Slashdot Mirror

Then you should tell him that they need to update their website, because their website specifically says that they don't consider the regulation of gun ownership to be a "civil rights issue". I find it hypocritical that they consider the regulation of free speech to be a civil rights issue but not the regulation of gun ownership.

The excuse that there are other "well funded organizations" doesn't hold water with me. There are lots of well funded organizations working to end the death penalty, why does the ACLU get involved in that issue?

Then you should tell him that they need to update their website, because their website specifically says that they don't consider the regulation of gun ownership to be a "civil rights issue". I find it hypocritical that they consider the regulation of free speech to be a civil rights issue but not the regulation of gun ownership.

The excuse that there are other "well funded organizations" doesn't hold water with me. There are lots of well funded organizations working to end the death penalty, why does the ACLU get involved in that issue?

They don't bother with the second amendment because there's another group NRA dedicated to that amendment alone.

Actually, no, they don't bother with the 2nd amendment because in their own words: "In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."

Thanks for playing though. Next time trying actually reading their position on the issue before opening your mouth.

I'm not a fan of the ACLU for other reasons, but the last time I looked a their stance on the 2nd amendment, it was, essentialy,

Look again.

Doesn't seem hypocritical to me for them to devote their energy to the 90% of the bill of rights that needs defending, and not the 10% that has a large and active defense already.

"In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."

That doesn't seem hypocritical to you? The regulation of a right that has existed for hundreds of years and which is enshrined in the Bill of Rights isn't a civil liberties issue? I wonder if they take the same position on the so-called "free speech zones"?

They do good work and unlike the ACLU they aren't hypocrites, at least as far as I can tell.

hypocrite

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Unless they're secretly fighting for individual gun rights, they're not hypocrites.

but i donate to EFF frequently too.

After Obama reversed himself on FISA I wrote his campaign demanding a refund of all monies I had donated to them. When I received said refund I donated every single penny (>$500) to the EFF. They do good work and unlike the ACLU they aren't hypocrites, at least as far as I can tell.

the ACLU generally pretends the second amendment doesn't exist

O RLY?

I think what you meant to say was that their understanding of the 2nd Amendment differs from yours and is therefore invalid.

Well, actually, I don't think that's the reason. (Of course, my question was rhetorical as I know the answer).

It's because they disagree with the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right -- preferring to embrace a modern notion, never endorsed by the Supreme Court, that it's some sort of "collective" right. It's odd that an organization which so vigorously (usually rightfully) defends individual rights would choose to read the word people as state in one, and only one, place in the United States Constitution while using the conventional understanding of the word people everywhere else it occurs. Oh, and that they would insult their readers' intelligence by claiming that Miller supports their collective rights view (of course, they are careful to cover their ass on that one by claiming that they don't rely on Miller to reach their conclusion -- I think because they realize that's so easy to disprove and accepted by so few scholars).

[Miller lost his case for a variety of reasons. Certainly the fact that he was already dead and that his lawyer didn't appear at oral arguments probably didn't help much. But, the primary relevant reason was that he (or his representatives) didn't convince the court that short barreled shotguns actually had a military use. The strongest implication that one can reasonably draw from the court's analysis in Miller

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

is that the Second Amendment recognizes the right to keep and bear weapons that might be generally useful in a militia -- not that the right is restricted to the "militia". (Also, the notion of a "militia" "bearing" arms seems like very odd wording to me -- but arguing linguistic nuances of 200+ year old writings can be fraught with difficulties).]

Has history taught you nothing? Kids with simple hunting rifles can defeat an invading superpower.

All kidding aside you're right in that projects like the $5000 cruise missile are the real potential game changers. Of course the idea of these being built by the wrong people is scary. Ubiquitous knowledge has changed the world.

Our founding fathers recognized the need for militias and being able to bear arms. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. " - Jefferson

Well if I wasn't on the watchlist before.. I probably am now!

As the ACLU has pointed out, companies that do random drug testing of employees actually have lower productivity than those that don't.

Anecdotally, I knew an ISP that was taken over by another larger company in the 90s. The new owners' policy of mandatory drug testing was instituted, and practically all the experienced sysadmins left for jobs where they wouldn't have to pee in a cup with someone watching. The downtime became ludicrous, and the company lost thousands of customers.

In the 'Fisherman' link in this article it goes to an old story by CT, which links to the ACLU on tops for writing elected officials. That link is out of date, the updated link is http://www.aclu.org/files/gen/13516res20021209.html

Way to completely miss my point. Two 12-year-olds probably don't know what they're doing and almost certainly don't understand the implications. They really shouldn't be having sex at that age (though I'd be a hypocrite if I said there should be no fooling around whatsoever). But whether or not they understand the implications of their actions has practically nothing to do with my point.

My point is that there's an inherent power imbalance whenever you have dramatic differences in emotional maturity. Power imbalances don't create learning experiences; they create lifelong emotional traumas (molestation, rape, etc.) that are quite likely to increase the risk of depression and self-destructive behaviors, up to and including suicide. In such a situation, the more mature individual is likely to get his/her way through the use of emotional manipulation, creating situations where the less mature one doesn't want to go through with something but is afraid to say no because of intimidation. That's rape. R-A-P-E, full stop. And there's no lesson to be learned from that.

Why did I use 12+16 as an example point? Emotional maturity seems to follow either O(log age) or O(age^n) for some 0<n<1. The age surrounding puberty (~9-14) is a period of extremely rapid emotional maturation where the slope of the curve is still extreme. After 14-ish the curve starts to flatten out, and it's practically asymptotic after ~25. (For reference, see this XKCD comic — I didn't invent this idea that the creepiness of an age delta is a function of absolute age, and neither did Randall Munroe for that matter.) Because the period between 12 and 16 has such rapid emotional development, it's a vastly different situation than the difference between 16 and 20.

Anyway, the key takeaway point: At 12, a two year difference in age is a stupendously huge amount, and a four year difference is unfathomable. After age 25, a four year difference is yawn-worthy, and a two year difference goes unnoticed. The law currently ignores this. This is bad, because the punishment doesn't fit the crime (both small differences being punished too much, and large differences being punished too little).

I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet, but courts have ruled ports and border connections as areas where the government may freely detain people and potentially search them, Bill of Rights be damned. In fact, there's a 100-mile zone all around the country's edges where border agents may have latitude (at least, according to the ACLU):

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/37293res20081022.html

Such policies, which began as a way to stem the flow of illegal immigrants, has expanded to precursors for porn and drug busts. I don't think the judge said "hand over the unencrypted files because you had no 4th amendment protections to begin with", but it's damned close.

And yes, it would be 4th amendment, because he allowed law enforcement to search him. Taking the 5th after the fact is silly.

This is thanks to what the ACLU calls the Constitution-Free Zone: http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/areyoulivinginaconstitutionfreezone.html

As a resident of Washington State, I've been lucky not to see this kind of thing yet but I may have to do the same as you if it ever happens to me.

In related news, California DMV wants to start putting your biometrics on your driver's license. Send a letter to the state legislature urging against it: https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1256

Actually they do. Anyone can take a matter to court and argue that a law impedes their Constitutional rights. In fact, it has already been ruled unconstitutional.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/38113prs20081215.html

I knew the second anyone with a decent lawyer tried to fight one, they'd win their case.

Secondly, you assume that Google would immediately cave in to the government in a case they'd win, and in doing so, risk the entire profit model of the company? That makes zero sense.

In the two times a government has asked Google to violate user's privacy, Google has fought both times.

Your argument flies in the face of documented precedence.

District of Columbia v. Heller [wikipedia.org]: The Liberals all dissented in this case, which held that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Apparently that's too much freedom for them.

The liberal justices were correct in this case. All available precedent, as well as the conventional interpretation of the amendment itself, has supported the theory that the 2nd amendment gives a collective right to gun ownership. It only gives an individual right if you ignore the first half of the sentence. The ACLU prevents a clear explanation of the position.

I do not support overactive gun control and may even support an amendment that includes individual gun ownership, but the idea that the Constitution does as written is ridiculous.

The majority opinion even presented a compelling argument for Kelo v. City of New London, arguing that eminent domain could be used for public purpose. From Wikipedia:

Kennedy fleshed out this doctrine in his Kelo concurring opinion, in which he sets out a program of civil discovery in the context of a challenge to an assertion of government purpose in the eminent domain context. However, he does not explicitly limit these criteria to eminent domain, nor to minimum scrutiny, suggesting that they may be generalized to all health and welfare regulation in the scrutiny regime. Because Kennedy signed on to the Court's majority opinion, his concurrence is not binding on lower courts. He writes:
"A court confronted with a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties should [conduct]â¦.a careful and extensive inquiry into âwhether, in fact, the development plan [chronology]
[1.] is of primary benefit to . . . the developerâ¦, and private businesses which may eventually locate in the plan areaâ¦,
[2.] and in that regard, only of incidental benefit to the cityâ¦[.]â(TM)"
Kennedy is also interested in facts of the chronology which show, with respect to government,
[3.] awareness ofâ¦depressed economic condition and evidence corroborating the validity of this concernâ¦,
[4.] the substantial commitment of public fundsâ¦before most of the private beneficiaries were knownâ¦,
[5.] evidence that [government] reviewed a variety of development plansâ¦[,]
[6.] [government] chose a private developer from a group of applicants rather than picking out a particular transferee beforehand andâ¦
[7.] other private beneficiaries of the project [were]â¦unknown [to government] because theâ¦space proposed to be built [had] not yet been rentedâ¦."

The Gonzales v. Raich case was not about anything you cited. The decision was based almost entirely on the Commerce Clause. Their decision was iffy, but it does fit very well with precedent, which has established the Commerce Clause as almost infallible in these situations.

Honestly, I can not say one of your examples is solid. If you really want a questionable liberal legal decision, take a gander at Roe v. Wade. (Disclaimer: I am a Democrat and support legal abortions in the United States.) That decision was a legal travesty: the foundation of the decision was the 4th Amendment, insinuating that the right to have an abortion is equivalent with the right of the people to be secure in their persons. The decision in this case was just so broad and overreaching that I see its legal foundation as almost laughable.

I can guarantee you that the votes would have been reversed had Obama lost the primary contest and Hillary been the nominee.

Probably. Like I said here, I wasn't upset about it because I thought Hillary was any better. It was just extra salt in the wound after Obama's reversal and my own efforts to assist his campaign during the primaries.

His campaign didn't want to be painted as soft on terra or hamstringing intelligence efforts by the Repubs in the general.

So you betray your supporters and reverse an explicit pledge you made because of political considerations? To quote Senator McCain, "That's not change we can believe in"

but I have to believe that he KNOWS that immunity for the teclos is wrong

Then why did he vote for it?

But just you know know, I contributed probably a couple hundred dollars to the Obama campaign - until the FISA vote.

I contributed around $500 and got every single penny of it back.

ACLU's site and saw the headline "Senate passes telco immunity: ACLU sues", and I became a member

I wanted to join the ACLU until I realized they are hypocrites. Civil liberties union my ass.

I voted Barr in the general

I couldn't forgive him for the witch burning episode back in the 90s. I did a write-in for Ron Paul.

There was a case from Ohio, I believe, where a prison inmate had kept a diary. This person, IIRC, was a sex offender. In this diary, he wrote down a fantasy he had involving minors. The diary wasn't private, but part of his therapy, and of course the authorities read it. He was charged with creating and possessing child pornography, IIRC. It went either to the Ohio Supreme Court, I believe --

Actually, I got a lot of the details wrong. It was a private diary, and it went to the common pleas court. But he did get charged 11 years for posession.
Story.

So it was a win for privacy and rationality. But, you can see where the law enforcement folks want this to go. Maybe you'll be arrested for owning a copy of the movie "The Aristocrats".

Court Rules Patriot Act's "National Security Letter" Gag Provisions Unconstitutional

Tell that to the US citizens who were served National Security Letters under the auspices of the PATRIOT Act. Oh wait, you can't, because those people are legally prohibited from disclosure...

Not no more: Court Rules Patriot Act's "National Security Letter" Gag Provisions Unconstitutional (12/15/2008)

The ACLU isn't all bad. However, that first article about Planned Parenthood is right on. It was set up by known eugenicist and racist Margeret Sanger. She felt it was her duty to kill as many black babies as possible. You can find plenty of letters she wrote about that.

Not surprisingly, Bill Gates' father was the President of Planned Parenthood. Now he is spending his billions on eugenics projects in his tax-free foundation, just like the Rockefellers.

However, the ACLU does some good. Just read this article on how the government is setting up a dossier on ever American citizen.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/14999res20040210.html

So you assume this technology has not been developed already?
With the current state of facial recognition and on-line banking records, movement of anyone van be traced with relative ease.

The only thing keeping this in check is the fact that they can't legally use this technology unless you're on a terror watch list.

neither major party is committed in principle to individual freedom, including freedom of expression.

when Janet Reno was AG under Clinton, she warned the TV networks to clean up their shows, or the government would do it for them

OK, but I didn't see the Clinton FCC start any actual prosecutions of the TV networks, or hand down any million-dollar fines, like Bush's FCC did.

I agree that neither party is totally committed to freedom of expression. Neither party is committed to any absolutist principle, because parties are inherently compromises. That's why we have the ACLU (and the EFF and...)

But in practice, if you compare the Democrats and Republicans' ACLU scorecards, it's very clear that the Democrats are generally better for freedom of expression.

In a democracy, practical voting matters more than principle; you're the one making the error.

Off-topic, I know, but in response to the rhetorical question: "Do cops get a percentage cut of any drug money they capture?" Personally? Not exactly -- legally, anyway -- but ...

Cops rake in millions from drug busts
Report: Cops Keeping Drug Money

As a HAM, I have met a few who have nifty gear able to tune into cell phones and their 'pings' or tower replies (from post-911 US cellphones) and a few of them have told me that there seems to be more than just pinging or tickling the towers going on. More than is needed to keep up the TX/RX channels open or for simply switching towers based on cell tower capacity and range to the handset.
Others hinted that the removal of the battery does not fully prevent (post-911 US cellphones) from receiving radio frequency energy and replying uniquely (just like RFID tags do but cell phones have Much better antennas).
Links that touch some on this topic:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8068
http://jya.com/cell-track.htm
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/37748res20081112.html
http://allgpstracking.net/gpstracking/index.php/gpstracking/2006/03/12/how_gps_works_gps_tracking
http://ezinearticles.com/?Cell-Phone-Location-Tracking-Information&id=782355
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21442821-Cell-phone-location-tracking-without-telcos-help
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081116-foia-docs-show-feds-can-lojack-mobiles-without-telco-help.html
http://www.danbrown.com/secrets/digital_fortress/cell_phones.html
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3945496.ece
Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but because RFID tags cost only a few cents each, why would similar capability NOT be incorporated into the chips of modern cell phones. Tear down an RFID tag, it is just a very very small semiconductor chip paired to a set of antennas between layers of opaque plastic tape an a sticker backing.
(NOTE: In college, we had fun by carefully removing discovered RFID tags and 'repatriating' them onto different and unrelated merchandise at our local Wal-Mart Supercenter... good times..... not to be confused with the old tried and true bi-metallic strips that loss control departments use which set off the door antenna loops that we all walk through. But sticking one of those to your buddy's jacket made for a good laugh...)

The Presiding Judge in the case is Judge Edward Chen, who worked 15 years at the American Civil Liberty Union ("ACLU").

My entire state is a constitution-free zone as defined by the aclu
I saw it somewhere before (probably on a sig here on slashdot)... the root password to the constitution is terrorism.

So what's up with the expanded borders, up to 100 miles from the borders and 100 miles from coastal lines?

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/areyoulivinginaconstitutionfreezone.html
Does this count as a police state yet?
(Papers, please...)
Why is 2/3 of the U.S. population subject to these unconstitutional search and seizures?
Maybe it's just all in my mind..

But has anyone ELSE heard about this?

Better a few guilty men go free on a technicality than allow officers to become a law unto themselves.

The largest US gang has a well documented record that would seem to indicate your statement is out of date.

As another everyday example, here's a big surprise, no?

I'm not intending to troll/flamebait here, but MY perception is there is very little accountability for the 'on the job' crew in blue amongst themselves. It is also my perspective that there is very little integrity once one subscribes to the original meaning of the thin blue line.

Excellent point re: picking and choosing.
I do hope you'll pass your opinion on to the ACLU.
http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/

Javascript of the ACLU map not working? Use this URL. Replace NY with the desired state code:
www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/cfz_map/constitutionfreezone-NY.html

• ACLU Sues School District For Punishing Kindergarten Student Because Of Family's Religious Beliefs
• ACLU Files Lawsuit To Protect Religious Freedom Of Florida High School Students
• City of Portland Upholds Freedom of Religion

And that's just in the last 30 days. The ACLU is against the government favoring (or penalizing) any establishment of religion over another, and is a strong supporter of any individual's right to worship who, what, and how they please without government intervention. That morons like you think this makes them anti-relgion and anti-American is both sad and hilarious.

• ACLU Sues School District For Punishing Kindergarten Student Because Of Family's Religious Beliefs
• ACLU Files Lawsuit To Protect Religious Freedom Of Florida High School Students
• City of Portland Upholds Freedom of Religion

And that's just in the last 30 days. The ACLU is against the government favoring (or penalizing) any establishment of religion over another, and is a strong supporter of any individual's right to worship who, what, and how they please without government intervention. That morons like you think this makes them anti-relgion and anti-American is both sad and hilarious.

• ACLU Sues School District For Punishing Kindergarten Student Because Of Family's Religious Beliefs
• ACLU Files Lawsuit To Protect Religious Freedom Of Florida High School Students
• City of Portland Upholds Freedom of Religion

And that's just in the last 30 days. The ACLU is against the government favoring (or penalizing) any establishment of religion over another, and is a strong supporter of any individual's right to worship who, what, and how they please without government intervention. That morons like you think this makes them anti-relgion and anti-American is both sad and hilarious.

First off: Your list has "New Hampshire" on it, did you even bother to read the whole thing before you claimed that New Hampshire is the one with the corner outside the "Constitution Free Zone"?

Second: If you look at the map here you can see the grey part of Vermont yourself.

Third: If you look click on Vermont on the map here you get a page which CLEARLY states that only 94.13% of Vermonts population is in the "Constitution Free Zone". On the other hand if you click on New Hampshire on the map here you get a page which CLEARLY states that all of New Hampshires population is in the constitution free zone.

So to sum it up: You don't know what the heck you're talking about.

First off: Your list has "New Hampshire" on it, did you even bother to read the whole thing before you claimed that New Hampshire is the one with the corner outside the "Constitution Free Zone"?

Second: If you look at the map here you can see the grey part of Vermont yourself.

Third: If you look click on Vermont on the map here you get a page which CLEARLY states that only 94.13% of Vermonts population is in the "Constitution Free Zone". On the other hand if you click on New Hampshire on the map here you get a page which CLEARLY states that all of New Hampshires population is in the constitution free zone.

So to sum it up: You don't know what the heck you're talking about.

First off: Your list has "New Hampshire" on it, did you even bother to read the whole thing before you claimed that New Hampshire is the one with the corner outside the "Constitution Free Zone"?

Second: If you look at the map here you can see the grey part of Vermont yourself.

Third: If you look click on Vermont on the map here you get a page which CLEARLY states that only 94.13% of Vermonts population is in the "Constitution Free Zone". On the other hand if you click on New Hampshire on the map here you get a page which CLEARLY states that all of New Hampshires population is in the constitution free zone.

So to sum it up: You don't know what the heck you're talking about.

Wrong!

Actually, New Hampshire is the one with the little corner that is outside of the "Constitution Free Zone". Vermont lies wholly within it. As does Massachusetts, to wit:

Some states are considered to lie completely within the zone: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/37293res20081022.html

...or areas that infringe on other amendments of the U. S. constitution...ie, the entire states of Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey, and in fact to a large extent, the entire country since 1934. (oops...ACLU doesn't like that one!)

Replace the women's rights pamphlet with a (non-explicit) circular defending paedophilia. Do you think our society would still protect your freedom of speech if you began circulating that? How long before they beat a confession out of you? Who's going to defend you?

I'm pretty sure such things are distributed in the US without the distributors being beaten by the government, and I know there are plenty of lawyers and organisations willing to defend such a person. They might face a lot of illegal abuse, but not the death penalty or twenty years prison time.

heh... if they have their way...

http://blog.aclu.org/2008/08/01/taser-bracelets-really/

Hasn't stopped them before.

Yes I agree with you completely that people have been prevented from boarding aircraft when all they were doing was exercising their right to free speech. The guy's t-shirt is a classic example of that. You can't stop a guy boarding a plane just because he "has scary muslim writing" on his shirt! People joking about bombs and things are slightly different because it could be the equivalent to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

So having said all of that, why on earth is the guy in the article trying to "test" the TSA by flaunting all of that propaganda? That isn't part of their job! Their job is to ensure that you don't get anything that causes physical endangerment onto a plane. Dangerous ideas don't count!

Hasn't stopped them before.

I don't care if you call him a waffle or someone that has finally seen the light, but keep in mind that Barr has refuted a lot of his previous positions. Like the rest of us he has slowly grown sick of the neo-cons in power.

Whether it's because he's waffling or he's seen the light he has changed his positions. I used to hate his positions but for now I'll accept he has changed though I'd still watch his actions. What really surprised me was that he worked with the ACLU on privacy issues. A conservative working with fake or pseudo-liberals, really civil liberals?

I suppose "fake or pseudo-liberals" needs explaining to some. The way "liberal" is used today in the US isn't how is used to be used. The original liberal or Classical Liberal, like Thomas Jefferson, believed in liberty and small government. The political party that comes closest to that meaning today is the Libertarian Party.

Falcon

The ACLU also sided with Jerry Falwell in a case.

i don't see how surveillance is mind-control. the Chinese government want to root out dissidents and suppress dissenting opinions, just as has been done in the U.S. throughout history. ever heard of COINTELPRO? this kind of blatant abuse of political power to actively suppress political dissent was most rampant during J. Edgar Hoover's reign of the FBI and slowly declined after his death. but in recent years such practices have been revived once again.

all governments, especially unpopular ones, fear dissent and subversion. and since political activism can be seen as a subversive act, governments have always targeted activist groups, whether openly or behind closed doors. the recent illegal wiretapping scandal is concrete evidence of such abuses. and under the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T.A.C.T. the federal government can now freely target activist groups under the guise of combating terrorism.

he "executive order" complaint sounds like total bullshit, but if I'm wrong I'd like to hear about

Well, this article is about an "executive agreement"," ACTA.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18769prs20041220.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/08/25/military_cites_risk_of_abuse_by_cia/
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051217-5791.html

Just google for:
"bush abuse of executive order"

Since the courts agreed it is:
"...numerous courts have upheld the right to anonymity online in similar contexts." -ACLU