Reason: ACLU “Cowardly” Retreat from Free Speech

Per a leaked memo, it seems that the ACLU is re-examining it’s policies on their defense of free speech, and which some may consider to be a “civil liberty”.

Reason calls it exactly what it is:

What criteria will be used to determine what speech deserves their efforts at promotion, protection and defense?

First Amendment Rights are sometimes fine, except when coupled with 2nd Amendment Rights:

This isn’t really a policy change, it will only be used as a guideline in their determining what cases to take / which civil liberties are worth protection, and when:

So, only speech that they like and agree with, essentially? And MORE restrictive even than SCOTUS? Good to know.

The Youths: So Enlightened

Here, a solid issue arises (emphasis mine):

Reason Concludes:

Link: http://reason.com/blog/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech

 

All of these years, championing the tolerance of and protection for all civil liberties, including legal free speech - no matter how vile and repugnant to some - may now go away.

I’m absolutely shocked that a group of radicalized liberals turned out to be even less tolerant of any beliefs other than those which they approve, agree and share.

Shamelessly, even after years of insisting upon the value of tolerance and promotion of the rights, and the necessity of its assurance for all.

Absolutely shocked.

 

I don't like it, but I find your indignation amusing.

 

Is there some kind of conservative equivalent of the ACLU, doggedly protecting the constitutional rights of liberals, despite their political or moral objections to their client's progressive beliefs? I don't know, but I want to get your gauge of appropriate outrage towards these dastardly liberals as opposed to the more open minded conservatives.

 

' 'But' is a powerful word, it means forget everything I just said, I'm now going to tell you what I really mean." - Dr Phil

 

VolDad, I respect you, but Dr Phil is a tool

 

It’s impossible to be disappointed by things that you don’t have some faith in, if only a modicum.

 

What, exactly, is your point?

 

Don’t forget to vote.

Is that still a worthy right?

 

I think it's pretty clear. You try and portray the ACLU, liberals, as hypocrites, failing to uphold this ideal of protecting constitutional rights. Liberals, as always for you, are the bad guys. I'm just wondering if there's an equivalent conservative advocacy organization doing for liberal groups what the ACLU has done for the most reprehensible of far right groups?

I mean, abortion is a constitutionally protected act, is there some conservative organization out there saying "We disagree with abortion, but it's your right to do so as a woman" in the face of laws in Texas, Mississippi, etc. designed to limit or stop their access to this constitutionally protected right?

 

What a farce of an article

 

For as often and strongly as I’ve disagreed with much of what the ACLU has done, or however contrary their position was to my own, I never fully doubted their well-intended efforts.

Similarly, I could always retreat to the safe assumption that they somehow and some way were trying to play it straight in performing a good and necessary function....even when I couldn’t always or easily discern it.

This challenges all of that, if not outright refutes it, because this no longer allows them to be a defender of civil liberties, but only those civil liberties to which they agree, value and endorse.

And by definition, that’s no more valuing of diversity than it honestly seeks tolerance or promotes inclusivity - and which are the very things which they’ve long demanded for themselves, but now deny to others.

It can be amusing, ironic, noteworthy or whatever else, and all day long - but it’s disappointing to me, and entirely wrong.

 

Forcing the ACLU to replace 1/2 of their leadership with people selected by the KKK seems like a compromise we could all get behind.

 

By the way, the fact that they've decided they don't necessarily want to represent white supremacists bothers me none.

And, before Tenny tries to swipe in with "Oh, see you liberals are so hypocritical and don't really support the constitution, first amendment, blah, blah...", there's no violation of the first amendment by not choosing to represent someone in a case. I'm not advocating the government repress them, which is a violation of the first amendment, or violate their rights or deny them counsel.

Saying they are going to represent those who are actually repressed over those who advocate repressing, or even murdering, them, isn't troublesome to me, at all.

 

ACLU retreated a long time ago when they decided not to defend the 2nd amendment.

This is just the next one.

 

Nothing says promoting inclusivity and seeking tolerance more than the defense of neo-Nazis or Westboro Baptist.

 

I don’t think anyone would argue that the ACLU isn’t a liberal organization, or that this policy change isn’t exactly what many have long feared about both them and liberals - that they’re only for the protection and promotion of what they find to be personally agreeable, or wish to advance.

Clearly, this action makes it obvious that it isn’t about civil liberties, tolerance, diversity, etc. at all, and perhaps never has been, but advancing and promoting liberal ideals, instead, and the use of civil liberties seems like just a conveniently effective cover for doing so.

How else to interpret this? I’d love to be wrong.

Are you arguing that the lack of a conservative equivalent (which is ironic, as civil liberties should know no political lines...or so I’ve been told) somehow explains or excuses the ACLU’s decision to essentially abandon these broader ideals?

I’ve repeatedly said that I disagree with abortion, but believe it should be ensured for, as the law of the land. Who else needs to say it?

 

Previous.

 

Their mission statement says their goals are to “defend and preserve” civil liberties. Not promote them.

 

I like big buts, I cannot lie.

I really am amused, yes. But I don't like it. And I don't like it. Dr. Phil isn't a doctor, but Dr. Phil isn't a doctor.