*Greenwald doesn't mention the ACLU piling on Meghan Murphy, and other feminists, **for * *planning a panel discussion, at the Seattle Public Library, of transgedner ideology—an* *event that came under intense fire, along with the library, by trans activists and their woke* *allies who wanted it shut down. Disgracefully, the ACLU came out against the feminists, on* *the grounds that their discussion would be "hate speech."*
*(FWIW, such attacks on free speech make me feel "unsafe"; yet I would never argue that* *those taking part in them should be prohibited from doing so.)* *MCM* The Ongoing Death of Free Speech: Prominent ACLU Lawyer Cheers Suppression of a New BookFree speech has always been more than a Constitutional guarantee: it's also a crucial societal value. And it's more imperiled than ever. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-ongoing-death-of-free-speech <https://greenwald.substack.com/people/18792891-glenn-greenwald> Glenn Greenwald <https://greenwald.substack.com/people/18792891-glenn-greenwald> Nov 15 374 360 <https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-ongoing-death-of-free-speech/comments> *In May of 2019, *a source in Brazil provided me with a massive archive of secret documents downloaded from the telephones of powerful Brazilian officials that consumed the next year of my life while reporting it (a new <https://www.wired.com/story/brazil-hacker-bolsonaro-car-wash-leaks/>*Wired <https://www.wired.com/story/brazil-hacker-bolsonaro-car-wash-leaks/>* article published on Friday <https://www.wired.com/story/brazil-hacker-bolsonaro-car-wash-leaks/> tells part of that story). One of the effects of the ensuing intense controversies <https://apnews.com/0e998ebedbd64f6d868a3fa570ed1f6c> was that I was unable to finish an article I had been working on for months at the time: a lengthy, deeply reported examination of the internal war engulfing the ACLU, fueled by a raging conflict between its more traditional lawyers who still believe in the primacy of free speech and the need to defend it and the newer political liberal activists and lawyers who do not. Among the people I interviewed was the organization’s long-time Executive Director, Anthony Romero, who was forced to navigate the post-Charlottesville controversy with a series of increasingly confusing statements <https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazis-charlottesville> designed to appease not only public and donor anger over the defense by ACLU lawyers of the right of white supremacists to march (after one killed a protester with his car) but also* internal rage* that ACLU lawyers took that free speech case. Romero insisted to me that the ACLU had not retreated from its historic commitment to free speech nor its resolve to avoid partisan politics despite a series of post-Charottesville memos <https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-expression-1529533065> and a highly-funded election campaign <https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-aclu-is-getting-involved-in-elections-and-reinventing-itself-for-the-trump-era> that certainly gave the opposite appearance. *Subscribe* Numerous ACLU staffers told me that one of the most vocal and effective advocates for a more “nuanced” free speech approach was Chase Strangio <https://www.aclu.org/news/by/chase-strangio/>, the ACLU’s Deputy Director for Transgender Justice of its LGBT & HIV Project, who I also interviewed. I knew Strangio as an excellent lawyer who earned my admiration from his years of dedication representing WikiLeaks whistleblower Chelsea Manning, and I joined him once <https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld-cMzvuURc> at the ACLU headquarters for a videotaped discussion of that case. A measure of Strangio’s massive influence is his inclusion in this year’s TIME 100 list <https://time.com/collection/100-most-influential-people-2020/5888158/chase-strangio/>, with a tribute from actress Laverne Cox. <https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5c136903-d12e-43a6-90fa-78c5edd34c61_3434x2348.jpeg>LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - SEPTEMBER 22: Laverne Cox (L) and Chase Strangio attend the 71st Emmy Awards at Microsoft Theater on September 22, 2019 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by John Shearer/Getty Images) My interview with Strangio was too long ago for me to comfortably summarize it, but suffice to say there was no question that his views on free speech are sharply divergent from those that caused me to regard ACLU lawyers and their free speech absolutism as among my childhood heroes. If you want to hear reasons why the ACLU should be more reluctant to represent the free speech rights of “dangerous” extremists and why free speech should give way to other, more important values — views I vehemently reject — Strangio is about the most thoughtful advocate I’ve heard in defense of that position. On Friday, Strangio’s very un-ACLU-like views of free speech were on full display. On Friday morning, Abigail Shrier — author of a new book exploring the rapid, massive increase <https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2017/body-contouring-gender-confirmation-2017.pdf> in teenage girls self-identifying as trans boys <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culture-mind-and-brain/201811/why-is-transgender-identity-the-rise-among-teens> and undergoing permanent gender reassignment therapies and surgeries in their teens — published an article <https://quillette.com/2020/11/07/gender-activists-are-trying-to-cancel-my-book-why-is-silicon-valley-helping-them/> in *Quillette *describing the extraordinary efforts by major corporations and various activists to prevent her book from being purchased: The efforts to block my reporting have been legion, starting with staff threats at a publishing house, which quickly reversed its original intention to publish my book. Once I obtained a stalwart publisher, Regnery, Amazon refused to allow that company’s sales team to sponsor ads on its site. (Amazon allows sponsored ads for books that uncritically celebrate medical transition for teenagers)…. Because the book tackles an interesting phenomenon, a number of established journalists wanted to review it….[T]he issue has created surprising bedfellows. Religious conservatives are concerned about the trend—but so are lesbians, who look upon the shocking numbers of teen girls transitioning with abject alarm. Many suspect that all this transitioning of girls is effectively euthanizing a generation of young lesbians….In any case, every major newspaper and legacy magazine summarily turned interested journalists down. The recent protest by Spotify employees over Joe Rogan’s podcast was triggered in large part by his decision to invite Shrier onto his program. Many liberal employees inside the streaming service demanded this episode be removed <https://www.vice.com/en/article/xg8jq4/spotify-joe-rogan-transphobic>. “Many LGBTQAI+/ally Spotifiers feel unwelcome and alienated because of leadership's response in [Rogan’s] conversations,” was one of the questions <https://www.inputmag.com/culture/spotify-ceos-support-for-joe-rogans-anti-trans-content-angers-staff> posed to Spotify’s CEO at a tense staff-wide meeting, along with a demand to know why that program had not been deleted from the platform. Note that what is being discussed here are not efforts to criticize or protest Shrier and her book. Nobody disputes such criticisms would be appropriate. It is much more extreme than that: an effort to prevent others from hearing her views in her book — *i.e.*, censorship: not state censorship, but corporate censorship. After various commentators noted Shrier’s article, the ACLU’s Strangio stepped forward to say that he not only agreed that the book was inaccurate and harmful — which he obviously has every right to believe — but that he *supported and championed the efforts to stop its circulation*: <https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff454fa1b-bab8-445a-89ce-0d9897af4fc9_1372x676.jpeg> <https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdda7fd58-adcd-48cf-9990-889d566bef29_2035x707.jpeg> It is nothing short of horrifying, but sadly also completely unsurprising, to see *an ACLU lawyer *proclaim his devotion to “stopping the circulation of [a] book” because he regards its ideas as wrong and dangerous. There are, always have been, and always will be people who want to stop books from being circulated: by banning them, burning them, pressuring publishing houses to rescind publishing contracts or demanding corporations refuse to sell them. But why would someone with such censorious attitudes, with a goal of suppressing ideas with which they disagree, choose to go to work for the ACLU of all places? Share <https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-ongoing-death-of-free-speech?&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&action=share> Sometime on Friday, Strangio deleted that second tweet without comment, and then noted he was locking his account. In response to a series of questions I sent Strangio about his position, he told me that he had read the book over the summertime and found it repellent. He said he deleted the tweet because “ there were relentless calls to have me fired, which I found exhausting as I was navigating work and childcare” and “it was supposed to be a cheeky response to Bari [Weiss] <https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1327101009164812289> not something to be taken on its own terms without that context.” He told me, however, that the book is dangerous: The book and the arguments contained within it are fueling a wave of bills in state legislatures to criminalize health care for trans youth including through felony bans on the provision of care and forced outing of trans youth by school officials (an actual serious First Amendment concern). Strangio emphasized that “I am not speaking for the ACLU nor do I have the ACLU in my Twitter bio” and, despite this tweet, insists that he “never advocated with an entity to ban a book.” (My full exchange with Strangio, including his full comments, is here <https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1328019232190304257>). It is important to note that Strangio’s views are mostly definitely not shared by everyone at the ACLU. Many of the group’s more traditional free speech advocates still prioritize its civil liberties principles over liberal politics and liberal political causes. As I noted when I defended the organization in 2017 <https://theintercept.com/2017/08/13/the-misguided-attacks-on-aclu-for-defending-neo-nazis-free-speech-rights-in-charlottesville/> for its free speech representation in Charlottesville, the ACLU has defended Milo Yiannopolous <https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/first-amendment-literally-banned-dc?redirect=blog/speak-freely/first-amendment-literally-banned-dc> against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s refusal to allow ads for his book, and this year publicly defended the National Rifle Association <https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-nra-has-a-right-to-exist-11598457143> against the efforts by New York State General Letitia James to disband it. But for numerous reasons, the ACLU — still with some noble and steadfast dissenters — is fast transforming into a standard liberal activist group at the expense of the free speech and due process principles it once existed to defend. Those reasons include changing cultural mores, an abandonment by millennials and Gen Z activists of the long-standing leftist belief in free speech <https://abc7news.com/uc-berkeley-mario-savio-free-speech-movement-50th-anniversary/326400/?ex_cid=kgospddsa> and replaced by demands that views they dislike be silenced (which in turn causes Gen X and Boomer managers and editors fearful of losing their jobs or being vilified to succumb to this authoritarianism); and a massive influx of #Resistance cash <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/01/30/the-aclu-says-it-got-24-million-in-donations-this-weekend-six-times-its-yearly-average/> donated to the ACLU not in the name of civil liberties but stopping Trump and the Republicans, much of which was used for political rather than legal staff-building. *Click on the link for the rest.* --- Support News from Underground: https://bit.ly/NFUSupport Visit News from Underground: https://markcrispinmiller.com You received this email because you are subscribed to News from Underground. To unsubscribe from this email list, please go to: http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=pIdjNUgiG2h8yxbhC54SSy4SEskAoEMs For archives, please go to: https://archives.simplelists.com/nfu
