Slashdot Mirror
Wired interview with Steinhardt
mlknowle writes "Wired has just posted a great interview with former EFF president and ACLU associate director Barry Steinhardt. In the interview, Steinhardt expresses concern that next year will be an even worse year for civil liberties. He does offer tips on what to do to help, however."
Donate money to the EFF. For your Bday, ask that people donate money in your name.
Bringing irony to the Slash-masses
Except for those times that the ACLU defended the KKK's right to protest and march, the right of abortion protesters to protest, etc.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your rant however. Just keep repeating what you heard on Rush or Dr. Laura. It'll be easier for you.
While some members of the ACLU are hopelessly left wing to and extreme. The organization itself has tried its best to maintain its dignity. It has even defended the KKK because it realizes that if it want free speach it has to be all the way, and fair. Please do some research before you post next time. I know the ACLU is spoken of horribly among right wingers, (and there have been times when the ACLU has deserved its reputation) but please, think for yourself, and find out whats really going on.
True, Intel understood the game long before MS and donated money to avoid a lawsuit. Bill Gates refused to contribute and now he's got a lawsuit on his hands. But seems like he's repairing his mistake.
btw, not everyone on Slashdot lives in the US.
Besides being an obvious troll, you sound like a Christian, so I'll take a chance on that assumption, friend.
The ACLU will fight to keep porn in and any concept of God out of any part of our society.
Being of a Christian bent myself, I shake my head in dis-belief every time something like this is said. Whose "God" are you referring to, here? If it's the Christian God, you are presumming that yours (that of a Christian view, puritanical, police state) is the only valid point of view. Forcing Christian morals down throats is a problem, not a solution. I suggest you approach the problem as Our Saviour would - dissuade those "sins" with kind words and deeds befitting the name "Christian".
Sure they will fight for free speech for all, except those who disagree with the liberal ideology in which case they are obviously racist right wing fundamentalist anti-choice homophobes!
No, they dissagree with those who wish to limit our choices to one view - such as yourself. Please don't confuse Liberty with religion - there is only problems and not solutions in doing so. As Voltaire said, "Liberty then is only and can be only the power to do what one will. That is what philosophy teaches us. But if one considers liberty in the theological sense, it is a matter so sublime that profane eyes dare not raise themselves to it."
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
It is critically important to differentiate between those who do not "give a damn" and those who do, but disagree with the espoused viewpoint. I, for one, fit into the latter category. This debate--one of huge importance to this country at the moment--unfortunately is marked by incredible intolerance and divisiveness both from the right and the left; witness the suggestions that anyone who doesn't support Ashcroft's views is abetting terrorism, but anyone who does is a fascist pig. In fact, as in most arguments, there is a broad middle ground, and that's where I find myself.
With all do respect to the posted interview, it is long on sound, short on sense. I would like, for example, to see more about the unease beneath the "veneer" of public support. The latest Gallup data suggests that only 10% of the populace thinks that the government has gone too far; 60% think it is about right, and 26% think that the government has not gone far enough. Approval ratings for Bush are historically high, and given my perception of John Ashcroft's views and character (I'm a Missouri refugee), his approval rating of 76% seems absurdly high. My views aside, to suggest that this is a veneer is either to suggest that Gallup's methodology is flawed or people are outright lying to the pollsters. Either suggestion, in my opinion, requires more backing than a vehement assertion.
Steinhardt also makes a clever reference to the "slippery slope" argument in his first response, suggesting that as we are now on a "war footing" (which I regard as blatantly untrue), and "apply[ing] the laws of war domestically, civil liberties will become a thing of the past as this war goes on "without an end." Though convenient, I don't really think this holds water; the only effort to apply the laws of war resulting from September 11th are the military tribunals, and they explicitly do not apply to U.S. citizens (and, lest anyone suggest that non-citizens receive the same Constitutional protections as citizens, that position is at best debatable even when the circumstances in question occur in U.S. territory, which it looks like they will ordinarily not here). And it largely goes unnoted by the left that the original order establishing the military tribunals has been gutted from its original draconian form, and now conforms much more closely to the UCMJ, and will include a right to appeal. It also goes unnoticed that in the first instance in which they could have invoked the military tribunals, the government did not; Zacarias Moussaoui was arraigned in Federal Court in Alexandria, VA.
My own politics are left-of-center, but I consider myself a liberal in the classical sense rather than in the post-Vietnam, anti-government, anti-military, anti-corporate sense. Unfortunately, the pundits whom I once considered to be my voice, or at least a useful voice of reason, have abandoned me, adopting a terribly hypocritical position that I regard as scarcely less dangerous to me and my rights than the equally ridiculous position of the far right. My concern is tempered, somewhat, by the knowledge that similar fights have occurred every time this country has gone to war. We--and our rights--have survived more serious conflicts than this; we will survive this one too.
-db
Millions of Americans chose not to accept homosexuality as a healthy lifestyle to be promoting to their children and should have the final say when their dollars, not tax revenues are used to fund an organization, not the courts.
Millions of Americans also find homosexuality to be perfectly fine, regardless of whether it is a natural trait, or a lifestyle choice. That said, I happen to agree with you on the boy scout case. Private organizations discriminate in all sorts of ways. That's their perogative. As long as they aren't getting a nickel of public funding, I couldn't care less.
The ACLU has also been a champion of much more sensible and noble cases. I don't believe that they have a universally negative image. Perhaps among conservatives, but for centrists and (to a lesser degree) leftists, the ACLU is generally a positive force. It helps to keep politicians honest in a way by forcing issues to light that otherwise could be swept under the rug.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
As a college student I was quite upset that part of my "Student Activity Fee" went to groups and organizations that I had absolutely no interest in supporting (Campus Leftists, Amesty International, college democrats, gay, lesbian, and bisexual alliance, et al.)
When I was a college student, I was upset that my "Student Activity Fee" was being given to the Campus Crusaders, Young Republicans, the Gun Club, at least one anti-abortion group and more Bible study groups then I can count, let alone name. As a taxpayer I do not want to pay for Reagan's failed "War on Drugs" nor do I want to pay for Bush's "War on Terrorism", I have little choice. And those choices are narrowing especially in the face of being called Anti-American for daring to use my Constitutional Rights of Dissent and Free Speech.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
Besides being an obvious troll, you sound like a Christian, so I'll take a chance on that assumption, friend.
Actually, he sounds like a religious zealot, which is arguably the antithesis of Christianity.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
and, lest anyone suggest that non-citizens receive the same Constitutional protections as citizens, that position is at best debatable even when the circumstances in question occur in U.S. territory, which it looks like they will ordinarily not here
While I'm not sure that I've thought this through to my satisfaction, my first reaction is to apply the meta-principle to treat others as we would want to be treated. YMMV.
Not on a war footing? what world are you in? The president comes on the tv almost daily exclaiming how we "ARE AT WAR" and we are fighting the "war on terrrorism" and john ashcroft is saying how americans have to give up some liberties in these times of war. And Bush again stating "this may take a few years" We are most definitly on a war footing.
What I and the ACLU and the rest are concerned about is this taking away of civil rights in the name of fighting the war on terrorism and the fact that the war on terrorism will NEVER END. There might always be some quck plotting revenge on america does that mean we should perpetually live in a state of fear and lessened civil rights? NO. John Ascroft seems to think otherwise though therein lies the debate (which should not even be a debate at all)
Take a look at the book 1984 where rights of the people were forever taken away by the wool being pulled over the people's eyes by a fictional war that never ends. Sound anything like what is happening today? It should.
As someone who has occassionally carried an ACLU card, my reaction to this sort of fluff is to continue to put off rejoining. Vacuous political correctness has become confused with the defense of true liberty. True liberty means that the KKK can march in Indiana, but also means that the police should pay special attention to white guys wearing sheets after there's been a church burning or lynching. True liberty means professors are welcome to make silly "We must understand why they hate us" speaches, but it also means the feds should pay special attention to Muslim males of extremist persuasion - especially those on overstayed visas - after the WTC.
All the fund raising mailings I've received from the ACLU in the last five years are cliched and without the sort of substance whose bedrock is documented events. If our liberties are at threat - and I'm quite ready to believe they are - this is not the way to present an effective defense. Rather than preach to the converted, civil liberties leaders need to convert those who believe they believe in liberty, but don't see the contradiction in support our current leaders, who mention 'defense of freedom' in every other breath.
That's hard work, but it's real work. By contrast, this jerk, in this interview, is just playing a part from central casting. A fun job if you can get it, but I'm not about to pay him for this sorry performance through donation, time, or even lip service.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Perhaps that is the point.
Cat