(alternate links to the article: https://archive.is/newest/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06... / https://web.archive.org/web/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/...)
[1]: see https://pontifex.substack.com/p/links-13-nandy-and-aclu-cont... , last item on the page.
I can't find anywhere in the parent comment or the parent's linked page where it was claimed that the ACLU's tweet of a modified false-quote-LARPing-as-the-actual-quote was "exactly" like 1984. The parent commenter appears to have used the adjective "esque", although perhaps it was run through the ACLU's false-quote converter first (in fairness to you, perhaps your comment was as well).
Might I suggest you edit your original quote ACLU-style and write something such as:
> Ah yes, [exactly like 1984].
Certainly, deliberate modification of words is fully acceptable as long as there are half-squares surrounding them.
The problem isn't advocacy, but quoting. They did use [brackets], so I hesitate to call the quote outright falsified, but since brackets are intended only for clarification, their use in this case is definitely deceptive.
They shouldn't tell lies about history. If a particular historical figure said something, say what they said, and don't put false words in their mouth.
Do you not understand that what ACLU did was showing deliberate contempt for the idea of truth itself?
> There's virtually nobody who quotes the US founders who is actually advocating for the precise same set of values and institutions those founders supported.
Yes, and that's fine, provided they quote them accurately and not deliberately misquote them.
> Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.
https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment
Of course, they have their reasons. And they concede that there are some instances where the state goes too far with regulations and prohibitions. But I would want to see an organization which defends civil liberties to frequently err on the side of protecting the individual than the government.
Now they pick and choose, and that's not right.
Do I like people with hatred towards their fellow humans? Absolutely not. But I don't think we should muzzle them. One day, that'll come back and bite the rest of us.
Likewise, the EFF needs to focus on the incredibly important missions of keeping software accessible and our privacy paramount. They're getting distracted too.
edit: mistakenly mentioned FSF instead of EFF. I'm clear about the distinction, it was just a mistake. Thanks for pointing it out, mig39.
EDIT: Not just speech, but also other basic rights they have stood for, such as legal representation and rights of the accused.
Their response to reforms of Title IX to restore the rights of the accused was to intentionally lift up the rights of the accusers over and above the rights of the accused. Their statement regarding it dishonestly claimed that they were balancing the scales, whereas anyone who has examined Title IX can easily see it leaves the accused without their constitutional rights to due process. [2]
In a similar theme, they inserted themselves into the confirmation process of Brett Kavanaugh, taking a clear side on the issue instead of standing for principles of legal representation and initial presumption of innocence. [3]
There are other recent articles on continued churning against their prior positions, but unfortunately they are behind a paywall and I do not yet have access to read them. I may be able to find other sources later. [4]
[1] https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621AC...
[2] https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1063456843706585089
[3] https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1046826766017466370
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/19/opinion/letters/aclu-free...
Of course, this is just one case. But it at least shows they're not opposed to defending those they may otherwise disagree with.
It really hasn't been that long since the red scare, where people made comments just like yours, but warning about the dangers of those dirty pinkos towards god-fearing, decent Americans. The first amendment protects us from authoritarians of any political stripe.
They went from defending Nazis to calling people Nazis.
I’ve always hated Nazis but I’ve also always wanted speech to be free, and the ACLU is the one who changed their tune.
So yeah, they realized some stances they had has fucked over a huge group of people that weren't listened to for centuries \o/.
For people like me, ACLU went from a pretty dangerous org to an org I actively support.
From my perspective, they went from defending nearly all speech to excluding from their defense efforts a bit more speech that is highly likely to cause harm.
In other words, they expanded a bit what counts as the equivalent of "shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater".
It doesn't seem too outrageous to say that Skokie and Charlottesville were far from equivalent, and shouldn't be treated the same.
In Skokie, the verdict was that a peaceful march couldn't be blocked no matter how hateful the speech.
In Charlottesville, the ACLU essentially made the same argument to a judge, despite evidence that the intent wasn't peaceful. The judge was persuaded, the march happened, and tragedy followed.
The ACLU has since come to the conclusion that they were wrong to make that argument. There was enough evidence (that the intent of participants was to provoke violent clashes with the counter-protestors rather than march peacefully) for the ACLU to have refused to defend the case.
Have you considered that your values might've changed? Or their values of "what's right 100% of the time" has changed?