https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1009186716593393664

Contrast: https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-is-our-new-aclu-11589...

This is why people tend to roll their eyes at the WSJ opinion section. (The journalism side, to be clear, is top-notch.)

Obviously the internment of Japanese folks during WWII was far more intrusive than the COVID restrictions. But that doesn't contradict the statement--they didn't say "the harshest restrictions" or "the most egregious restrictions", they said "the most sweeping restrictions". The word sweeping is an adjective meaning 'wide in range or effect'. It is simply a matter of fact that the COVID restrictions, which affected ~40 million people and resulted in the closure of 40,000 businesses, were a more sweeping restriction on liberty than the internment of 120,000 Japanese during the War.

The only comparably broad measure you've listed is wartime rationing. But the fact that wartime rationing was as broad in scope as the COVID restrictions hardly renders the WSJ's claim absurd.

The Sedition Acts variably restricted the First Amendment rights to criticize the government of anyone in the country.

How are these not broad?

Is it possible that you, like the WSG, enganged in a bit of hyperbole to tru to make a point?

To be clear, I think the WSG claim is hyperbole. However it is a claim that could be reasonably argued to be correct and is thus not literally "absurd". Thus I would class is as hyperbolic and your use of the word as figurative.

This is especially odd coming from the privacy maximalists at HN. How long would it take you to report a Twitter account that Tweeted out your live location daily? Be honest.

And then you use the word 'silence' which is far more ominous than saying that he offered the kid $5000 for what was about 15 minutes of python.

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/558433-the-aclus-ci...

Which state government bills are you referring to?

(For the record, I am very far left, but from a time when true free speech was a sacred left value.)

What, exactly, is it saying the ACLU did? What, exactly, is it referring to? The only sentence that even attempts to answer that question is: “an ACLU official said it was perfectly legitimate for his lawyers to decline to defend hate speech.”

That statement is a fact. Hate speech is explicitly exempt from U.S. Free Speech protections. If you’re going to defend Free Speech, please read a little about the limitations on Free Speech, and some of the history that brought about those limitations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations

Limits on Free Speech is as much a conservative value as a liberal value. Framing this as a leftist takeover of “woke” values is a thinly veiled misinformation FUD campaign designed to confuse you about what U.S. values are and convince you liberals are attacking, while hypocritically doing all the attacking. Don’t let this junk work on you, stay curious and seek verifiable facts, not tribal opinion.

Your own link makes it clear that in the US, hate speech is protected speech.

"Hate speech is also protected by the First Amendment in the United States, as decided in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992) in which the Supreme Court ruled that hate speech is permissible, except in the case of imminent violence"

The internal ACLU policy is apparently now to consider politics when deciding which speech to defend. As a private organization they're free to make those choices but it's disappointing to see them retreat from the values that I and other liberals hold dear.

https://fee.org/articles/the-aclu-is-no-longer-free-speechs-...

And I am perfectly well aware of what real US values are. Condescending advice from someone ignorant about basic Constitutional law is not helpful or appreciated.

That’s not true. The US restricts speech that incites imminent criminal behavior. That’s all.

The ACLU is famous for defend a Nazi rally through a Jewish town of Skokie, IL.

That ACLU is dead now.

In an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court, the ACLU and ACLU of Massachusetts argue that Boston’s denial of Camp Constitution’s request to display its flag violated the group’s free-speech rights

On March 2nd 2022. You made the claim the ACLU is dead , what evidence do you have to support that?

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hat...

I would argue Starlink occupies that role.

Please do. What is Starlink doing to protect free speech?

That's on an order of magnitude difference than the world's richest meme-sharer purchasing the software company that provides the meme-sharing infrastructure.