> How anyone reasonable could consider this a bad thing, I don't know.
Because it's completely unproven. Their theory is that 'free speech advances the goals of [others whose views are contrary to our values]' but that's not proven, that's just their theory.
It's held for ages that free speech works as it allows for the 'disinfectant of sunlight' i.e. that ideas stand and fall on their merits with all relevant parties allowed to discuss freely.
They _posit_ that this theory no longer holds true but they never seem to actually explain how they came to that conclusion. You, similarly, just say that is 'is right' but... how did you get there? What's your proof of concept? Do you have examples?
It seems very much to me like they've just turned around and said 'yeah actually free speech is bad because it helps the bad guys more than the good guys, trust us, it's no good' and left it at that.
> reasoning has always been sound
They've done a complete 180 on this position. By definition either their reasoning before was unsound or their reasoning today is unsound. Pick one.
You realize that the origin of their changing stance is because they got someone killed, right? It's great to posit that free speech is the best disinfectant, until your principles result in people getting injured and killed. They were warned that the Rally was likely to break out into violence by the city itself but went ahead with their lawsuit anyways.
As a result, going to bat for the Unite the Right rally in 2017 was a massive misstep and resulted in them losing a large amount of donors and professionals working for them. Naturally they would've needed to change or else they collapse and don't function at all.
> your principles result in people getting injured and killed
Good principles remain good regardless of exceptional circumstances.
> needed to change or else they collapse and don't function at all
Yeah, they changed _and_ they don't function at all. Now they just protect the causes their donors agree with while retaining the prestige of the name.
Personally I think a total collapse would have been preferable.
> You realize that the origin of their changing stance is because they got someone killed, right?
The ACLU didn't get anyone killed, violent right-wing individuals did. The right to have a political protest rally is enshrined in the Constitution.
Consider the looting and rioting that took place following the George Floyd protests. It would be absurd to suggest that because violence and crime was happening at some of these events, the political speech they represented might not be worth protecting.
> It's held for ages that free speech works as it allows for the 'disinfectant of sunlight' i.e. that ideas stand and fall on their merits with all relevant parties allowed to discuss freely.
>> Consider whether we'd be arguing against our own goals.
>> How anyone reasonable could consider this a bad thing, I don't know.
> Because it's completely unproven.
So, just to be clear, you are saying it's unreasonable for the ACLU to consider whether a case would directly harm their mission.
Your words say that rather than consider the harm their case will do to their mission, instead, they must blindly defend the case. The result of which could hurt their free speech advocacy.
You might not agree with this interpretation, but that's what you are arguing against here based on your quotes and what I said. If you disagree with my interpretation, you need to rethink what you read because you are clearly misguided.
> It seems very much to me like they've just turned around and said 'yeah actually free speech is bad because it helps the bad guys more than the good guys, trust us, it's no good' and left it at that.
No. You are wrong.
"Free speech is good even when it helps bad people (as proven my our track record), but we will not defend those who attack free speech."
That's what they are saying.
tl;dr: You are wrong and arguing against free speech.
Because it's completely unproven. Their theory is that 'free speech advances the goals of [others whose views are contrary to our values]' but that's not proven, that's just their theory.
It's held for ages that free speech works as it allows for the 'disinfectant of sunlight' i.e. that ideas stand and fall on their merits with all relevant parties allowed to discuss freely.
They _posit_ that this theory no longer holds true but they never seem to actually explain how they came to that conclusion. You, similarly, just say that is 'is right' but... how did you get there? What's your proof of concept? Do you have examples?
It seems very much to me like they've just turned around and said 'yeah actually free speech is bad because it helps the bad guys more than the good guys, trust us, it's no good' and left it at that.
> reasoning has always been sound
They've done a complete 180 on this position. By definition either their reasoning before was unsound or their reasoning today is unsound. Pick one.