• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ira Glasser on Free Speech | Real Time with Bill Maher.

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
22,418
Reaction score
32,638
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The following is a segment of Real Time with Bill Maher, featuring Ira Glasser.

Mr. Glasser was the Executive Director of the ACLU from 1978 - 2001.

This video shows his recent discussion with Bill Maher on the problems with the current ACLU.


MY Comments:

Mr. Glasser points out the issues I have with the current ACLU. They no longer represent free expression, and instead do just the opposite. Represent only speech that is acceptable to a certain viewpoint, while condemning expression that needs the most protection.

But just because you seek to suppress "unpopular" expression does not prevent anyone from either thinking it or acting on it.

What it actually does is force those with such views, especially the extremists of whatever beliefs, underground into cabals of secrecy. Secrecy where they still plot and plan, and also become more likely to act out in frustration.

Meanwhile allowing for open expression not only shows us who they are, it also allows them to feel like they are achieving something, even if only the self-congratulation of being able to express themselves.

People will argue that this encourages such dissenters to do more than just "express views," it may also motivate action on such views.

My counterargument is that allowing “bad expression” also allows us to counter them with our own viewpoints, pickets, etc. as well as government investigation and monitoring.

One caveat, violence may be a form of expression, but it has never been protected as free expression. Regardless of which side “good,” or “evil” is engaging in it.

Counter-protest and counter-speech is fine. Violence to suppress or "express" other viewpoints is not.

I personally wish the ACLU returned to its original form, a neutral advocate of Free Expression, regardless of the who, what, when, and where of the form of non-violent expression it might be.
 
Last edited:
Which speech do you proclaim the ACLU is refusing to protect?

It's easy to take one sentence out of context from one memo and imagine whatever it is you have decided to be angry about, but is there a concrete example of speech the ACLU has refused to defend that you think needs to be defended?
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
They no longer represent free expression, and instead do just the opposite.
Click to expand...

Which is why you presented all those examples, explaining with sufficient detail what actually happened and why it represents a refusal to represent free expression?

It's also why you listed all those specific instances in which the ACLU refused to take legitimate cases based on the content of the would-be plaintiff's speech?

("Legitimate" is key. You simply saying the case was meritorious would be worthless. You'd need some actual legal argument; you know, actual controlling appellate cases, argument for why they control directly or why they should be extended to cover what you're complaining about, yadda yadda. Don't worry, I know I won't see that on DP. This is where people who understand virtually nothing about the constitution like to copy/paste constitutional text, ignore history, ignore every last decision they don't like, ignore the need to make an actual argument, and simply announce "see? I'm right!")



Judging by the user's posting history, I would imagine one of the goals is to vaguely set things up for fellow Trumpists to come in

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd read, say, that the ACLU refused to sue Twitter when it banned some lying dipshit Trumpist who violated its rules. Something like that. Which, of course, the First Amendment would have nothing to do with.

And this, Deuce, is undoubtedly also a set-up for fellow Trumpists to come in with a pack of horrid lies aimed at saying BLM bad, 1/6 insurrection good.


Something like that.
 
Last edited:

Not the point. Clearly you did not watch the video.

This is not a discussion of particulars, as I am certain various examples can be found by yourself; it is a discussion of the change in the ACLU as discussed in the video.

However, here is an internal memo published in 2018 as cited by the Wall Street Journal:


Pay attention to pages 5 and 6.

WSJ article is here: https://fee.org/articles/the-aclu-i...hampion-but-other-groups-are-filling-the-gap/
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Not the point. Clearly you did not watch the video.

This is not a discussion of particulars, as I am certain various examples can be found by yourself; it is a discussion of the change in the ACLU as discussed in the video.
Click to expand...
I did watch the video and its what prompted the question. He pointed at a memo. I want a real example.

It is the point, because that's my question.
 
Excast said:
There is a difference between believing in free speech and believing all opinions should be welcomed warmly and given a platform, no matter how hateful and abhorrent.
Click to expand...
no.you are making all kinds of judgements as to what you consider "hateful and abhorent"
I consider much of what AOC/Ilhan Omar said as vastly anti-Semetic -but I dont want them shut down

The answer to "hateful speech ( unless it is criminal) is to counter it with other speech -the point of the OP
 

Bill Maher interviews former ACLU head Ira Glasser

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...
debatepolitics.com
 
anatta said:
no.you are making all kinds of judgements as to what you consider "hateful and abhorent"
I consider much of what AOC/Ilhan Omar said as vastly anti-Semetic -but I dont want them shut down
Click to expand...
There's a difference between "considering something hateful and abhorrent" and "shutting it down."

Anatta: I have a right to my opinion. You need to understand this. I am allowed to find what you say to be wrong.

Furthermore, you do not have a right to my property, and you never have.
 
you mentioned: "and given a platform" so i took it as you wanting posters "shut down" ( de-platformed)
 
anatta said:
you mentioned: "and given a platform" so i took it as you wanting posters "shut down" ( de-platformed)
Click to expand...

I did not mention platforms.

However, you do not have a right to a platform either. Twitter doesn't owe you anything. They're a private company and you haven't even given them any money. The sheer entitlement of it, the idea that a company spends billions of dollars on computer infrastructure and they just, what, owe it to you? Come on. It's their property and you aren't a customer, they have a right to set rules. Just like I do. Want to come to my house and drink my beer? There's rules of behavior here and if you break them I'm kicking you out. Don't like it? Go somewhere else and drink someone else's beer.
 
What is humorous is that some leftists will even pretend the change hasn't happened.
 
Excast said:
There is a difference between believing in free speech and believing all opinions should be welcomed warmly and given a platform, no matter how hateful and abhorrent.
Click to expand...

The 1A does not require being given a platform, but it does require not being denied a platform by the government. The are also a vast array of civil rights outside of the free speech portion of the 1A - including the 2A, which the ACLU completely ignores.
 
Awesome six minutes. I've always advocated the Zero-th Amendment: Congress shall make no law abridging the people's right to be offended, insulted, repulsed, or outraged by the words of others. Comes back to the old saying "I may not agree with wehat you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". Commonsense, of cours exempts, of course (real) threats of violence, advocating mutiny or sedition.

Personally, I want to here what people are saying, both as a learning experience and to be aware of the idiocy being spouted. If people are say gargling with gasoline will cure COVID, fine, I'm sure thousands more will say "no damn way".
 
Last edited:

What, in particular, was said that is "vastly anti-Semitic?"
 
Last edited:

As indicated in the OP video, speech which runs counter to the Progressive agenda. The (most common?) excuse given by the ACLU is that some other organization exists to do so, yet that does not seem to be cause for the ACLU to skip an abortion rights case.
 
Deuce said:
I did not mention platforms.
Click to expand...
Post in thread 'Ira Glasser on Free Speech | Real Time with Bill Maher.' https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...l-time-with-bill-maher.471396/post-1075340748

You sure did.
". . . and given a platform . . .."
 
You're not listening. They pointed at a memo. They didn't point to any particular case where some act of free speech had the ACLU decline to protect it.
 
Deuce said:
You're not listening. They pointed at a memo. They didn't point to any particular case where some act of free speech had the ACLU decline to protect it.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that bolded above is. The following linked article contains some case examples.

The ACLU Is No Longer Free Speech's Champion, but Other Groups Are Filling the Gap

Former ACLU employees say the organization is leaving the First Amendment behind. Fortunately, the ACLU's shoes are already being filled.
fee.org
 
I'm sure it hasn't been easy for the ACLU to maintain their neutral stance limited to free speech. To a great degree,, they have to go in the directiin their donirs want them to go. The election of Trump brought in donations like they had never seen before from the liberals. They defended the Nazis in Charlottesville and took a lot of heat for it. So the organization has a conflict between people who want to see it stay more which their traditional mission of supporting free speech, and those who see taking more liberal stances as a way of keeping the organization financially healthy.
 
Yeah, you're still not getting it. You're just pointing at the same memo again. It's easy to do that and imagine the ACLU has changed its behavior somehow, but in actual practice, has it changed anything? This article points at a few cases being defended by other organizations, but this doesn't mean the ACLU refused to do so. Funny, the writer of this article happens to work for one of those organizations.

What actual case of actual speech did the ACLU decide not to defend?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Thanks for that source.

It also cites the ACLU memo I posted in my reply at #4 above.
Click to expand...

Considering how politically polarized the country is, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that each side has their own free speech advocacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…