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.
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?
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
: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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
: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.
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.
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.
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.
