This post is being made as suggested by Basheva in the Patriot Act post, which I started based on a report I had read from the ACLU. Not wanting to continue to stray too far off topic there, I agreed on the provision that I get to wear a flack jacket after making the post.

I don't always necessarily agree with whom the ACLU is defending, but at the same time, I understand why they do what they do. If you fail to protect even one person's constitutional rights, you set a precident so that violations can occur again and again for whatever reason the state feels fit to do so.

Just for example's sake... I abhor the rhetoric of the Ku Klux Klan, and other "white power" organizations. For what I think are very obvious reasons, I would definitely prefer that they not be able to spread their hateful message to anyone. However, if we take away their right to speak their message, we send a signal that it is ok to silence people based on their ideology, and that violates everyone's rights. That is why the ACLU will defend such organizations' rights to speak as they please... So that our right to speak as we please is preserved, as well. I'll only cite this one example to start with...

I've heard some say, "I'll protect myself, and don't need the ACLU...". With the tremendous amount of resources it takes to fight an unconstitutional law or act of 'the state', could any one person, in reality, do that? I think it is great that there's an organization of people willing to expend the effort and their financial resources to do it, with or without support, and without caring if what they do makes them popular with the masses. Organizations like this give the average person an equal footing in the court system regardless of whether they can afford the MILLIONS of dollars that it costs to bring a case as high as the USSC, and I can't see anything wrong with that at all.

Anyone have anything to add?

Since, I believe, I am the originator of that quote let me defend it if I may.....

The ACLU determines in which instances it will bring suit, and obviously by sheer numbers the chances of 'my' case being chosen is probably slim to none. Therefore, I can't depend upon the ACLU. I would much rather (and would probably be more successful) garnering my own support system to wage my legal battle. There are many avenues to take besides depending upon the ACLU.

The ACLU in a number of instances has chosen to bring suit against smaller entities and therefore the entity choses not to fight, but to capitulate. Let me explain. The ACLU in many instances will chose, for instance, to bring suit for some reason against a relatively small school district - rather than bringing the same suit (for the same reason) against a larger school district. The smaller school disrict can't afford to wage legal battle against the ACLU and choses instead to capitulate.

This happened quite recently when the issue was a school district that wouldn't allow there to be a specifically 'gay' club. Gays were allowed to meet, but as part of other 'civil rights' groups. The school didn't want to start a precedent in which EVERY group could demand its own special club. The very small school district couldn't afford to fend off the ACLU suit and so chose to disband all clubs.

In any case in which a given group, in this case the ACLU, picks and chooses the causes it wishes to espouse, there is always the possibility of agenda. I am generally wary of groups with agendas - not always - but generally.

My opinion of the ACLU has probably been tainted by their relatively recent defense of NAMBLA in its unrelenting quest to subvert the law and molest juveniles. I have trouble finding the good in that.

As I said in the original post, I definitely don't agree with all those who are defended by the ACLU. The organization, however, does not fight for any sort of "right" to break the law for such repugnant organizations as mentioned above... Only that their constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection are defended, so that a precident of squelching ideology cannot occur anywhere else. Sometimes you have to consider the entire picture, and not just one tiny part of it.

On a positive note, allowing these people to speak as they do, also gives law-enforcement a heads-up on people they need to be watching. Talking about breaking the law in a public medium sounds like probable cause enough to get a warrant for search, does it not to you? Perhaps it can even prevent some of the hideous crimes against children perpitrated by members of this organization from happening. Something to consider, anyway.

I don't really have much to add to Stefan's initial posting. I don't think there's anyone who would support every defendant whom the ACLU has represented (I, for example, would take more issue with their landmark defenses of Jehovah's Witnesses than I would with either the Ku Klux Klan or NAMBLA) and I think that is one of the strongest arguments in their favor. Of course the ACLU has an agenda - indeed, I can't think of a single group on the face of the planet which doesn't have an agenda (that rather strikes me as the purpose of forming groups) - but I feel that the ACLU's is a supremely noble agenda: the protection of civil and political liberties. I am always at a loss to understand how anyone could oppose that agenda.

As a side note: This is the second time in the past week that a participant has used an unrelated thread to attack NAMBLA. [For the record, it is not their intent to "subvert" the law, but to change the law - and the organization does not advocate nonconsensual sex of any kind, which "molesting" seems to imply.] In this case, for example, "My opinion of the ACLU has probably been tainted by their relatively recent defense of NAMBLA" would have sufficed without the false and misleading editorializing. If bringing this organization into the debate is so important to some of you, why not start a thread?

I am glad the ACLU exists and the reasons are already presented in this strand.

You have been officially exposed to my two pesos.

Stefan and Wertz have stolen my thunder. We need a group that protects the 1st Amendment.

Defending the First Amendment is certainly a worthy (and necessary) pursuit....we already have a group that does so....

It is US. Each of us.

What is each of us doing about the 9th and 10th Amendments?

Or more on topic, what is the ACLU doing about them?

For those of you who may have forgotten:

I'm not sure what, if anything, the ACLU is doing regarding the 9th amendment. Seems to me their very existence is evidence the 10th amendment is working.

I think I better start another thread concerning the 9th and 10th.

Whenever i hear someone mention something about NAMBLA, i ask them if they have been disbanded yet

Thanks to the ACLU, NAMBLA can keep on raping kids....how UN-AMERICAN

Besides letting NAMBLA exist, the ACLU got into a case where a man in wheelchair couldn't get a lap dance because the strip club didn't have a wheelchair-access room

Poor baby


What a waste of tax dollars

That statement, goamerica, is patently libellous - of both NAMBLA and the ACLU. I am no great defender of NAMBLA, but I cannot countenance your false allegations and your off-topic smear campaign. This posting has been reported.

This post is not about NAMBLA, it is about the ACLU! I will not argue or try to defend an organization I think is dispicable. I've already explained earlier in this thread why the ACLU defended their right to free speech in court, and I will no longer pay any heed or attention to it. Please stay on topic.


Perhaps you've never heard of it, but there is a certain rule of law known as the "Americans with Disabilities Act", that requires any facility open to the public to be handicapped accessable. Do you have some sort of problem with that law? Having a close family member confined to a wheelchair, I take great exception to people just shucking off that law as 'nothing', regardless of what sort of establishment it is.


Ummm... The ACLU is funded by private donations and receives no funding from the government, whatsoever.

goamerica defended his beliefs on this matter in this thread: ACLU

Perhaps you should check it out before jumping down his throat here.

Not so fast there Wertz. I did some looking on google.com and found some things:

Check these links:

http://www.shadow-net.com/id198.htm


and:

http://www.soc-um.org/nambla1.html

There have been cases where NAMBLA members were prosecuted for sexual crimes against minors/children and some resulting in death.

Sleeper

Yeah, Sleeper, and there have been cases where members of the Republican Party were prosecuted for sex crimes against minors, some resulting in death, too. But you're not going to find me posting something like "Thanks to the ACLU, Republicans can keep on raping kids." And I doubt you would defend such a statement as you've just done with GoAmerica's. Like I said in the thread which actually deals with this issue, NAMBLA is an easy target. Knock yourselves out.

And, Jaime, all GoAmerica did at the other ACLU thread was repeat the same lie. He did not "defend his beliefs", he made similar totally unsupported statements of falsehood as if they were fact. If you like, I can jump down his throat there as well, but NAMBLA does not - repeat - does not believe in or advocate rape no matter how often GoAmerica repeats this lie or in how many different threads.

Wertz, yes i agree there are Republicans that have been convicted of sex crimes against minors and even murder. How nice of you to try and segue.

What i was pointing out was your immediate claim that Goamerica was being libelous, in which case i was proving there was some truth in his statement. That said, ALL of NAMBLA has not been charged or prosecuted with a sex crime, but there have been quite a few members that have.

I see both sides Wertz, I don't try and switch arguments or segue like you did with the Republican comment.
I could have easily said the same about Democrats, or Greens, or Libretarians.

Also I was not targeting NAMBLA, although they are fairly easy to target, just stating some facts.

Also the Rublican Party has a VAST member base, I am sure the Ratio of convictions of sex crimes for NAMBLA far outweighs any other Policitcal Party membership.

Sleeper

I don't like the turn this thread is making. In respect for Stefan Fargus, I would like to get back to the basic debate here - is the ACLU a more helpful or harmful group for civil liberties? And are there any other groups out there doing similar work?

For the most part I would say helpful. I do have a disagreement with their defenses of many illegal immigrants (I could start another thread on that if anyone is interested in debating it) However, their attempts at keeping our government from eroding our privacy on the internet and at home are to be commended.

I would like to add that the ACLU is not the only muck-racker legal group out there. I have great respect for the work of Judicial Watch. They are the group responsible for pursuing the list of people Cheney met with regarding energy policy and which he refuses to turn over. They are also representing many of the postal workers in D.C. who were not properly protected following the anthrax scares.

I suppose I have a bit more respect for Judicial Watch than the ACLU primarly because they are a bit newer and don't come with the perceived baggage the ACLU does.

I agree, and would actually request that those who would like to debate about the ACLU's defense, specifically, of NAMBLA, would take it to goamerica's thread, as I have done, having just completed yet another long-winded post.

Thanks Jaime, for the respect, and for being the voice of reason, as always.

Thank You Jamie

For a moment, i felt like i was on the Yahoo! MB's being beaten on...that's why i came in here....some place that enforces the rules

There are a couple of points that have come up in this thread that I really want to address. Particularly those that refer to the perceived baggage of the ACLU, as well as a point that came up early on in the thread about how small the odds are of being defended by them.

I'm guessing that the public perceives the ACLU as only selecting the highest profile cases, those that for whatever reason, are going to receive the most public attention. That is correct. Their mission of setting legal precedents upholding constitutional rights require that they do that. The wider the scope of view on the case, the more likely the case is to be used to show precedent before a court in a similar case down the road, and have an impact on that ruling. "Getting more bang for the buck", so to speak. So, indirectly, the ACLU defends everyone's civil liberties by taking on these high-profile, and very often unpopular cases. They know they'll take heat on them, that people will twist facts and make it look as though they are defending the actions of some very shady people. But the cases invariably have nothing to do with the behavior of the people involved, but with their constitutional and legal rights, exclusively. That is a pretty important separation, one that I felt necessary to point out.

Does anyone know the percentage of cases in which the ACLU prevails? (not initially, but ultimately when all appeal is exhausted)

That would give another view of the impact of the ACLU upon applied law.

And, while we are at it, can anyone cite (this is not a challenge, but a request for information) important case law in which the ACLU has prevailed?

I surfed the net & couldn't find the precentage.

Sorry

I'm not even sure there's an actual way to find out what percentage of cases they've won, and I don't think it is as cut and dried as either winning or losing. There are small victories and large ones, minor progress, and failures of varying degrees, as well. They continually fight around the country, even down to the local level to repeal laws which clearly violate the bill of rights. I don't think it is possible to exhaust the appellate process in most of the cases they're involved in. Additionally, it is not only in courts that they fight but in legislatures, too, working to repeal unfairness, and to ensure that nobody is denied their rights/protections under the constitution.

The above is how they define it. Until the courts and/or legislatures have spoken, it is not defined.

I don't know about percentages, but probably their most famous case was the Scopes trial, in which the ACLU hired Clarence Darrow, and prevailed ultimately in getting evolution into the schools.

They also had the Ulysses case, which got Ulysses off the banned list and sold in America.

Brown v. the Board of Education, ACLU lawyers were part of the team on this one.

Roe v. Wade

Some pretty big cases, I'd say.

I'll concede to that and rephrase my statement a bit. By standards of their professional legal opinions, they are working to repeal unfairness, and to ensure that nobody is denied their rights/protections under the constitution. Sorry about that.