Okay fine, it is a rather political article. My memory had failed me. :lol: Still, there are deeper layers at play which I appreciate.

I don't have the article right in front of me. Did she cite specific examples of that happening with the ACLU? I think she did, but I can't remember the details. I believe someone was dropped, right? It seemed to me the article was more lamenting what the ACLU used to be about mid-century. But I do remember her explaining the fiduciary argument. I just don't remember the egregious examples, other than the organization has become generally taken over by the "woke" politics that many academic/legal institutions have become — schopenhauer1

I think the ACLU is a set piece, used in the early part of her article. My interpretation is that the article is proposing a strategy for addressing "wokeism," and the ACLU served as a useful example. It is the idea that upholding fiduciary duties and professional standards is a better approach than the more recent debates on liberalism, communism, and integralism.

The one instance she provided of (1) seems to have been here — schopenhauer1

Others include the Dobbs leak, investment firm quotas, racial Covid supply rationing, medical ethics and malpractice, and things related to attorney-client privilege.

Left-wing hostility to the basic rules of the game culminated in the Dobbs leak. Supreme Court deliberations and decisions have always been protected by the strictest codes of confidentiality. In May 2022, in an unprecedented breach, an unknown person leaked Justice Samuel Alito’s draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade to reporters at Politico. The identity of the leaker has not been discovered, but the logical motivation would have been to spook one of the moderate conservative justices into changing his or her vote. A professor at Yale Law told a reporter that he assumed the leaker was a liberal “because many of the people we’ve been graduating from schools like Yale are the kind of people who would do such a thing. They think that everything is violence. And so everything is permitted.” — What Happened to the ACLU? by Helen Andrews

I don't think so. Not after Holmes' dissent in Abrams won the day. — Leontiskos

My legal training is in the British/New Zealand system - but that case doesn’t deal with definitions of imminent lawless action in the context of a peace time society, as best my memory and cursory skim of it's text tells me. Noting i may be over my head, This is genuinely fun for me as a legal professional.

What i think I would consider operative here, is Holmes treatment of 'intent' and 'imminent'.

It is plain that 1A doesn't protect incitement to violence, as to imminent lawless action.

I don't think Holmes dissent outlines any kind of carte blanche - It merely outlines the limits of the charges (well, the third charge (relevantly, anyhow)). There is a huge amount of daylight between the facts of this case, and the charges laid that I can't see it as relevant, really, to cases of actual incitement. I don't think Holmes did either. Indeed, it seems to me, passages such as this:

"Of course, I am speaking only of expressions of opinion and exhortations, which were all that were uttered here.." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Abrams v US at 631

make it known that his Honour understands that there are limits, that those limits rest upon interpretations of the above (imminence and intent) and that in this case the limits weren't reached. I would agree. But i can't see this making any issues for the example - Let's say the book was understood to convincingly address itself to less-intelligent yard-workers who have a chip on their shoulder and a history of mobilizing for untoward causes - and the intent is to incite, essentially, a slow-drip but country-wide attack on ballerinas, physically. Particularly in light of Jan 6, I cannot see the judiciary having anything but contempt for similar speech. My opinions withheld there :P

Okay fine, it is a rather political article. My memory had failed me. :lol: Still, there are deeper layers at play which I appreciate. — Leontiskos

:smile:

I think the ACLU is a set piece, used in the early part of her article. My interpretation is that the article is proposing a strategy for addressing "wokeism," and the ACLU served as a useful example. It is the idea that upholding fiduciary duties and professional standards is a better approach than the more recent debates on liberalism, communism, and integralism. — Leontiskos

I see it more that she was using the ACLU to say that legal organizations that promote free speech should take all cases. I think fiduciary duties is a meta-legal thing. That is to say, it is orthogonal issues. One is about whether these legal associations should take on free speech cases deemed "right wing" in the first place, and one is about if a lawyer does take on these cases, whether one is representing that person fairly and with fullest trust. Thus, I think conflating these two things was rather suspect, to be fair.

Others include the Dobbs leak, investment firm quotas, racial Covid supply rationing, medical ethics and malpractice, and things related to attorney-client privilege. — Leontiskos

The Dobbs leak was suspected and we don't know who did it. But yes, that was a violation. The Covid supply rationing, again was back to the issue of what kind of cases ACLU should represent, which as far as I read it, is not about fiduciary (so not 1).

But I think again, if the claim is that the ACLU should try as much as possible to keep its members as impartial in matters of speech (don't start using Twitter for various causes that might conflict with future clients and their cases), then yes, that makes sense. I don't think she quite helped the case by adding the fiduciary element, actually. It seemed more of a stretch.

- Thanks for that. I am not a legal professional and my point is broader. If such acts as were charged with sedition in wartime (e.g. distributing the leaflets in Abrams) are now protected by free speech in the U.S., then I do not see how a book attempting to abridge the free speech of ballerinas would not be protected. Of course I grant that if the book sets out plans for a coup d'état then it would be illicit. I wasn't reading anything that extreme into your comments. My assumption is that the means the book prescribes are not themselves blatantly illegal.

Of course I grant that if the book sets out plans for a coup d'état then it would be illicit. I wasn't reading anything that extreme into your comments — Leontiskos

AH, i f'd up on this one. I did fully misread your direction.

You are correct.

I see it more that she was using the ACLU to say that legal organizations that promote free speech should take all cases. — schopenhauer1

I think this is an important mistake in reading the article. She says just the opposite:

Is the solution to urge the ACLU to return to neutral liberalism? That seems unlikely. It would be strange indeed for conservatives to take up the cause of liberalism now that its former champions have abandoned it. Even if it were possible to rediscover neutral liberalism as a cross-ideological common ground—and it is not—conservatives would still be better off pursuing other theories of law based on concepts closer to their tradition, such as the common good.

There is one means of restraining the woke that we all can insist upon, liberals, originalists, and integralists alike, and that is a return to professional standards. — What Happened to the ACLU? by Helen Andrews

In my opinion you are focusing too heavily on the ACLU. The ACLU isn't central to the argument. But I literally kick myself off the internet in one minute, so that will have to be sufficient for the time being... haha

- :up:

Yeah, I just didn't see as a matter of fiduciary... PERHAPS a matter of "professionalism" (no Twitter stuff supporting various political causes).. But again, that is more a matter of fairness.

She seems to assume that legal organizations cannot take on preferred political sides in constitutional law cases. For example, doubtful you will see the Heritage Foundation taking on various leftwing causes. That doesn't mean they have "fiduciary issues". It just means they are choosing to specialize in a certain political view when choosing to represent clients.

So in that case:
1) there is ACTUAL malfeasance (fiduciary failures)
2) There is professionalism issues (supporting various niche causes in social media accounts lets say).
3) There are fairness issues (supporting one side of a political issue versus the other).

She seems to conflate 1 with 2 and 3.

Indeed, what would you say was the biggest factor for populations to convert to Christianity (Christian or Orthodox versions)? In other words:

1) What was the process (kings/leaders first then their populous or one-by-one?)?
2) What was the reason for it? (the ability to trade with Christians? they really "believed" in what the missionaries were selling? It created ties with other powerful kingdoms? — schopenhauer1

Missionary work and people turning into Christianity (or any religion) voluntarily happens in only few occasions. Many times it has been a political decision by the elite and the political leader. Christianity finally took over once a Roman Emperor converted to the religion. Then of course there is the way they did it Spain (convert or leave or die).

It is precisely because those religions in Lebanon are monotheistic (and by this I mean mainly Christian and Islamic) that they have those problems. — schopenhauer1

In Lebanon's example, yes. However I think that religious intolerance is quite universal and doesn't only apply to the Abrahamic religions. You have for example Hindu nationalism:

Today, Hindutva (meaning "Hinduness") is a dominant form of Hindu nationalist politics in Bharat (India). As a political ideology, the term Hindutva was articulated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923. The Hindutva movement has been described as a variant of "right-wing extremism" and as "almost fascist in the classical sense", adhering to a concept of homogenised majority and cultural hegemony. Some analysts dispute the "fascist" label, and suggest Hindutva is an extreme form of "conservatism" or "ethnic absolutism".

The view of Antiquity about religion has really disappeared: Even the Pantheon is a Catholic Church today (and hence still intact).

But it wasn't until Christianity that you had the use of religion as ideology and "right belief" as part of the power structure. — schopenhauer1

Don't forget the oldest religion of the Abrahamic ones, Judaism. Ancient Israel didn't control great areas, but I guess if they had, they wouldn't have been as tolerant as the Romans in religious matters.


.

Missionary work and people turning into Christianity (or any religion) voluntarily happens in only few occasions. Many times it has been a political decision by the elite and the political leader. Christianity finally took over once a Roman Emperor converted to the religion. Then of course there is the way they did it Spain (convert or leave or die). — ssu

Yes, the Roman Empire part, I am more aware of. But even then, it wasn't "all or nothing". Even with the next emperor Constantinius II, the Empire's army was pretty evenly split between pagans and Christians. Julian even in 361 CE, the last pagan Roman Emperor, could have had a chance to preserve some of the pagan sites and pushback the tide for a bit if he didn't die in battle (probably by Christian insiders) in Persia. So really it probably wasn't until after the Roman Empire, the whole area was fully "Christianized".

But I am not talking about the initial Christianization of the Roman Empire as much as I am the Germanic, Celtic, Norse, and Slavic regions (respectively). That is to say, how was the process of Christianization in regions that were not under the Roman Empire? It seemed to be about the 500-600s that the Germanic peoples were fully Christianized. This process was mainly about kings converting and thus over time, their populations. But habits die hard, and the Church didn't mind much if you smuggled in former practices if you declared your allegiance.

See here:

Æthelberht of Kent was the first king to accept baptism, circa 601. He was followed by Saebert of Essex and Rædwald of East Anglia in 604. However, when Æthelberht and Saebert died, in 616, they were both succeeded by pagan sons who were hostile to Christianity and drove the missionaries out, encouraging their subjects to return to their native paganism. Christianity only hung on with Rædwald, who was still worshiping the pagan gods alongside Christ.

The first Archbishops of Canterbury during the first half of the 7th century were members of the original Gregorian mission. The first native Saxon to be consecrated archbishop was Deusdedit of Canterbury, enthroned in 655. The first native Anglo-Saxon bishop was Ithamar, enthroned as Bishop of Rochester in 644. — Christianisation of Anglo-Saxon England

In Lebanon's example, yes. However I think that religious intolerance is quite universal and doesn't only apply to the Abrahamic religions. You have for example Hindu nationalism:

The decisive shift to Christianity occurred in 655 when King Penda was slain in the Battle of the Winwaed and Mercia became officially Christian for the first time. The death of Penda also allowed Cenwalh of Wessex to return from exile and return Wessex, another powerful kingdom, to Christianity. After 655, only Sussex and the Isle of Wight remained openly pagan, although Wessex and Essex would later crown pagan kings. In 686, Arwald, the last openly pagan king, was slain in battle, and from this point on all Anglo-Saxon kings were at least nominally Christian (although there is some confusion about the religion of Caedwalla, who ruled Wessex until 688).

Lingering paganism among the common population gradually became English folklore. — ssu

My guess was simply that missionaries were never only about saving souls but about establishing alliances with the broader networks of alliances. The Church was a quick and easy way to gain access to powers beyond one's local scope. You eluded alluded to this with your initial answer as to how if the Finns didn't join the Christian bandwagon, it was going to be sidelined and become a completely isolated society.

In Lebanon's example, yes. However I think that religious intolerance is quite universal and doesn't only apply to the Abrahamic religions. You have for example Hindu nationalism:

Today, Hindutva (meaning "Hinduness") is a dominant form of Hindu nationalist politics in Bharat (India). As a political ideology, the term Hindutva was articulated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923. The Hindutva movement has been described as a variant of "right-wing extremism" and as "almost fascist in the classical sense", adhering to a concept of homogenised majority and cultural hegemony. Some analysts dispute the "fascist" label, and suggest Hindutva is an extreme form of "conservatism" or "ethnic absolutism". — ssu

I would say that's more again, due to colonialism and the impact of Western notions of nation-states and how it goes with various cultures/peoples. India has alternatively been ruled by Muslim (Mogul) rulers, Hindu rulers, and Buddhist rulers throughout its history. When not unified under an empire, however, it was comprised of large kingdoms ruled by various kings from the warrior-caste, etc. But also keep in mind that Hindus are generally fighting Islam (monotheistic faith). Yes, I understand that Sri Lanka is a notable exception here, and there are Buddhist nationals, etc. Again, I say that is generally an import from the West and nationalism. However, you can find various conflicts in Asia, especially China, as to favoring Buddhist versus Confucius, versus Taoist versus Legalism, etc. over the course of their long history.

Don't forget the oldest religion of the Abrahamic ones, Judaism. Ancient Israel didn't control great areas, but I guess if they had, they wouldn't have been as tolerant as the Romans in religious matters. — ssu

Agreed, but that feeds into my argument in another thread that its always been basically an ethno-religion with a huge tie to specific locations. Without the locations, politically, it doesn't pose universal dominance like a Christianity, or even something like a Buddhism. That is to say, it's not universalistic in its missionary work. There was an argument to be made that during the Hellenistic and Roman times, they were actively taking converts, but that was more due to interest of various pagans around the diaspora than it was truly "missionizing". That is to say, wherever synagogues were formed in a community, that would obviously bring the interest of local populations that wanted to check it out and maybe join the community. Usually, they joined as "god-fearers" which were former pagans who didn't want to fully convert to Judaism, but still recognize the Jewish deity. These same god-fearers were the main targets for actual missionizing by Paul and his disciples who eventually turned them into his version of Christianity. They were easier to target I would imagine being that they were already familiar with the Jewish aspect of the religion. He of course, also targeted straight up pagans too.

Ironically, one of the only times the Judeans forced converted a neighboring tribe, it came back to haunt them. After the Maccabees defeated the Seleucid forces in the 160s BCE (the Hanukkah story), they went ahead and conquered the Idumeans, one of their neighboring pagan kingdoms (I think in modern day Jordan). When the Romans under Pompey in 63 CE, conquered the last Maccabee Jewish ruler, he eventually deposed him, and put in the quasi-Jewish Idumean king Antipater into power. His son became Herod the Great. He was never seen as legitimate, and of course ruled with an iron fist. Ironically, he intermarried the granddaughter of one of the last Maccabean leaders, and then killed her and his own two sons, pretty much killing off the last of the Maccabean line. Nice guy.

Mariamne, (born c. 57—died 29 BC), Jewish princess, a popular heroine in both Jewish and Christian traditions, whose marriage (37 BC) to the Judean king Herod the Great united his family with the deposed Hasmonean royal family (Maccabees) and helped legitimize his position. At the instigation of his sister Salome and Mariamne’s mother, Alexandra, however, Herod had her put to death for adultery. Later, he also executed her two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus. — Britannica

Fascinating story of intrigue with a lot of well-known powerful figures involved:

Mariamne was the daughter of the Hasmonean Alexandros, also known as Alexander of Judaea, and thus one of the last heirs to the Hasmonean dynasty of Judea.[1] Mariamne's only sibling was Aristobulus III. Her father, Alexander of Judaea, the son of Aristobulus II, married his cousin Alexandra, daughter of his uncle Hyrcanus II, in order to cement the line of inheritance from Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, but the inheritance soon continued the blood feud of previous generations, and eventually led to the downfall of the Hasmonean line. By virtue of her parents' union, Mariamne claimed Hasmonean royalty on both sides of her family lineage.

Her mother, Alexandra, arranged for her betrothal to Herod in 41 BCE after Herod agreed to a Ketubah with Mariamne's parents. The two were wed four years later (37 BCE) in Samaria. Mariamne bore Herod four children: two sons, Alexandros and Aristobulus (both executed in 7 BCE), and two daughters, Salampsio and Cypros. A fifth child (male), drowned at a young age – likely in the Pontine Marshes near Rome, after Herod's sons had been sent to receive educations in Rome in 20 BCE.

Josephus writes that it was because of Mariamne's vehement insistence that Herod made her brother Aristobulus a High Priest. Aristobulus, who was not even eighteen years old, drowned (in 36 BCE) within a year of his appointment; Alexandra, his mother, blamed Herod. Alexandra wrote to Cleopatra, begging her assistance in avenging the boy's murder. Cleopatra in turn urged Mark Antony to punish Herod for the crime, and Antony sent for him to make his defense. Herod left his young wife in the care of his uncle Joseph, along with the instructions that if Antony should kill him, Joseph should kill Mariamne. Herod believed his wife to be so beautiful that she would become engaged to another man after his death and that his great passion for Mariamne prevented him from enduring a separation from her, even in death. Joseph became familiar with the queen and eventually divulged this information to her and the other women of the household, which did not have the hoped-for effect of proving Herod's devotion to his wife. Rumors soon circulated that Herod had been killed by Antony, and Alexandra persuaded Joseph to take Mariamne and her to the Roman legions for protection. However, Herod was released by Antony and returned home, only to be informed of Alexandra's plan by his mother and sister, Salome. Salome also accused Mariamne of committing adultery with Joseph, a charge which Herod initially dismissed after discussing it with his wife. After Herod forgave her, Mariamne inquired about the order given to Joseph to kill her should Herod be killed, and Herod then became convinced of her infidelity, saying that Joseph would only have confided that to her were the two of them intimate. He gave orders for Joseph to be executed and for Alexandra to be confined, but Herod did not punish his wife.

Because of this conflict between Mariamne and Salome, when Herod visited Augustus in Rhodes in 31 BCE, he separated the women. He left his sister and his sons in Masada while he moved his wife and mother-in-law to Alexandrium. Again, Herod left instructions that should he die, the charge of the government was to be left to Salome and his sons, and Mariamne and her mother were to be killed. Mariamne and Alexandra were left in the charge of another man named Sohemus, and after gaining his trust again learned of the instructions Herod provided should harm befall him. Mariamne became convinced that Herod did not truly love her and resented that he would not let her survive him. When Herod returned home, Mariamne treated him coldly and did not conceal her hatred for him. Salome and her mother preyed on this opportunity, feeding Herod false information to fuel his dislike. Herod still favored her; but she refused to have sexual relations with him and accused him of killing her grandfather, Hyrcanus II, and her brother. Salome insinuated that Mariamne planned to poison Herod, and Herod had Mariamne's favorite eunuch tortured to learn more. The eunuch knew nothing of a plot to poison the king, but confessed the only thing he did know: that Mariamne was dissatisfied with the king because of the orders given to Sohemus. Outraged, Herod called for the immediate execution of Sohemus, but permitted Mariamne to stand trial for the alleged murder plot. To gain favor with Herod, Mariamne's mother even implied Mariamne was plotting to commit lèse majesté. Mariamne was ultimately convicted and executed in 29 BCE.[2] Herod grieved for her for many months. — Wiki

She seems to conflate 1 with 2 and 3. — schopenhauer1

She is saying that wokeness results in all three, but that (1) is the most important thing to oppose. (3) is not even a contention of the article except insofar as the ACLU historically attempted to avoid it.

She seems to assume that legal organizations cannot take on preferred political sides in constitutional law cases. For example, doubtful you will see the Heritage Foundation taking on various leftwing causes. — schopenhauer1

I don't think there's any evidence for such a claim. The whole argument flows from the specific nature of the ACLU, namely its relation to civil liberties and its historical opposition to communist logic. Andrews is surely aware that the argument would not work against any and all legal organizations.

This is one of the essays in the print edition of the journal. It's not a blog post. I don't think you read it carefully enough.

I don't particularly care what words the people in the dis-United States of Cheeseburger use. They can call themselves West, East, Wakanda, Jupiter. Look, I don't understand but I respect their culture: "Everything is relative, words have no meaning, I am Italian because my great-great-great grandfather was from Corsica, man can mean woman and woman can mean man". I get it. They are just not European just like Haitians and Cambodians aren't. Though I would say that the Frenchness of Haitians and the Buddhism of Cambodians (with its Indo-Aryan roots) give them a flimsy connection to Europe.

Being factually established that they have less to do with Europe than a speck of dust flying in another star system — being that the speck of dust has nothing to do with Europe and its culture and history, while Yankees are the absolutely antithesis of it, 0 is closer to 1 than -1 is —, they have nothing to do with Rome or Greece. They should claim ancient Israel or Timbuktu as their cultural heritage instead, but they insist on talking about Rome and Greece as if its ancient inhabitants would have anything but disgust for them (that much is attested in ancient sources), promptly being sent to the slave market, possibly because their basic education is notoriously poor and it simply mimicks whatever is chosen as the basic history curriculum of England or France, whatever the source of inspiration was.

Call it what you will: "we are Jupiterakandweastern". It does not mean European. But I suppose someone would say that is what it means, as, to the "intellectuals" of that country, 2+2 can equal 5, A = A and A = not A.

I’m sorry but you haven’t established why the basis of the American political system is not specifically connected to English and broadly European history, especially as it relates to the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, the Protestant reformation, and the colonial economic system of the 1600s and 1700s.

America's political system surely is based on European systems. Brazil, Mexico, Peru, all base their legal codes on the Napoleonic code, which is also the base of much of Europe. In that sense it is very much "Western", based on Roman customs, not on Eastern Jewish customs or Bantu customs.

As to Yankees, whose sovereignity lies more in international corporations and Israel, not in Vespucci's America, even if its law code is descendend from England (which is and has been a far cry from general European culture), it does not make it alike the English law. If I come from my parents and I look like them, I can still go all sorts of cosmetic surgeries in order to look unlike them. The same principle applies: genotype ≠ phenotype.

Even if the written law is 1:1 equal, it is not worth much, as that country constantly violates and reinterprets its own law. Where you have constitionally granted free speech but society is free to basically kill you if you happen to use a rude 6 letter word on twitter.

As to Yankees, whose sovereignity lies more in international corporations and Israel, not in Vespucci's America, even if its law code is descendend from England (which is and has been a far cry from general European culture), it does not make it alike the English law. — Lionino

Well yeah, I didn't make a claim it is exactly the same as English, just that they are derived from the same set of ideas. Clearly, the USA is more deliberately developed from written Constitutional principles (aka the US Constitution), and undergirded in philosophy by writings such as the Federalist Papers to understand the "Founders" intent. But all of these deliberations were part-and-parcel of the broader Enlightenment taking place in the "Western" (European and North American) milieu. English law and custom, though somewhat deriving from deliberation (1689 Bill of Rights for example and various acts of parliament), many of the customs were based on tradition (the idea of common law itself using precedence to decide former cases, Parliament itself was more organically formed from the Medieval period, the executive branch technically comprises a monarchy, there are still titles of nobility and a House of Lords, etc.).