The ACLU

DanBo · **Posted:** Tue Aug 16, 2005 11:13 pm

Because the ACLU was contested so fiercely in C. vs. E., I've decided to make a new thread.

The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) specializes in starting civil suites to defend civil rights and America's civil liberties. However, in this past decade of extreme political polarization, the ACLU has come under intense criticism by all sides of the political spectrum for its absolutionism.
Wiki knows all, if you need more info.

It is my view that something like the ACLU is needed, because multiple checks of civil rights and liberties are always needed. However, the ACLU has stepped past its bounds, and is becoming all too strict. It is my belief that this behavior stems from the same sort of extremism that is prevalent on all sides in American society. Por ejample, the conservatives make it a point to put religion many places, meanwhile groups like the ACLU take it out. Students can't talk about religion in many classes (my ex-girlfriend had a prayer group that met an hour before classes started in our school, but she couldn't put invitations up around the school because they had the word 'prayer' in the body). On the other hand, school districts nearby have put intelligent design as required subject in science classes. What, there can't be comprimise?

Talk and discuss. And not only about schools!

What's Her Face · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:24 am

The defence of human rights is needed more than ever, especially in the post-9/11 climate of fear, but over-sensitising about civil liberties is achieving very little - other than giving the media their juicy little soundbites.

I have a friend who works for a UK human rights organisation, and he's exasperated because his organisation often take a stand against certain issues for the sake of getting some PR exposure.

He says that because human rights work often fails in exactly the places where its needed most - in banana republics and dictatorships - it goes too far in democratic countries that don't need it as much, just so they can look like they're doing something.

The ACLU does seem to be the better example of what a human rights organisation should be doing - giving the victims of human rights abuses legal aid when they need it. But they should just stick to that, and leave things like prayer in schools and Islamic headscarves alone.

Shippinator Mandy · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:18 am

I didn't read the article that thoroughly, but it said that they're for the decriminilization of heroin and cocaine, which makes me lose some respect for them. (Marijuana I can understand, but HEROIN AND COCAINE?!?) Also, it said that they sued a town with a large Jewish population that would not allow Nazi parades and demonstrations. Isn't it odd that an organization devoted to protecting our civil rights would support such a racist group?

While there is a need for a group that will defend our civil rights, they're going a bit too far.

Jitka · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:21 am

So then racists should not have the same rights as other people? Just because they're idiots and the world would be better off without them, doesn't mean we have the right to silence them. A rational person is disgusted by what they say, but if they are Americans, their speech is protected by the Constitution.

Like the quote attributed to Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

On the other hand, sometimes the ACLU can go too far, such as when it comes to political correctness or that whole NAMBLA thing. That's just wrong. But that's a debate for another thread.

DanBo · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:28 am

Well, in that case, the ACLU was right. Why was Martin Luther King, Jr. able to march down to an Alabama town protesting the way they thought? Because of freedom of speech. When they were stopped and beaten and dragged, people became angry because they had the right to say what they said. It was a very unpopular view in the south, but they had the right to do what they did.
If someone goes around saying something unpopular, they have the right to say it, as long as they do not explicitly threaten a person. They can say "Jews are evil" or someone can say "Blacks and whites are equal" or "Native-Americans aren't savages", all of which were unpopular views in America at some point and time.
But because the town blocked the march, henceforth stopping the right to congregate and the right to speak, they were sued in a civil case. To me their message is wrong, but according to the Constitution, who are we to say what is wrong and to restrict them?

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:38 am

I'm with DanBo on this one. I can't think of a case in which the ACLU has "gone too far." Free speech is free speech.

DJ The Tire · **Joined:** Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:32 pm **Posts:** 48

JohnTheTinyCowboy wrote:

Just because they're idiots and the world would be better off without them, doesn't mean we have the right to silence them.

The first part of that sentence clashes with the second.

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 3:52 am

Tire wrote:

JohnTheTinyCowboy wrote:

Just because they're idiots and the world would be better off without them, doesn't mean we have the right to silence them.

The first part of that sentence clashes with the second.

No, it doesn't.

kaemmerite · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:25 am

I'm going to say no. I admit that as a Christian, the ACLU has rubbed me the wrong way quite on a few issue (probably not as many as one might expect, but enough that I'm not too fond of them).

King Nintendoid · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 10:07 am

<3 UCLA. Seriously, if they REALLY did what christians make it sound like, the international community would be all over them. And they aren't.

Didymus · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:41 pm

The international community isn't even all over what the Chinese do to Christians (imprisonment, torture, killing). Why would they even bother with a minor annoyance like the ACLU?

What's Her Face · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:15 pm

King Nintendoid wrote:

<3 UCLA. Seriously, if they REALLY did what christians make it sound like, the international community would be all over them. And they aren't.

As far as I can tell, only the most hardliner of Christians seem to have a huge problem with them. Like that fruitcake who came onto Pat Robertson's show saying the ACLU were responsible for the September 11 attacks. People like this are in the minority of Christians, thankfully.

Coming to Shippinator Mandy's point, about their support for the legalisation of hard drugs, their argument isn't that hard drugs should be allowed to be sold openly on the streets. It's rather that drugs should be regulated in clinics, and taken out of the hands of criminal gangs. They say if this were done, there will be less crime and more help for addicts who want to get off the drugs.

seamusz · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:17 pm

[Edit by InterruptorJones: Trolling will not be tolerated in this forum. If you're going to make inflammatory marks, you'd better have the data to back them up.]

King Nintendoid · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:47 pm

Didymus wrote:

The international community isn't even all over what the Chinese do to Christians (imprisonment, torture, killing). Why would they even bother with a minor annoyance like the ACLU?

Perhaps because China is a growing market? *shifty* ("ZOMFR, commercial interests must be protected!"). Buuut the ACLU isn't a country with one billion consumers, so I guess they'd be on them fairly quickly if they stepped out of line.

seamusz · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:19 pm

The ACLU is fighting for the right of pedophiles to continue their lifestyle.

http://www.s5000.com/articles_editorial329.php

For those who do not know what the NAMBLA is, it is the North American Man/Boy Love Association and here is their home page.

I do not Troll.

King Nintendoid · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:22 pm

Did you read about the author of that article?

Quote:

A conservative outlook on major issues

Conservative equels Serving the Interests of Christian Hardliners. I wouldn't take this man too seriously.

PS: They also talk about how the ACLU fights the Second Amendament. Calling this bad is a typical right hardliner item. The Second Amendament SHOULD be removed. No other country has the right to bear arms in their constitution

seamusz · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:32 pm

Since when is being conservative a bad thing?

kaemmerite · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:32 pm

King Nintendoid wrote:

PS: They also talk about how the ACLU fights the Second Amendament. Calling this bad is a typical right hardliner item. The Second Amendament SHOULD be removed. No other country has the right to bear arms in their constitution

I'm no expert on the Second Amendment, believe you me. Heck, I don't even own a gun, nor do I have any plans to.

I think maybe the Second Amendment is outdated, but I dunno...however, I fail to see how repealing it would prevent criminals from getting guns. So, I really don't see any reason to get rid of it...

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:33 pm

seamusz wrote:

The ACLU is fighting for the right of pedophiles to continue their lifestyle.

http://www.s5000.com/articles_editorial329.php

That article is hilarious. The author doesn't make it past the tenth word before using the phrase "left wing crack pots," and it all goes downhill from there.

If anybody wants to actually know about the case in question (since the article above doesn't mention the name of the plaintiff or even why they're suing NAMBLA), Wikipedia is a better place to start. Here's a decent blog post on the subject, too.

Quote:

Let's think about the ramifications of this precedent if the plaintiff wins. There have been numerous cases of anti-abortion advocates killing abortion doctors. One such activist was recently put to death in Florida for committing murder. Under the precedent that would be given if the plaintiffs win in the NAMBLA case, anti-abortion groups whose literature such a murderer had read, or whose website they visited, could be sued and held responsible for the actions of the individual who pulled the trigger. After all, they advocate a change in the laws and they "foster an atmosphere" in which abortion doctors are viewed as murderers who must be stopped. Let's say a law is passed banning the ownership of automatic weapons. The NRA would surely oppose such a law and would advocate that the law be changed in their publications and on their website. Could the parents of a victim of a murder by such a weapon blame the NRA on the same grounds as NAMBLA is being sued? Of course they could. The NRA would be "fostering a climate of lawlessness" by claiming that the gun laws are unjust and illegitimate.

Once we establish the legal principle that groups which advocate changing the laws can be held responsible for the actions of those who break the laws, the sky is the limit for such lawsuits.

It should go without saying (but apparently doesn't) that the ACLU isn't defending pedophilia in Curley vs. NAMBLA, but rather supports everyone's right to express their opinions, regardless of how unpopular those opinions are.

But seriously, that article? Roffle.

Smorky · **Joined:** Sun Dec 12, 2004 2:26 am **Posts:** 775

kaemmerite wrote:

I think maybe the Second Amendment is outdated, but I dunno...however, I fail to see how repealing it would prevent criminals from getting guns. So, I really don't see any reason to get rid of it...

Criminals will still have guns either way. The difference is whether you will have a gun to defend yourself when a criminal breaks into your house and tries to kill you.

King Nintendoid · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:40 pm

Doesn't that dusty old bible say "Thou shalt not kill"? And any law book for that matter?

Shippinator Mandy · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:43 pm

What's her face wrote:

Coming to Shippinator Mandy's point, about their support for the legalisation of hard drugs, their argument isn't that hard drugs should be allowed to be sold openly on the streets. It's rather that drugs should be regulated in clinics, and taken out of the hands of criminal gangs. They say if this were done, there will be less crime and more help for addicts who want to get off the drugs.

Ah. Still, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "regulating" drugs. Do you mean tapering the addicts off the drugs one bit at a time? In that case, would that be effective?

King Nintendoid · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:43 pm

It works in the Netherlands, if you must know

Smorky · **Joined:** Sun Dec 12, 2004 2:26 am **Posts:** 775

King Nintendoid wrote:

Doesn't that dusty old bible say "Thou shalt not kill"? And any law book for that matter?

Yes, but that won't stop the criminals from killing you, will it? You don't actually need to shoot them, just to have a gun so the criminals think you will shoot them.

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:45 pm

Shippinator Mandy wrote:

Ah. Still, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "regulating" drugs. Do you mean tapering the addicts off the drugs one bit at a time? In that case, would that be effective?

He means "regulating" as in government regulation, e.g. the way the government controls the manufacture and distribution of alcohol, tobacco, and both prescription and over-the-counter drugs.

seamusz · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:45 pm

IJ wrote:

It should go without saying (but apparently doesn't) that the ACLU isn't defending pedophilia in Curley vs. NAMBLA, but rather supports everyone's right to express their opinions, regardless of how unpopular those opinions are.

But you don't see the ACLU stepping in to help out the NRA.

EDIT: Fixed the quote

DanBo · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:46 pm

Well, the Marine Corps "Laws on how to kill people" lessons don't really count, I guess.
But yes, that's where the irony lies in the whole abortion clinic bombings. Christians believe abortionists are committing murder to unborn humans. But abortionists, under today's law, are allowed to abort birth before the third trimester (I think). An extremist will then make it his or her duty to stop the abortionists from killing, even if it means killing them, therefore becoming nothing more than law-breaking, Bible-bashing morones themselves.

Ironic...don't you think? A little too ironic. So it makes sense why the ACLU would protect abortionists, even if, let's say, pro-choicers weren't part of the left-wing block.

kaemmerite · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:46 pm

King Nintendoid wrote:

Doesn't that dusty old bible say "Thou shalt not kill"? And any law book for that matter?

Mine isn't quite so dusty.

Depends on the translation. My translation uses "murder," not "kill" for that commandment, which changes the meaning...murder is done with malicious intent, killing is not.

It's more of a...*thinks of how to explain it*...Jesus said if you look at someone with malice in your heart, you are guilty of murder. So it's more like, your intentions...so if you shoot someone in self-defense if they're trying to attack you, I'd say that since you weren't doing it with evil intent, merely in self-preservation, that it would be considered "killing" instead of "murder" and therefore not quite so severe.

seamusz · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:46 pm

King Nintendoid wrote:

It works in the Netherlands, if you must know

Define "works"

King Nintendoid · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:49 pm

So you just ignored all the posts debunking your earlier argument?

Definition of 'works':

Crappy stripped-down version of Microsoft Word.

OR

The street crack dealers are being driven out of bussines.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

The ACLU

Who is online