I’m a recent student so I might be too focused on the educational side of things, but I’ve see FIRE take over the, “ACLU docket” in the campus free-speech and Title-IX context over my four years in school. If I was a student in trouble I would have definitely reached out to FIRE rather than the ACLU. FIRE has been steadfastly non-partisan and committed to principle, while the ACLU has shifted to being a political litigation group.
It’s disappointing to me because I think that while campus free speech issues tend to be viewed as a conservative issue nowadays, speech codes and the lack of due process in administrative hearings can be just as dangerous for the progressive causes the ACLU now espouses.
In my opinion the President does not have a right to free speech. His speech is constrained by his oath of office. The oath appears in the Constitution, and is no less fundamental than the First Amendment. He can, and should, be prevented from speech that violates that oath.
The ACLU may well have lost their way. I will reserve judgement. I was always a bit uncomfortable with their free speech absolutism.
Certainly, when speech endangers public safety (as in recent events), the state has a responsibility to intervene. Arguably, former President Trump's speech did endanger public safety. So, even if that speech was not a violation of his oath, it should have been prevented.
Especially because he highlights two amicus I had the privilege of working on alongside not only the ACLU, but also Cato, and others, to form a "bipartisan" coalition of civil liberties organizations.
A number of years ago, the American Constitution Society of CT challenged the Connecticut Federalist Society to a debate on Citizens United. We, at CT Fed Soc named Ira Glasser as our designated debater--to the surprise, I think, of ACS He presented a compelling, thoroughly reasoned and brilliantly argued case in defense of the decision in Citizen's United. Today, I suspect, that would not happen. This greatly impoverishes the public discourse. I drove Ira to the debate, and I really cherish the stories and fortitude of the "old" ACLU which undertook so many courageous positions leading to landmark decisions.
Today I work at a new public interest firm founded in 2017-18 by Columbia professor Philip Hamburger, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a non-partisan, non-profit public interest firm based in DC. Our docket is full of First Amendment and other civil liberties cases and legal action. Our mission is to protect Americans' civil liberties and we are busier than ever litigating in that space.
The ACLU now files briefs actively opposing freedom of speech when that speech doesn't advance its narrative. If that is not losing its way, I don't know what is.
A subscriber asked me to post this on their behalf (they didn't want to post under their own name):
"I'm with you. I'm a free-speech nut, and I have grounds to talk, having been subjected to serious KKK bullying as a teen (hate mail, fights). If I can say, 'let's protect the Klan's speech so that we protect ours,' that's what I want the ACLU to say."
I’m a recent student so I might be too focused on the educational side of things, but I’ve see FIRE take over the, “ACLU docket” in the campus free-speech and Title-IX context over my four years in school. If I was a student in trouble I would have definitely reached out to FIRE rather than the ACLU. FIRE has been steadfastly non-partisan and committed to principle, while the ACLU has shifted to being a political litigation group.
It’s disappointing to me because I think that while campus free speech issues tend to be viewed as a conservative issue nowadays, speech codes and the lack of due process in administrative hearings can be just as dangerous for the progressive causes the ACLU now espouses.
In my opinion the President does not have a right to free speech. His speech is constrained by his oath of office. The oath appears in the Constitution, and is no less fundamental than the First Amendment. He can, and should, be prevented from speech that violates that oath.
The ACLU may well have lost their way. I will reserve judgement. I was always a bit uncomfortable with their free speech absolutism.
Certainly, when speech endangers public safety (as in recent events), the state has a responsibility to intervene. Arguably, former President Trump's speech did endanger public safety. So, even if that speech was not a violation of his oath, it should have been prevented.
I found this rebuttal from ACLU's national legal director interesting:
https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-we-hate/
Especially because he highlights two amicus I had the privilege of working on alongside not only the ACLU, but also Cato, and others, to form a "bipartisan" coalition of civil liberties organizations.
A number of years ago, the American Constitution Society of CT challenged the Connecticut Federalist Society to a debate on Citizens United. We, at CT Fed Soc named Ira Glasser as our designated debater--to the surprise, I think, of ACS He presented a compelling, thoroughly reasoned and brilliantly argued case in defense of the decision in Citizen's United. Today, I suspect, that would not happen. This greatly impoverishes the public discourse. I drove Ira to the debate, and I really cherish the stories and fortitude of the "old" ACLU which undertook so many courageous positions leading to landmark decisions.
Today I work at a new public interest firm founded in 2017-18 by Columbia professor Philip Hamburger, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a non-partisan, non-profit public interest firm based in DC. Our docket is full of First Amendment and other civil liberties cases and legal action. Our mission is to protect Americans' civil liberties and we are busier than ever litigating in that space.
The ACLU now files briefs actively opposing freedom of speech when that speech doesn't advance its narrative. If that is not losing its way, I don't know what is.
There's a new documentary, "Mighty Ira," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG9fZ6hK044, which touches on the same subjects.
A subscriber asked me to post this on their behalf (they didn't want to post under their own name):
"I'm with you. I'm a free-speech nut, and I have grounds to talk, having been subjected to serious KKK bullying as a teen (hate mail, fights). If I can say, 'let's protect the Klan's speech so that we protect ours,' that's what I want the ACLU to say."