ACLU Smartphone App!

[berzerker60]

Last I checked, the 2nd amendment is part of the bill of rights just like the 1st or 4th or whatever. Why are only certain liberties to be protected??

Because they have limited funds and the NRA will always bankroll every 2nd amendment case to the hilt. They usually don't spend much money/time on electronic stuff either when someone like the Electronic Frontier Foundation is willing to pick up the tab. It's not an issue of not caring, it's about efficiency.

 

[fskimospy]

That's assuming everyone can agree on what "the right thing" is. Obviously, you are going to have a vastly different idea of what "the right thing" is compared to a normal person.

Unlikely. As I said, I'm willing to bet if you looked at every single lawsuit the ACLU has ever filed the average person on here would agree with most of them.

Nope, not unless they radically change what they do.

Again, you're working on the implicit assumption that there's only one definition (yours obviously!) of what "the right thing" is. As an example, if they fight to force schools to allow boys into girls bathrooms and vice versa because otherwise it would hurt some nutjobs feelings, then not only are they not pushing "the right thing", they are actively hurting the country. Why would anyone want to support that?

I most certainly was not.

I said that keeping religion out of government and schools is an inherently good thing regardless of what religion is being kept out. You tried to argue against this positive thing by complaining that Christians were being persecuted by the ACLU. That's not a logical argument, as any time religion is kept out of schools or government is a positive step. For what you were saying to be true you would need evidence that the ACLU was attempting to put religion IN schools and government when it came to non-Christian faiths, which of course they do not.

So like I said, when you examine things without using a partisan or preferential lens you'll find yourself agreeing with the ACLU on a whole lot of things. Here's a list of some of the ACLU's transformative cases. After reading them, aren't you glad the ACLU is around?

Maybe you'll even donate one day after you realize this.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur59.htm This only goes through 1996, but the list is still absolutely amazing. So many things we take for granted today as basic American freedoms we have the ACLU to thank for.

 

[PokerGuy]

Unlikely. As I said, I'm willing to bet if you looked at every single lawsuit the ACLU has ever filed the average person on here would agree with most of them.

Even if that was the case, that doesn't mean much. The bottom line is that the definition of "the right thing" is far from set in stone and clearly different people have different opinions on what "the right thing" is.

As such, your opinion on them overall being a very positive organization is completely dependent on your opinion of the agenda they seek to further. If their agenda was to support civil liberties in general, then I'd be on board, but since their agenda is mostly to support civil liberties they agree with and not others, then no, we'd be better off without them.

I said that keeping religion out of government and schools is an inherently good thing regardless of what religion is being kept out.

Nope, even that's not always true. For example, suing to get "in God we trust" off money is not inherently good even though I support not having religion mixed with government. It's stupid, the same way PETA is stupid even if one agrees that cruelty to animals is a bad thing (as most of us do).

For what you were saying to be true you would need evidence that the ACLU was attempting to put religion IN schools and government when it came to non-Christian faiths, which of course they do not.

Fighting the influence of religion in some cases while ignoring it when it conflicts with PC dogma is not a good thing.

So like I said, when you examine things without using a partisan or preferential lens you'll find yourself agreeing with the ACLU on a whole lot of things. Here's a list of some of the ACLU's transformative cases. After reading them, aren't you glad the ACLU is around?

Absolutely not.

Maybe you'll even donate one day after you realize this.

Not unless there's a radical departure from their current political ideology. Why would I want to fund a leftist political organization??

 

[fskimospy]

As such, your opinion on them overall being a very positive organization is completely dependent on your opinion of the agenda they seek to further. If their agenda was to support civil liberties in general, then I'd be on board, but since their agenda is mostly to support civil liberties they agree with and not others, then no, we'd be better off without them.

Why would we be better off without them if they only fought for some civil liberties?

Absolutely not.

Can you point out cases from that list that you think were bad? There are more than 50 there, comprising many of the most significant civil rights victories of the last century. I think you might be digging in some, as that list is simply incredible. Everyone who considers themselves a defender of civil liberties should be proud of what's in it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Why would we be better off without them if they only fought for some civil liberties?

Because focus on some (preferred) civil liberties ignoring others marginalizes the other liberties. Also, because at the same time they are fighting against other liberties and causing harm.

Can you point out cases from that list that you think were bad? There are more than 50 there, comprising many of the most significant civil rights victories of the last century. I think you might be digging in some, as that list is simply incredible. Everyone who considers themselves a defender of civil liberties should be proud of what's in it.

Just a cursory glance, looking at the latest ones: Wisconsin vs Mitchell is BS, Lee vs Weisman is BS, Wallace vs Jaffree is BS. And that's not even showing all the zillions of cases where they were on the wrong side attacking civil liberties (BSA), or where they threatened people/businesses/school districts with expensive litigation if they didn't give in to their demands. That's a lot of harm.

In looking through some of the aclu's stuff on their site earlier, I did find this nugget which I thought was ironic: they articulated my position with regard to wealth influencing politics (and the futility of trying to "get money out of politics") like this:

Some argue that campaign finance laws can be surgically drafted to protect legitimate political speech while restricting speech that leads to undue influence by wealthy special interests. Experience over the last 40 years has taught us that money always finds an outlet, and the endless search for loopholes simply creates the next target for new regulation. It also contributes to cynicism about our political process.

See? Sometimes they do get one right.

 

[fskimospy]

Because focus on some (preferred) civil liberties ignoring others marginalizes the other liberties. Also, because at the same time they are fighting against other liberties and causing harm.

So you are against the NRA then, as they are marginalizing other liberties.

That's a ridiculous argument anyway though, because that means that any organization that is fighting for rights is inherently marginalizing all other rights by not fighting for them too. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion means we should have no rights organizations.

Just a cursory glance, looking at the latest ones: Wisconsin vs Mitchell is BS, Lee vs Weisman is BS, Wallace vs Jaffree is BS. And that's not even showing all the zillions of cases where they were on the wrong side attacking civil liberties (BSA), or where they threatened people/businesses/school districts with expensive litigation if they didn't give in to their demands. That's a lot of harm.

The list was up through 1996.

Lee vs. Weisman is BS? Wallace vs. Jaffree is BS? So basically you're for state endorsed school prayer. While that's certainly your right, my guess is that you're in the minority here.

I imagine more people would agree with you on Wisconsin vs. Mitchell, but when you stack that up against:

Brown v. Board - desegregating schools.

Loving v. Virginia - overturning interracial marriage bans.

Gitlow v. New York - landmark protection of free speech.

DeJonge v. Oregon - more huge free speech protection.

Hague v. CIO - kept the government from corruptly denying people the right to protest.

Gideon v. Wainwright - established the right to a competent attorney.

Griswold v. Connecticut - kept the government from banning birth control.

Miranda v. Arizona - established the Miranda warning.

Roe v. Wade - right to abortion.

US v. Nixon - should be obvious.

etc, etc, etc.

Seems like you should be thanking them, no?

 

[fskimospy]

But yeah, the ACLU has totally done more harm than good.

wut.

 

[PokerGuy]

So you are against the NRA then, as they are marginalizing other liberties.

Baloney. The NRA doesn't purport to be a defender of all liberties, they specifically exist to support gun owners and their rights. Does the aclu claim to support specific liberties or civil liberties in general?

Lee vs. Weisman is BS? Wallace vs. Jaffree is BS? So basically you're for state endorsed school prayer. While that's certainly your right, my guess is that you're in the minority here.

Nope, wrong again. Wallace vs Jaffree is about "a moment for mediation or voluntary prayer". Obviously not "state endorsed school prayer". I'm not for state endorsed school prayer, but that doesn't mean one has to rabidly and zealously guard against the possibility of <gasp> a prayer or moment of silence occurring. Regardless that's a complete digression.

Seems like you should be thanking them, no?

No, because over the last 50 years, they've filed (or threatened to file) thousands of suits, a great many of which were bad. Cherry picking some as "highlights" and then saying they've been wonderful overall doesn't work, especially when even among the cherry picked few there are plenty to disagree with.

 

[fskimospy]

Baloney. The NRA doesn't purport to be a defender of all liberties, they specifically exist to support gun owners and their rights. Does the aclu claim to support specific liberties or civil liberties in general?

So in other words your problem is with their name and their mission statement. If they just renamed themselves 'Bob', presumably your objections would go away.

I hope you realize how ridiculous that is. They marginalize other civil liberties by being named something you don't like? Give me a fucking break.

Nope, wrong again. Wallace vs Jaffree is about "a moment for mediation or voluntary prayer". Obviously not "state endorsed school prayer". I'm not for state endorsed school prayer, but that doesn't mean one has to rabidly and zealously guard against the possibility of <gasp> a prayer or moment of silence occurring. Regardless that's a complete digression.

No, because over the last 50 years, they've filed (or threatened to file) thousands of suits, a great many of which were bad. Cherry picking some as "highlights" and then saying they've been wonderful overall doesn't work, especially when even among the cherry picked few there are plenty to disagree with.

Ahhh, back to nebulous claims of 'bad' lawsuits. If you want to say that contributing to some of the most momentous civil rights expansions in US history 'doesn't work', that's up to you. I think you're just exposing your commitment to opposing them.

 

[Venix]

Nope, wrong again. Wallace vs Jaffree is about "a moment for mediation or voluntary prayer". Obviously not "state endorsed school prayer".

Wallace v. Jaffree was about state endorsed school prayer. Jaffree sued because his children's teachers would lead their classes in prayer each morning, and then allow other students to ridicule his children for remaining silent. A teacher leading a prayer is practically the definition of "state endorsed."

I'm also confused about your belief that Wisconsin v. Mitchell is "BS." It's a straightforward and uncontroversial decision, which is why the Court's opinion was unanimous. I'm not particularly fond of most "hate crime" legislation because it only punishes very specific categories of "hate," but the general concept of sentencing a murderer more or less severely based on his motive is simply common sense.

 

[Double Trouble]

Thanks Eskimospy for providing those cases and links, interesting reading. Clearly the ACLU has been involved in a lot of big cases, most of which I very much agree with.

I still dislike many of their positions and a lot of their activities, but their existence is important.

 

[Double Trouble]

I'm also confused about your belief that Wisconsin v. Mitchell is "BS." It's a straightforward and uncontroversial decision, which is why the Court's opinion was unanimous. I'm not particularly fond of most "hate crime" legislation because it only punishes very specific categories of "hate," but the general concept of sentencing a murderer more or less severely based on his motive is simply common sense.

I agree with poker on Wisconsin vs Mitchell. I think the whole idea of hate crimes is bullshit and boils down to criminalizing thoughts.

 

[nickqt]

I agree with poker on Wisconsin vs Mitchell. I think the whole idea of hate crimes is bullshit and boils down to criminalizing thoughts.

Thoughts aren't criminalized unless there is a crime that accompanies that thought, which is how classic criminal law works anyway with intent.

The only difference with hate crimes is that there is additional intent required, which goes further than just basic intent.