The ACLU historically has been about countering the suppression of unpopular/minority individuals and their viewpoints by a loud and overbearing majority. More recently, there’s been a trend within the organization to back down from that mission if the opinions in question are considered sufficiently repellent by enough people who feel “unsafe” if forbidden views are allowed to creep into their bubble.
I haven’t read Shrier’s book and acknowledge that I have virtually no interest in the subject.
What should disturb progressives is 1) giving such people undue attention and publicity by engaging in a fervent campaign to shut them up*, and 2) appearing to concede the defense of free speech to conservatives/right-wingers, who used to be entirely happy with censoring/intimidating perpetrators of thought crimes**, especially those who were believed to be a threat to God and Country.
*one could argue that a similar Streisand Effect follows efforts to shut down the outpourings of antivaxers and Covid-19 denialists, seen as a result of the successful campaign to keep “Vaxxed” out of a film festival (turning it from obscure garbage cinema into an antivax cause celebre) and Amazon’s selective expunging of books like “The Case Against Masks”.
**ooh sorry, subtle 1984 reference.
Objectionably stupid ideas can be readily taken down using facts, logic and mockery. Creating Brave Maverick Martyrs is counterproductive.
Because constitutional protection of free speech and other civil liberties only applies to government actions.
Yes, the (US) government can prohibit non-government entities from discriminating against individuals on the basis of membership in various protected categories. But it can’t, and shouldn’t, prohibit non-government entities from discriminating against individuals on the basis of their non-protected opinions.
Yup.
I did. And when your best response to rebuttals of your OP is indirectly (and at least in several cases inaccurately) accusing people of not having read the article linked in your OP, that could be a sign that your argument isn’t as strong as you thought it was.
Speaking as a longtime ACLU member (in case I’ve never mentioned that before, lol), I am not seeing any trend of “backing down” from the organization’s fundamental mission to uphold the constitutional rights of everybody, no matter how morally repellent they might be.
I agree and they still wear that badge proudly. Straight from their history page:
The ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie — where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case cost the ACLU dearly as members left in droves, but to many it was our finest hour, and it has come to represent our unwavering commitment to principle.
From their page on Free Speech:
Over the years, the ACLU has represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBT activists, and flag burners. That’s because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they’re going to be preserved for everyone.
I don’t see them “backing down” at all.
With that said, the OP lost the debate when he/she cherry-picked a portion of an ACLU quote in an attempted “gotcha ya”, while leaving out the next line which completely erased the argument he was attempting to make.
It appears that the ACLU prefers to litigate censorship they deem illegal, and to advocate for the rights of private citizens to engage in legal censorship.
Lawyers litigating the law. What a remarkable concept.
Sorry I had to disappear last night, the baby wouldn’t stop screaming.
There’s too many posts to reply individually, but I’ll try and cover the common stuff…
A lot of the replies on this thread seem to miss the point. It’s as if I posted in 2016 that I was worried so many people were supporting Trump, and got a bunch of replies saying people had a right to vote for him and asking if I wanted to ban Trump rallies. Obviously they do, and no I don’t, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to worry about or we should sit on our hands.
Continuing the Trump analogy, it’s reasonable to speculate about why so many people support him and how they could be persuaded not to, without resorting to saying he should be banned from running for office. In the same way, it’s possible to believe publishers and media companies have a right to choose what they publish, while being alarmed at how they are using that right and at the number of people who are now in favour of what they are doing.
I’m trying to make a distinction between having the right to do something (good) and using that right to do something bad. Get it?
And I happen to think suppressing important ideas and issues from being heard and discussed is a bad thing. The way to deal with bad ideas is to show they are wrong, not to try and prevent people hearing them. And the only way to really know which ideas are wrong is to allow that discussion. Does anyone agree?
Okay, so make this case. Why are the choices publishers and media companies are making now so concerning to you, as opposed to the choices they were making 20 or 40 or 100 years ago? What is special about now?
You see the symptoms but completely misdiagnose the disease. The problem isn’t that publishers make choices of what to publish: the problem is that we’ve let a few publishers grow so enormous that they exercise an outsized influence on the promulgation of ideas.
We need a new anti-trust act that addresses the digital landscape. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and possibly a handful of other corporations need to be broken apart. If we do that, ideas can thrive or wither in the marketplace of ideas.
What Glenn Greenwald said: the ‘abandonment by millennials and Gen Z activists of the long-standing leftist belief in free speech and demands that views they dislike be silenced (which in turn causes Gen X and Boomer managers and editors fearful of losing their jobs or being vilified to succumb to this authoritarianism)’. Publishers and media companies have always done this, but leftists used to oppose it. Now they are the ones demanding censorship, or shrugging and saying corporations are people too. That is what concerns me. That is what has changed.
And how is that going with all of the disinformation out there right now? Are conspiracy theories like “Q” growing or shrinking? What’s the percentage of people that think wearing a mask doesn’t work and actively harms (!) them? How about the lie that CO2 is good for the planet? How about flat earth?
The sad reality is that lies, propogranda and misinformation are growing. And while some of it might be cute, e.g. flat earth, some of it is actually killing people, e.g. COVID-19 is fake and masks don’t work.
The fact is that much of the so-called censorship of late that the right bemoans has been about their supposed right to lie and spout propaganda without be called out on it. The lies and propaganda are still out there, but it will have a fact check under it. Or require a click-through that says “The content underneath is not true.”
Guilani recently said “But even if it isn’t accurate, the American people are entitled to know it.” about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Well, maybe they have a right to know about it, but no one, and no company should be obligated to spread known lies and propaganda. Maybe if the right didn’t lie so much then it wouldn’t be such an issue? Sharing with the marketplace of ideas has an implied honour system contract that you will share in good faith. When someone isn’t arguing in good faith, then there’s no obligation to allow their ideas to be shared.
EDIT: replied to snowboarder_bo instead of DemonTree. Oops.
Greenwald is a nut. His criticism of the left is no more valid or accurate than Trump’s, or Tucker Carlson’s. They live in a fantasy world. Being criticized is not being silenced.
This is also a big part of the problem and may well be the best cure. I don’t agree it’s the whole of the problem though. Really having free speech requires that society supports free speech.
Again, he’s not talking about criticism. Criticism is good, criticism is fine. What is happening is silencing, or at least attempts at that. And I don’t know if he’s a nut or not, but it’s irrelevant since he is so clearly right about this.
I haven’t read the linked article and don’t plan to, but I’m curious about the book that isn’t getting reviewed – what is the book? What’s the subject?
