I'm a lifelong member of the ACLU. During all the years, I've disagreed with numerous things they have done and that they do presently, including this involvement in politics. However, there are few organizations doing the legal representation that they do on behalf of the poor and the marginalized, and for that I continue to support them. Insisting that an organization perfectly fit my personal preferences is a fool's errand. As with everything in life, I don't want to fall into the trap that perfect becomes the enemy of good. The ACLU ain't perfect, but it's certainly doing good work that IMHO merits my continued support.
If the article is correct that they’re selling their services to parties in private civil suits, along with positions in the organization (for use by the individual for publicity), I think you should reconsider your support. The ACLU was once an effective advocate for free speech, but the fact that they're selling themselves to either side of a private dispute should be a sign that the ACLU has changed.
edit: this is all premised on the idea that you were supporting them for their old 'free speech' mission, rather than the new 'values', which I now realize may have been in error.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. As you sensed, I supported their old mission and parts of their new mission.
However, I agree that if they view their new mission to be "selling themselves" to one side or the other, that would indeed detract from my willingness to continue supporting them long-term.
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.
Eh. If they exchange one lawyer's time for $3.5 million in donations that will be used for all their other causes, that's actually a pretty good deal. (Or at least would be if Heard paid up, which she apparently didn't.)
I don't see a fundamental conflict between the ACLU's core beliefs and offering legal aid to a woman accusing her ex-husband of domestic violence. (Although I'll readily admit I don't see much reason for ACLU to get involved either.)
The default position on most articles, especially critical ones, should be that they have utterly failed to accurately grasp and convey the key issues. This seems to be a universal law not just of journalism, but of knowledge sharing in general, especially where controversy exists.
I believe the complaint here is actually more "The ACLU is no longer defending my political enemies".
The issue is not that the ACLU is taking on causes the author disagrees with. The issue is that the ACLU has switched away from "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" thinking. And instead they are taking a few cases of "I disapprove of what you say and will therefore not defend you". Let alone the weird Heard case that seems to be "You give me money so I give you backing and legitimacy".
No, the frog doesn’t know it’s being boiled at all.
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.
The problem with this problem is that there isn't a better alternative.
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.
> 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.
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.
> Speech is the most important non-violent right that we have
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
Yes, the right to free speech is more important than those rights because it is what lets you say that the other rights have been violated. If you have the right to vote, but not the right to say that you were prevented from voting, you don't actually have the right to vote.
That doesn't explain why absolute free speech is necessary. If you are allowed expose violations of your voting rights, but not allowed to engage in hate speech... you still have the right to vote?
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
"hate speech" is whatever the current political climate deems to be unacceptable speech. Today it's hateful to be against homosexuality, tomorrow it's hateful to be against any other approved policy from your favorite political party.
I disagree. Never in my life has the best solution to anything been the extreme, instead it's always been balanced and nuanced solution that have ended being more optimal. I've observed this in science, physics, engineering, medicine, culinary, inter-social relations, business, in everything.
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.
There are plenty of orgs that tackle portions of what the ACLU used to - enough that I’m sure with 3 or 4 donations one could replace the former ACLU donations one made.
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'm not sure why you're implying that FIRE "despises" speech; perhaps you see them as conservative. That said, here's are some recent situations in which FIRE has taken the side of what would be under the general progressive/liberal umbrella:
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. This is the comment:
> 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.
I’m not a conservative or right wing in any way. FIRE doesn’t turn away people based on their political views or the political content of their speech as far as I know; I would stop donating if that were the case.
Why the SPLC over the ACLU, if their missions largely overlap?
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.
I do care about alt-right speech. I care about leftist speech. I care about anarchist speech. I care about conspiracy weirdos speech. I care about religious nut job speech.
I think the point of the article and general consensus here is that their missions should not overlap as much as they do.
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
In Heard's case, the ACLU is creating an ambassador position and crafting the credentials for the ambassador they wish to hire (the op-ed). Knowing the level of deception they're engaging in - and not from a low-level employee but from their general counsel - how do you trust/verify any claims the ACLU makes?
What about the "poor and marginalized" students that were falsely accused and expelled from university over Title IX kangaroo courts?
> When the Trump administration proposed in 2018 a new regulatory scheme for schools to follow in Title IX campus-sexual-assault cases that offered more protections to students defending themselves against these allegations, the ACLU responded in an angry tweet thread: “It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused.”. (The following year, the ACLU declared its support for new Title IX regulations’ “fair process requirements for live hearings, cross-examination, [and] access to all the evidence,” but it has never taken down the tweets or walked them back.)
I had a friend working with one of their lawyers and she was amazing. I can't agree with an article that says to quit helping a group that is still fighting for civil liberties, even if I don't agree with their following cancel culture hook, line, and sinker. Maybe someday they'll go too far though I suppose.
Whether you think they are still fighting for civil liberties depends on what you think civil liberties are.
Recently they have been supporting the “civil liberty” of men such as Lia Thomas to compete on women’s sports teams. I don’t see that as a defense of anyone’s liberties, but rather as an attack against the liberties of female athletes, and of women in general. They are on the attack against women’s sex-based rights.
I’ve stopped supporting them.
I used to support them even though I was disappointed in their 2nd amendment stances, because their work on 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment issues was so valuable. But now they’ve turned into a misogynist organization, actively campaigning against civil liberties.
> They are on the attack against women’s sex-based rights.
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.
Your claim that they’re misogynist is just outright bizarre. The idea of “sex based liberties” being something the American Civil Liberties Union is misogynist for not upholding is wild. It’s obvious why they wouldn’t based off their history and name.
Agreed. The ability to support a cause for the greater good, even if some of it makes you uncomfortable, is just a sign that you’re not totally brainwashed by one “camp” or another, imo. It’s a symptom of retaining individual thought while working toward collective progress. It would be far more troubling to be part of a movement that operates fully in lock—step.
This being the internet, I feel the need to attach a disclaimer that there are limits to this general rule, but I don’t think the ACLU is currently crossing them.
Sure. But I don't have the time (nor realistically the ability) to review each one and determine which one is as effective at the ACLU in that representation.
