[estebank]

> And I used to donate to the ACLU before they went crazy.

When was that? Because in 1977 they defended Nazi's free speech to demonstrate in a town that had jewish people as half its population so it tried to block them, and I don't recall them doing anything nearly that controversial since.

https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-skokie-case-how-i-...

[selectodude]

Yeah that’s when they actually defended free speech. They now take sides on what speech should be allowed. That’s crazy.

[ceejayoz]

> They now take sides on what speech should be allowed.

Alternative framing: Given limited resources and lots of things to care about, they pick the specific cases that best improve the freedoms they're interested in protecting.

In the case of the Second Amendment, they decided to let the NRA handle it, as that seems to be working just fine.

[CamperBob2]

A disingenuous take. The ACLU has actively published anti-2A literature in the past, arguing (as all such arguments must) that only the police, government, and military forces should have access to effective weapons.

[ceejayoz]

I mean, the ACLU is allowed to say they don't interpret the Second the individualist way you do. That's their First Amendment right, yes?

The Second is probably the amendment least in need of defending by the ACLU. It's well covered, and pretty much a third rail of American politics.

[selectodude]

I mean defending horrible shitty people who are exercising their 1st amendment rights.

The ACLU should defend people who suck ass and another group should defend the heroes who beat their ass for saying awful shit.

[ceejayoz]

Sure. But there's 100 shitty people and you have to pick one or two.

So maybe you pick the anti-ICE protester instead of the Nazi to help out. Both got shot with pepper balls, both had their rights infringed upon. Why not pick the one who isn't a complete ass to establish the same precedent with?

[selectodude]

I agree 100%, I’d rather the ACLU picked their battles and if there’s a choice, not pick a Nazi. But I’m not a huge fan about how they’ve explicitly said they won’t defend hate speech. It’s a betrayal of their original cause.

[ceejayoz]

> But I’m not a huge fan about how they’ve explicitly said they won’t defend hate speech.

They've explicitly said the opposite.

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-w...

2023: "We joined Young Americans for Freedom, the Cato Institute, and other unlikely partners in filing an amicus brief on behalf of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression in its challenge to New York’s new law regulating 'hateful conduct' in social media."

[whimsicalism]

the difference is that they would not do this today

[BryantD]

2017: the ACLU defends Milo Yiannopoulos' right to advertise his new book. They file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting a Tea Party supporter challenging a ban on wearing political insignia at polling places.

2018: the ACLU supports the NRA's First Amendment challenge to Governor Cuomo's attempt to convince NY financial institutions not to do business with the NRA.

2019: they defended a conservative student magazine which was denied funding by UCSD.

2020: they filed a brief supporting antisemitic protestors picketing a synagogue on the Sabbath. They also supported a Catholic school's religious right to make religious-based choices in hiring and firing teachers.

I'm just quoting the fruits of five minutes of research here, so I won't go on (but there's more). Is it possible that you're reacting to the radical conservative stereotyping of the ACLU rather than the actual actions of the organization?

[whimsicalism]

It's very possible that I'm misinformed, but if so it was mostly from reading 'radical conservatives' like the NYT and other related reporting, along with ex-ACLU lawyers. [0]

0: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html

I think this is particularly noted as a post-2022 shift