Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Wavering on Free Speech...

[tonyanzack]

The American Civil Liberties Union will weigh its interest in protecting the First Amendment against its other commitments to social justice, racial equality, and women's rights, given the possibility that offensive speech might undermine ACLU goals.

"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed," wrote ACLU staffers in a confidential memo obtained by former board member Wendy Kaminer.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech

So, does this mean that they can lie or circumvent the truth, to further their progressive/liberal agenda?

 

[Pedestrian]

The American Civil Liberties Union will weigh its interest in protecting the First Amendment against its other commitments to social justice, racial equality, and women's rights, given the possibility that offensive speech might undermine ACLU goals.

"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed," wrote ACLU staffers in a confidential memo obtained by former board member Wendy Kaminer.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech

So, does this mean that they can lie or circumvent the truth, to further their progressive/liberal agenda?

No not at all. The right should rejoice, the ACLU...is going capitalist. What better than for your employer (capitalist and POTUS) having the legal right
to censure your speech.

And of course, being on the right, you seek to cast free speech...as lying.

 

[roughdraft274]

The American Civil Liberties Union will weigh its interest in protecting the First Amendment against its other commitments to social justice, racial equality, and women's rights, given the possibility that offensive speech might undermine ACLU goals.

"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed," wrote ACLU staffers in a confidential memo obtained by former board member Wendy Kaminer.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech

So, does this mean that they can lie or circumvent the truth, to further their progressive/liberal agenda?

Did you actually read the internal memo?

We also recognize that not defending fundamental liberties can come at considerable cost. If
the ACLU avoids the defense of controversial speakers, and defends only those with whom it
agrees, both the freedom of speech and the ACLU itself may suffer.The organization may lose
credibility with allies, supporters, and other communities, requiring the expenditure of resources to
mitigate those harms. Thus, there are often costs both from defending a given speaker and not
defending that speaker. Because we are committed to the principle that free speech protects
everyone, the speaker’s viewpoint should not be the decisive factor in our decision to defend speech
rights.

Whether the speaker seeks to engage in or promote violence: The First Amendment is
not absolute, and in particular, does not protect intentional incitement to imminent violence,
conspiracy to commit violent acts, true threats directed at specific individuals,physical
obstruction of the exercise of constitutional rights, or intentional destruction of private or
public property. Speakers have a right to advocate violence and hate so long as it does not
fall in the above narrowly defined categories. When we have reason to believe that
individuals purportedly seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights are in fact intending
to engage in unlawful incitement, violence, true threats, physical obstruction, or destruction
of property, we should decline representation. To this end, and consistent with time and
resource constraints, we should exercise due diligence in assessing the credibility of potential
clients, including through review of social media and news reporting, research into prior
events in which the speaker was involved, and any other reasonably reliable information we
can obtain. Where there is concern that the potential client will engage in violence or other
illegal and unprotected activity, and an affiliate lacks resources to investigate, the national
office will seek to provide support. If there is not time to do research and there is reason to
believe that the speaker seeks to engage in violence or other illegal and unprotected activity,
we should be reluctant to accept representation.

The guidelines and practices outlined here are not a panacea. They do not dictate outcomes in
particular cases. In our view, that would be both unwise and inconsistent with ACLU policy. We are
deeply committed to a wide range of rights and to the extension of those rights to all, and at times those
rights will come into conflict. When conflicts do arise, the best we can do is work toward a response
that is true to our principles, recognizes the costs associated with acting and not acting, includes a
process that ensures attention to all of the competing values of the organization, and seeks to mitigate
the costs of acting or not acting. The national office, working with the EDIC, will work to put protocols
and procedures in place at National to ensure that the principles and guidelines set forth above can be
realized in practice. Our commitment to a wide range of civil rights and civil liberties is a unique
strength of our organization, but it means that these tensions will never disappear. Our hope is that
these guidelines will assist in navigating difficult issues while maintaining fidelity to our deepest
commitments.

You find this incredibly troublesome?

 

[Risky Thicket]

Did you actually read the internal memo?







You find this incredibly troublesome?

Bingo! Thanks. :thumbs:

 

[Risky Thicket]

No not at all. The right should rejoice, the ACLU...is going capitalist. What better than for your employer (capitalist and POTUS) having the legal right
to censure your speech.

And of course, being on the right, you seek to cast free speech...as lying.

It seems you are the victim of fake news.

 

[tonyanzack]

No not at all. The right should rejoice, the ACLU...is going capitalist. What better than for your employer (capitalist and POTUS) having the legal right
to censure your speech.

And of course, being on the right, you seek to cast free speech...as lying.

I seek no such thing. But we are sure witnessing a lot of it in the media these days, whether you recognize it, or not.

Did you actually read the internal memo?

You find this incredibly troublesome?

I did not read the internal memo and thank you for your guidance on this.
However, when I read this part, "Because we are committed to the principle that free speech protects
everyone, the speaker’s viewpoint should not be the decisive factor in our decision to defend speech
rights" I had to reflect on all the anarchists in many cities, who trample all over the rights of free speech, of Trump supporters, gun owners, and pro-life people and shout them down and destroy property to that end. I wonder how many of these people, are represented by the ACLU.

 

[eohrnberger]

My, how far the ACLU has fallen from the noble position defending the National Socialist Party of America in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

When SJW imperatives out weights other's free speech, especially when you disagree with them, what of the 1st Amendment? It has died in favor of leftism.
A loss for the nation for sure.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

My, how far the ACLU has fallen from the noble position defending the National Socialist Party of America in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

When SJW imperatives out weights other's free speech, especially when you disagree with them, what of the 1st Amendment? It has died in favor of leftism.
A loss for the nation for sure.

Yawn. They haven't 'fallen' anywhere.

Your fantasy narrative is exactly that: pure fantasy. I see you failed to actually read the memo.

 

[eohrnberger]

Last week’s announcement by the ACLU that it will no longer defend unpopular speech by heavily armed groups wasn’t just a betrayal of its historic mission. The group is a private non-profit organization, so it can choose its cases at will. But Americans trust the ACLU to articulate what the Constitution means, and when it claimed that the First Amendment itself doesn’t protect such groups, it betrayed the American people.


On Wednesday, in reaction to the recent march by hateful protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, the largest ACLU chapters in California issued a statement, later backed up by the national group, that declared “if white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution.”


“Intent to harm people?” That loophole could wipe out the whole concept of free expression. How does the ACLU know the intent of marchers? More importantly, how does the government discern which groups are intent on harm, and thus are ineligible for permits, and may even be arrested for the things they say?
The ACLU Betrays America | The Daily Caller

Intent to harm? With all those who see 'microaggression' and common terms of speech (such as he and she) which need eradication as causing harm?

Appears that the only speech worth protecting is 'popular speech'.

That's a far cry from when the ACLU defended America in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

Either all speech is protected, or none of it is.

So, yeah, fallen.

 

[eohrnberger]

I hope you are right. I hope that the ACLU will continue to defend the 1st as vigorously as they have, and don't take SJW silliness in to consideration when they do.

But I am allowed to be sceptical.?

Yawn. They haven't 'fallen' anywhere.

Your fantasy narrative is exactly that: pure fantasy. I see you failed to actually read the memo.

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk

 

[eohrnberger]

Yawn. They haven't 'fallen' anywhere.

Your fantasy narrative is exactly that: pure fantasy. I see you failed to actually read the memo.

Seems the impression that The ACLU is retreating from free expression isn't an isolated one. Perhaps even a fact based one.

The ACLU Retreats From Free Expression - WSJ
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-expression-1529533065
2 days ago - The American Civil Liberties Union has explicitly endorsed the view that free speech can harm “marginalized” groups by undermining their civil ...

The ACLU Retreats from Free Expression
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17362398
2 days ago - I, personally hate white nationalists, as they devalue everything good and decent. I also fully support the first amendment. I want to see them ...

Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Is Wavering on Free Speech
https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech
1 day ago - It's hard to see this as anything other than a cowardly retreat from a ... Moving forward, when deciding whether to take a free speech case, the ...

ACLU stops caring about free speech and other comments
https://nypost.com/2018/06/.../aclu-stops-caring-about-free-speech-and-other-comme...
1 day ago - Libertarian: The ACLU Is Downgrading Free Speech A leaked internal ... is nothing more than “a cowardly retreat from a full-throated defense of ...

Steven Pinker on Twitter: "The ACLU retreats from free speech ...
https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1009793257340096512
1 day ago - The ACLU retreats from free speech, declaring, tendentiously and irrelevantly, that speech it doesn't like can 'inflict serious harms' and 'impede ...

Nadim Kobeissi on Twitter: "The ACLU Retreats From Free Expression ...
https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/1009908249741680641
15 hours ago - Nadim KobeissiVerified account. @kaepora. Ph.D. candidate at @INRIA Paris with focus on applied cryptography, formal verification.

The ACLU Retreats From Free Expression
https://www.reddit.com/r/.../comments/.../the_aclu_retreats_from_free_expression/
2 days ago - 1 post - ‎1 author
The term Intellectual Dark Web refers to the growing community of those interested in space for freedialogue held in good faith. The community ...

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Seems the impression that The ACLU is retreating from free expression isn't an isolated one. Perhaps even a fact based one.

The only problem being, of course, is that those titles are hilariously dishonest ("ACLU stops caring about free speech") given the content of the link in the OP, which you apparently neglected to bother to read.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/law-...aclu-wavering-free-speech.html#post1068672942

 

[eohrnberger]

The only problem being, of course, is that those titles are hilariously dishonest ("ACLU stops caring about free speech") given the content of the link in the OP, which you apparently neglected to bother to read.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/law-...aclu-wavering-free-speech.html#post1068672942

Media hilariously dishonest. Yeah, seem a lot of that from the political left and leftists in the media as of late, vis-a-vie illegal immigrant child separation BS.

Like I posted. I hope you are right and its not the case, but I remain skeptical of the ACLU.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

After reading the full memo I am not too concerned. They are just weighing where to draw the line. I have no problem at drawing it at speech that incites violence, which is not protected speech. I give the ACLU thousands of dollars a year in support. If they stop being ardent defenders of the First Amendment then I will certainly pull my support, as many others would. I am sure the ACLU realizes that.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Media hilariously dishonest. Yeah, seem a lot of that from the political left and leftists in the media as of late, vis-a-vie illegal immigrant child separation BS.

Like I posted. I hope you are right and its not the case, but I remain skeptical of the ACLU.

The proof is in the pudding. What matters are the actual cases they take on. They continue to defend even the white nationalists right to protest and assemble in public spaces. If they stop doing that then it might be a sign of retreat from their core principles. But it never hurts to keep an eye on the watchdogs, just in case they stop doing their jobs.

 

[eohrnberger]

The proof is in the pudding. What matters are the actual cases they take on. They continue to defend even the white nationalists right to protest and assemble in public spaces. If they stop doing that then it might be a sign of retreat from their core principles. But it never hurts to keep an eye on the watchdogs, just in case they stop doing their jobs.

Agreed.

For much of the ACLU's history they've defended even the most controversial and incendiary speech, such as in America in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. Notable and laudable as it was rooted in fundamental principals that made the US so extraordinary over other nations which didn't have an ACLU like protector of those 1st A principals.

But you also have to figure in the present political / SJW / excessive PC excesses as well as the left of center mind set of those who are moving into ACLU leadership positions who are making these policy decisions which guide the organization.

I'm much more supportive of the classical liberalism ideals and values than the present leftist ideals and values, as we've seen demonstrated in the political left and the leftist 'news' (political propaganda) media (lying about the facts of the matter is justified by 'By any means necessary').

In the end, you are spot on, 'The proof is in the pudding'. We'll have to observe and assess based on their actions, which always have and always will, speak louder than words.

 

[maxparrish]

After reading the full memo I am not too concerned. They are just weighing where to draw the line. I have no problem at drawing it at speech that incites violence, which is not protected speech. I give the ACLU thousands of dollars a year in support. If they stop being ardent defenders of the First Amendment then I will certainly pull my support, as many others would. I am sure the ACLU realizes that.

I'm sorry, you don't issue a secret memorandum of eight pages of weasel talk that revises your commitment to JUST to suggest you won't be representing armed groups illegally inciting violence. Beneath all the latest wave of incoherent left-wing jargonized cliché's is the unmooring from old fashioned bill of fundamental rights that once made the ACLU famous (or infamous).

The reason it took so much Orwellian verbiage to justify is that is hard to claim to be "committed to defending speech rights without regard to whether the views expressed are consistent with or opposed to the ACLU’s core values, priorities and goals.” but then suggest they ought to decline taking a free-speech cases in which “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values.”.

Indeed, there is all sorts of coded talk about balancing the “impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression.” and factoring in harm to “marginalized communities” and even on “the ACLU’s credibility” and consideration of fundraising and communications officials to help formulate new guidelines.

Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed, depending on factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur. At the same time, not defending such speech from official suppression may also have harmful impacts, depending on the breadth or viewpoint-based character of the suppression, the precedent that allowing suppression might create for the rights of other speakers, and the impact on the credibility of the ACLU as a staunch and principled defender of free speech. Many of these impacts will be difficult if not impossible to measure, and none of them should be dispositive. …

In other words, the ACLU has a commitment to free speech as a fundamental right, EXCEPT when it doesn't.

Sad.

 

[maxparrish]

Agreed.

For much of the ACLU's history they've defended even the most controversial and incendiary speech, such as in America in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. Notable and laudable as it was rooted in fundamental principals that made the US so extraordinary over other nations which didn't have an ACLU like protector of those 1st A principals.

But you also have to figure in the present political / SJW / excessive PC excesses as well as the left of center mind set of those who are moving into ACLU leadership positions who are making these policy decisions which guide the organization.

I'm much more supportive of the classical liberalism ideals and values than the present leftist ideals and values, as we've seen demonstrated in the political left and the leftist 'news' (political propaganda) media (lying about the facts of the matter is justified by 'By any means necessary').

In the end, you are spot on, 'The proof is in the pudding'. We'll have to observe and assess based on their actions, which always have and always will, speak louder than words.

The secret memo is a part of that pudding - the ground work for the retreat.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I'm sorry, you don't issue a secret memorandum of eight pages of weasel talk that revises your commitment to JUST to suggest you won't be representing armed groups illegally inciting violence. Beneath all the latest wave of incoherent left-wing jargonized cliché's is the unmooring from old fashioned bill of fundamental rights that once made the ACLU famous (or infamous).

The reason it took so much Orwellian verbiage to justify is that is hard to claim to be "committed to defending speech rights without regard to whether the views expressed are consistent with or opposed to the ACLU’s core values, priorities and goals.” but then suggest they ought to decline taking a free-speech cases in which “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values.”.

Indeed, there is all sorts of coded talk about balancing the “impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression.” and factoring in harm to “marginalized communities” and even on “the ACLU’s credibility” and consideration of fundraising and communications officials to help formulate new guidelines.



In other words, the ACLU has a commitment to free speech as a fundamental right, EXCEPT when it doesn't.

Sad.

Let’s see. If they change course on their defense of the first Amendment, with actual action, then I will be right there with you in criticizing them. But as of today I haven’t seen that. But with the current climate it is certainly something to look out for.

 

[Peter King]

I did not read the internal memo and thank you for your guidance on this.
However, when I read this part, "Because we are committed to the principle that free speech protects
everyone, the speaker’s viewpoint should not be the decisive factor in our decision to defend speech
rights" I had to reflect on all the anarchists in many cities, who trample all over the rights of free speech, of Trump supporters, gun owners, and pro-life people and shout them down and destroy property to that end. I wonder how many of these people, are represented by the ACLU.

That is nonsense, the ACLU says in the words you quoted that it does not matter if one is a nazi, white supremacist, antifa, Trump, Pellosi, Clinton, etc. etc. etc., all have the same freedom of speech and the ACLU will defend those rights.

And I think nazi's and white supremacists will not turn to the ACLU for their defense is because they hate the ACLU and their fight for black rights and people opposing these nazi's that they would rather find their own lawyer rather than to turn towards a group they hate because they are "leftist scum".

 

[eohrnberger]

Would seem so.

The secret memo is a part of that pudding - the ground work for the retreat.

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk

 

[tonyanzack]

That is nonsense, the ACLU says in the words you quoted that it does not matter if one is a nazi, white supremacist, antifa, Trump, Pellosi, Clinton, etc. etc. etc., all have the same freedom of speech and the ACLU will defend those rights.

And I think nazi's and white supremacists will not turn to the ACLU for their defense is because they hate the ACLU and their fight for black rights and people opposing these nazi's that they would rather find their own lawyer rather than to turn towards a group they hate because they are "leftist scum".

When Free Speech includes pro-life people or pro-gun people, the ACLU, in most cases, will not support them and will refuse to help.
They pick and choose who they want to help, they consistently, not always, side with Left leaning causes.

 

[SmartCat]

The American Civil Liberties Union has never shown much interest in defending the civil liberties of conservatives and conservative groups. Every now and then the ACLU will defend an organization on the right that lacks a popular following, like the American Nazi Party, but I have never read of it defending a geneticist who maintains that genes are the main factor in determining intelligence and criminal behavior.