The ACLU is not what it once was. I will not donate to them. Even the EFF is growing questionable. I would definitely be curious what recommendations people have.
For supporting "this" very specifically, ACLU (in the form of their 501(c)(3) foundation) is directly involved as legal counsel to Signal, so donating to EFF would be less relevant to "this" than donating to either Signal (also a non-profit) or to the ACLU Foundation. But, sure, the EFF is also a good organization.
If your concern is specifically the ACLU's disagreement with recent Supreme Courts on the intended scope of Second Amendment rights, the EFF isn't going to address that either since it's out of scope for their mission. But that's in no way relevant to what Signal had to deal with here, an area in which I think ACLU and EFF are pretty well aligned.
Since several people are asking why the ACLU isn't what it once was, let me answer that.
In 1978, the ACLU successfully defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in the predominantly Jewish town of Skokie, Illinois. This action reflected their commitment to free speech, regardless of how offensive the speech might be. The movie "Skokie" and documentary "Mighty Ira" are based on this event-- I highly recommend them because this is an important piece of U.S. history.
In contrast, the modern ACLU has backed away from this stance. A leaked ACLU memo[1] says that before they take a free speech case, they will consider the "context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur."
I understand citizens need the right to voice their opinion without fear of government repression; but citizens shouldn't believe they have the right to insult and behave antisocially to other citizens.
Any kind of white supremacist behavior is not something to be treasured as freedom, because that enables their harmful behavior against other citizens.
The EFF takes weird policy positions. They're against speed cameras, but in favor of the status quo (police with guns manually pulling people over for speeding in cities).
That isn't a weird policy position. The speed cameras do ALPR and can store all the results, so they build a location history of all the vehicles that weren't even breaking the law. That's bad.
It's also bad that cops pull people over arbitrarily, but that's not the part in the EFF's bailiwick, and there are other solutions than putting ALPR cameras everywhere.
It’s even worse. The police don’t pull people over for speeding anymore (that’s good, at least from the “guys with guns” perspective). But the bad part is drivers are now emboldened to drive recklessly. These people now kill and injure more than the police — looking at the latest numbers police violence is down while traffic violence is up. IMO speed and red light cameras would do a lot to reduce the use of police while still seeing traffic safety enforced.
Sorry what's weird about this? I assume they're against the creation of automated government databases of cars, licenses and persons (say with ML) and not tech per se
From my understanding the ACLU used to stand for the civil rights of everybody and even defended KKK members. But now they have taken sides on various social justice movements and targeted groups that oppose these sides. Instead of fighting for civil rights like they used to, they pick and choose which rights they think are okay to violate if it's for the "right cause". It goes completely against their old motto.
For the ACLU, they have lost the institutional interest in fighting for free speech. Fighting for the rights of digital Nazis to march, so to speak, is not something the ACLU defends today.
fragmede|4 years ago
https://signal.org/en/donate/
otterley|4 years ago
nzrf|4 years ago
jkaplowitz|4 years ago
If your concern is specifically the ACLU's disagreement with recent Supreme Courts on the intended scope of Second Amendment rights, the EFF isn't going to address that either since it's out of scope for their mission. But that's in no way relevant to what Signal had to deal with here, an area in which I think ACLU and EFF are pretty well aligned.
Bud|4 years ago
Meekro|4 years ago
In 1978, the ACLU successfully defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in the predominantly Jewish town of Skokie, Illinois. This action reflected their commitment to free speech, regardless of how offensive the speech might be. The movie "Skokie" and documentary "Mighty Ira" are based on this event-- I highly recommend them because this is an important piece of U.S. history.
In contrast, the modern ACLU has backed away from this stance. A leaked ACLU memo[1] says that before they take a free speech case, they will consider the "context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur."
[1] https://reason.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech/
ASalazarMX|4 years ago
I understand citizens need the right to voice their opinion without fear of government repression; but citizens shouldn't believe they have the right to insult and behave antisocially to other citizens.
Any kind of white supremacist behavior is not something to be treasured as freedom, because that enables their harmful behavior against other citizens.
farmerstan|4 years ago
[deleted]
systemvoltage|4 years ago
There are many in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Civil_rights_organiza...
I usually never express it but this kind of stuff makes me proud of being an American. We need to double down on CR non-partisanly and non-negotiably.
diebeforei485|4 years ago
AnthonyMouse|4 years ago
It's also bad that cops pull people over arbitrarily, but that's not the part in the EFF's bailiwick, and there are other solutions than putting ALPR cameras everywhere.
jdavis703|4 years ago
tomcooks|4 years ago
chrononaut|4 years ago
Fogest|4 years ago
jes|4 years ago
[1] http://www.bayareaintactivists.org/sites/default/files/aclu_...
[2] https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-urges-court-invalidate-sf-c...
willhinsa|4 years ago
Here's a recent NYT article discussing this change in the organization: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
hyyypr|4 years ago