News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis. Parent comment

Re:Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity... by smsm42 on Sunday June 06, 2021 @07:35PM (#27417386)
> Are younger lawyers less likely to take cases of clients they deem detestable

If only that. The younger lawyers would attack (sometimes physically, like with Molotov cocktails, as in the case of Urooj Rahman and Colinford Mattis) those they find detestable, and anybody in the law profession that dares to provide them with any service. Which once was considered a basic human right, but not anymore - now, if you defend the deplorables, you become unperson yourself.

[ Parent | on HN ]
[dead]
Re:Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity... by smsm42 on Monday June 07, 2021 @12:36AM (#27419039)
Let me make it easy for you: if you throw a firebomb at the cop car, it's not justified.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity... by golergka on Monday June 07, 2021 @11:28AM (#27423714)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity... by Qwertious on Wednesday June 09, 2021 @12:45PM (#27450092)
Q: If someone causes damage to my property by emitting greenhouse gases, am I entitled to defend my property by shooting them?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity... by dredmorbius on Monday June 07, 2021 @02:48PM (#27426480)
Thanks for providing your rationale.

I reject it. NAP is an extraordinarily convenient and frequent cover for genocide, and arguably arose from just that basis.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity... by CamperBob2 on Monday June 07, 2021 @12:49AM (#27419094)
Would that have been equally true in late-1930s Germany (or Russia, for that matter)?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity... by smsm42 on Monday June 07, 2021 @12:55AM (#27419123)
Call me from late 1930s Germany and we'll discuss it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity... by dredmorbius on Monday June 07, 2021 @04:48AM (#27420418)
Take it as presumed that a questioner has a direct link to the side of the state or the opposition, or both, of 1930s Germany, and answer the question rather than dodge it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity... by GoblinSlayer on Monday June 07, 2021 @06:32AM (#27420969)
It's not 1930s Germany, throwing a firebomb at the cop car out of hysteria is not justified.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity... by dredmorbius on Monday June 07, 2021 @01:43PM (#27425564)
It somewhat weakens an absolute assertion "X is not justified" when a response 1) lists numerous current or recent instances in which X is argued as justified by a substantial groiup, and the further response 2) boils down to "now is not one of those times in which X is justified".

A chief weapon of both tyrant and bully is to deny their victims and targets the right to self-defence.

[ Parent | on HN ]
[dead]
Re:Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity... by splitstud on Sunday June 06, 2021 @11:21PM (#27418694)
So if you even make an argument that sounds like one an unperson made, you are also an unperson?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity... by phs318u on Sunday June 06, 2021 @11:40PM (#27418786)
smsm made a point that implied some facts.

alecb rebutted those facts, added one of his own and made a critique on the rest of smsm's comment. Nowhere is that making smsm an "unperson".

People are free to make a point. And others are free to critique that point. No one has the right to consequence/criticism-free speech.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity... by smsm42 on Monday June 07, 2021 @12:53AM (#27419115)
There's a huge difference between "consequence of your speech is that you may be criticized and maybe shown you're wrong" and "consequence of your speech is that you will be fired from your job, physically attacked, denied access to business and services, and people who dare to support you will be attacked in a similar fashion". Pretending to not understand the difference and calling both "consequences" is plain disingenuous - and steps right into what Smirnov's original joke was about. Yes, speech has consequences in both free countries and totalitarian ones. In the former, it's debate, in the latter it's jail and execution. Thankfully, the woke is not yet in the latter position, but they long left the former one and are inch by inch moving to the totalitarian side.

And no, none of the facts I stated were "rebutted". One incorrect comment was made about Rahman and Mattis, clearly quoting old (and also incorrect) press articles, which totally missed the point (I never claimed they work for ACLU), and I was then hilariously called "parroting Taibbi". That's not rebuttal.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity... by phs318u on Monday June 07, 2021 @01:39AM (#27419339)
> And no, none of the facts I stated were "rebutted". One incorrect comment was made about Rahman and Mattis, clearly quoting old (and also incorrect) press articles, which totally missed the point (I never claimed they work for ACLU), and I was then hilariously called "parroting Taibbi". That's not rebuttal.

A. I made no assertions as to who's statements were correct. Incorrect statements get made on the internet all the time. Incorrectness is clearly not a pre-requisite for making a comment or this discussion would be moot.

B. "That's not a rebuttal". Perhaps. But neither is it firing you from your job, physically attacking you, denying you access to business and services, and attacking those who support you. Your qualifying alecb's response as equivalent as cancellation and making you an "unperson" was clearly over the top.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity... by smsm42 on Monday June 07, 2021 @03:32AM (#27420014)
> Your qualifying alecb's response as equivalent as cancellation

I am sorry, what? I never qualified that response as cancellation, you must be confused here. When I talked about cancel culture, I did not mean any of the discussion here - which is completely ok, and even the comments that I completely disagree with, are part of proper and normal discussion that I have no issue about at all. I will of course argue against ones that are wrong - but that's completely not what I meant by cancel culture, and I never said otherwise.

[ Parent | on HN ]