"You can't say that!" - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

seretogis · 10-22-2003, 10:41 AM

Quote:

You Can't Say That!
By David E. Bernstein
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 22, 2003

Below, FrontPagemag.com is pleased to run an excerpt from David E. Bernstein's new book, You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws (Cato Institute, 2003).

*

The American Civil Liberties Union has a well-earned public image as a stalwart defender of civil liberties, even when the rights in question conflict with extremely popular and seemingly important legislation. Unfortunately, however, the ACLU, bowing to intellectual trends in left-liberal circles, is increasingly willing to support the enforcement of antidiscrimination laws at the expense of civil liberties. Perhaps the most egregious example of this backsliding is the ACLU's remarkable opposition to the 1999 Religious Liberty Protection Act.

The national ACLU's opposition to the RLPA is just one of many examples of the organization's elevating antidiscrimination principles above free exercise rights. In 1983, for example, the ACLU filed a Supreme Court amicus brief against Bob Jones University, arguing that it was appropriate for the school to be stripped of its tax exemption by the IRS because of the university's (purportedly) religion-based ban on interracial dating. A few years later, the ACLU sided with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and against free exercise of religion in the Dayton Christian Schools case.

State ACLU chapters, which act independently of the national ACLU, have also actively supported antidiscrimination cases that are hostile to free exercise rights. The Vermont chapter of the ACLU sued Catholic publisher Regal Arts Press for refusing a project from the abortion rights group Catholics for Free Choice. The Southern California branch of the ACLU filed a brief on behalf of a plaintiff attempting to force the Christian Yellow Pages, a publication created by and for evangelicals, to accept ads from non-born again Christians.

In the Hoffius case, the ACLU of Michigan filed a brief supporting plaintiffs suing a landlord for refusing to rent to cohabiting unmarried couples for religious reasons.

Religious freedom is hardly the only civil libertarian concern the ACLU has downgraded in favor of antidiscrimination concerns. The national ACLU, for example, believes that plaintiffs should be able to win antidiscrimination lawsuits by showing "disparate impact" (demonstrating the discriminatory effects of the defendant's actions, even if there was no discriminatory intent). This places defendants in a very vulnerable position-even if they acted completely innocently, they can be found liable-but the ACLU seems unconcerned. As Cornell University professor Jeremy Rabkin points out, the ACLU is ''obsessed with due process, except when it comes to civil rights litigation, where they want no due process for the other side.'' ''There's a certain kind of logic to it,'' Rabkin adds, ''They genuinely think you're in the path of social progress if you object. It's not a personal comment on you; it's that you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.''

To take another example, despite the ACLU's commitment to academic freedom, the organization vigorously supported the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, which was passed in part to force small private colleges like Grove City College to kowtow to heavy-handed government regulation of their admissions and employment policies. Once again, the ACLU was more concerned with paving the road of social progress than with any civil liberties it bulldozed on the way.

The ACLU has been particularly eager to subject the Boy Scouts of America's membership policies to government regulation. Various ACLU chapters have sued the Scouts to force the organization to accept gays and atheists as members and scoutmasters-an effort that was finally rejected by the Supreme Court in 2000. Had the ACLU won its battle against the Scouts, civil liberties would have suffered great damage. For example, the ACLU sued the Scouts on behalf of a gay scoutmaster applicant named Timothy Curran, even though Curran acknowledged that he planned to violate Scouts policy by using his position to promote respect for gays among his youthful charges.

By that logic, antidiscrimination laws that ban religious discrimination could require gay organizations to hire fundamentalist Christians who want to use their positions to proselytize against homosexuality. It's hard to imagine the ACLU showing equal enthusiasm for that case.

The ACLU argues-albeit not persuasively-that the Scouts is not truly a private organization, because it benefits from indirect government subsidies, such as the free use of public school facilities. By this logic, organizations ranging from the PTA to voluntary student Bible study groups are also not private. In any event, it is unlikely that the ACLU's position would change if the Scouts cut its ties to the public sector. An ACLU attorney representing a renegade scout differentiated between clearly ideological groups like the Ku Klux Klan, which the ACLU believes have the right to exist autonomously and spread their messages, and the Scouts, which the ACLU views as a non-ideological group focused on teaching certain skills. ''You're talking about four million kids tying knots,'' he told the Washington Post. ''It's not the same thing.'' Yet many parents enroll their children in the Scouts not because they learn to tie knots, but because the Scouts inculcates traditional moral values. The use of the phrase ''he's no Boy Scout'' to describe a reprobate is an indication of how much the Scouts' identity is tied to its production of morally upright citizens.

The ACLU's commitment to using government power to thwart discrimination is even threatening the organization's commitment to ''pure speech''-expression untied to any act of discrimination against any individual.

Several years ago, John Powell, who was then legal director of the ACLU, argued that universities had an obligation to suppress speech that made African American students feel uncomfortable. He stated bluntly that his ''concern is less with the strength of the First Amendment than with the wave of racial harassment that has swept the country.'' Powell also told a reporter that the most important issues for the ACLU were abortion and civil rights. Pro-free speech forces within the national ACLU, led by its president and strong free speech advocate Nadine Strossen, eventually gained the upper hand, and Powell moved on to a position as a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Law.

Although the ACLU has generally supported free speech rights over antidiscrimination laws, its record is far from perfect and increasingly reveals schisms within the organization. On the plus side, the Virginia ACLU defended a college fraternity's right to put on an ''ugly women'' skit; the Kansas City ACLU affiliate waged a long fight for the KKK's right to use a public access television channel, and the Illinois ACLU filed a brief on behalf of Matthew Hale, a law school graduate who was denied admission to the Illinois bar because of his racist beliefs. The ACLU also filed successful lawsuits against state university speech codes in Wisconsin and Michigan, and was active in defending neighborhood activists from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development's charges that their political activities constituted illegal housing discrimination.

On the minus side, all three California ACLU affiliates have endorsed government-imposed university speech codes.

The ACLU's growing preference for social equality over individual freedom, although antithetical to its stated purpose, is not new. The ACLU's support of civil liberties has been threatened by the temptation of egalitarian political goals since the organization's earliest years. Roger Baldwin, who founded the ACLU in 1920 and led the organization for decades, came out of the radical, pacifist, pro-labor, socialist left of the World War I years. Baldwin flirted with Stalinist communism throughout the late 1920s and most of the 1930s, and in 1934 wrote that he favored civil liberties only to ultimately aid workers in gaining power. ''If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then,'' he wrote, ''if I go outside of the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties."

Early ACLU policies reflected Baldwin's socialist agenda. For example, despite its purported commitment to free speech, the organization supported the National Labor Relations Board when it penalized the Ford Motor Company for handing out anti-union literature. The ACLU's paradoxical position was that Ford could say what it wanted to in newspapers or in the chamber of commerce, but the government could restrict Ford's speech in its own factories.

Soviet communism lost its luster among many American leftists, including Baldwin, when Stalin formed a pact with Hitler in 1939. The following year, the ACLU board of directors voted to expunge all communist influence from the organization. The board declared that it was ''inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarian dictatorship in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle." For the next 30 years or so, before its drift toward becoming an adjunct of the civil rights movement, the ACLU was a staunch and consistent defender of the First Amendment. The growth of an aggressive antidiscrimination agenda at the ACLU at the expense of traditional civil liberties concerns has been a long, gradual process.

Cracks in the ACLU's defense of civil liberties began to appear in the late 1960s, when the ACLU-which was founded in large part to defend the rights of labor unions-supported African American community activists asserting ''local control'' of Brooklyn public schools against claims by the teachers' union that its members were being denied due process. In 1972, the ACLU endorsed ''antiblockbusting statutes which prohibit false or deceptive statements concerning changes in the racial, religious, or national character of a neighborhood, and/or the effect of those changes, made with the intent for commercial gain, to promote the sale of property.'' This policy was sufficiently vague that it arguably did not conflict with First Amendment norms. But three years later, the board of directors voted down an amendment opposing fair housing laws to the extent the laws violated ''the constitutional guarantee of free speech.''

Also in 1972, the ACLU reversed its long-standing opposition to government-mandated racial quotas in employment and university admissions. Many ACLU board members seemed more concerned with how the ACLU would be perceived among liberals than with whether racial quotas, particularly when mandated by the government, were actually consistent with civil liberties. One board member, for example, argued that liberals think that ''to be against quotas is to be against the aspirations of blacks and other minorities to achieve equality in employment,'' and the ACLU could not afford to be perceived by liberals as being hostile to minorities. Over time, the ACLU's commitment to civil liberties has progressively weakened.

To maintain its large membership base, the ACLU recruits new members by directing mass mailings to mailing lists rented from a broad range of liberal groups. The result of the shift of the ACLU
to a mass membership organization is that it is gradually transforming itself from a civil libertarian organization into a liberal organization with an interest in civil liberties.

This problem has been exacerbated by the growth within the ACLU of autonomous, liberal, special interest cliques known as ''projects.'' These projects have included an AIDS Project, a Capital Punishment Project, a Children's Rights Project, an Immigrants' Rights Project, a Lesbian and Gay Project, a National Prison Project, a Women's Rights Project, a Civil Liberties in the Workplace Project, a Privacy and Technology Project, and an Arts Censorship Project. These projects tend to distract the ACLU from its traditional civil libertarian agenda-freedom of expression, free exercise of religion, freedom of assembly and association, and freedom from discriminatory government policies. This loss of focus has led Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz to waggishly suggest that ''perhaps the Civil Liberties Union needs a civil liberties project."

Perhaps the ACLU's current drift away from defending civil liberties in favor of antidiscrimination and other concerns could be arrested if the ACLU adhered to a formal constitution-an immutable statement of civil libertarian principles to which the organization could refer any time its mandate became cloudy. Instead, the ACLU makes its policy democratically, by majority vote of the 83 members of the board of directors, which includes all chairs of state affiliates. Immediate political considerations inevitably weigh against timeless principles, and, as Dershowitz notes, political expediency wins out far too often.

Current ACLU president Nadine Strossen is by all accounts a strong, consistent civil libertarian-she even wrote a book defending the legality of pornography from its feminist critics. But Strossen cannot single-handedly reinvent the organization as one devoted solely to civil liberties, given the strong foothold other constituencies have achieved within the ACLU. Strossen concedes that when antidiscrimination laws and civil liberties conflict, the ACLU uses an ad hoc balancing test, choosing ''between them in the context of particular facts, weighing the potency and applicability in each instance of the general values of liberty and equality." As the left has generally turned its back on civil liberties in favor of antidiscrimination concerns, the ACLU has become increasingly reluctant to defend civil liberties at the expense of antidiscrimination laws.

David E. Bernstein is a professor of law at George Mason University.

-----

This seemed incredibly well written to me, and is something which I agree with. The ACLU needs to change its name, because it no longer values liberty above all else -- especially not above equality of outcome. I think that in recent years they have set themselves back hugely both in the public eye and privately by picking the wrong battles, for the wrong reasons.

Ustwo · 10-22-2003, 11:09 AM

I have to agree. I always respected the ACLU and even when I didn't LIKE the cause they were fighting for, I respected them for fighting it, and was glad an organization like this was out there keeping on eye on everything.

Saddly I think often the most willing members of such organizations tend to be the radicals, and as they gain power, they shape it to what THEY think it should be.

chavos · 10-22-2003, 11:59 AM

lol...like it wasn't radicals in the "good old days."

I don't know if i have much comment on much of it-certainly the ACLU has no corner on defining liberty. It is one vision...and i think a pretty good one much of the time. but to say it should change it's name...its a joke. There are society with liberty in their names all over the palce...do we evaluate their commitment to the supposedly objective standard of what liberty is?

For the ACLU, free exercize is mostly a private right....and i do disagree with them to an extent on this. But you should know that the debate over supporting the RFLA, which is similar to the RPLA discussed in teh article was fierce within the ACLU...with many affiliates including Southern California (oft identified as the most liberal) coming in support of promoting the ability of citizens to practice their rights and ideas.

Oh....and that article is super old. Nadine hasn't been the pres for years.

out of context quote...but i think it shows the bent of the author nicely:[List of special projects]...."Arts Censorship Project. These projects tend to distract the ACLU from its traditional civil libertarian agenda-freedom of expression..."

uhh....right.

Ustwo · 10-22-2003, 01:44 PM

My point is that its a shame that the ACLU is becoming just another liberal activist group.

They were once better then that.

Astrocloud · 10-22-2003, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
My point is that its a shame that the ACLU is becoming just another liberal activist group.

They were once better then that.

Wrong again. They were always considered "liberal" by those who want to impugn liberty. What makes something "Conservative" is that tends to avoid change. The ACLU is a proponent of change by paradoxically challenging rules and regulations which violate the founding principles of our country.

http://www.aclu-il.org/history.html

Quote:

History of the ACLU

When Roger Baldwin founded the ACLU in 1920, civil liberties were in a sorry state.

Citizens were sitting in jail for holding antiwar views.

U.S. Attorney General Palmer was conducting raids upon aliens suspected of holding unorthodox opinions.

Racial segregation was the law of the land and violence against blacks was routine.

Sex discrimination was firmly institutionalized; it wasn't until 1920 that women even got the vote.

Constitutional rights for homosexuals, the poor, prisoners, mental patients, and other special groups were literally unthinkable.

And, perhaps most significantly, the Supreme Court had yet to uphold a single free speech claim under the First Amendment.

The ACLU was the first public interest law firm of its kind, and immediately began the work of transforming the ideals contained in the Bill of Rights into living, breathing realities.

75 Years of ACLU Highlights
1920: The Palmer Raids

In its first year the ACLU worked at combatting the deportation of aliens for their radical beliefs (ordered by Attorney General Palmer), opposing attacks on the rights of Industrial Workers of the World and trade unions to hold meetings and organize, and securing release from prison for hundreds sentenced during the war for expression of antiwar sentiments.

1925: The Scopes Case

When Tennessee's new anti-evolution law became effective in March 1925 the ACLU at once sought a test of the statute's attackon free speech and secured John T. Scopes, a young science teacher, as a plaintiff. Clarence Darrow, a member of the Union's National Committee and an agnostic, headed the ACLU's volunteer defense team. Scopes was convicted and fined $100. On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the statute but reversed the conviction.

1939: Mayor Hague

Mayor Frank ("I am the law") Hague of Jersey City claimed the right to deny free speech to anyone he thought radical. The ACLU took Hague to the Supreme Court, which ruled that public places such as streets and parks belong to the people, not the mayor.

1942: Japanese Americans

Two and a half months after Pearl Harbor, 110,000 Japanese Americans, two-thirds of whom were citizens, were evacuated from their homes and relocated in a series of inland U.S. concentration camps. The episode was a national tragedy, rightfully called by the ACLU "the worst single whosale violation of civil rights of Americans citizens in our history." The strongest voices against evacuation and relocation came from ACLU affiliates on the West Coast.

1950: Loyalty Oaths

During the Cold War era after World War II, Congress and many state legislatures oassed loyalty-oath laws requiring one group or another, particularly public school teachers, to swear that they were not Communists or members of any "subversive organizations." Throughout the decade the ACLU fought a running battle against the government's loyalty-security program.

1954: School Desegregation

On May 17, 1954, in Brown v. The Board of Education, the Supreme Court issued its historic decision that segregation in public schools violates the 14th Amendment. The ACLU joined the legal battle that resulted in the Court's decision.

1973: Impeach Nixon

The ACLU was the first major national organization to call for the impeachment of President Richard Nixon. The ACLU listed six grounds for impeachment affecting civil liberties -- specific, proved violations of the right of political dissent; usurpation of Congressional war-making powers; establishment of a personal secret police that committed crimes; attempted interference in the trial of Daniel Ellsberg; distortion of the system of justice; and perversion of other federal agencies.

1973: Abortion Decriminalized

In Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right to privacy encompasses a pregnant woman's decision to bear a child or have an abortion. The ruling struck down state laws that had made the performance of an abortion a criminal act. The ACLU was and remains active in the courts to protect that right.

1981: Creationism in Arkansas

In Arkansas, 56 years after Scopes, the ACLU challenged a statute that called for the teaching of the biblical story of creation as a "scientific alternatiev" to the theory of evolution. The statute of, which fundamentalists saw as a model for other states, was ruled unconstitutional by District Judge William R. Overton. Creation-science, he said, was not a science but religion, and could not constitutionally be required by state law.

1989: Fall-Out from Attacks

Months after the ACLU had been attacked George Bush during the Presidential election campaign, 50,000 new members signed up in a surge of support for the organization.

1989: Texas v. Johnson

This First Amendment invalidation of the Texas flag desecration statute provoked newly inaugurated President George Bush to propose a federal ban on flag burning or mutilation. Congress swiftly obliged, but the Courts struck down the law a year later in United States v. Eichman -- in which the ACLU also filed a brief. Both ruings were big victories for symbolic political speech.

R.A.V. v. Wisconsin

In an important First Amendment victory. A unanimous Court struck down a local law banning the display, on public or private property, of any symbol "that arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."

Lee v. Weisman

The Court ruled that any officially sanctioned prayer at public school graduation ceremonies violates the Establishment Clause.

1993: J.E.B. v. T.B.

In this women's rights victory, the Court held that a prosecutor could not use peremptory challenges to disqualify potential jurors based on their gender.

1994: Ladue v. Gallo

Unanimously, the Court struck down an Ohio town's ordinance that had barred a homeowner from posting a sign that said, "Say No to War in the Gulf -- Call Congress Now!"

1995:Lebron v. Amtrak

Extended the First Amendment to corporations created by, and under the control of, the government in the case of an artist who argued successfully that Amtrak had been wrong to reject his billboard display because of its political message.

Ustwo · 10-22-2003, 03:45 PM

You neglected a very important one.

Quote:

In 1977, the ACLU filed suit against the Village of Skokie, Illinois, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of three town ordinances outlawing Nazi parades and demonstrations. A federal district court struck down the ordinances in a decision eventually affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ACLU's action in this case led to the resignation of about 15% of the membership from the organization (25% in Illinois), especially of Jewish members. A cutback in its activities was avoided by a special mailing which elicited $500,000 in contributions. Federal Judge Bernard M. Decker described the principle involved in the case as follows: "It is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear .... The ability of American society to tolerate the advocacy of even hateful doctrines ... is perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in this country."

That took balls, and apparently the balls are now retracted into their body cavities.

Sorry Astro, but please check ALL of your facts before calling ME wrong.

Astrocloud · 10-22-2003, 04:23 PM

Kid, if you look at what I wrote; then you would see that I cited a brief history of the ACLU. You are still wrong because the ACLU has always been considered a Liberal organization. If you ever bothered to watch the documentary on the Skokie case -then you will know for a FACT that the ACLU was repeated called names by the right wing for this. In fact, right-wing morons frequently cite this case as a reason why the ACLU is "loony".

Furthermore if you knew anything about civil rights in this country -then you would know that the rights to free speech are only prohibitive on their context not their content. It's the right wing that frequently tries to restrict speech based on it's content. (i.e. Restrict Flag Burning because it makes people upset. i.e. Sue Larry Flint because his parody hurts Jerry Falwell's feelings.)

For example: If I was to scream at a cop that he was a "God dammed racketeer"; on the street - that would be considered fighting words because of the context of the language. The context dictates that there is no meaningful answer that a policeman can give and it disrupts public order.

On the same token, if I was giving a speech in a public forum and I referred to all policemen as "god damned racketeers" -then this is protected speech because of the context. A public forum changes the context.

This is all very elementary and should've been taught by your high school civics teacher. Perhaps we'll hear about it next year when you become a Sophmore. Until then you may study this CHAPLINSKY v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)

chavos · 10-22-2003, 05:57 PM

Quote:

n 1977, the ACLU filed suit against the Village of Skokie, Illinois,

So it's conservative to support speech rights for nazis? I don't see how this counters the claim that there has always been a liberal element in the ACLU.

Astrocloud · 10-22-2003, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chavos
So it's conservative to support speech rights for nazis? I don't see how this counters the claim that there has always been a liberal element in the ACLU.

It's fighting for the Liberal understanding of the first amendment. The context of free speech is regulated not the content. I guess that some may say that protecting Nazi's free speech is somehow a conservative act... yet (as pointed out by David Goldberger) the act of defending the extreme right wing against oppression is a de facto defense of EVERYONE'S free speech rights.

Ustwo · 10-22-2003, 07:26 PM

Its fighting for a non-liberal cause, something they seem to be less worried about these days.

chavos · 10-22-2003, 08:41 PM

astro...i was questioning the logic of the statement, not asserting it. if the conservatives want to claim nazis as their own, then i'm all for that. point is, that besides ustwo's assertions, i see no reason that you can classify the skokie case as non-liberal. It's sort of a freedom for freedom's sake question that nobody has a stake in, as nobody wants nazis speaking in their backyard. but fortunatly, less exetreme groups who have both supporters and detractors also have free speech issues...and the ACLU defends them too.

Case in point, the MN CLU took action to ensure both the Nazi's/White Power groups, and the counter protesters would be able to rally at the state capitol a few years back. They still take these cases....skokie was just a major press item. I still don't see a case for loss of nerve/change of agenda on free speech, etc....

Astrocloud · 10-23-2003, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by chavos
astro...i was questioning the logic of the statement, not asserting it.

I knew that, I was just trying to explain their simple-mindedness.

Quote:

Originally posted by chavos
if the conservatives want to claim nazis as their own, then i'm all for that. point is, that besides ustwo's assertions, i see no reason that you can classify the skokie case as non-liberal. It's sort of a freedom for freedom's sake question that nobody has a stake in, as nobody wants nazis speaking in their backyard. but fortunatly, less exetreme groups who have both supporters and detractors also have free speech issues...and the ACLU defends them too.

Case in point, the MN CLU took action to ensure both the Nazi's/White Power groups, and the counter protesters would be able to rally at the state capitol a few years back. They still take these cases....skokie was just a major press item. I still don't see a case for loss of nerve/change of agenda on free speech, etc....

There is a really good documentary on this case for anyone who wants to watch it.

http://www.newday.com/films/Skokie_Rights_or_Wrong.html

10-22-2003, 11:09 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I have to agree. I always respected the ACLU and even when I didn't LIKE the cause they were fighting for, I respected them for fighting it, and was glad an organization like this was out there keeping on eye on everything. Saddly I think often the most willing members of such organizations tend to be the radicals, and as they gain power, they shape it to what THEY think it should be. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-22-2003, 01:44 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	My point is that its a shame that the ACLU is becoming just another liberal activist group. They were once better then that. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-22-2003, 07:26 PM	#10 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Its fighting for a non-liberal cause, something they seem to be less worried about these days. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-22-2003, 11:59 AM	#3 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	lol...like it wasn't radicals in the "good old days." I don't know if i have much comment on much of it-certainly the ACLU has no corner on defining liberty. It is one vision...and i think a pretty good one much of the time. but to say it should change it's name...its a joke. There are society with liberty in their names all over the palce...do we evaluate their commitment to the supposedly objective standard of what liberty is? For the ACLU, free exercize is mostly a private right....and i do disagree with them to an extent on this. But you should know that the debate over supporting the RFLA, which is similar to the RPLA discussed in teh article was fierce within the ACLU...with many affiliates including Southern California (oft identified as the most liberal) coming in support of promoting the ability of citizens to practice their rights and ideas. Oh....and that article is super old. Nadine hasn't been the pres for years. out of context quote...but i think it shows the bent of the author nicely:[List of special projects]...."Arts Censorship Project. These projects tend to distract the ACLU from its traditional civil libertarian agenda-freedom of expression..." uhh....right.

10-22-2003, 04:23 PM	#7 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	Kid, if you look at what I wrote; then you would see that I cited a brief history of the ACLU. You are still wrong because the ACLU has always been considered a Liberal organization. If you ever bothered to watch the documentary on the Skokie case -then you will know for a FACT that the ACLU was repeated called names by the right wing for this. In fact, right-wing morons frequently cite this case as a reason why the ACLU is "loony". Furthermore if you knew anything about civil rights in this country -then you would know that the rights to free speech are only prohibitive on their context not their content. It's the right wing that frequently tries to restrict speech based on it's content. (i.e. Restrict Flag Burning because it makes people upset. i.e. Sue Larry Flint because his parody hurts Jerry Falwell's feelings.) For example: If I was to scream at a cop that he was a "God dammed racketeer"; on the street - that would be considered fighting words because of the context of the language. The context dictates that there is no meaningful answer that a policeman can give and it disrupts public order. On the same token, if I was giving a speech in a public forum and I referred to all policemen as "god damned racketeers" -then this is protected speech because of the context. A public forum changes the context. This is all very elementary and should've been taught by your high school civics teacher. Perhaps we'll hear about it next year when you become a Sophmore. Until then you may study this CHAPLINSKY v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)

10-22-2003, 08:41 PM	#11 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	astro...i was questioning the logic of the statement, not asserting it. if the conservatives want to claim nazis as their own, then i'm all for that. point is, that besides ustwo's assertions, i see no reason that you can classify the skokie case as non-liberal. It's sort of a freedom for freedom's sake question that nobody has a stake in, as nobody wants nazis speaking in their backyard. but fortunatly, less exetreme groups who have both supporters and detractors also have free speech issues...and the ACLU defends them too. Case in point, the MN CLU took action to ensure both the Nazi's/White Power groups, and the counter protesters would be able to rally at the state capitol a few years back. They still take these cases....skokie was just a major press item. I still don't see a case for loss of nerve/change of agenda on free speech, etc....