Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Terence Dougherty, the organization’s general counsel, testified via video deposition that the ACLU had spearheaded the effort and served as Heard’s ghostwriter in exchange for her promise to donate $3.5 million to the organization.

This is interesting, especially given the interest in the trial, but largely irrelevant.

First, no matter who actually ghostwrote the op-ed piece in WaPo, Amber Heard put her name on it.

Second, charities engage in fundraising activities. It doesn't surprise me at all that the ACLU was actively involved in the op-ed piece. You have to remember that prior to the current trial, Depp's reputation was really in tatters. Heard was seen as the victim so getting broader circulation for her story probably seemed both a good idea and consistent with the ACLU's perceived values.

> When Heard failed to pay up, Doughtery said, the ACLU collected $100,000 from Depp himself

So here I believe the article has made a factual error. I can't find an exact date for this but from watching the trial, the check Depp sent to the ACLU for $100,000 was part of the divorce settlement, which would put it more than 2 years prior to the op-ed piece.

> Progressive causes are near and dear to my heart. I am a feminist and staunch Democrat.

This is a contradiction. Democrats not only aren't progressives, they do their utmost to eliminate and ostracize any actual progressives from their ranks. Consider right at the time the Supreme Court draft was leaked, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of the 3 most powerful Democrats in the country, was in Texas campaigning for the only anti-choice Democrat in the House in a primary over progressive candidates [1].

The author doesn't really explain what issues they have with the ACLU other than some off-the-cuff statements about supporting Stacy Abrams. Given Georgia's voter suppression bill [2] that her opponent ultimately signed into law, this actually does seem consistent with protecting "civil liberties".

The author meanders about the point that the ACLU should be protecting "free speech" without saying how it isn't. It's really a complaint about other causes but remember it's the American Civil Liberties Union not the American Free Speech Union. Voter rights, as an example, fall directly under the umbrella of civil liberties.

More often than not, when someone has a take like this, it usually means they're a TERF but I can't find anything she's publicly written that's obviously transphobic so I'm scratching my head as to what the actual issue is here. I've found some complaints about Kamala Harrais being more progressive as a prosecutor than VP (which is legitimate) but nothing obvious.

As for her complaints about ACLU opposition to Title IX, I honestly don't know a lot about this but the ACLU's original suit seemed to be to opposed a higher standard for sexual harassment investigations and claims [3]. That seems a legitimate complaint, no?

Whatever the cause, it doesn't seem like the author is explicit about what her actual issue is.

[1]: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/23/nancy-pelosi-henry-c...

[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/us/politics/georgia-votin...

[3]: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-betsy-devos-al...



> More often than not, when someone has a take like this, it usually means they're a TERF but I can't find anything she's publicly written that's obviously transphobic so I'm scratching my head as to what the actual issue is here.

Sorry the witch hunt didn't work out like you'd hoped.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: