# 200 idiotic ACLU staffers are trying to destroy this invaluable organization **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2017, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452 "2017-10-10T08:54:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/61 "2017-10-10T19:01:24Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Let’s just suppose, as a hypothetical, that the opportunity to oppress is more appealing to humans than the opportunity to live in peace as equals. > > If it’s true, _you can’t fix it_. That is incorrect, because people’s willingness to oppress is probably based on several factors, not just “human nature directs us to discriminate!” For example, one’s upbringing and community values certainly has something to do with it; economics probably has some part; the political environment must have some play; and so on and so on. And such factors are surely not fixed over time: certain communities have gotten less racist over time, and some periods of history see increased racism. > [@](#): > > If you wish progressive social change, you have to be an optimist about the possibilities. You have to harbor the belief that although our systems, our culture, our social structures have set us at each other’s throats as adversaries, _it doesn’t have to be that way_, that adversarial cutthroat competition is _not_ intrinsically a more fundamental part of human nature than voluntary cooperation and a desire to live in peace. You have to believe that an open honest sharing dialog between people can result in a cessation of the shitty things we do to each other. You have to trust the communications process. I note that countries that have a less expansive view of freedom of speech than we do seem to have both their own share of troubles and progress. If anything, I would hesitate to conclude that the United States is healing itself of discrimination and oppression faster than, say, Germany, because the U.S. has broader freedom of speech protections. But your post seems oriented around this idea that there is a decades or centuries long arc to the importance of not stifling hate speech. While I think as a country we are certainly headed in the right direction, and I am generally quite optimistic that a few decades from now, we will have improved even more. But I have trouble thinking that having KKK rallies for anyone to see is actually an important part of that progress. Instead, I think it is worth asking whether, over the period of the next few decades we are talking about, whether some of these hate speech activities have a short-term impact on the civil rights of others, such that an organization like the ACLU might want to consider whether it is worth losing a few battles (resulting in harm to the good guys) in order to win the war (improving social justice over the long term); or whether we need to lose those few battles at all if we are going to win the war in the long term. I think it is an exceptionally difficult question. And it is a question worth thinking about, as I don’t know the answer. So it seems to me that a lot of people embrace the dogma that all speech, regardless of content, merits maximum protection at all times by the ACLU; but that seems to be an article of faith rather than fact. It’s worth examining what the truth of the matter is. I readily admit that you might be entirely right: so having the ACLU take a sober, evidence-based look at the question shouldn’t do any harm at all. Right? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/62 "2017-10-10T19:03:42Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I readily admit that you might be entirely right: so having the ACLU take a sober, evidence-based look at the question shouldn’t do any harm at all. Right? Yes, or — just as we’re doing in here — considering the question from vantage points other than that of empirical data. Discussing the relevant issues. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/63 "2017-10-10T19:05:01Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Assuming this is standard Sho-Snark, then slow, sarcasting clapping. > > If it’s something else, then I don’t get it. You want a discussion. That’s only possible if both sides get to speak. Only one side should get to speak. Therefore you are calling for something that cannot be allowed. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/64 "2017-10-10T19:06:16Z")
Free speech kinda sucks…but all the alternatives are worse… I find it amusing that so many people think they will ALWAYS be on the “right side” of socially appropriate speech and therefore have no serious doubts about punishing severely or limiting speech they do NOT agree with. Bunch of arrogant sanctimonious self enlightened fuckers… ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/65 "2017-10-10T19:10:31Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Yes, free speech does have a cost that’s ultimately borne primarily by disadvantaged groups, because speech against disadvantaged groups tends to have the most harmful consequences. Anti-black, anti-woman, anti-LGBQT rhetoric frequently leads to real live people getting beat up, for example, or even murdered. I don’t think I can dispute this. At the same time, we have to consider the inverse issue - the cost of _not_ having free speech is a far greater cost, and also a cost which is borne primarily by disadvantaged groups. It was not white supremacists who saw their rights revoked in the pre-civil-rights era. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/66 "2017-10-10T19:11:40Z")
Is it racist speech as such that they’re backing down from defending, or is it incitement to violence, a principle the ACLU has had since before anyone alive even remembers? The NYT article embedded in the rather polemical OP link is far less clear on the point than some of you seem to think. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/67 "2017-10-10T19:13:19Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Instead, I think it is worth asking whether, over the period of the next few decades we are talking about, whether some of these hate speech activities have a short-term impact on the civil rights of others, such that an organization like the ACLU might want to consider whether it is worth losing a few battles (resulting in harm to the good guys) in order to win the war (improving social justice over the long term); or whether we need to lose those few battles at all if we are going to win the war in the long term. I don’t think there’s any doubt at all, among reasonable people, that hate speech activities **do** sometimes have a short-term impact on the civil rights of others, including resulting in great harm to individuals. But the ACLU is not fundamentally an organization for the purpose of improving social justice. It’s an organization for protecting civil liberties. And a core feature of civil liberties is their universality. > [@Ravenman](#): > > So it seems to me that a lot of people embrace the dogma that all speech, regardless of content, merits maximum protection at all times by the ACLU Except it’s not really a question of “merit”. The principle is that all speech regardless of content is equally covered by the First Amendment. Whether any particular instance of speech “merits” protection in its own right is a different matter. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I readily admit that you might be entirely right: so having the ACLU take a sober, evidence-based look at the question shouldn’t do any harm at all. Right? There’s certainly no reason at all not to look at the impacts of hate speech activities on civil rights, and I for one think that we should be doing a lot more of such examination. But it’s not particularly relevant to the ACLU’s stance on free speech. The ACLU, as **BPC** ’s cite noted, is not an organization specifically for promoting social, racial and economic equality, no matter how desirable we consider such aims to be. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/68 "2017-10-10T19:14:26Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > I find it amusing that so many people think they will ALWAYS be on the “right side” of socially appropriate speech and therefore have no serious doubts about punishing severely or limiting speech they do NOT agree with. > > Bunch of arrogant sanctimonious self enlightened fuckers… Hi **billfish**! How long have **you** been an ACLU member? ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/69 "2017-10-10T19:16:22Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Hi **billfish**! How long have **you** been an ACLU member? Never. And I love gun rights but ain’t in the NRA either. Yeah, I’m a cheap bastard. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/70 "2017-10-10T19:23:45Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Never. :dubious: So, you’re sneering at hardworking dedicated ACLU staffers for being what you consider insufficiently absolutist about free-speech rights, while not doing a damn thing yourself to support the defense of civil liberties. What was that again about “arrogant sanctimonious fuckers”? ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/71 "2017-10-10T19:28:33Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > :dubious: So, you’re sneering at hardworking dedicated ACLU staffers for being what you consider insufficiently absolutist about free-speech rights, while not doing a damn thing yourself to support the defense of civil liberties. What was that again about “arrogant sanctimonious fuckers”? Actually, I was more sneering at fellow dopers, not PAID ACLU workers. And for that matter IIRC there are a fair number of things the ACLU does that I think are bullshit…so a donation seems a bit dubious overall. Though I think the OP is right in that the ONE thing that really defines the ACLU is the one thing the ACLU needs to keep foremost in their mission…otherwise…just another random cause. This is like Sonny’s BBQ getting a bunch of PETA members in the corporate office… ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/72 "2017-10-10T19:45:55Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Except it’s not really a question of “merit”. **The principle is that all speech regardless of content is equally covered by the First Amendment.** Whether any particular instance of speech “merits” protection in its own right is a different matter. Well, let’s not kid ourselves with the nuances that we already generally agree to as to what constitutes speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater? Oh no, that’s not speech! So at the outset, we’ve already conceded to some very trivial degree that certain incendiary things (heh) simply don’t count as speech, based on content. > [@](#): > > But it’s not particularly relevant to the ACLU’s stance on free speech. The ACLU, as **BPC** ’s cite noted, is not an organization specifically for promoting social, racial and economic equality, no matter how desirable we consider such aims to be. Corporations also have no duty to look out for social, racial, and economic equality; but a lot of us think they ought to not be bad actors when it comes to those issues. I have a hard time seeing why the ACLU – for as many important victories as it has won in its history – should be given a pass on the same kind of self-examination. ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/73 "2017-10-10T19:47:24Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Anti-black, anti-woman, anti-LGBQT rhetoric frequently leads to real live people getting beat up, for example, or even murdered. It leads to this even in places that have no speech protection. Why do you think that if speech were restricted, it wouldn’t be used mainly against the powerless, while the powerful would be allowed to say whatever they want? There were times in the U.S. when freedom of speech wasn’t taken seriously. Black people who spoke out against white supremacy were beaten up and murdered. Women who spoke out for voting rights were thrown in jail. The people on the other side, such as the KKK, were allowed to say just about anything without paying a price for it. Violence against the unprivileged was more common in the days when people could be arrested for expressing their opinions. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/74 "2017-10-10T20:09:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You want a discussion. That’s only possible if both sides get to speak. Only one side should get to speak. Therefore you are calling for something that cannot be allowed. > > Regards, > Shodan I disagree that “only one side should get to speak”. Why do you think only one side should get to speak? I’ve heard reasonable arguments both on the side that argues that defending calls for violence might be harmful, overall, and detrimental to the ACLU’s mission, and on the side that argues that defending even calls for violence is necessary to protect free speech in the long term. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/75 "2017-10-10T20:22:02Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Hi **doorhinge** , how long have **you** been an ACLU member? Your comments offend me. I declare your post to be hate speech. Therefore you will no longer be allowed to speak publically. Or not. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/76 "2017-10-10T20:40:19Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Well, let’s not kid ourselves with the nuances that we already generally agree to as to what constitutes speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater? Oh no, that’s not speech! You’re right that not all forms of verbal articulation fall into the category regarded as “constitutionally protected speech”. I thought you were trying to differentiate between kinds of speech that all **do** fall into that category. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Corporations also have no duty to look out for social, racial, and economic equality; but a lot of us think they ought to not be bad actors when it comes to those issues. I have a hard time seeing why the ACLU – for as many important victories as it has won in its history – should be given a pass on the same kind of self-examination. You seem to be conflating “having a core mission with some accompanying intrinsic negative effects” with “being a bad actor”. There’s a difference between just trying to get away with selfish or irresponsible behavior and standing up in a principled way for crucial liberties that nevertheless have some negative impacts. > [@Jeff Lichtman](#): > > Why do you think that if speech were restricted, it wouldn’t be used mainly against the powerless, while the powerful would be allowed to say whatever they want? In fact, I **don’t** think that restrictions on speech wouldn’t end up being used mainly against the powerless to cater to the privilege of the powerful. That’s why, as I made very clear in my previous post, I’m a diehard free speech defender, even though I think it’s also important to acknowledge the accompanying downsides of free-speech protections. **Jeff** , this is the second time in a row in this thread that you’ve just plain misunderstood the argument you were responding to. I think you need to start reading other people’s posts more carefully. Yeesh. It’s exhausting trying to argue a centrist position against both sides at once, especially when neither of your interlocutors is thinking very clearly. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/77 "2017-10-10T20:43:46Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Yeesh. It’s exhausting trying to argue a centrist position against both sides at once, especially when neither of your interlocutors is thinking very clearly. Well I damn well respect you for trying, and doing a pretty damn good job of it. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/78 "2017-10-10T20:47:19Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Your comments offend me. I declare your post to be hate speech. Therefore you will no longer be allowed to speak publically. Or not. 😉 :rolleyes: Evidently you can’t even keep track of which posters in this thread are making which arguments. I’m the self-proclaimed longterm ACLU member arguing in **favor** of free-speech absolutism, remember? Although I’m also arguing for the importance of acknowledging the social costs of free-speech absolutism, and it was probably this combination of two distinct ideas in one argument that confused you so. In the meantime, I would like to extend my apologies to **Ravenman** and **Jeff**. When I snarked them for “not thinking very clearly”, I had forgotten what it’s like talking to **doorhinge** , beside whom both of them are crystalline perfection of mental clarity. > [@BPC](#): > > Well I damn well respect you for trying, and doing a pretty damn good job of it. Kind of you, but I got a little fractious and snappish, and was punished as I deserved by having to read a characteristically dumb **doorhinge** post. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/79 "2017-10-10T20:47:41Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I disagree that “only one side should get to speak”. Why do you think only one side should get to speak? I don’t; the ACLU staffers do. > [@](#): > > I’ve heard reasonable arguments both on the side that argues that defending calls for violence might be harmful, overall, and detrimental to the ACLU’s mission, and on the side that argues that defending even calls for violence is necessary to protect free speech in the long term. The ACLU doesn’t defend calls to violence, in the legal sense of credible and imminent threats. The staffers don’t think Nazis and other groups should be defended when they try to express themselves non-violently. Of course the staffers would pitch a bunch of stuff about how non-violent protest is violent because it hurts people’s feelings, but that’s just double-think. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Pippers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b5a626/32.png) [@Pippers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pippers)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/80 "2017-10-10T20:56:09Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I have no problem with this at all. This is the type of discussion that we as a country really need. We have swung way too far in seeing freedom of speech as a good unto itself. We must always be willing to challenge our traditions. Nothing can be sacred. > > This is a discussion we need to have. We need to figure out why we can’t say “we’ll defend everything but hate speech.” Or maybe find out that we can. That society will be better. > > I know for a fact that freedom of speech can hurt people. It was mentioned by an actual member of the ACLU in another thread. The cost of freedom of speech is disproportionately laid on the disadvantaged. Every time you help a Nazi, you are hurting several minorities. There MUST be a balance. > > We must realize that some forms of speech can be as bad as an actual violent act. We already admit this in defamation. Why not defamation of entire groups of people? > > There is a reason why other countries with freedom of speech draw the line differently. They have considered things that our 18th century founding fathers were just not aware of. Racism wasn’t a social problem back then. It was just the way thing were. Sexism and homophobia were just natural. These sorts of things were never considered when we created the concept. > > In the same way you guys say the Church needs to get with the times, we have to have governments do so, too. That means challenging firmly held beliefs. That which holds steadfastly to the old and refuses to consider the new will eventually perish. > > And I can’t think of a better place to have this conversation than within the ACLU, just like it would be best if we could have gun control discussion within the NRA. Drop the mike. Canada is a perfect example of freedom of speech within reason. No hate against one or many. Sticks and stones may break my bones but, words can fully harm me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452.md?page=5)