ACLU Wavering on Free Speech

#3
#3
George Orwell might as well be the father of the modern day Democrat party.

They have taken his book 1984 and used it as a road map.

And no....there are no Republicans at the ACLU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#5
#5
That's a shame. I always admired the ACLU for defending even the most noxious speech. I don't like any content-based approach to free speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7
#7
NEOCON said:
George Orwell might as well be the father of the modern day Democrat party.

They have taken his book 1984 and used it as a road map.

And no....there are no Republicans at the ACLU.
Click to expand...

A bit of research into Orwell's background may prove enlightening to where he got the picture for his...well...Orwellian future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
evillawyer said:
I see nothing inconsistent with defending a robust first amendment and taking up socially liberal social/civil rights issues. Don't know why ACLU would move away from the traditional approach.
Click to expand...

Agreed again. The linked article suggests it's to appease their primary constituency but it may be a philosophical change among leadership. Who knows.

Either way the notion that speech should be banned because some arbiter deems it hurtful to some subset of the population is very troubling.

I've always subscribed to the notion that the best way to fight things like white supremacism is to allow those who practice to come into the open and say all the stupid shiz they say and identify themselves.
 
#10
#10
evillawyer said:
I see nothing inconsistent with defending a robust first amendment and taking up socially liberal social/civil rights issues. Don't know why ACLU would move away from the traditional approach.
Click to expand...

Because they are modern liberals. Capitulation and fear is what fuels their flawed reasoning.
 
#11
#11
This all stems to the movement of the ACLU from a non-partisan organization to one that is participating in the mid-term elections. They claim to be non-partisan, but I fear a move to the left.

What they have been and should remain is an organization that fights for the rights of citizens without regard to political affiliation or backlash. They have fought for rights when their stance has been unpopular. This separation of hate speech and protected speech is asinine.
 
#12
#12
The ACLU thoughts on free speech are following the liberal pattern - it's their free speech - not yours or mine - that matters. It's their ideas that matter and they wish to protect.

I personally think our approach to "free speech" is a judicial abomination anyway because it amounts to anarchy rather than protecting rights. For example, one person's "free speech" shouldn't be allowed as a weapon to drown out another's right to free speech - demonstrations at an approved function where one party has reserved the right to speak. Since "free speech" now includes actions, then I'd argue that the right to personal silence is equal to free speech.

Fitting that with the right to redress, I'd argue that it means that government - not I - have to listen to someone's speech. Otherwise one person's rights trample another's rights, and that was unlikely the original intent. If you speak, I have the right to walk away; if you follow, that's stalking; if you force me to stay, that's assault; if you corner me where I have the right to be, that's trespass.
 
#15
#15
NEOCON said:
George Orwell might as well be the father of the modern day Democrat party.

They have taken his book 1984 and used it as a road map.

And no....there are no Republicans at the ACLU.
Click to expand...

Yep. Orwell had the thought police. We have the PC police that will use anything you say against you. Even if they have to take it out of context and spin it to the nth degree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16
#16
ACLU is no longer an unbiased civil libertarian organization, what a joke. They're just another protector of the left wing agenda. It is what it is, if truth be told.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#18
#18
volinbham said:
Agreed again. The linked article suggests it's to appease their primary constituency but it may be a philosophical change among leadership. Who knows.

Either way the notion that speech should be banned because some arbiter deems it hurtful to some subset of the population is very troubling.

I've always subscribed to the notion that the best way to fight things like white supremacism is to allow those who practice to come into the open and say all the stupid shiz they say and identify themselves.
Click to expand...

Great post
 
#19
#19
ClearwaterVol said:
This all stems to the movement of the ACLU from a non-partisan organization to one that is participating in the mid-term elections. They claim to be non-partisan, but I fear a move to the left.

What they have been and should remain is an organization that fights for the rights of citizens without regard to political affiliation or backlash. They have fought for rights when their stance has been unpopular. This separation of hate speech and protected speech is asinine.
Click to expand...

:eek:hmy:
Are you serious? They've always been a left wing outfit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#21
#21
Rasputin_Vol said:
:eek:hmy:
Are you serious? They've always been a left wing outfit.
Click to expand...

Actually, you're wrong. They've long defended the ideals of the right as well as the left. They defended the civil liberties of all individuals. Now they are stating that they won't defend the civil liberties unless they are socially redeemable ideals. That is bullsh1t. In order to truly appreciate the freedoms we enjoy you must celebrate the flag burner alongside the KKK spewing racial hate alongside the monk preaching tolerance. Celebrate all free speech not only that with which you agree. Entering the discussion of which speech adds value to society destroys their mission.

That discussion is for everyone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top