The American Civil Liberties Union

[NuWaveRx]

With the media blitz surrounding the midterm elections in full swing and political grandstanding on both sides on the aisle, I'm hearing more and more consternation and outright attacks against the ACLU. Be it about immigration issues, security issues, or ethical issues (e.g. abortion) I've hear more than one talking head on the TV/Radio decry those "loonies in the ACLU" and "ACLU-types on the far left.." etc, etc.

So I'm interested in the opinion of the learned members here about if the ACLU is a good or bad (or in between) organiziation.

Personally, being a (mostly) Libertarian who places a high value on personal freedom and personal responsibility (although not a member of the ACLU), I largely support this group who seems to take up the rights of the minority from persecution of the majority. I have heard that the ACLU defends the liberties of groups that I certainly am aginst, and would oppose--such as white supremicist organizations. But the basic premise--that (as long as you are hurting no one) all Americans have an equal right to freedom of speech, racial and religious justice and the guarantee of a strict seperation of organized religion from governing bodies, to me anyway, is sound.

What do you think??

As a note to all, I had commended Marv recently for an excellent set of posts he had on a charged subject--that was for the most part--conducted well by all: no name calling, threats, etc. Just a good debate. It is in that spirit that I ask these questions. I'm not looking to stir shit, just to generate debate on a (IMHO) maligned organization. I ask that we try to be (no pun intended) civil on this subject[:D]

[KYYX4ever]

I'm not sure what to think of the AC LU. I am glad they're around, for the reasons posted above; as a free democratic society, we need watchdogs like this to ensure basic freedom of speech. OTOH, the liberties of some of the "groups" they work to protect make me want to throw up a little, in my mouth. Oof, that sounds so hypocritical. What I mean is just b/c we don't like the message, doesn't mean the messenger should be muffled. It's like that Voltaire quote: "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight to the death your right to say it."
Still, some of these groups they work to defend make me squeamish and angry, too. Like that horrible group from Kansas that protests outside of soldiers' funerals, claiming "God Hates (derogatory term for 'gay' here)". That's[:(!][V]

[WolverineSyr]

I agree with KYYX. I'm glad they are around to defend free speech. I have lost alomst all respect for them since I found they defended NAMBLA.

Stating an opinion or defending a way of life is one thing. Defending obvious criminals is a much different thing. Such defense gives them license to continue commiting sex crimes against kids & I can't take this organization as a true defender of people's rights any longer.

[edisonoside]

Could you ever imagine a third world/dictatorship type country with an ACLU type system going on in that country? An "Axis of Evil" type country that shows acceptance towards Minorities and gays and has open borders and welfare for the poor. A place with fair voting takes place and their media is fair and balanced? A place where religion doesn't interfere and the people are free to say whatever? A place where they respect a Constitution. A place as free as ours?

[deethelurker]

Like many people, I support some of the things the ACLU does and disagree with some others, but I do recognize that I am not the only person nor is my viewpoint the only one that organization is trying to represent, and as a result I am going to disagree with some of the stances said organization posits. This does not excuse them from supporting people who are obviously breaking the law and causing harm to others as evidenced by NAMBLA. I do not support that nor do I expect anyone else, regardless of political affiliation, to.

I do get sick and tired of reading opinion pieces from the far right that slam ACLU every chance they get. The ACLU is needed in our society. Civil liberties is a noble thing to try to fight for and I think that, despite that aforementioned NAMBLA misstep, they're an admirable organization. I myself don't really identify with any political organization, though if I had to I would say I'm a left-leaning libertarian (that still doesn't provide the full picture). So the ACLU is kinda my kind of organization as well.

[hutter]

I could live without the ACLU. What started out as a ok idea has turned into a haven for the most perverse in our society. How in the hell can ANYONE justify the rights of NAMBLA?

You can argue that there is a need for an organization that stands up for the underfinanced in legal and legislative manners, but the ACLU has thrown out common sense and been the advocates of anyone, no matter how morally corrupt they may be.

________________________________________________
For videos and tunes from yesteryear, take yer butt over to:
http://nealsnow.multiply.com/

[edisonoside]

Gee one misstep and poof some people want to get rid of the ACLU all together. I wish the same could be said about the current administration.[;)]

[egg-roger]

Society desperately needs private organizations dedicated to the strict preservation of individual liberties without regard to political ideology. The ACLU should be such an organization. Instead, it has sold itself as a tool of the political left.

A group of pederasts (NAMbLA) conspire to victimize some of society's most vulnerable members (little boys). ACLU is there to defend the pederast conspiracy.
An organization dedicated to the moral, social and physical development of young boys (Boy Scouts of America) tries to protect its members from potential sex predators. ACLU opposes BSA.
Hey ACLU! Could a young boy conceivably have a right to a little civil liberty protection too?

[i_like_lectric_motors]

It most certainly has it drawbacks but I think that the good they do outweighs the bad. I'd hate to see what kind of backward-ass society we'd live in without them or a similiar group to keep certain people in check.

[NuWaveRx]

Time to show my ignorance. As I understand it how can NAMBLA exist as an organization? Does it not espouse blatently illegal (not to mention in my opinion reprehensible)actions toward children?

It's like starting an organization called Murder, Inc. and promoting killing for hire... I can't believe the FBI isn't all over them...

To me that is a misstep for the ACLU. As Wolvie says to defend an organization whose sole purpose is criminal is wrong.

KYYX's example I struggle with more. Phelps is an obvious hateful loon and the idiocy he promotes I am against 100%. But as long as he and his followers are not hurting anyone they have free speech rights as do we all.

Voltaire was right in the quote you mention KYYX. It's just hard for me (and I suspect others) to accept any organization defending such an obvious organization of hate. I believe one of the precepts of the ACLU is that once any group's rights are violated (again, assuming they are legal and have harmed no one) it is a slippery slope that can lead to any group's rights being violated.

Therein, lies the rub, I guess

Edison you are right--I'm proud to live in a society where we can have just such a conversation. The question is how to keep it that way.

Other opinions??

[WolverineSyr]

I agree that an organization like the ACLU is necessary. I appreciate that they provide a voice for groups and individuals who have none. But I am going to stand by my non-support of them. Advocating for NAMBLA's free speech is not "a little mis-step" in my opinion. It does not erase the good work that the ACLU has done, but it destroys any credibility they may have had in my eyes.

I appreciate that they promote and fight for a teens right to confidential family planning. I appreciate that they fight for minor's rights to receive confidential medical care without a parent's consent. (Teens with HIV cannot access or make decisions on medical care in New York - only their parents can. The ACLU has fought to provide these rights to teens.)

Both of those are very important issues in my eyes. But if an agency puts a huge black mark across themselves by supporting fringe and illegal organizations - then they throw any shred of credibility out the window and put all of their past accomplishments on jeopardy.

[deethelurker]

[b]WolverineSyr[/b], thank you for making as much sense as you did. Your post is full of excellent points, all well thought-out, and I can make total sense of everything you stated. Thank you.

[MARV]

I feel obligated to reply to this thread since NuWaveRx made such complimentary (if embarrasing [8)] ) reference to me. Totally unnecessary dude! But thanks [8)] [;)]

I wanted to think about this topic a bit before putting up some kind of knee jerk reponse, just as everyone else before me did. The benefits of government watchdogs like the ACLU are undeniable and indeed, necessary. And it would be hypocritical of me to begrudge others' right to free speech just because I disagree with them. I think the ACLU's history of railing against all political parties demonstrates a philosophy of objectivity which is sobering in a country where we're pummeled with self serving messages from all such parties and groups.

That being said, the ACLU's controversial stances defending the right to free speech of KKK members, neo-Nazi groups, NAMBLA and the Westboro Baptist Church have left me personally very disappointed and disheartened. I think these groups seek grossly perverted interpretations of the First Amendment as they go against the spirit of it's intent. Again, only my personal feeling, but the defense of their right to do so only enables more anti-social thinking and left unbridled, only more crime.

However, I do realize that any attempts to muffle these radical groups' freedom of speech opens up a doorway through which we probably would never be able to go back. Where would the line be drawn for what is permissable subject matter to freely speak about? This I fear, would be an even less noble statute for our government to define.

All in all, our Constitution is the cornerstone for a pretty much perfect system of government and the small groups who exercise their right to communicate freely about what is largely socially reprehensible subject matter is a small price to pay for such government. At the end of the day, few people take them seriously and it's this government itself that also keeps them in check. We as individuals should'nt forget that we have the right to reject what we find morally unacceptable and therein lies the grooviest of all rights. The right to say "fuck you" [8D]

OK, don't everyone tell me to fuck off at once [:D]

<a href="http://marvymarv.multiply.com/">[i]You on the guestlist?[/i]</a>

[hutter]

Fuck off, Marv.[:D]

But I agree. The ACLU has the right to exist, and has done a lot of good, but due to their recent defenses of the aforementioned hate and social/moral deviants groups it's my right to see the ACLU as a joke at this point.

________________________________________________
For videos and tunes from yesteryear, take yer butt over to:
http://nealsnow.multiply.com/

[stella]

[quote][i]Originally posted by egg-roger[/i]
<br>Society desperately needs private organizations dedicated to the strict preservation of individual liberties without regard to political ideology. The ACLU should be such an organization. Instead, it has sold itself as a tool of the political left.

A group of pederasts (NAMbLA) conspire to victimize some of society's most vulnerable members (little boys). ACLU is there to defend the pederast conspiracy.
An organization dedicated to the moral, social and physical development of young boys (Boy Scouts of America) tries to protect its members from potential sex predators. ACLU opposes BSA.
Hey ACLU! Could a young boy conceivably have a right to a little civil liberty protection too?
[/quote]


The boy scouts were EXCLUDING gays. Making the assumption that gay men are child molesters and that being in contact with homosexuals might somehow "turn" the boys. I understand that feeling. Right now we have two gay men running the local boy scouts. Both are still "in the closet". It bothers me but I agree that they have a right to a presumption of innocence and I'm glad that the ACLU exists to remind me of this. They protect us from ourselves.

There is a difference between civil law and criminal law. The child is protected by the criminal justice system. His most basic right to life and liberty is defended there, where penalties include death and life in prison.

NEMBLA members have a right to gather and talk about their perversion but the second they act on them they become criminals.