What's the beef with the ACLU?

First of all, a private organization "purging" itself of people because of their political views is not any kind of civil rights violation. Private groups are able to make all kinds of distinctions that governments cannot, because private groups are not bound by the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment.Second, please show evidence of one "communistic" view espoused by the ACLU that does not relate to the protection of civil rights.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You cited Gitlow, Whitney, and Brandenburg as cases that the ACLU took that "not only defend anti-American terrorism, but they also aide [sic] and abet them." (my emphasis) This characterization of two these cases is so completely unrelated to their facts that it's hard to imagine how anyone who actually read the cases could describe them thus.

quote:

---

Benjamin Gitlow was convicted in New York for having published and circulated, unlawfully, pamphlets and leaflets detrimental to the government. One of the pamphlets, called the Left Wing Manifesto, advocated overthrowing organized government by violent and other unlawful means.

---

quote:

---

[Brandenburg], a Ku Klux Klan leader, was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute for "advocat[ing] . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" and for "voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."

---

This is speech, pure and simple. It is not terrorism. It is not even aiding and abetting terrorism. It is advocating an idea. Speech is not terrorism.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Additional egregious mischaracterizations: First of all, I'm completely at a loss to understand exactly what you mean by "extreme patronage." You sometimes seem to have your own personal vocabulary that makes clear communication rather difficult.In any event, ACLU v. DoD is a complaint from an FOIA case where a newspaper and a couple of student anti-war organizations were trying to get information from the DoD. There is nothing in the complaint that indicates that anyone involved was ever indicted for anything. Moreover, the word "patronage" is not found anywhere in the complaint.City of Indianapolis v. Edmond involved a narcotics checkpoint. According to the opinion,

quote:

---

Respondents James Edmond and Joell Palmer were each stopped at a narcotics checkpoint in late September 1998. Respondents then filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and the class of all motorists who had been stopped or were subject to being stopped in the future at the Indianapolis drug checkpoints. Respondents claimed that the roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the search and seizure provision of the Indiana Constitution. Respondents requested declaratory and injunctive relief for the class, as well as damages and attorney’s fees for themselves.

---

Thus, unless you have information beyond that in the opinion, the plaintiffs in that case had not been indicted for anything. It appears that they were seeking to stop the checkpoints simply because the checkpoints were wrong. I can assure you that if they had been convicted of anything and were challenging their convictions by arguing that the checkpoints were unconstitutional, the opinion would clearly have said so. Furthermore, nowhere in the opinion is the word "patronage" used.Once again, anyone who reads the facts of these cases and then reads your description of them is left with the firm impression that you either did not read them or you deliberately mischaracterized what they said.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You didn't substantiate your claim. I explained how the majority of the cases that you mentioned are not sedition case, but free speech cases. If anything, I'd say that those who were prosecuting people for exercising their First Amendment rights were violating the Constitution, not those accused.And, as far as "any reasonable person" considering sedition anti-American, let me ask you a question. Ever heard of Thomas Jefferson? A lot of people consider him to have been a pretty reasonable person. Here's what he had to say:

quote:

---

I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. -- Letter to James Madison (January 30, 1787); referring to Shays' Rebellion

​

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. -- Letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787)

​

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights. -- Letter to Richard Price (January 8, 1789)

---

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I must say, I'm completely at a loss to understand why you bring up the Wren Cross in this thread. From all that appears in the article, it was the school making its own decision based on things that it considered significant. There was no mention whatsoever of the ACLU.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Well, I'm fairly convinced that he picked those cases from some website or other and didn't really read them. It's annoying that he apparently still hasn't read them even after their inapplicability has been amply demonstrated, but then again, he's not really the kind of guy to back off a position very often, no matter how well it's been refuted.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

And a desire to actually read the original source material, rather than relying on what some agenda-driven website has to say about it.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This of course ignores the many, many disputes that the ACLU steps into that are not criminal. Or are you not aware that the public defender is only for criminal cases?What's more, there isn't a public defender's office in this country that isn't hopelessly understaffed and overworked. Other than capital cases, it's nearly impossible for a public defender to devote the 100s of hours that it takes to handle a difficult or groud breaking Constitutional Law case to a single case.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Would the ACLU defend someone that ran counter to their ideological view?

quote:

---

Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

​

That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. ... [T]he ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.

​

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. ...

​

Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech -- not less -- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten.

---

Speech on Campus | American Civil Liberties UnionHell yes, they do!If I were responding to anyone else, I'd expect an immediate retraction. From you, I expect extended silence.Edited by subbie, : To escape the wrath of Admin.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Damn, crash! Never would have expected praise from you!Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Let me ask you a question. Can someone burn a flag in a solemn ceremony for purposes of destroying a worn flag?No need to respond, of course they can. In fact, that's the method recommended. Now, what's the difference between that and someone burning a flag to protest what the government has done? I'll answer that one for you as well. The message they are sending.That's it.Now, you explain why it's not speech. I call bullshit.Find one.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Ummmm, I'll take the fifth on that question.I was simply referring to the fact that you and I don't see eye to eye real often, and our discussions have gotten rather heated at times.But mainly, it was a joke.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Strawman. The ACLU has never advocated that any of these things be protected by the First Amendment. Neither have they ever advocated that we be allowed to say "whatever we want."Hey, maybe that's why you hate the ACLU so much. You don't have a clue what they really stand for.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I don't know how I could have the wrong post since I quoted directly from the one I was responding to: But now you are saying that the ACLU defends sedition cases and these are representative of that?Bzzzzzzzz.Still wrong.As I said above: A helpful tip, when responding to a post, it's always a good idea to read the whole thing.Now, you are trying to create, by virture of a verbal fiat, a connection that simply does not exist and smear the ACLU with the actions of someone who is a member of a completely different organization. Can I take this as an implicit concession that you have no evidence of aiding and abetting terrorism by the ACLU and so now must move not only the goalpost but the entire playing field?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

The obvious answer to that, of course, is that the ACLU is not anti-christian, as you keep claiming. That's why they don't.As far as a legal reason goes, those crosses are symbols of individual expressions of religion in places where such symbols are often found. If you look around the cemetary, I'm sure you will see that some of the stones have not a cross but a Star of David. Thus, they are not a governmental establishment of religion, but governmental accommodation to individual religious expression. Such governmental accommodation is not only not prohibited by the First Admendment's Establishment Clause, it is arguably required by the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat