Why does the ACLU suck?

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: zendari
Where is the ACLU's rabid defense of the 2nd amendment?

BINGO!

And there is the thing that drives me nuts about the ACLU - Their very selective defense of specific liberties. It's ok to defend NAMBLA but screw anyone who would want to excercise their 2nd ammendment Rights.

I'm not sure I'd call that "very selective". So far as I can see, the only question is their defense of the 2nd Amendment. Fair enough, but I'd be interested in hearing what cases they rejected.

They don't reject 2nd cases, they ignore them.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan

Originally posted by: azazyel
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)

Ben Franklin knew more about BEING a terrorist than defending a country from one. I see this quote tossed around all the time, but I think there are probably more relevant and recent quotes if you look around.

Please tell me you are not insinuating the founding fathers were terrorists. :disgust:

Anyway... I found this quote:

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Federalist #51

That's the see-saw we ride. It's possible to beef up security without infringing on people's rights. The trick is how to do it...

Edit: Posting from work... merging threads in my head.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: zendari
Where is the ACLU's rabid defense of the 2nd amendment?

BINGO!

And there is the thing that drives me nuts about the ACLU - Their very selective defense of specific liberties. It's ok to defend NAMBLA but screw anyone who would want to excercise their 2nd ammendment Rights.

I'm not sure I'd call that "very selective". So far as I can see, the only question is their defense of the 2nd Amendment. Fair enough, but I'd be interested in hearing what cases they rejected.

They don't reject 2nd cases, they ignore them.

Ok fine, what 2nd amendment cases have been ignored by the ACLU that simply cried out for their attention? As far as I'm aware, although the gun crowd makes a big stink at every possible opportunity, government attacks on the freedoms granted by the second amendment are not all that common. I could be wrong though.

 

[zendari]

US vs Miller in 1939. The ACLU supported the SC's decision to erode the Constitution.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan

Originally posted by: azazyel
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)

Ben Franklin knew more about BEING a terrorist than defending a country from one. I see this quote tossed around all the time, but I think there are probably more relevant and recent quotes if you look around.

Please tell me you are not insinuating the founding fathers were terrorists. :disgust:

Anyway... I found this quote:

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Federalist #51

That's the see-saw we ride. It's possible to beef up security without infringing on people's rights. The trick is how to do it...

The way I see it, you don't have a right to ride the subway. You can't get on an airplane without being searched, why shouldn't they impose some lighter form of security for other forms of mass transit? I don't see how that infringes on anyone's rights. Is it annoying? Yup. A hassle? Yup. An infringment of your rights? I don't think so.

Semantics. Maybe it's easier if we stop using the word "rights" and start using the word "privacy" and others like that. In any case, making things more of a hassle or an annoyance should be avoided as well.

Like I've said before, there is no trade-off, at least not when it comes to good security. You can mostly have you cake and eat it too, something I'm not sure most people understand. After all, the single most effective new security procedure added after 9/11 to prevent a repeat was adding a much stronger cockpit door, and keeping it closed and locked during the flight. No access to the cockpit, no 9/11 repeats. That didn't affect fliers even a little bit, yet did far more to prevent a future 9/11 than far more intrusive security systems.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan

Originally posted by: azazyel
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)

Ben Franklin knew more about BEING a terrorist than defending a country from one. I see this quote tossed around all the time, but I think there are probably more relevant and recent quotes if you look around.

You could easily say that all of the framers were Terrorists!(tm). It wouldn't mean much from an historical point of view though. ?One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari
US vs Miller in 1939. The ACLU supported the SC's decision to erode the Constitution.

Interesting.

Reading the ACLU's position on gun control makes it pretty clear they are ok with some form of gun control, but not with banning guns like many other countries have. I wonder if one of the reasons they don't totally oppose gun control is that they would be forced to draw a line somewhere, else they might be arguing for individual ownership of nuclear weapons. I think it looks more like avoiding what seems to be a very complex issue.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: zendari
Where is the ACLU's rabid defense of the 2nd amendment?

BINGO!

And there is the thing that drives me nuts about the ACLU - Their very selective defense of specific liberties. It's ok to defend NAMBLA but screw anyone who would want to excercise their 2nd ammendment Rights.

I'm not sure I'd call that "very selective". So far as I can see, the only question is their defense of the 2nd Amendment. Fair enough, but I'd be interested in hearing what cases they rejected.

They don't reject 2nd cases, they ignore them.

Ok fine, what 2nd amendment cases have been ignored by the ACLU that simply cried out for their attention? As far as I'm aware, although the gun crowd makes a big stink at every possible opportunity, government attacks on the freedoms granted by the second amendment are not all that common. I could be wrong though.

My case did and they went out of their way to avoid anything I had to say. This is a bit off topic, but TBH, gun owners SHOULD make a "big stink" every time and infringement comes around. Also, and this might seem trite to you, but the constitution doesn't GRANT anything. It acknowledges freedoms endowed by the ?creator? and forbids the government, in ALL its forms, from tampering with those freedoms.

BTW, attacks on the 2A are extremely common, regardless of which party is in power. That should tell us something very important. If you want to read the definitive oped on the subject, google "A nation of cowards" and tell me what you think.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari
US vs Miller in 1939. The ACLU supported the SC's decision to erode the Constitution.

Interesting.

Reading the ACLU's position on gun control makes it pretty clear they are ok with some form of gun control, but not with banning guns like many other countries have. I wonder if one of the reasons they don't totally oppose gun control is that they would be forced to draw a line somewhere, else they might be arguing for individual ownership of nuclear weapons. I think it looks more like avoiding what seems to be a very complex issue.

It's important when talking about the INDIVIDUAL right of self-defense to know what sort of arms the framers meant when they included the 2A. They didn't mean to make crew-served weapons, like cannons and such, should be available to the general population. Weapons like those were meant to be kept at a militia armory and requisitioned when needed. Rifles and side-arms, however, are JUST what they had in mind. An interesting note on the 2A is that at least two of the framers didn't think it was needed, because they thought that the American public would never be stupid enough to allow itself to be disarmed.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari
US vs Miller in 1939. The ACLU supported the SC's decision to erode the Constitution.

Interesting.

Reading the ACLU's position on gun control makes it pretty clear they are ok with some form of gun control, but not with banning guns like many other countries have. I wonder if one of the reasons they don't totally oppose gun control is that they would be forced to draw a line somewhere, else they might be arguing for individual ownership of nuclear weapons. I think it looks more like avoiding what seems to be a very complex issue.

It's important when talking about the INDIVIDUAL right of self-defense to know what sort of arms the framers meant when they included the 2A. They didn't mean to make crew-served weapons, like cannons and such, should be available to the general population. Weapons like those were meant to be kept at a militia armory and requisitioned when needed. Rifles and side-arms, however, are JUST what they had in mind. An interesting note on the 2A is that at least two of the framers didn't think it was needed, because they thought that the American public would never be stupid enough to allow itself to be disarmed.

I don't want to turn this thread into a gun rights debate, and I'd probably agree that the ACLU doesn't exactly match my position on the issue either (I've never fired a gun and I think in many cases they are kind of stupid, but don't believe in most forms of gun control). I guess I'm agreeing that the ACLU doesn't really deal with the issue, but I wonder if it's because there is so much that people see as unclear about it. Most of our other freedoms are pretty clear cut, the whole weapons issue is less so (IMHO).

 

[Jadow]

there's no right to ride the subway, they haven't passed that amendment yet. Therefore if you wanna ride, you gotta abide. Feel free to walk.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jadow
there's no right to ride the subway, they haven't passed that amendment yet. Therefore if you wanna ride, you gotta abide. Feel free to walk.

Er...what?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari
US vs Miller in 1939. The ACLU supported the SC's decision to erode the Constitution.

Interesting.

Reading the ACLU's position on gun control makes it pretty clear they are ok with some form of gun control, but not with banning guns like many other countries have. I wonder if one of the reasons they don't totally oppose gun control is that they would be forced to draw a line somewhere, else they might be arguing for individual ownership of nuclear weapons. I think it looks more like avoiding what seems to be a very complex issue.

It's important when talking about the INDIVIDUAL right of self-defense to know what sort of arms the framers meant when they included the 2A. They didn't mean to make crew-served weapons, like cannons and such, should be available to the general population. Weapons like those were meant to be kept at a militia armory and requisitioned when needed. Rifles and side-arms, however, are JUST what they had in mind. An interesting note on the 2A is that at least two of the framers didn't think it was needed, because they thought that the American public would never be stupid enough to allow itself to be disarmed.

I don't want to turn this thread into a gun rights debate, and I'd probably agree that the ACLU doesn't exactly match my position on the issue either (I've never fired a gun and I think in many cases they are kind of stupid, but don't believe in most forms of gun control). I guess I'm agreeing that the ACLU doesn't really deal with the issue, but I wonder if it's because there is so much that people see as unclear about it. Most of our other freedoms are pretty clear cut, the whole weapons issue is less so (IMHO).

I don't see this as a debate, and frankly I'm surprised that you do. Before I veered in this direction I freely stated that it was OT by a smidge. A word from the wise: Don't inquire into subjects that you have very litte practical knowledge about and aren't prepared engage in. Especially when the subject is something as super-heated as firearms ownership.

 

[EyeMNathan]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Please tell me you are not insinuating the founding fathers were terrorists. :disgust:
.

Didn't they overthrow the influence of England over the Colonies, often through subversion and 'terror' because they felt they were being oppressed?

At least thats what I remember from US History.

Isn't that was the Muslims are doing today? Trying to remove Western influence from their countries because they feel they are being oppressed, (yeah yeah, I know that sounds weird), through subversion and 'terror'?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Please tell me you are not insinuating the founding fathers were terrorists. :disgust:
.

Didn't they overthrow the influence of England over the Colonies, often through subversion and 'terror' because they felt they were being oppressed?

At least thats what I remember from US History.

Isn't that was the Muslims are doing today? Trying to remove Western influence from their countries because they feel they are being oppressed, (yeah yeah, I know that sounds weird), through subversion and 'terror'?

We didn't go to England and bomb civilians.

More importantly, we declared independence, formed a government and formerly separated from the Brittish monarchy. At that point King George sent his troops in and attacked a soverign nation.

The US formed a conventional army and fought the Brittish by (more or less) conventional means.

How does this in any way resemble Islamic terrorism?

The Islamic terrorists are trying to stop their own people from doing what our founders did, not mimic them.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari
US vs Miller in 1939. The ACLU supported the SC's decision to erode the Constitution.

Interesting.

Reading the ACLU's position on gun control makes it pretty clear they are ok with some form of gun control, but not with banning guns like many other countries have. I wonder if one of the reasons they don't totally oppose gun control is that they would be forced to draw a line somewhere, else they might be arguing for individual ownership of nuclear weapons. I think it looks more like avoiding what seems to be a very complex issue.

It's important when talking about the INDIVIDUAL right of self-defense to know what sort of arms the framers meant when they included the 2A. They didn't mean to make crew-served weapons, like cannons and such, should be available to the general population. Weapons like those were meant to be kept at a militia armory and requisitioned when needed. Rifles and side-arms, however, are JUST what they had in mind. An interesting note on the 2A is that at least two of the framers didn't think it was needed, because they thought that the American public would never be stupid enough to allow itself to be disarmed.

I don't want to turn this thread into a gun rights debate, and I'd probably agree that the ACLU doesn't exactly match my position on the issue either (I've never fired a gun and I think in many cases they are kind of stupid, but don't believe in most forms of gun control). I guess I'm agreeing that the ACLU doesn't really deal with the issue, but I wonder if it's because there is so much that people see as unclear about it. Most of our other freedoms are pretty clear cut, the whole weapons issue is less so (IMHO).

I don't see this as a debate, and frankly I'm surprised that you do. Before I veered in this direction I freely stated that it was OT by a smidge. A word from the wise: Don't inquire into subjects that you have very litte practical knowledge about and aren't prepared engage in. Especially when the subject is something as super-heated as firearms ownership.

Easy there. I was just saying I didn't want to it to turn into a debate, not saying it was one. As far as engaging in subjects I don't know a lot about, believe it or not, that's why I was asking those questions. I don't follow the issue too closely, I simply know that the ACLU takes a lot of flak for it. I was really interested in finding out the details, because as you say, I don't have a lot of knowledge about the issue. If that bothers you for some reason, I can't help you.

 

[Necrosaro420]

So, if the ACLU didn't exist everything would be just fine? IMO, you don't understand the sort of world you're advocatiing.

No I didnt state the world would be fine without the ACLU. Im mearly stating that having to spend 15 seconds to open your bag isnt going to kill, hurt, make you sad, picked on, whatever. This is the type of world we are living in today, so live with it.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari
US vs Miller in 1939. The ACLU supported the SC's decision to erode the Constitution.

Interesting.

Reading the ACLU's position on gun control makes it pretty clear they are ok with some form of gun control, but not with banning guns like many other countries have. I wonder if one of the reasons they don't totally oppose gun control is that they would be forced to draw a line somewhere, else they might be arguing for individual ownership of nuclear weapons. I think it looks more like avoiding what seems to be a very complex issue.

It's important when talking about the INDIVIDUAL right of self-defense to know what sort of arms the framers meant when they included the 2A. They didn't mean to make crew-served weapons, like cannons and such, should be available to the general population. Weapons like those were meant to be kept at a militia armory and requisitioned when needed. Rifles and side-arms, however, are JUST what they had in mind. An interesting note on the 2A is that at least two of the framers didn't think it was needed, because they thought that the American public would never be stupid enough to allow itself to be disarmed.

I don't want to turn this thread into a gun rights debate, and I'd probably agree that the ACLU doesn't exactly match my position on the issue either (I've never fired a gun and I think in many cases they are kind of stupid, but don't believe in most forms of gun control). I guess I'm agreeing that the ACLU doesn't really deal with the issue, but I wonder if it's because there is so much that people see as unclear about it. Most of our other freedoms are pretty clear cut, the whole weapons issue is less so (IMHO).

I don't see this as a debate, and frankly I'm surprised that you do. Before I veered in this direction I freely stated that it was OT by a smidge. A word from the wise: Don't inquire into subjects that you have very litte practical knowledge about and aren't prepared engage in. Especially when the subject is something as super-heated as firearms ownership.

Easy there. I was just saying I didn't want to it to turn into a debate, not saying it was one. As far as engaging in subjects I don't know a lot about, believe it or not, that's why I was asking those questions. I don't follow the issue too closely, I simply know that the ACLU takes a lot of flak for it. I was really interested in finding out the details, because as you say, I don't have a lot of knowledge about the issue. If that bothers you for some reason, I can't help you.

Easy with what, Rainsford? If you think that our little discussion is anything more than a diversion for me you're sadly mistaken. Yes, you asked a question, and promptly ignored the answers. Then you followed quickly with a retreat into what you wanted to believe was true in the first place, "guns are stupid, uh mostly" and a very simple aspect of freedom and human nature are instead too complex to address, even by a powerful organization like the ACLU. Just for the record, nothing you've said here, or the attitude inherent therein, bothers me in the least. In all honesty, I've probably been discussing this issue longer than you've been alive, and most things, including passions, wear smooth over time.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Necrosaro420

So, if the ACLU didn't exist everything would be just fine? IMO, you don't understand the sort of world you're advocatiing.

No I didnt state the world would be fine without the ACLU. Im mearly stating that having to spend 15 seconds to open your bag isnt going to kill, hurt, make you sad, picked on, whatever. This is the type of world we are living in today, so live with it.

Personally I'd rather live with a slightly increased chance some idiot's going to blow me up. I figure that's the price you pay to live in a free country. And I also figure there are a lot more effective ways to fight terrorism than that sort of thing.

Why do I care? It's not just the bag thing, it's the idea that we're willing to give more and more power to the government in exchange for promises of keeping us safe. I was in London only a few months ago, where cameras are a huge thing. They are all over the city, almost any time you are outside, you are probably on camera. A friend I was with told me that it makes her feel safe. I wasn't so sure. I'm not convinced they actually help prevent crime (if I was going to mug someone, I'd just wear a mask, and London has a big crime problem in any case), and I find it a little creepy that I'm always on film somewhere.

It's not the kind of world we have to live in, it's the kind of world they are making it into. And it's not necessary.

 

[realsup]

Well they lost me when they took up the a cause for NAMBLA

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari
US vs Miller in 1939. The ACLU supported the SC's decision to erode the Constitution.

Interesting.

Reading the ACLU's position on gun control makes it pretty clear they are ok with some form of gun control, but not with banning guns like many other countries have. I wonder if one of the reasons they don't totally oppose gun control is that they would be forced to draw a line somewhere, else they might be arguing for individual ownership of nuclear weapons. I think it looks more like avoiding what seems to be a very complex issue.

It's important when talking about the INDIVIDUAL right of self-defense to know what sort of arms the framers meant when they included the 2A. They didn't mean to make crew-served weapons, like cannons and such, should be available to the general population. Weapons like those were meant to be kept at a militia armory and requisitioned when needed. Rifles and side-arms, however, are JUST what they had in mind. An interesting note on the 2A is that at least two of the framers didn't think it was needed, because they thought that the American public would never be stupid enough to allow itself to be disarmed.

I don't want to turn this thread into a gun rights debate, and I'd probably agree that the ACLU doesn't exactly match my position on the issue either (I've never fired a gun and I think in many cases they are kind of stupid, but don't believe in most forms of gun control). I guess I'm agreeing that the ACLU doesn't really deal with the issue, but I wonder if it's because there is so much that people see as unclear about it. Most of our other freedoms are pretty clear cut, the whole weapons issue is less so (IMHO).

I don't see this as a debate, and frankly I'm surprised that you do. Before I veered in this direction I freely stated that it was OT by a smidge. A word from the wise: Don't inquire into subjects that you have very litte practical knowledge about and aren't prepared engage in. Especially when the subject is something as super-heated as firearms ownership.

Easy there. I was just saying I didn't want to it to turn into a debate, not saying it was one. As far as engaging in subjects I don't know a lot about, believe it or not, that's why I was asking those questions. I don't follow the issue too closely, I simply know that the ACLU takes a lot of flak for it. I was really interested in finding out the details, because as you say, I don't have a lot of knowledge about the issue. If that bothers you for some reason, I can't help you.

Easy with what, Rainsford? If you think that our little discussion is anything more than a diversion for me you're sadly mistaken. Yes, you asked a question, and promptly ignored the answers. Then you followed quickly with a retreat into what you wanted to believe was true in the first place, "guns are stupid, uh mostly" and a very simple aspect of freedom and human nature are instead too complex to address, even by a powerful organization like the ACLU. Just for the record, nothing you've said here, or the attitude inherent therein, bothers me in the least. In all honesty, I've probably been discussing this issue longer than you've been alive, and most things, including passions, wear smooth over time.

Easy with jumping to conclusions. I didn't ignore the answers, and I didn't retreat into what I wanted to believe. My belief about gun ownership has nothing at all to do with my beliefs about gun ownership rights. I suspect while our opinions of guns vary by quite a bit, our views on gun rights and 2nd amendment issues are pretty close. The issue may seem simple to you, but the amount of debate over this issue leads me to believe a lot of people don't agree with you. I'm not sure I agree with them either, I'm just saying the DEBATE is getting a little complicated. Maybe the ACLU really doesn't like the 2nd amendment, or maybe they are just beating a tactical retreat over an issue that tends to get people up in arms (if you'll pardon the pun). Hell, I don't know what their motives are, I'm just throwing things out there.

While I admire your calm spirit, I'm not trying to bother you here. The fact that you think that's what's going on here kind of puzzles me.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Necrosaro420

So, if the ACLU didn't exist everything would be just fine? IMO, you don't understand the sort of world you're advocatiing.

No I didnt state the world would be fine without the ACLU. Im mearly stating that having to spend 15 seconds to open your bag isnt going to kill, hurt, make you sad, picked on, whatever. This is the type of world we are living in today, so live with it.

Infringments of this type always start out small. The way I understand it, the current searches are random. What happens when they inevitably require all bags to be searched? What about pat-downs or cavity searches just to ride the train in "safety", would these warrant ACLU involvement? After all, a 1lb block of C4 with a det is fairly small but can register a big bang. You don't need to stuff it in a backpack, a waist-band will do. Infringements start out small and AFAIC, so should resistance.

Here's a novel idea just to round-out this discussion: Why doesn't the fed stop mucking around in other countries affairs and screwing people over for fun and profit? Then NONE of these "safety measures", that strangely enough never produce any safety, would be needed in the first place. BTW, you're allowed your opinion, of course. But I don't want to have my belongings searched for ANY reason, and my take on the matter is just as valid as yours.

 

[Ferocious]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Tab
The only slightly negative thing the ALCU has ever done IMHO, is defended Nazi groups the right to march in Jewish Neighbohrhoods.

You're referring to the infamous Skokie case of 1977-78. What the ACLU did was defend the right of a group to legally hold a rally and march. The fact that the group, the National Socialist Party of Chicago (led by Frank Collin) had an unpopular message (and I write this as a Jew) is not relevant.

The U.S. Constitution states the inalienable right of "speech", not the right of "pleasant speech" or "popular speech" or "good speech" or "wise speech. The case took place over a period 13 months, and the ACLU's position was upheld on three separate occasions by the USSC.

Ironically, after winning all its legal battles, the Nazi group held a rally at their preferred venue, Marquette Park in Chicago, rather than in Skokie (a Chicago suburb). Even more ironically, the ACLU sued the Chicago police for damages on behalf of a group of counter-demonstrators at the Marquette Park rally. The counter-demonstrators were kept away from the Nazis by the police, and could not effectively get their message out.

Our right to free speech would be meaningless if all that we were free to do is say things that large segments of the population support. "Freedom" is measured in part by the extent to which UNPOPULAR speech is allowed.

:thumbsup:

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: irwincur
The ACLU is great in theory - however they take their PC pimping too far sometimes. All things in moderation...

It is concievable to say that if we get attacked again it will clearly be the fault of the ACLU. You could also say that the attacks in London (the successful ones) were actually their fault. One of the planners was linked to a man here who tried to setup a terror camp in the Pacific NW. He was caught, held, and released because the ACLU kept crying. He has since left the country, and he is now considered to be one of the masterminded (or procured the explosives) of the London attacks.

It's this kind of statement that shows we need the ACLU now more than ever. Thank you for reiterating their cause.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Tab
The only slightly negative thing the ALCU has ever done IMHO, is defended Nazi groups the right to march in Jewish Neighbohrhoods.

You're referring to the infamous Skokie case of 1977-78. What the ACLU did was defend the right of a group to legally hold a rally and march. The fact that the group, the National Socialist Party of Chicago (led by Frank Collin) had an unpopular message (and I write this as a Jew) is not relevant.

The U.S. Constitution states the inalienable right of "speech", not the right of "pleasant speech" or "popular speech" or "good speech" or "wise speech. The case took place over a period 13 months, and the ACLU's position was upheld on three separate occasions by the USSC.

Ironically, after winning all its legal battles, the Nazi group held a rally at their preferred venue, Marquette Park in Chicago, rather than in Skokie (a Chicago suburb). Even more ironically, the ACLU sued the Chicago police for damages on behalf of a group of counter-demonstrators at the Marquette Park rally. The counter-demonstrators were kept away from the Nazis by the police, and could not effectively get their message out.

Our right to free speech would be meaningless if all that we were free to do is say things that large segments of the population support. "Freedom" is measured in part by the extent to which UNPOPULAR speech is allowed.

/thread