Slashdot Mirror
Joining the ACLU?
X86Daddy writes "I'm currently a member of the EFF. I agree with everything they do. I'd like to further help protect liberty and freedom, and the ACLU advertises that they exist for that purpose. The ACLU is an organization well known for controversy. I've heard many opinions for and against it, and even a few citations of evidence. I've read their positions on their website, and although I strongly disagree with some of what they believe, I support the majority of their positions. I've also read some of their court filings, in search of more evidence of what they really do. I'm still undecided. I've even sent them an unanswered e-mail about the percentages of money spent on their main positions. So, I ask the Slashdot audience, what information do you have about the ACLU? I'm interested in facts about how they spend their efforts with regards to all of their efforts, electronic-related or not."
OK, keep in mind while reading the following that I'm a member of the ACLU. I'm going to touch on some of their less popular positions, though.
The ACLU tends to be fanatical on matters of speech, even when most people would not necessarily be on their side. The case that Bill O'Reiley likes to rail against is where they have helped defend the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)... they really do believe that everybody has the right to say anything, no matter what it is and what might be done with that information.
They have also been famous in defending (and winning) the right of groups like the Ku Klux Klan and fascist Nazi-praising groups to march. Again, for them it's a bright line: no matter how vile the speech, the speaker has the right to say it.
They have also been very active in challenging the Bush Administration's position that they are able to keep suspected terrorists incommunicado for as long as they like.
I wouldn't necessarily want to live in a world where the ACLU positions always ended up prevailaing. I do, however, believe that they are a very necessary counterbalance to those interests that would drag us back to the bad old days of McCarthyism (I would ask Ann Coulter, "Have you no shame, Madame?") and other reactionary movements.
On September 11th, I sent money to two groups: the Red Cross and the ACLU.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
I think the logic behind their NAMBLA argument isn't that pedophiles are okay... it's that writing about a crime is separate from actually comitting the crime. Like, they're getting legal shit beacuse they're writing HOWTOs on how to nail young boys.
Is it illegal to write HOWTOs on how to rob a bank, or crack DeCSS? No. But actually doing the deed is. The only thing that makes NAMBLA different is that they're pedophiles.
I mean, everyone hates pedophiles... but they haven't actually done anything besides write stuff.
no thanks
If you like some of their work but not all of it just send them a cheque for less than you would otherwise have. Say you like 50% of the work and you think a good donation is 100 bucks, so send them 50 bucks. Someone else will not like the 50% you support and can do likewise. If their views slip with time, year on year adjust the percentage. Include a covering letter of why your doing it, up or down, people listen most when their is money in the envelope. Some organisations have ways your can earmark for causes, if they do use it, and support people who give you the option, that way more will offer it in future. For example savefarscape.com has 2 different funds, one for risky stuff one for day to day stuff....
James
Though I don't think that their influence would be best described as "left" (though it fits the bill in a lot cases).
:)
They do, in fact defend most of the constitution, get the word out about the U.S.A. Patriot Act and whatnot, but when it comes right down to it, they're all a bunch of lawyers.
Tort reform (putting caps on civil court awards) is something they argue tooth and nail against, even though civil claims are at fault for most of the rise in medical costs, and rates for various types of insurance (doctors give on average 1/3 of their income to mal practice insurance, though 83% of successful claims are frivelous, and rising yearly).
A real, non-discriminatory defender of the constitutional, social, and economic freedoms is the libertarian party. Though I'm a bit bias according to my handle.
I fear nothing but my government. Vote Libertarian.
It all has to do with balance. We all know no citizen's liberty is safe while congress is in session. (Franklin I think) When it comes down to it, the main job of congress is to take away liberty by passing laws. Sometimes they get too caried away and somebody needs to be there to defend liberty. There are somethings I don't agree with (I won't enumerate those things here), but when it comes down to it, I support the majority of what they support. Otherwise, who's to stop congress from going overboard and taking it all away piece by piece?
What I'd like to know is why every American doesn't support the ACLU. The general feeling by many people is that they're bad. I can't think of a good reason why you would hate an orginization who's sole purpose is to defend freedom from those who would take it away from us. I once had an NCO (while I was in the military) bash me for supporting the ACLU. I reminded him that he said "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Of course the conversation went crazy from there (we were on a boring detail), but still... It's interesting to watch 'right wing' people bash the ACLU while calling the people who support them 'traitors' and whatnot. To me, not supporting the ACLU is treason against what our country stands for.
And the Oscars are political? No shit?
Robin Williams
Of course the organization has an obvious slant, its stated goals are to protect what it views as the civil liberties of all Americans. When you're defending what you view as freedom you tend to get a little loony... see RMS for another example.
Unfortunately, somewhere along the way they certainly did forget about the second amendment. I read an article by an ACLU member pointing out that a great number of members disagree with the organization on the second amendment. He also pointed out that, while the groups stated position is that "the right to bear arms" is a "group right" (you know to let people keep a well regulated militia), the ACLU is not nearly as active in second amendment law as it is in other areas.
I joined the organization a few years back at the same time I joined the NRA. I figure I'll pay the ACLU to take loony positions on amendments 1 and 3-10, and I'll pay the NRA to take loony positions on number 2. Those loony positions will be shot down in courts and legislatures, but perhaps we will still have some rights a few years down the road.
When the government wants to go right, pull hard from the left. When the government wants to go left (yeah that's gonna happen), pull hard from the right.
Civil Rights- Rights granted by virtue of citizenship
Civil Liberties- Rights granted by virtue of legislative fiat
If you are suggesting that the "civil liberties" that the ACLU defends are arbitrary rights designated by a government body, you need to go back to POL101. Read some Locke and Hobbes as well.
According to people like Hobbes and Locke, freedom is the natural state of man. Governments, created by the people, impose certain restrictions on that freedom to further the goals of order and prosperity. It wouldn't do a society much good to have everyone killing each other.
Thus, your definitions fail since all rights are natural rights. Of course, this argument assumes you agree with social compact theory.
ph34r teh p0w3r 0f th3 c0w
The "Seperation of Church and State" has no foundation in the constitution. This is the text of the first amendment:
The Founding Fathers were openly religious. The practice of praying to God, and not just any God, the Christian God embraced by the Christian religions, in government has continued even today.
The Constitution specifically states that the federal government cannot infringe on my right to practice my religion, whether I am elected or not, nor whether I am appointed a judge or hired as a soldier. The Constitution specifically states that I am allowed to practice my religion, whether I am in my home, at church, on the floor of the senate, or in the office of the President of the United States.
Let's pretend we do obtain a Muslim majority. Let's pretend we elect a Muslim fanatic to be the president, and the Supreme Court is stacked with Muslim fanatics as well. They have no right under the constitution to prevent me from practicing my Christian religion. They have no right to support the Muslim religion above the Christian one. But they have every right to pray to Allah and to call on us Christians to embrace Islam.
That's what I believe. That's what my forefathers agreed to. And that is what has held our nation together, despite the varieties of religions.
Now answer me this question: Why does the ACLU insist on enforcing Atheism in my schools, in my government, and in my courts? Why are they trying to force the hand of government to respect one religions (Atheism, Islam) over another (Christianity, Judaism)? Why am I not allowed to pray in schools, whether it be to God, Eloheim, or to Allah? Why am I forced to pay tribute to the pagan gods of Mother Earth, Environmentalism, or Atheism?
The ACLU stands for the Anti-American Civil Liberals Union, just like the NAACP should be called the NAALCP (LCP = Liberal Colored People, not those who happen to agree with the rest of the nation).
Go ahead and spend your dollars where you like. I spend mine on President Bush and his reelection campaign, and getting conservative, Christian God-Fearing representatives elected, so if you want your Anti-Christian, Atheistic views to be held in government, you'd better mobilize.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
hy am I not allowed to pray in schools, whether it be to God, Eloheim, or to Allah? Why am I forced to pay tribute to the pagan gods of Mother Earth, Environmentalism, or Atheism?
Actually, the ACLU has taken cases where school districts have prevented students from praying publicly. Rightly so, too, since the government has no place telling you when and how to pray.
no thanks
God, it's like I'm arguing with a brick...
The speech in question in this case is not 'threats and extortion'. The NOW didn't sue the people who threatened the child-killers. They sued the political organization that motivated the protests to begin with.
I'm sure if someone committed a crime in the name of the ACLU, and the ACLU got sued under Federal racketeering laws, they would be screaming 'freedom of speech'. In this case, though, they're screaming 'right to abortion'.
They aren't protecting political speech; they're protecting their leftist political ideology. As I mentioned in another thread, though, their argument wasn't exactly successful.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Now answer me this question: Why does the ACLU insist on enforcing Atheism in my schools, in my government, and in my courts? Why are they trying to force the hand of government to respect one religions (Atheism, Islam) over another (Christianity, Judaism)? Why am I not allowed to pray in schools, whether it be to God, Eloheim, or to Allah?
Please cite evidence as to when the ACLU has tried to stop someone from praying in school. What they try to stop is people in positions of authority from leading prayers in schools. Private prayer is your own business, and the ACLU I believe has worked to get people the right to have private prayer time in school if they want it.
Why is it that (in this country) Christian conservatives feel they are being discriminated against if they are not allowed to impose their religion on others?
jf
nuclear weapons are not 'arms':
It is an individual right:
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
The NRA gun nuts will never defend anyone's personal liberty, because they love Bush, Ashcroft et al, and helped them take over. They are turning America into The Fourth Reich, and the NRA gun nuts stand and cheer. They will get theirs though, just as the SA did as soon as the neocons' power is completely secured. You don't really believe that Boom and Muffy Country Club want the rabble armed, do you? Use your head, NRA gun nuts! Even if you decided to try to stop the "army from taking over," you couldn't. Your pop guns are no match for military weaponry. Besides, as long as Bushy is Fuhrer, you would help the army take over. Fuck you NRA hillbillies pig sodomizers!
How ya like dat?
In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.
Well, if we're going to take a time machine back to interpret this wording, what do we do about hand-held weapons that weren't invented when the constitution was drafted? Assault rifles with armor-piercing explosive bullets? Zip-lock bags filled with sarin gas?
Though I agree the constitution does guarantee the right to bear arms, I don't agree that the definition of "arms" can't be interpreted in a modern context to exclude weapons that fall outside the spirit of the amendment. (I'm not sure if this is what you're arguing, but it is what some people argue!)
Might be wise to point out that constitution.org is maintained by those groups that advocate tax evasion.
I'm going to take the orignal poster's sentiment (or what I would presume is their take on this issue) and run with it.
... And they cannot make a law prohibiting your right to exercise your religion. Well, I don't think they've ever tried this either, and certainly not successfully. Some immature young lad out there probably wants to shoot back, "But I want to sacrifice virgins to the fire god!". Well, fine, but that's infriging on somebody else's right to live which flies directly in the face of any number of laws of the land and basically any law created by human civlization that I'm aware of.
Read the above quote a few times and let it sink in if you have the notion of "seperation of church and state" burried into your head.
Word #1: Congress
Congress is the legislative body of the United States of America. This is not your school board. This is written to prvent the federal legislative branch from:
Words #2 - #10:
Making a law respecting an establishment of religion. Period. Hey this is pretty plain and simple -- there's no legal jargon here. So far we have a statement that says that Congress cannot make a law which states an offical religion of the land. Congress has never (to the best of my knowledge) even tried doing this nor have they ever succeeded. We piss on the Constitution frequently but this is one bullet point that's never been trampled on.
Words #11 - 16:
Last I knew Congress never ordered prayers before football games, nor did they prohibit them. The judicial branch has taken the above statement though and turned it into "seperation of church and state" which is a horrible farce. The parent poster has stated, and this is true, that the founding fathers were openly religious. There is nothing wrong (morally or legally) with a representative in Congress, a senator, or a president from having and acting upon their religious beleifs unless they make it a law through the legislative branch. Period, end of story.
The 1st ammendment in no way, shape, or form can possibly be contrued from it's original writing to mean that there shall never be an intersection of religion and any "state" funded activity. The term "seperation of church and state" has always bugged me because the 1st ammendment specifically mentions a federal branch of the government and nowhere in the bill of rights are things actually prohibited to be done at the state level unless it trumps federal law.
As long as there is no law stating that there must be prayer at graudations, football games, or by a group of students before school: let them pray. Let them do it openly. Let them use community funds to it if that's what the community wants. The federal government shall make no law ever stating that it must be done or that it cannot be done.
If a Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, or other community wishes to celebrate their religion on government owned property or during goverment sponsored events, FINE! Let them, I'll rejoice as an American that they have that right. Once you stomp on my communities freedom for a speaker at high school graduation to express his religious beleifs to the student body you've stomped on their rights though, and that just isn't kosher.
I don't know why I keep bringing up high school stuff -- it just seems the most prevalent in the news. It's municipal goverments of small communities were talking about here -- not federal laws. They can do what they want. The Bill of Rights is just that -- rights to citizens. Citizens make up communities. In their own little microcosims let them do what they want. Anything less is unconsitutional.
The judicial branch (and I forget when they did this) seems to have made great inroads with destroying clause #1 of the 1st ammendment. I'll never understand why Surpreme Cou
I mean seriously, this judge ruled that the Boy Scouts, who tended that property, spent MILLIONS of dollars doing so and let ANYONE use it, needed to be thrown out of there? Give me a break.
Sorry, but this is just an ACLU vendetta against the Boy Scouts, plain and simple.
This lawsuit NEVER would have happened if it were any other sort of organization with religious ties... It's just that their a Christian organization, and they're anti-Christian. Plain and simple.
To the original poster... if you can live with anti-religion bigots like that.... well, that's up to you.
Here's how it works.
1. When the government provides it for free, the marginal cost to the consumer becomes zero. Therefore, people consume more than they otherwise would. If your gas were free, you'd drive more.
2. As people consume more, demand exceeds supply, and prices increase.
3. Government responds to this problem in one of two ways:
a. Paying the higher and higher prices. Everyone pays more, but since the amount they pay is only affected negligibly by how much they consume, this is no incentive for them to consume less. The costs to taxpayers overwhelmingly exceed what taxpayers were told it would cost.
b. Imposing price controls, and rationing the remaining supply. Get ready to wait in line.
4. Rich people go to other countries for medical treatments the government won't approve.
The really sad thing is that I'm still probably going to vote for Dean.
grep -ri 'should work'