I totally agree that the ACLU is getting into things that seem silly, but it seems equally silly to claim they are 'losing their way' based on that.
This article complains the ACLU is not taking right-wing speech cases but admits they still do take cases and lists no examples where they refused. It cites the ACLU reacting to the protest where a protester was killed by nazis as anti-speech, but the ACLU was not saying they are against legal speech! They reflected, correctly, that backing groups that seek to silence (and kill) others is not straightforward. Considering the number of people in here who are decrying a "movement against freedom of speech" I would think people would support that policy!
If the article is to be believed and the ACLU has gotten a lot more money in recent years - wouldn't it make sense that they get into new areas?
Should the ACLU have more speech lawyers? Maybe! Are there cases they couldn't take? I would love to see some examples.
Should the ACLU stay out of politics? It's worth debating and I'm glad the article brings it up - but given the anti-democratic (and anti-individual rights) policy goals of the republican party I understand the approach. The article doesn't even ask what we do when one party is against proportional representation!
In general I just don't feel like this is actually responding to the ACLU's positions. She accuses the organization of hypocrisy around Title IX because they criticized changes but then later said they supported some updates - but of course it is perfectly coherent to criticize overall changes AND support parts of them. Here is their statement:
> We filed comments on Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ Title IX rule that supported fair process requirements for live hearings, cross-examination, access to all the evidence, and delays in proceedings if the student accused of wrongdoing also faced a student criminal investigation, even as we criticized the rule for reducing the obligations of schools to respond to reports of sexual harassment.
Like seriously, I encourage everyone to check the case selection guidelines linked in the article[1]. Here are the things that might lead them to not take an otherwise suitable case: the group seeks to engage in violence, the group seeks to carry weapons, if the speech would lead to direct harm, if the ACLU support would appear to damage the orgs' overall mission. These aren't even vetos. They're areas of concern, and they seem pretty reasonable - especially considering this article criticized the ACLU for getting involved with Amber Heard because she sees their support for Heard as damaging to the ACLUs' mission! Which is exactly their concern.
This article complains the ACLU is not taking right-wing speech cases but admits they still do take cases and lists no examples where they refused. It cites the ACLU reacting to the protest where a protester was killed by nazis as anti-speech, but the ACLU was not saying they are against legal speech! They reflected, correctly, that backing groups that seek to silence (and kill) others is not straightforward. Considering the number of people in here who are decrying a "movement against freedom of speech" I would think people would support that policy!
If the article is to be believed and the ACLU has gotten a lot more money in recent years - wouldn't it make sense that they get into new areas?
Should the ACLU have more speech lawyers? Maybe! Are there cases they couldn't take? I would love to see some examples.
Should the ACLU stay out of politics? It's worth debating and I'm glad the article brings it up - but given the anti-democratic (and anti-individual rights) policy goals of the republican party I understand the approach. The article doesn't even ask what we do when one party is against proportional representation!
In general I just don't feel like this is actually responding to the ACLU's positions. She accuses the organization of hypocrisy around Title IX because they criticized changes but then later said they supported some updates - but of course it is perfectly coherent to criticize overall changes AND support parts of them. Here is their statement:
> We filed comments on Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ Title IX rule that supported fair process requirements for live hearings, cross-examination, access to all the evidence, and delays in proceedings if the student accused of wrongdoing also faced a student criminal investigation, even as we criticized the rule for reducing the obligations of schools to respond to reports of sexual harassment.
Like seriously, I encourage everyone to check the case selection guidelines linked in the article[1]. Here are the things that might lead them to not take an otherwise suitable case: the group seeks to engage in violence, the group seeks to carry weapons, if the speech would lead to direct harm, if the ACLU support would appear to damage the orgs' overall mission. These aren't even vetos. They're areas of concern, and they seem pretty reasonable - especially considering this article criticized the ACLU for getting involved with Amber Heard because she sees their support for Heard as damaging to the ACLUs' mission! Which is exactly their concern.
[1] https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu...