Has The ACLU Jumped The Shark?

I know, I know...probably 15 years ago, but work with me!!! I'm blogging here!!

From Winds Of Change:

A very important article by Declan McCullagh at Politech about the direction the ACLU is taking:

Does the ACLU still believe in free speech? Maybe not any more
Wendy Kaminer, who co-authors thefreeforall.net with longtime Politech subscriber Harvey Silverglate, has a provocative and well-argued op-ed in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal. Wendy asks whether the ACLU still broadly supports free speech, and answers the question in the negative.

Wendy points out that the ACLU has been silent on a key free speech case involving anti-homosexual statements that set an important (and awful) precedent before the 9th Circuit and was AWOL on the Muhammad "hate speech" cartoons. The ACLU has supported legislative restrictions on speech of pro-life groups offering abortion counseling. The New York Civil Liberties Union failed to criticize a New York City Council resolution condemning use of the "n-word." And so on.

He raises some extremely serious issues.

This is not exactly a new phenomenon. Liberals and progressives have long been split between their totalitarian-minded leftist wing that loves to enforce political correctness through "hate speech" laws and campus speech codes -- and those who recognize the social and political dangers inherent in banning speech that someone dislikes, and believe the answer to objectionable speech is more speech.

I've talked about this in the context of speech as discourse vs. speech as a manifestation of power, and cite Stephen Hicks:

What we have then are two positions about the nature of speech. The postmodernists say: Speech is a weapon in the conflict between groups that are unequal. And that is diametrically opposed to the liberal view of speech, which says: Speech is a tool of cognition and communication for individuals who are free.

If we adopt the first statement, then the solution is going to be some form of enforced altruism, under which we redistribute speech in order to protect the harmed, weaker groups. If the stronger, white males have speech tools they can use to the detriment of the other groups, then don't let them use those speech tools.

I hate to say it, but it does seem that this is exactly what is going on. The belief that, for example, Republican or conservative students are being targeted because the faculty or administration is unsympathetic to their views is simply not strong enough to capture the reality. It is much too systematic in its approach to be the result of mere callousness. The intent in many cases is to dismantle the speech protections of the 1st amendment.

This is the only way to explain the rather silly statements made by critics of F.I.R.E. (an organization actually defending the rights the ACLU used to protect.) To them speech is not a right we have as members of this polity, but a privilege we are allowed to exercise as long as we kow-tow to a pre-ordained set of "appropriate" beliefs. In fact, the procedures of a free society interest such people not at all. What they want is the content of their ideological vision (whatever that may be), at any cost, via any means necessary. So, while they will complain if their own speech rights are violated, they will actively engage in denying those very same rights without so much as a twinge of conscience. They are ideological sociopaths, which really isn't all that unusual for folks who hold ideological ways of thinking. They view the "rules of the game" as being a tool to use when it benefits them, but as an obstacle to be overcome when the "opposition" is involved.

The impulse such thinking reveals is undemocratic, illiberal and most certainly tyrannical in inspiration. It is a sad day when an organization dedicated to American Civil Liberties has no negative opinion to offer on such a world view.