wing view points go. At least to the degree that I can't find anyone around me who supports the crazier stuff I see online.
