Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Starting in 2016, the ACLU filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump and his administration. As Trump returns to the White House, we’re ready to return to the courts and Congress to fight for our civil liberties.

Today, as the nation prepares for the devastating onslaught of civil liberties abuses identified in our most recent analysis of Donald Trump’s policy proposals and rhetoric, the ACLU, too, is prepared.

Starting on day one, we’re ready to fight for our civil liberties and civil rights in the courts, in Congress, and in our communities. We did it during his first term – filing 434 legal actions against Trump while he was in office – and we’ll do it again.

We’ve done the work and, today, our track record shows that we know how to fight his attempts to restrict our civil liberties and civil rights. Here’s just a few highlights from our 400 plus legal actions to make that point:

www.aclu.org

Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready. | ACLU

Starting in 2016, the ACLU filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump and his administration. As Trump returns to the White House, we’re ready to return to the courts and Congress to fight for our civil liberties.
www.aclu.org www.aclu.org
 
ACLU? Talk about a name from the past. Couldn't tell you the last time I heard them referenced. What a fall, others might call it a change I suppose, for them.

This is the group that was famous for standing up for free speech, even odious folks like Nazi's and the KKK, but they made a decision to abandon that and put progressive causes above their principles - especially free speech.
 
Cypress said:
Starting in 2016, the ACLU filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump and his administration. As Trump returns to the White House, we’re ready to return to the courts and Congress to fight for our civil liberties.

Today, as the nation prepares for the devastating onslaught of civil liberties abuses identified in our most recent analysis of Donald Trump’s policy proposals and rhetoric, the ACLU, too, is prepared.

Starting on day one, we’re ready to fight for our civil liberties and civil rights in the courts, in Congress, and in our communities. We did it during his first term – filing 434 legal actions against Trump while he was in office – and we’ll do it again.

We’ve done the work and, today, our track record shows that we know how to fight his attempts to restrict our civil liberties and civil rights. Here’s just a few highlights from our 400 plus legal actions to make that point:

www.aclu.org

Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready. | ACLU

Starting in 2016, the ACLU filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump and his administration. As Trump returns to the White House, we’re ready to return to the courts and Congress to fight for our civil liberties.
www.aclu.org www.aclu.org
Click to expand...
Were you one of those screeching because Trump was going to take revenge on those who attacked him for the past 8 years?
 
cawacko said:
ACLU? Talk about a name from the past. Couldn't tell you the last time I heard them referenced. What a fall, others might call it a change I suppose, for them.

This is the group that was famous for standing up for free speech, even odious folks like Nazi's and the KKK, but they made a decision to abandon that and put progressive causes above their principles - especially free speech.
Click to expand...
They sold out for money. Does anyone know it they used the Biden administration for trying to restrain free speech?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TOP
ExpressLane said:
They sold out for money. Does anyone know it they used the Biden administration for trying to restrain free speech?
Click to expand...
Interesting. I can't speak to that one way or the other because I don't follow their organziation closely enough to know their motivations. I found a 2021 NY Times artice on the ACLU and it had this in it:

Some A.C.L.U. lawyers and staff members argue that the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and the press — as well as freedom of religion, assembly and petitioning the government — is more often a tool of the powerful than the oppressed.

“First Amendment protections are disproportionately enjoyed by people of power and privilege,” said Dennis Parker, who directed the organization’s Racial Justice Program until he left in late 2018.

That mindset helps explain the shift away from free speech for both the organization and some/many in the Democratic Party.
 
It's funny. I have old family friends that went to Cal in the '60's and they still wax romantically about the free speech movement on campus and how they helped 'change the world' with it etc.

Would be interesting to take the modern viewpoint, that free speech is a tool of the oppressor, and go back in time and tell that to kids at Berkeley.
 
cawacko said:
ACLU? Talk about a name from the past. Couldn't tell you the last time I heard them referenced. What a fall, others might call it a change I suppose, for them.

This is the group that was famous for standing up for free speech, even odious folks like Nazi's and the KKK, but they made a decision to abandon that and put progressive causes above their principles - especially free speech.
Click to expand...

I've heard quite a bit about them. Seen a lot of donation solicitations from them on social media.

But you're right about them lurching to the extreme left and championing all these silly alphabet causes.

I've posted in the comments section about what I think of that and why they'll not get anything from me.
 
Nomad said:
I've heard quite a bit about them. Seen a lot of donation solicitations from them on social media.

But you're right about them lurching to the extreme left and championing all these silly alphabet causes.

I've posted in the comments section about what I think of that and why they'll not get anything from me.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Back in the day they used to be a pretty high profile group. And even though they were left-leaning, free speech was always the bedrock principle they fought for and I knew some right leaning folks who gave them money.

But clearly they have changed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TOP
cawacko said:
Interesting. Back in the day they used to be a pretty high profile group. And even though they were left-leaning, free speech was always the bedrock principle they fought for and I knew some right leaning folks who gave them money.

But clearly they have changed.
Click to expand...

They went woke.

Possibly a knee jerk response to the ascendance of the likes of trump and desantis.

Almost can't blame them.
 
Nomad said:
They went woke.

Possibly a knee jerk response to the ascendance of the likes of trump and desantis.

Almost can't blame them.
Click to expand...
It seems a number of high profile groups pulled back on their principles in the name of defeating Trump and look what that's done.

It's unfortunate to me. There's value in groups like the ACLU being known defenders of free speech, even of the worst kind. Sucks to see them throw it away.
 
cawacko said:
It seems a number of high profile groups pulled back on their principles in the name of defeating Trump and look what that's done.

It's unfortunate to me. There's value in groups like the ACLU being known defenders of free speech, even of the worst kind. Sucks to see them throw it away.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, much of what came out of trump and his cronies were blatant lies and misinformation, wrongly labeled as "free speech".

I don't think the promotion of false election fraud conspiracies, especially by a former president and his political allies, should fall under the aegis of the First Amendment.

Same with fomenting insurrection or other anti-government activities.

And that is mostly what trump has engaged in.
 
Nomad said:
Unfortunately, much of what came out of trump and his cronies were blatant lies and misinformation, wrongly labeled as "free speech".

I don't think the promotion of false election fraud conspiracies, especially by a former president and his political allies, should fall under the aegis of the First Amendment.

Same with fomenting insurrection or other anti-government activities.

And that is mostly what trump has engaged in.
Click to expand...
The ACLU defended Nazi's and KKK members in the past. Most people aren't going to find too many positive contributions made by those groups yet the ACLU stood on principle regarding free speech and those folks right to it.

But once you start down the 'well some free speech is ok path but some isn't' then all bets are off because lots of people are going to have varying degrees of what is ok.

Thus the principle of free speech, and defending it, is bigger than any one individual or group. Unfortunately the ACLU has chosen to abandon their roots.
 
cawacko said:
The ACLU defended Nazi's and KKK members in the past. Most people aren't going to find too many positive contributions made by those groups yet the ACLU stood on principle regarding free speech and those folks right to it.

But once you start down the 'well some free speech is ok path but some isn't' then all bets are off because lots of people are going to have varying degrees of what is ok.

Thus the principle of free speech, and defending it, is bigger than any one individual or group. Unfortunately the ACLU has chosen to abandon their roots.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a fine line between free speech and propaganda, but there's also a fine line between a lot of good vs bad things.

As one former SCOTUS justice famously put it regarding the subject of freedom of expression when considering nudity and sex in fine art vs obscenity, saying in effect, he wouldn't try to define obscenity, but "I know it when I see it".

Screenshot-20241112-120559-2.jpg


Also, just because some speech is uttered in the arena of politics, does not automatically make it protected as is explained in the second paragraph above.

 
Cypress said:
I don't screech and I don't panic.

The biggest crybaby sore losers I have ever seen in my life were MAGA morons after Biden won in 2020.
Click to expand...

They shit their diapers for four years after their mass temper tantrum on J6, and now have the gall to point the finger at us.

So typical of their subhuman ilk.

Dirt trash redneck trumpers.
 
Nomad said:
Yes, there is a fine line between free speech and propaganda, but there's also a fine line between a lot of good vs bad things.

As one former SCOTUS justice famously put it regarding the subject of freedom of expression when considering nudity and sex in fine art vs obscenity, saying in effect, he wouldn't try to define obscenity, but "I know it when I see it".

Screenshot-20241112-120559-2.jpg


Also, just because some speech is uttered in the arena of politics, does not automatically make it protected as is explained in the second paragraph above.

Click to expand...
Now you're starting to echo what Tim Walz, John Kerry, leaders at Universities and others have said in justifying the limiting of speech.

Speaking for myself there is speech I hear that I do not like and do not agree with. But it goes back to the core principle of the right to say it. Focusing on individuals (especially ones we don't like) takes away from that.
 
Nomad said:
They shit their diapers for four years after their mass temper tantrum on J6, and now have the gall to point the finger at us.

So typical of their subhuman ilk.

Dirt trash redneck trumpers.
Click to expand...
Hillary and Kamala graciously conceded defeat.

Trump and his MAGA moron cult spent four years crying like little girls that they were robbed of their glorious victory.
 
cawacko said:
Now you're starting to echo what Tim Walz, John Kerry, leaders at Universities and others have said in justifying the limiting of speech.

Speaking for myself there is speech I hear that I do not like and do not agree with. But it goes back to the core principle of the right to say it. Focusing on individuals (especially ones we don't like) takes away from that.
Click to expand...

I, OTOH, agree that certain speech should be limited based on its apparent intent.

The old "crying FIRE!!! in a crowded movie theater" example comes to mind.

Leading the public astray by constantly uttering proven lies.

Best to judge it on a case by case basis.

I think much/most of what trump and his mouthpieces engaged in did not fall under the protection of the first amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top