• 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!

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

T

tonyanzack

Banned
Joined
Jun 16, 2018
Messages
340
Reaction score
92
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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.
 

Did you actually read the internal memo?




You find this incredibly troublesome?
 

It seems you are the victim of fake news.
 

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.

roughdraft274 said:
Did you actually read the internal memo?

You find this incredibly troublesome?
Click to expand...

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.
 

Yawn. They haven't 'fallen' anywhere.

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

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.
 
Last edited:
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.?
Tanngrisnir said:
Yawn. They haven't 'fallen' anywhere.

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

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Yawn. They haven't 'fallen' anywhere.

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

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

 

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.
 
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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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

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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
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…