David Cole, the American Civil Liberties Union's national legal director, tells New York Times readers they shouldn't "Lose faith in the First Amendment." Although Cole's op-ed piece is explicitly directed at "Liberals or progressives," it can also be read as an oblique rejoinder to libertarians and conservatives who worry that the ACLU itself has lost faith in the First Amendment.
Back in 1990, Reason published a cover story in which Charles Oliver argued that the ACLU's commitment to freedom of speech had been compromised by its pursuit of progressive causes.
"In recent years," he wrote, "The ACLU has adopted an expansive definition of 'civil liberties' that dilutes its absolutist commitment to free speech. The ACLU, critics say, is now more committed to goals such as comparable worth, government aid to the homeless, and nuclear disarmament than to defending the First Amendment." Oliver noted that critics, including longtime ACLU members such as Nat Hentoff and Alan Dershowitz, were complaining that "Greed and left-wing ideology have corrupted the union," which had "Diluted its message, compromised its mission, and, in some instances, abandoned its commitment to the First Amendment."
Nearly three decades later, the argument about the ACLU's support for freedom of speech continues, which tells us two things: The organization is still divided on the question, and the stalwarts are influential enough that the ACLU is still willing to defend the First Amendment rights of people who offend progressives.
As Robby Soave noted in June, the latest evidence of internal qualms about free speech is a staff memo revealed by Wendy Kaminer, a former member of the ACLU's national board, that says the organization's lawyers, in selecting First Amendment cases, should consider the impact of speech on "Other values advanced by the ACLU," such as equality and racial justice.
While the memo repeatedly affirms the ACLU's commitment to defending speakers whose views its members find repugnant, the very idea that the organization's goals conflict with each other is a license to prioritize some of those "Other values" over freedom of speech.
"In deciding how to use our limited resources," the memo says, "No civil liberties or civil rights value should automatically be privileged over any other. There is no presumption that the First Amendment trumps all other amendments, or vice versa."
http://reason.com/blog/2018/08/02/freedom-of-speech-is-a-principle-thats-w
Back in 1990, Reason published a cover story in which Charles Oliver argued that the ACLU's commitment to freedom of speech had been compromised by its pursuit of progressive causes.
"In recent years," he wrote, "The ACLU has adopted an expansive definition of 'civil liberties' that dilutes its absolutist commitment to free speech. The ACLU, critics say, is now more committed to goals such as comparable worth, government aid to the homeless, and nuclear disarmament than to defending the First Amendment." Oliver noted that critics, including longtime ACLU members such as Nat Hentoff and Alan Dershowitz, were complaining that "Greed and left-wing ideology have corrupted the union," which had "Diluted its message, compromised its mission, and, in some instances, abandoned its commitment to the First Amendment."
Nearly three decades later, the argument about the ACLU's support for freedom of speech continues, which tells us two things: The organization is still divided on the question, and the stalwarts are influential enough that the ACLU is still willing to defend the First Amendment rights of people who offend progressives.
As Robby Soave noted in June, the latest evidence of internal qualms about free speech is a staff memo revealed by Wendy Kaminer, a former member of the ACLU's national board, that says the organization's lawyers, in selecting First Amendment cases, should consider the impact of speech on "Other values advanced by the ACLU," such as equality and racial justice.
While the memo repeatedly affirms the ACLU's commitment to defending speakers whose views its members find repugnant, the very idea that the organization's goals conflict with each other is a license to prioritize some of those "Other values" over freedom of speech.
"In deciding how to use our limited resources," the memo says, "No civil liberties or civil rights value should automatically be privileged over any other. There is no presumption that the First Amendment trumps all other amendments, or vice versa."
http://reason.com/blog/2018/08/02/freedom-of-speech-is-a-principle-thats-w
No comments:
Post a Comment