The A.C.L.U. Said a Worker Used Racist Tropes and Fired Her. But Did She?
The A.C.L.U. Said a Worker Used Racist Tropes and Fired Her. But Did She?
The civil liberties group is defending itself in an unusual case that weighs what kind of language may be evidence of bias against Black people.
You're viewing a single thread.
I read this expecting to be on the ACLUs side. As a pretty liberal guy... I don't see it. Sounds like they don't like her speaking up is all.
Tbh the ACLU is a pale shadow of its former self. The pivot took over a decade, but is no longer a an organization driven by the philosophy of defending all civil rights and is instead ruled by more specific politics of the day. I wish that FIRE was better, but because it’s not we’re stuck with the ACLU.
Also, the main solution to workplace concerns like this is to discuss it. Tell them that you feel uncomfortable with that kind of language and give them chances to use better language. You can't fire someone with no notice for making minor mistakes when they have not been given the chance to improve. Escalating personal conflicts to legal conflicts is not the way to resolve them.
It is perfectly consistent to be liberal and fully in favor of Free Speech™.
Can your explain your comment? I'm unsure what the TM here is supposed to imply. Not trying to be a dick, I'm genuinely unsure lol and trying to learn
I just add the ™ because people online seem to get so worked up over free speech issues. Usually because they believe in it except for the things they don't like. Just poking fun of how contentious the concept is despite everyone saying they believe in it cause only their version of free speech counts.
Well then you'll like me, because I am in no way a free speech absolutist. Nazi glorification and other hate speech should be banned in the U.S. like it is in Germany because it is an implicit threat of violence. Confederate monuments should similarly be banned.
A nation that allows glorification of such things is doing something majorly wrong. We have a cliff in Atlanta with portraits of Confederates on it for the whole fucking city to see. Black people in Atlanta have a constant reminder of their ancestors being in chains. That should not be legal and Stone Mountain should be sandblasted.
The problem with limiting "hateful" speech is determining who draws the line and where it's drawn. In a democratic society, the majority's opinion shapes these boundaries, which may not always align with progressive values. For instance, the current efforts to ban "trans ideology" demonstrate how subjective interpretations of "hateful" and harmful speech can be. From one perspective, certain speech is harmful; from another, it's essential. This subjective line-drawing risks silencing minority views (which might be your views).
I come from an evangelical, deeply conservative area in Appalachia, where my leftist beliefs were often seen as degenerate. Without the broad protections of free speech, expressing these views could have been much more difficult. While the intention to limit hate speech comes from a place of wanting to protect, the reality of implementing such restrictions can ironically end up silencing the very voices we wish to empower.
There is no problem in the way you claim when it comes to limiting speech which is pro-Nazi or pro-Confederate. There is no question what such things are. Things like the march in Charlottesville or, as I mentioned, Stone Mountain, GA.
And they would say there is no question about trans or queer rights. You seem to be failing to consider how this would work from other's points of view. Just because you're right doesn't mean you're not outnumbered. You cannot change the status quo without necessarily being outside of it. Letting the state, with its monopoly on violence, enforce the status quo is counterproductive to the progress you and I both want. It is on us to use our speech to push for change and drown out the hateful speech.
You could make this argument about virtually any progressive idea. Of course political ideas can be used against you. That's not an argument for maintaining things as they are.
There are two different things that we're discussing here. The state and society. The state has a monopoly on violence and should not get to decide what people think and believe because of the monopoly on violence. Society, on the other hand, can and should make collective decisions on what is and isn't acceptable. We should all condemn hateful speech. We should take down confederate statues. We should advocate for change. What we shouldn't do is use the state's violence/force to do it. It has to be done by changing hearts and minds. It is our collective responsibility, not that of the state.
Why do people who want to ban certain speech always seem to believe those with the power to choose exactly what to ban would agree with them?
Y’all already forget Trump was president and has another chance to be?
Those with the power in Germany chose exactly what to ban that would make their country a better place.
I have no idea why you and others think that overt racism should be allowed when it is an implicit call for violence.
Those with the power in Germany chose exactly what to ban that would make their country a better place.
Because one place had a good out come means all will? And that it will continue being good for them over time?
The UK doesn't have free speech either. Recall that a few people were arrested for shouting "who elected him?" in regards to King Charles III. Convenient that you forgot about that one.
I have no idea why you and others think that overt racism should be allowed when it is an implicit call for violence.
I just told you why. Without the bedrock of free speech, we risk speech you and I like being banned. I don't know about you but I would like to go on saying things like "god does not exist", "I'm an atheist", or "fuck the police".
What's more, I believe in free speech the way the ACLU used to. That is, the principle of free speech, not just token free speech that really just means speech I like.
There is no "bedrock of free speech." There are many things you can't say. You can't slander or libel. You can't foment violence. You can't threaten people.
Racism is a threat.
Racism is a threat.
The right: "Saying fuck the police is a threat".
You can make this argument about anything.
The left: "Healthcare is a right!"
The right: "Gender confirming care isn't health care."
All you are arguing for is maintaining a status quo which has been responsible for countless murders and assaults and rapes and all sorts of other oppression because the right might find a way to abuse something even though we have a real-world example of that not happening.
The ACLU isn't the government...free speech is a red herring in this case.
Kind of. As a private institution the ACLU is free to enforce restrictions like this if it chooses to. I would argue that there is still an ideal of free speech that people can believe in beyond its legal definition, which I would have hoped the ACLU does.
Based on your other comments, it didn't seem that you were talking about the ideal of free speech, especially since you specifically mention that the joke was making fun of people who use idealized (aka 'only what they like') definitions.
Maybe I just missed the context, though.