Slashdot Mirror
Many Job Ads on Facebook Illegally Exclude Women, ACLU Says (nbcnews.com)
Facebook's advertising platform is being used by prospective employers to discriminate against women, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday. From a report: The American Civil Liberties Union, joined by a labor union and a law firm that specializes in representing employees, has filed a written charge against Facebook with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that enforces anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. The charge asks for an investigation of the social media company and an injunction against what it calls discriminatory practices at a company with a sizable influence over the U.S. labor market. It also claims Facebook's system violates anti-discrimination provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The social network has faced sustained criticism for years that it fails to stop discriminatory ads of various kinds, from housing ads that exclude certain races to job ads targeted only at younger workers. In August, Facebook said it would remove 5,000 targeted advertising options from its platform in an effort to prevent discrimination.
This seems pretty nonsensical to me. The entire point of advertising is to reach those groups most likely to respond to your product. Life without discrimination isn't even really life.. you can't even acknowledge a difference between right and wrong, good or evil. It's like we're trying to unmake ourselves.
If the magazine boasted that it had technological measures in place that ensured only men read *could* or *did* it, then you'd absolutely have a legal basis for discrimination.
"Old man yells at systemd"
It's been a long time, maybe forever, since Craigslist accepted^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H permitted ads for firearms and most any accessory.
Craigslist has ended personals in the US, all done. Globally not so much yet, but it's inevitable.
A variety of Craigslist categories have been limited or removed. Their current US list of prohibitions:
weapons; firearms/guns and components; BB/pellet, stun, and spear guns; etc
ammunition, clips, cartridges, reloading materials, gunpowder, fireworks, explosives
offers, solicitation, or facilitation of illegal prostitution and/or sex trafficking
exploitation or endangerment of minors; child pornography
recalled items; hazardous materials; body parts/fluids; unsanitized bedding/clothing
prescription drugs, medical devices; controlled substances and related items
alcohol or tobacco; unpackaged or adulterated food or cosmetics
pet sales (re-homing with small adoption fee ok), animal parts, stud service
endangered, imperiled and/or protected species and any parts thereof, e.g. ivory
false, misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent content; bait and switch; keyword spam
offensive, obscene, defamatory, threatening, or malicious postings or email
anyone’s personal, identifying, confidential or proprietary information
food stamps, WIC vouchers, SNAP or WIC goods, governmental assistance
stolen property, property with serial number removed/altered, burglary tools, etc
ID cards, licenses, police insignia, government documents, birth certificates, etc
US military items not demilitarized in accord with Defense Department policy
counterfeit, replica, or pirated items; tickets or gift cards that restrict transfer
lottery or raffle tickets, sweepstakes entries, slot machines, gambling items
spam; miscategorized, overposted, cross-posted, or nonlocal content
postings or email the primary purpose of which is to drive traffic to a website
postings or email offering, promoting, or linking to unsolicited products or services
affiliate marketing; network, or multi-level marketing; pyramid schemes
any good, service, or content that violates the law or legal rights of others
Note that last one.
While Craigslist doesn't explicitly forbid housing discrimination, it does forbid illegality, and the flaggers usually kill those off. Employment ads have similar restrictions, but flaggers seems a little less vigorous there.
Still, FB should consider giving up on what they cannot actually do *legally*.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
If the magazine boasted that it had technological measures in place that ensured only men read *could* or *did* it, then you'd absolutely have a legal basis for discrimination.
Theoretically you could create an account and register as a male as a female. I'm not on facebook, but I know three of my family members are and they all use false names. (not false genders though).
Either way though- facebook ad to men only or advertising to a male magazine shows a preference to only advertise towards men. If the job is still open to women, I'm not convinced that is illegal, although I'm open to being convinced that it is if anyone has any examples where a court has decided that it is. As I said, it certainly seems wrong; I'm just not convinced yet that it is technically illegal. I will be interested to see how this court interprets this.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
you're equating discriminating between chocolate and vanilla ice cream lovers to gender discrimination. The world is just a tad more nuanced than that.
If I can risk strawmaning myself for a bit here, I think the problem is we've been too far removed from the worst of discrimination for too long. We forget too easily that women didn't used to vote, could be beaten and even raped with impunity, couldn't own property or were themselves property. What's crazy is there's large swaths of the world where all this is still true and we turn a blind eye to it. There's also a sizable minority of regressives who want to turn back the clock. Some (Jordon Peterson comes to mind) have pretty large followings and speak in pretty reasonable terms...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I believe that is pinterest.
Time to offend someone
I guarantee they wouldnâ(TM)t do that today. They would face too much criticism from their donors.
0. They can indeed choose what issues or even individual cases they want to intervene in.
1. The ACLU has no Constitutional duty.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
"How is it right for an unelected minority.....?"
And thereby defining landlords.
Disclaimer - I AM a landlord.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
In current climate, not hiring women in male dominated environment is not just right. It's mandatory. By hiring women, you open yourself to massive liability from potential "she had a meeting with a colleague with doors closed = #metoo" which can end a company's reputation, and with it, the company itself.
Unfortunate, but that's just the way it is today. Much of progress that was made in workplace gender equality was all but wiped out in last couple of years. We're back in the 90s or so.
Problem being that this discrimination exists on both ends. Rent to blacks, white flight starts. Don't rent to blacks, that's discrimination on the face of it.
We still haven't figured out the solution, but the fact that white flight in some form exists worldwide shows that problem is culturally agnostic and very hard to solve.
Would it be illegal to advertise a job in a men's magazine? Probably not, even though you're more likely to only get men reading it.
I don't know whether this is really illegal, but it certainly "feels wrong".
That's the interesting thing about technology; it makes you be overt (at least to yourself, it may or may not be visible to others) about what you are doing.
How is it right for an unelected minority to decide who everybody else must live with?
These laws were not put in place by an unelected minority. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 was a bill that passed Congress and was signed into law by the then-President of the United States Lyndon B. Johnson. The Civil Rights Act made it illegal within the United States to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. According to Wikipedia, it It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations. Additional laws including (but not limited to) the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 followed... check out https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/index.cfm to see all of the laws enforced by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Duly elected representatives of the people of the United States have determined that these kinds of discrimination will not be tolerated.
Guys never accuse their boss of looking at them wrong for profit and career advancement.
I used to think the ACLU was a good organization.
Then I found myself the target of a prosecutor who misused the law for his own personal gain.
I called the ACLU and they refused to even consider looking into the case.
The ACLU is a bunch of posers. I would not trust them nor would I contribute to them in a monetary sense, if they were the last humans on earth.
FUCK the ACLU.
The argument particularly makes sense if as the advertiser you're paying per impression instead of per click. That said this also leads to a self-perpetuating imbalance, if few women perform the job so employers don't target them, which circles back to women not performing the job. Obviously this could happen to men also, when was the last time you heard of a male dental assistant?
Both of these arguments are utterly irrelevant to this discussion. It's obvious that they as a pressure group get to choose what they want to do. It's also obvious that they have a long standing history of protecting rights of everyone, down to actual nazis.
Not the modern "those that are left of Marx are nazis". Actual "gas the Jews" nazis.
And they obviously have no "constitutional duty", as they are not a government agency. Constitution is the legislation that binds government, not private entities.
The initial comment "ACLU discriminates a-plenty," highlighted the reality, that not all 'discrimination' is illegal or even improper.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
So...companies should not hire women because men might try too hard to nail them?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Since you make the specific accusations that Jordan Peterson is a "regressive" who wants to "turn back the clock", what evidence do you have to back up your assertion?
I don't know facebook's intentions, but I would bet dollars to donuts that the "target audience" option was there *specifically* to allow advertisers to target women, not exclude them. Can I imagine an all-female employer, a female-centric organization, not wanting to spend their dollars on marketing towards men? Maybe they'll make the gender-targeting option only available to self-described women. Yeah, that's fair.
It's conceivable that employers would use different recruiting techniques depending on their target demographic.
We post ads for women above urinals. Is that OK?
Have gnu, will travel.
From TFA " The employers include companies involved in moving services, roofing, auto repair, window replacement, retail and home security installation. If not for Facebook’s precise ad targeting, the charge against Facebook says, women “would have clicked on those employment ads in order to learn more about those opportunities and pursue them."
Is that really the case, or is a hypothetical to show intent? Because if it is true, those are usually jobs squarely in the argument of "you don't hear about women arguing to get THESE jobs", and would be pretty interesting to hear direct evidence to the contrary.
The ACLU still defends the rights of Nazis and white supremacists. And they're donations have been way up.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Liberals happily "eat their own" because they have these things called morals and principles, rather than just simple party tribalism.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
As an example those that rent out a room in their homes are not bound by the anti discrimination laws. I choose to live with women and not males or a person of my own race or religion that does not violate any laws at all. Now just what can Facebook do? A room for rent posting can be for my own home or a home that I don't even live in. So now will I be discriminated against and not allowed to choose who is in my home?
They just got nailed for letting landlords to target ad's based on racial groups. Seems they do not practice what they preach when it comes to the bottom dollar. Ok for them, but not for others. It's wrong who ever does it in my mind. https://www.reuters.com/articl...
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
One of my best friends Brian Deneke died when some football jock ran him over after his buddy lost a fist fight. Brian was not a violent person, but he got picked on a lot by the locals because we had green hair and punk rock tee-shirts. I asked the ACLU to look into two different cases back then. One was when the cops kept raiding the local venues and mass-tear-gassing everyone. In one incident, a pregnant girl and a woman with asthma were severely injured by cops spraying them in the face with fire-extinguisher sized tear-gas guns (they sprayed down over 200 people at once causing a panic). The ALCU didn't care. None of the local ACLU attorneys would represent us. Then, later on when Brian was killed, I asked them to represent his family in a civil suit against the football-player who's "punk bashing" went too far. He was quoted as saying "I'm a ninja in my caddy." to a girl in the car after he ran over and killed Brian. If it was any more of a class/hate story it'd be called "The Outsiders". Did the ACLU care? Nope. It took the perp (Dustin Camp) fucking up for years on probation before he finally saw any real jail time. So fuck the ACLU. They had their chance to help in my life and they refused because it wasn't SJW enough for them and because the people involved were *white*.
Well, if the advertising platform is capable enough then I would guess that the response rate of the targeted audience would be about the same if one targeted the people with the interests "C++," "Linux" and "Kubernetes," as it would be by throwing in the extra tags "male" and "Asian" there.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/r...
And they get caught again
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
They did say something like they'd consider the potential for violence at a rally before suing for the group to get a permit. Makes sense with inciting violence as an exception to free speech (that exception being defined awfully narrowly, but their 1st amendment freedom includes not taking such cases anyway)
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
... and when these increasingly complex 'ideas' clash with each other, it comes down to which one of these is more important to the person making the accusation
love is just extroverted narcissism
Facebook never claimed nor boasted that their metrics or information on people is perfect. Your typical magazine has metrics of it's own and will outright tell you "use our magazine if you want to get your product in front of teenage girls" or whetever their magazines demographic is. So yeah in a way magazines still effectively tell advertisers that "X demographic is very likely to see it in this, and Y demographic is less likely".
Ads are targeted based on interest, what a user searches, clicks, etc. So when more males tend to view tech, code, game, and other based articles and groups and then those males receive targeted ads for jobs in the fields they show interest in, or invites to beta test a game they showed interest in, or discount on tickets to some gaming convention or concert for a band they show interest in, then that isn't discriminatory.
So the spammers went from general spam ads but corporations fussed and wanted targeted ads. Brilliant, now everyone gets targeted ads... now back to fussing...
History repeats itself...
Targeted Ads are the new "profiling"
all arms of law enforcement from Federal, State, Local hired profilers, they taught their deputies and agents basic profiling techniques for decades. Now profiling gets attacked by left as "racist" when in fact it isn't. Now the same types are after targeted ads as "racist" or "discriminatory".
While rest of us can sit back and laugh as anyone with a couple brain cells to rub together will have ad blocking of some form going anyway.
I can't believe some people are really going to defend something like a job posting site offering the ability to employers to say "I only want men to know about this job."
If that is what they are doing then there is absolutely no argument at all. However, I suspect that they are doing something more nuanced and, rather than just selecting "men-only" they are selecting to display the ads to people with certain interests and then selecting interests that are biased towards men.
This makes the situation a lot less clear. If the interest group targetted has an interest related to the job being advertized then this is reasonable discrimination regardless of the gender balance of the group. However, if employers are selecting groups only because of their gender balance then this is clearly wrong since it is outright gender discrimination.
This makes the problem a complex one: whether a particular targeting approach is legal depends heavily on the context. However, in today's world of black-and-white politics you can forget any sort of reasoned, sensible response to this. One side will want to ban it outright and the other will want to allow everything.
That's an attempt to stretch the most generous interpretation of those words, on par with calling a rock a machine or an abacus a computer. Animals practice tribalism. Tribalism is basically savagery as a team sport.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
One ad seeking a roofer, from a company called Enhanced Roofing and Remodeling, was targeted to men 23 to 50 in Silver Spring, Maryland, according to information from Facebook accompanying the ad. Another, from JK Moving, seeking drivers, targeted men age 21 to 55 who live or were recently in Maryland.
In both cases, they very specifically targeted not just gender (men) but age (21-55, 23-50). Doesn't seem like much nuance around it.
Irrelevant went to mindless. Ok.
Well documented history vs AC whining. This is where you put some hard evidence on the table, or go back under your bridge.
That's not very hard to imagine, as that has partially happened already. One of the key reasons for rise of working class populism across the West is in the fact that globalisation made city bourgeoisie realise that they have more commonality with bourgeoisie from other cities than with working class in their own countries.
Hence the globalisation being executed the way it went.
It's interesting that Leninist ideas of internationalism went almost exactly as it was outlined in the Soviet dogma as time passed, with just one major exception. It wasn't the worker class that united internationally against the rest. It was the city bourgeoisie.
So much misunderstanding to unpack here:
First and foremost, the ACLU isn't a law enforcement body. Homicide is crime, so they have nothing to do with jail time. That's on the judge, the jury, and the rest of the penal system.
"Punk" isn't a protected class, so there is no civil rights issue. Punk includes all races, or at least it used to, so this can't be related to racism.
Raiding the venues might have First Amendment implications if the intent was to suppress punk music or culture. But if those venues had violations of the law taking place (noise, capacity, alcohol, drugs, permits, etc.), then good luck convincing a jury that the cops weren't just doing their jobs.
I'm not sure what you expected the ACLU to do.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Would it be illegal to advertise a job in a men's magazine? Probably not, even though you're more likely to only get men reading it.
Have you ever left a men's magazine in view with women in the house? You'll be lucky if they don't take it home with them.
Well, you are right Punks aren't a protected class. That's why Brian's killer got off on a manslaughter charge. It's apparently okay to kill poor or middle class white kids. The ACLU has filed civil lawsuits (including class-action cases) in situations where the criminal case wasn't a success. That's a fact, jack. So, don't act all stupid like there is nothing they could/should do. They didn't, despite the case having implications straight outta their creed. So much for "defending liberty". In fact, you are the one who sounds confused. The ALCU isn't the SPLC, they don't specifically go after racists. So, I'm not sure why you even brought that up since it's not even relevant. In the case where the cops were spraying mace on 200 people at once, I'm pretty sure video and audio evidence from both inside and outside of the areas where it took place would have helped at lot with any misunderstandings about alcohol (which wasn't served at those underage shows). I'm also pretty sure it's against folks' civil liberties to be maced when they are standing inside a building listening to a band. That action also endangered a shitton of people who could have caused a stampede. Hard to exercise your civil liberties when you are dead, eh? It's also hard to fight city hall (hello? ACLU?). My understanding is that ACLU wasn't setup for social justice, it was setup to combat attacks on liberty. So, the cops can turn into jackboots or the system thwarts your attempt at justice can just stick around like it is, hey at least we have the ALCU to look out for "protected groups" like LGBTQIAPK folks, though. Whew!
Liberals happily "eat their own" because they have these things called morals and principles, rather than just simple party tribalism.
The Oppression Olympics is all about tribalism, not morals.
True-ish. That's what they were set up to do, but they and you are defining "attacks on liberty" differently
If you convinced them that the cops were macing people because they were punks then the ACLU may have gotten involved. Because they care about the freedom to express yourself. But they aren't really involved in the "no police brutality" thing.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
The exact opposite. Men are horrified of women right now, because so much as an accusation from ubermensch ends untermensch's career. And many of the ubermesch have been systemically trained in education system to be hypersensitive to any attention from men they're not attracted to, meaning that just closing the door in one on one meeting in a room is grounds for a #metoo accusation and end of one's career.
Same does not apply in the other direction, hence the terror that women in workplace now inspire in any man. Especially any man that might be in an earned position that said woman might be wanting for herself. Such as any direct leadership position.
Hence, increase in discrimination against hiring women. At this point, it has little to do with bigotry, and everything to do with protecting oneself from legitimate and completely unfair threat.
Nazis discriminate FOR White Rich people. Who do you want discrimination to help?
Tolerance does not include freedom to make terrorist threats. Are you one of the Charlottesville armed flag waving terrorists?
See, this is how we recognize Nazis.
They scream "oppression" any time they cannot terrorize freely
The most valuable resource in fighting Nazis you mean?
Then explain why Al Franken, Harvey Weinstein and Louis C.K. weren't given a mulligan.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
How long did it take for Weinstein to face the music? That started the #MeToo movement, and after that a comedian like Louis C.K. stood no chance.
Al Franken is an illustrative example, because there was initially a lot of pushback to prop him up. But this was during the time of the Roy Moore election, so eventually he fell because it was more politically expedient to drop him.
But what about Keith Ellison? Oh ho, different story here. He's deemed too important right now.
What about Roman Polanski? Remember how Hollywood stood by him?
What about Joe Biden? As Vice President, this creepy perv got all touchy-feely with the wives, daughters, and granddaughters of Senators at a public swearing in ceremony, in front of cameras.
Is Bill Clinton still in good standing within Democrat circles?
Why did the New York Times hire a racist to their editorial board, and then double down after being called out?
How long did it take for Weinstein to face the music? That started the #MeToo movement, and after that a comedian like Louis C.K. stood no chance.
So you're arguing that because this super-rich and powerful man's well-oiled rape factory was able to operate for a long time undiscovered, that's evidence of tribalism, rather than evidence of the effectiveness of a powerful, efficient, and well-funded rape factory?
Al Franken is an illustrative example, because there was initially a lot of pushback to prop him up. But this was during the time of the Roy Moore election, so eventually he fell because it was more politically expedient to drop him.
In other words, he was pushed out in line with their morals and prinicples, but this behavior ultimately benefitted democrats so it doesn't count? No it still does. Maybe you should get your guys to try this morals and principles thing sometime if you'd like them to benefit. Or don't..who needs votes from decent people, right?
But what about Keith Ellison? Oh ho, different story here. He's deemed too important right now.
How is that an example of hypocrisy or tribalism? Trump has surrounded himself with domestic abusers, only one of which has been pushed out by incontrovertible evidence. If they were all being pushed out on allegations alone, then I could see that as a case of hypocritical behavior.
What about Roman Polanski? Remember how Hollywood stood by him?
So? He's a fugitive hiding from US law enforcement. Hollywood nutballs aren't politicians.
What about Joe Biden? As Vice President, this creepy perv got all touchy-feely with the wives, daughters, and granddaughters of Senators at a public swearing in ceremony, in front of cameras.
I haven't heard of this. Is this what you're talking about?
Is Bill Clinton still in good standing within Democrat circles?
How is this relevant? Should adulterers be treated the same as rapists and misogynists?
Why did the New York Times hire a racist to their editorial board, and then double down after being called out?
your_credibility--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
operate for a long time undiscovered
It wasn't undiscovered. It was an open secret.
In other words, he was pushed out in line with their morals and prinicples, but this behavior ultimately benefitted democrats so it doesn't count?
Why do you strawman instead of tackling the issue? You ignored the initial pushback. You ignored the context in which he was finally pushed out. It wasn't about morals, it was about what was politically expedient.
How is that an example of hypocrisy or tribalism? Trump [..]
What does Trump have to do with the behavior of the Democrats? Not only does Ellison have multiple accusations by women against him, he's also been associated with the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan and an apologist for cop killers.
So? He's a fugitive hiding from US law enforcement. Hollywood nutballs aren't politicians.
But they are liberals.
I haven't heard of this. Is this what you're talking about?
No, I'm talking about this.
How is this relevant? Should adulterers be treated the same as rapists and misogynists?
You know Good Ole' Bubba has been accused of rape, as well as being a serial sexual harasser of women, right?
your_credibility--
Oh really?
"Jeong is a great hire for the Times but her tweets appeared to be blatantly racist, whatever their intention."
Hey, look at those great standards! What morals! What adherence to principles:
"Oh man itâ(TM)s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men" --Sarah Jeong
"#CancelWhitePeople" --Sarah Jeong
"Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?" --Sarah Jeong
Whew, that's pretty spicy! I see why she was a great hire for the New York Times.
It wasn't undiscovered. It was an open secret [duckduckgo.com].
It's not an open secret if only his own company and some Hollywood insiders know about it. If it's not widely known, it's just a regular secret.
Why do you strawman instead of tackling the issue? You ignored the initial pushback. You ignored the context in which he was finally pushed out. It wasn't about morals, it was about what was politically expedient.
Consider their record, compared to the record of the Republicans on Roy Moore and Trump himself. This is the beginning of a trend where you've begun to move the goalposts from the core issue of a vast difference in moral/principled behavior and tribalism among the left and right in the US, to making the false equivalence argument that the left isn't perfect on these issues and is therefore just as terrible as the party where Donald Trump and Roy Moore operate freely.
But they are liberals.
Biased sample fallacy. Most liberals would not support Polanski.
No, I'm talking about this [twitter.com].
A ridiculous description of well-documented events?
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/...
You know Good Ole' Bubba has been accused of rape, as well as being a serial sexual harasser of women, right?
Fair point. So is he still in good standing? Hard to tell. He's no more involved in politics than any celebrity with political opinions these days. If the allegations from the '90s happened today and he was in office, it would likely be a different story.
As for Sarah Jeong, like it or not parodying racism isn't racist, and there is a difference between punching up and punching down in comedy. Pretending otherwise harms your credibility.
And, breaking news, soon we'll get to see how this turns out. I predict plenty of mulligans and conspiracy theories on the right:
https://www.wired.com/story/co...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The ACLU has filed civil lawsuits (including class-action cases) in situations where the criminal case wasn't a success. That's a fact, jack.
That's because it's important for them to step in when there is no prosecution or conviction. They make sure the bad things stop, or at least that there are consequences.
In your example, the killer was convicted of manslaughter, which is a felony. Based on the circumstances ("ninja in my Caddie" comment), he might have deserved a murder conviction, but there's nothing anyone can do about it now.
In addition, a criminal conviction reduces the need for a civil representation. The criminal conviction establishes the facts of the case and the fault of the perpetrator, so all that's left is a legal claim for damages. You still have to file suit, but you don't need a national organization for that. Your average local attorney should be able to handle it.
In the case where the cops were spraying mace on 200 people at once, I'm pretty sure video and audio evidence
If those recordings were so damning of the police actions, then you'd have a horde of non-ACLU attorneys taking the case on contingency. Most likely, their actions were reprehensible but not illegal.
My understanding is that ACLU wasn't setup for social justice, it was setup to combat attacks on liberty.
The ACLU has defended liberty throughout its history. They even represented the free speech rights of the NSPA (swastika-waving neo-Nazis) and the KKK. The ACLU won the TAK/KKK case in 2012, so we're dealing with recent history.
If you're trying to claim the ACLU is a bunch of SJWs, all I can do is laugh at your ignorance.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
It's not an open secret if only his own company and some Hollywood insiders know about it. If it's not widely known, it's just a regular secret.
It was an open secret among many within Hollywood, that bastion of liberals and the crowd that the Democrats love to have campaign for them. The story was also squelched by multiple liberal media outlets until the New York Times ran with it.
Consider their record, compared to the record of the Republicans on Roy Moore and Trump himself. This is the beginning of a trend where you've begun to move the goalposts
No, this is where you move the goalposts from the supposedly moral high ground that liberals maintain:
"Liberals happily "eat their own" because they have these things called morals and principles, rather than just simple party tribalism."
Such high ground being they only act when it is politically expedient to do so.
Biased sample fallacy. Most liberals would not support Polanski.
Hahahahaha. Hollywood is about as liberal as it gets. Now you're playing the No True Scotsman fallacy. Not only did Hollywood circle the wagons, they even gave him an Academy award: "After the announcement of the Best Director Award, Polanski received a standing ovation from most of those present in the theater."
And yet you claim these same liberals had such moral principles for eventually turning on Weinstein.
A ridiculous description of well-documented events?
Either you have eyes and use them or you look the other way. You choose to look the other way. Another disgusting example of liberal "morals and principles".
So is he still in good standing? Hard to tell.
Yes, he is. There was some grumbling right after #MeToo, but he's still invited to liberal events. In fact, he had prime seating at Aretha Franklin's funeral, right along with... Louis Farrakhan.
If the allegations from the '90s happened today and he was in office, it would likely be a different story.
Oh, is that why Ellison hasn't been disavowed? Did you think I would just let you slide by without noticing that you completely skipped over him? Thanks for demonstrating, yet again, that "morals and principles" are only for when they are politically expedient.
As for Sarah Jeong, like it or not parodying racism isn't racist, and there is a difference between punching up and punching down in comedy.
She wasn't parodying racism, she was just being racist, where it was openly acceptable among her circle, as the Forbes article you linked to demonstrated. But that's just another example of liberal "morals and principles" on display.
Pretending otherwise harms your credibility.
Thanks for the laugh. You've displayed what your "credibility" amounts to:
"But the alternative view -- that of today's political left -- is that Jeong definitionally cannot be racist, because she's both a woman and a racial minority. Racism against whites, in this neo-Marxist view, just "isn't a thing" -- just as misandry literally cannot exist at all. And this is because, in this paradigm, racism has nothing to do with a person's willingness to pre-judge people by the color of their skin, or to make broad, ugly generalizations about whole groups of people, based on hoary stereotypes. Rather, racism is entirely institutional and systemic, a function of power, and therefore it can only be expressed by the powerful -- i.e., primarily white, straight men. For a nonwhite female, like Sarah Jeong, it is simply impossible. In the religion of social constructionism, Jeong, by virtue of being an Asian woman, is one of the elect, incapable of the sin of racism or group prejudice. All she is doing is resisting whiteness and maleness, which indeed require resistance every second of the day."
You have fun asserting that some Hollywood insiders represent all liberals and nitpicking at the left's moral imperfections while Trump and Roy Moore run rampant, see how far that goes to convincing anyone outside the far-right filter bubble. Fact is that liberals "eat their own" in a way that is generally consistent with having morals and principles, while today's "conservatives" simply don't "eat their own" at all, ever, for any reason. Nitpick and cherry-pick your way out of that.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
nitpicking [..] see how far that goes to convincing anyone outside the far-right filter bubble
Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble knows shit like, "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?" is racist.
Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble can look at those Biden clips and have their skin crawl.
Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble can see that Louis Farrakhan is the black equivalent of David Duke.
The double standard has been laid bare for all to see.
while today's "conservatives" simply don't "eat their own" at all, ever, for any reason
Roy Moore was not elected. Never-Trump conservatives exist to this day. Milo was thrown under the bus.
Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble knows shit like, "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?" is racist.
I don't think all the people who can read it in-context as a parody of scientific racism are in the far-left filter bubble.
Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble can look at those Biden clips and have their skin crawl.
I think centrists could also handle an adult touching childrens' shoulders, giving children hugs, and joking about how girls will grow up to be beautiful. But the party of Roy Moore will indeed pantomime their skin crawling forever.
Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble can see that Louis Farrakhan [dailycaller.com] is the black equivalent of David Duke.
Sure, I have no disagreement here. Even most in the far-left can see this. Are you done with this red herring?
Roy Moore was not elected. Never-Trump conservatives exist to this day. Milo was thrown [thehill.com] under the bus.
Roy Moore very nearly won an election and had mainstream support.
A minority of never-Trumpers doesn't represent mainstream conservatism any more than Hollywood represents mainstream liberalism.
And go ahead and pat yourself on the back for finally dropping an open pedophilia apologist/supporter while Roy Moore continues to cruise the mall for underage girls and Trump continues to be the pussygrabber-in-chief with at least 5x as many sexual misconduct allegations against him as Bill Clinton, one of which was a very underage girl connected to Jeffrey Epstein. Pat yourself heartily.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I don't think all the people who can read it in-context as a parody of scientific racism are in the far-left filter bubble.
You're in the far-left filter bubble. The average person can see vulgar racism for what it is. There is no context, other than she was a social "justice" idiot like you, with the social "justice" hair dye, and surrounded by people who shared her racism and sexism.
I think centrists could also handle an adult touching childrens' shoulders
And their breasts, and smelling their hair, and stroking their faces, and kissing them. Yes, I'm sure the average person will think this is all totally normal and fine. Fucking creep.
Sure, I have no disagreement here. Even most in the far-left can see this. Are you done with this red herring?
Oh, really? Then why has Ellison not been disavowed? Why did you skip over it? What about the black congressional caucus? What about Obama? Where's the national media storm?
No Republican would have survived the equivalent associations with David Duke. Not even Trump. He got lambasted just because he didn't disavow him quick enough.
pat yourself on the back
I'm not the one claiming moral superiority. I can fully admit politics is pragmatic, on either side.
No, it just sounds like you are the SJW and you want to co-opt the ALCU's mission into something more SJW-like. My original point is that they had the chance, but the ALCU affiliated lawyers in the area didn't want to get involved in either case. In the situation where the cops sprayed mace on everyone, they did, in fact get sued. They settled out of court with a pregnant woman and a girl with asthma who were maced for no reason. Explaining why the ALCU files civil suites doesn't erase that fact that you originally acted like they didn't do anything close to those sorts of things, when, in fact, they absolutely do. After all, I was the one who had to point it out to you, first. Explaining it back to me "your way" doesn't change the facts.