Bill Maher interviews former ACLU head Ira Glasser

[Grim17]

The majority of the interview centered around protecting free speech and how the ACLU has changed through the decades.

It will be an eye opening interview for those still believe that the ACLU is non-partisan organization who's primary goal is to defend free speech and civil liberties.



They also discussed the new policy the ACLU has adopted, which is to only defend speech that's in line with their progressive values. One that topic, here is my favorite quote from the interview... Ira Glasser said of the ACLU today that:

"... they have become more of a political partisan, what they call a progressive organization... Now organizations have the right to change. They can do that. But the problem is there isn't any other ACLU, and if there isn't somebody who's prepared to defend what you say, prepared to defend what the Nazis say, prepared to defend what people for abortion say, and prepared to defend what people against abortion say, then the government gets to decide who can speak, and that's the most dangerous thing of all."​

The ACLU no longer defends free speech and civil liberties. They've become a partisan political organization that represents the views of far left progressives and the democratic party... and just like the Southern Poverty Law Center, they have lost all credibility.

.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

They defend free speech and civil liberties, they just don't defend those things for nazis. The nazis still have free speech and civil liberties, but they have to defend it themselves.

You seem indignant and entitled and demand they have to defend hate speech as much as they defend vulnerable people who actually need help. They have limited resources, so I'm glad they're prioritizing instead of wasting time defending nazis that hate our country and its free speech and civil liberties in the first place. Not defending nazis is defending those things.

 

[Grim17]

They defend free speech and civil liberties, they just don't defend those things for nazis. The nazis still have free speech and civil liberties, but they have to defend it themselves.

You seem indignant and entitled and demand they have to defend hate speech as much as they defend vulnerable people who actually need help. They have limited resources, so I'm glad they're prioritizing instead of wasting time defending nazis that hate our country and its free speech and civil liberties in the first place. Not defending nazis is defending those things.

Free speech needs to be defended just as vigorously for speech you don't agree with, as it does for the speech you agree with... That used to be what the ACLU was all about, and as Ira Glasser said, there is no other ACLU so if they will only defend the speech they agree with, then the government will be the ones who decide who can and can not speak freely.... But I suppose that would suit you just fine... At least until your faced with a government that has a different take on what constitutes hate speech, and has a different opinion on what speech should and shouldn't be allowed.

.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Free speech needs to be defended just as vigorously for speech you don't agree with, as it does for the speech you agree with... That used to be what the ACLU was all about, and as Ira Glasser said, there is no other ACLU so if they will only defend the speech they agree with, then the government will be the ones who decide who can and can not speak freely.... But I suppose that would suit you just fine... At least until your faced with a government that has a different take on what constitutes hate speech, and has a different opinion on what speech should and shouldn't be allowed.

.

In a world where resources are limited and the ACLU can only afford to defend X number of cases, why should they defend hateful nazis with the same vigor as they defend vulnerable people whose free speech and civil liberties are actually being violated?

Nazis aren't having their civil liberties or free speech taken away, so what's to defend anyway? You guys are free to burn your crosses and spread your hate speech, but don't demand others defend your lunacy.

 

[Grim17]

In a world where resources are limited and the ACLU can only afford to defend X number of cases, why should they defend hateful nazis with the same vigor as they defend vulnerable people whose free speech and civil liberties are actually being violated?

Nazis aren't having their civil liberties or free speech taken away, so what's to defend anyway? You guys are free to burn your crosses and spread your hate speech, but don't demand others defend your lunacy.

You are a piece of work... The race card is truly everything you have to offer in the way of political debate.

I don't burn crosses so buzz off.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

You are a piece of work... The race card is truly everything you have to offer in the way of political debate.

I don't burn crosses so buzz off.

You're vigorously defending nazis, who hate free speech and civil liberties, and demanding that the ACLU defend them over vulnerable people who are actually having their rights violated. What other conclusion can we make other than you're a nazi or have nazi sympathies?

Sorry, the ACLU is not the nazi defense fund and there's no reason they should focus their efforts on defending nazis instead of protecting American liberties. If you want it, maybe you should get off your ass and start your own Nazi Civil Liberties Union, the NCLU?

 

[OscarLevant]

They defend free speech and civil liberties, they just don't defend those things for nazis. The nazis still have free speech and civil liberties, but they have to defend it themselves.

You seem indignant and entitled and demand they have to defend hate speech as much as they defend vulnerable people who actually need help. They have limited resources, so I'm glad they're prioritizing instead of wasting time defending nazis that hate our country and its free speech and civil liberties in the first place. Not defending nazis is defending those things.

Good point, and Maher could have pointed that out.

 

[j brown's body]

The majority of the interview centered around protecting free speech and how the ACLU has changed through the decades.

It will be an eye opening interview for those still believe that the ACLU is non-partisan organization who's primary goal is to defend free speech and civil liberties.



They also discussed the new policy the ACLU has adopted, which is to only defend speech that's in line with their progressive values. One that topic, here is my favorite quote from the interview... Ira Glasser said of the ACLU today that:

"... they have become more of a political partisan, what they call a progressive organization... Now organizations have the right to change. They can do that. But the problem is there isn't any other ACLU, and if there isn't somebody who's prepared to defend what you say, prepared to defend what the Nazis say, prepared to defend what people for abortion say, and prepared to defend what people against abortion say, then the government gets to decide who can speak, and that's the most dangerous thing of all."​

The ACLU no longer defends free speech and civil liberties. They've become a partisan political organization that represents the views of far left progressives and the democratic party... and just like the Southern Poverty Law Center, they have lost all credibility.

.

The ACLU claims otherwise. It might be more illuminating to hear from them rather than someone probably echoing Mahar's own view.

Defending Speech We Hate | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org

 

[ProgressPlease]

I haven't watched this interview yet but I recommend this film about the ACLU and Ira Glasser :

Mighty Ira: A Civil Liberties Story

In Mighty Ira documentary, former American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Ira Glasser reflects on his life defending civil rights and liberties.

www.mightyira.com

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

The majority of the interview centered around protecting free speech and how the ACLU has changed through the decades.

It will be an eye opening interview for those still believe that the ACLU is non-partisan organization who's primary goal is to defend free speech and civil liberties.



They also discussed the new policy the ACLU has adopted, which is to only defend speech that's in line with their progressive values. One that topic, here is my favorite quote from the interview... Ira Glasser said of the ACLU today that:

"... they have become more of a political partisan, what they call a progressive organization... Now organizations have the right to change. They can do that. But the problem is there isn't any other ACLU, and if there isn't somebody who's prepared to defend what you say, prepared to defend what the Nazis say, prepared to defend what people for abortion say, and prepared to defend what people against abortion say, then the government gets to decide who can speak, and that's the most dangerous thing of all."​

The ACLU no longer defends free speech and civil liberties. They've become a partisan political organization that represents the views of far left progressives and the democratic party... and just like the Southern Poverty Law Center, they have lost all credibility.

.

Imagine that, an agency tasked with defending speech isnt "conservative" in nature. I'll be damned, thats shocking!


I would agree that the ACLU has no credibility at this point, its more their cop hating that turned me off to them, their general slant toward anarchy and lawlessness. Like supporting BLM for instance.

 

[Grim17]

Imagine that, an agency tasked with defending speech isnt "conservative" in nature. I'll be damned, thats shocking!


I would agree that the ACLU has no credibility at this point, its more their cop hating that turned me off to them, their general slant toward anarchy and lawlessness. Like supporting BLM for instance.

The ACLU has always been on the left side of the spectrum, but at least in the past they would occasionally defend those they disagreed with ideologically.

.

 

[BlueTex]

Free speech needs to be defended just as vigorously for speech you don't agree with, as it does for the speech you agree with... That used to be what the ACLU was all about, and as Ira Glasser said, there is no other ACLU so if they will only defend the speech they agree with, then the government will be the ones who decide who can and can not speak freely.... But I suppose that would suit you just fine... At least until your faced with a government that has a different take on what constitutes hate speech, and has a different opinion on what speech should and shouldn't be allowed.

.

Can we take it you will not be renewing your membership?

 

[Grim17]

I haven't watched this interview yet but I recommend this film about the ACLU and Ira Glasser :

Mighty Ira: A Civil Liberties Story

In Mighty Ira documentary, former American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Ira Glasser reflects on his life defending civil rights and liberties.

www.mightyira.com

I watched the trailer... Free speech is what the left used to champion back in Ira's day, but not anymore.

 

[Grim17]

Can we take it you will not be renewing your membership?

LOL... Good one.

 

[ProgressPlease]

I watched the trailer... Free speech is what the left used to champion back in Ira's day, but not anymore.

Both sides try to silence speech they don't like.
Both sides pretend to be the ultimate champion of free speech.
Just another convenient political football.

 

[Grim17]

Both sides try to silence speech they don't like.
Both sides pretend to be the ultimate champion of free speech.
Just another convenient political football.

I disagree... There's a difference between disagreeing with someone's speech, and making a concerted effort to have speech you disagree with outlawed and/or removed from the public square.

.

 

[ProgressPlease]

I disagree... There's a difference between disagreeing with someone's speech, and making a concerted effort to have speech you disagree with outlawed and/or removed from the public square.

.

I agree there is a difference but there are factions from both the right and left in the US who see it as their mission to outlaw and/or remove speech they disagree with. They also do their best to remove people from the public square, from their jobs, from political positions. Trump has been very successful at silencing dissenters and having them removed from their jobs, political positions, "canceled".
There have been concerted and organized efforts for ages by the right wing.
The "other side" unfortunately has also engaged in policing of speech, silencing dissension, campaigning against those who say fairly benign things. There is a lot of knee jerk reactions on both sides with very little thought to consequences.

I worry about GenZ a lot, given their reliance on twitter for talking points.
I worry about the right wing because of how stealth they are with suppression.