In Puget Sound we've seen that while the ACLU cares deeply about the First Amendment rights of lesbian Air Force nurses and Wiccan veterans, the organization is somewhat less concerned with free speech for, oh, say.......military recruiters. One might thus be forgiven for supposing that the ACLU's commitment to free speech rights is essentially conditional upon its political biases. Today comes news from the MSM back east that the ACLU wonders if its organizational politics shouldn't in fact pose another exception to its so-called principles. Yes, the ACLU is taking a good hard look at officially censoring its own board.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at May 24, 2006 12:08 PM | Email ThisIn regard to the example cited, military recruiters are not students or faculty at a school. As such, they have no more "free speech right" to walk into a school and talk to its students than I do. While one can certainly argue about whether legislation should force schools to admit them, that is an argument about public policy, not about free speech.
That said, as a contributor to the ACLU, I am disturbed by its proposed policy for board members.
Posted by: David Wright on May 24, 2006 06:12 PMOr maybe Mr Wright will do more than express his indignation, by refusing to contribute to an organization which defends NAMBLA.
Posted by: Van on May 24, 2006 08:03 PMIt is true that the ACLU defends the free speech rights of NAMBLA. In this, I support them wholeheartedly. I also support the free speech rights of Nazis who say we should gas Jews, KKK members who say we should lynch blacks, Republicans who say we should lock up all Democrats and Democrats who say we should lock up all Republicans. If only speech that doesn't offend is free, "free speech" means nothing.
Posted by: David Wright on May 24, 2006 08:34 PMWhile I joined the Army to defend freedom of speech, I did not do so to allow people to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. I'm not opposed to the principle, merely how the ACLU cherry picks its cases. The slippery slope argument that if we don't allow child molesters the freedom to promote their cause, then we will somehow lose our freedom to blog, doesn't really pass the common sense test. You can rationalize all you want, but I think the ACLU could have chosen to expend their funds, and your donations, in a more influential and moral way. I expect the ACLU to defend the Westboro Baptist Church next.
Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU, said it best “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class… Communism is the goal.”
Posted by: Van on May 24, 2006 09:15 PMD'oh!
Posted by: Aaron on May 24, 2006 09:28 PMYou accuse the ACLU of defending only liberal speech, and issue a challenge: if they're so fair-minded, let's see them defend the Westboro Baptist Church (a fundamentalist Christian church known for its militant anti-homosexuality; it goes so far as to protest at the military funerals of straight soldiers because they supported the evil, homosexual-friendly U.S. government). Well, they do defend it.
I am always amused when people who view the ACLU as a liberal boogy-man find out how fair-minded they are. A Fox news comentator recently had to sort-of-apologize after he had said "if the ACLU is so big on privacy rights, why don't they defend Rush Limbaugh?" and then it was pointed out them him that they did.
First you accuse the ACLU of cherry-picking its causes, but then you go on to complain that the don't cherry-pick their causes enough. You want them to spend their resources defending the morally upright and let the less savory be persecuted. Which is it?
As far as I can tell, you are puzzled why people would support the ACLU because you view the support of political organizations as a means to an end: a more moral society. But that isn't what I'm trying to acomplish with my support. I'm trying to make sure that the powers of government are extremely narrowly proscribed. (Perhaps you'll be surprised to learn that I also donate to the Institute for Justice, a similiar organization which fights for free markets.) I'm all for a more moral society, I just think government interference is not the way to get there.
You cite Article 1, Section 8, which enumerates the powers of congress. I think you are twisting the meaning of the Constitution when you try to say that, in order to defend it, the ACLU should intrepret those powers expansively. The whole point of a constitution, at least from the point of view of people like me, is to limit the powers of the government.
As far as banning military recruiters from schools, as far as I know, the only time the ACLU has defended such practices is when the school in question had a blanket policy against admiting recruiters who discriminate against homosexuals, i.e. they defended the principle of "equal access" that you espoused.
There are, by the way, numerous issues on which I do not agree with the ACLU. (Most notably, I am a proponent of school vouchers, while they believe vouchers are anathama to the seperation of church and state.) But at a time when the power of government is expanding dangerously, I'm more than willing to overlook some disagreements in order to help an ally in the battle against government power.
Posted by: David Wright on May 24, 2006 10:14 PMThe point of the ACLU is to protect individuals who right to free speech is infringed BY THE GOVERNMENT no matter who that person is or what the speech is. The military is not oppressed by the government. Wiccans, lesbians, and, alas, even WBC are.
Posted by: Tony on May 26, 2006 12:18 AMI apologize for missing your sarcasm.
As I said in my very first post "You can certainly believe that the principles espoused by the ACLU are wrong." That is what you appear to believe. In particular, you believe that the WBC is just too evil to enjoy free speech rights.
What I hope you will now grudgingly admit is that the ACLU is consistent in its support of constitutional rights. They are every bit as prepared to defend a conservative as to defend a liberal. The orginal article implied that they would not.
Your problem with the ACLU isn't, as you orignally implied, that they cherry-pick their cases to favor liberal causes, it's that they don't cherry-pick their cases to favor "moral" causes.
Posted by: David Wright on May 26, 2006 07:42 AMJust because the ACLU has a few token conservatives or wacko clients doesn't mean they don't have a hard left agenda.
Posted by: Palouse on May 26, 2006 08:54 AMI don't see the ACLU rushing to defend right to work cases. Why I should have to join a union to get a job? Seems an infringement on my rights for equal treatment or association? Using my dues to pay for candidates and issues I don't support.
Posted by: Van on May 26, 2006 10:23 AMI know some people accuse their opponents of being inconsistent hypocrits as a matter of rhetorical technique. But I believe such an accusation really means something, and as regards the ACLU it is simply false. If public schools were having students recite the pledge of the "hippy-dippy church of Yoga" the ACLU would fight it. And they defended Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, and the WBC because of their principles, not as "tokens" to get good PR among conservatives.
Let me give an example of what I mean here. I have occasionally heard statements from Pat Robertson, and I have yet to hear him say a single thing I agree with. But, as far as I can tell, he is entirely sincere and consistent in the application of his priciples, and therefore I would not accuse him of being inconsistent or hypocritical. I also occasionally here Bill O'Reilly say something, and I have no problem saying that, whatever the occasional merits of some of his arguments, I often find him to be an inconsistent, hypocritical windbag. See the distinction?
Van: Your argument above that security requires some sacrifice of privacy is a good one, and I'd join that debate if I were trying to convince you that the principles espoused by the ACLU are correct. But as I said to Palouse, that's too big a job for me. I'm just trying to convince you of what I regard as a rather simple truth: they are honest in the application of their principles, even if you believe their principles are wrong.
Your argument about right-to-work, on the other hand, is really weak. (I say this even though, as a free market fundamentalist, I'm a big fan of right-to-work.) First off, I'm not aware of any group that has ever made the case that right-to-work is a constitutionally protected right. If someone has made that case, the courts have obviously not accepted that argument. Second, it's ridiculous to argue that an organization must work to oppose all aspects of government power in order to consistently claim to oppose any. The ACLU works primarly on first amendment cases, to a lesser extent on fourth and fifth amendment cases. Those are their areas of expertise, and because of that they can often win.
Posted by: David Wright on May 27, 2006 11:44 AMI am well aware that many of the ACLU's founding members were socialists. I assume you are aware that, at the time, the U.S. government was locking up people merely for advocating socialism. (Does you opposition to the ACLU's founding mean that you think that was just fine?)
The ACLU's members today are undoubtedly mostly Democrats, with a contingent of unreformed socialists and a contingent of libertarians like me. It never endorses candidates -- a strange tactic if it is trying to get socialists elected, don't you think? It is a tribute to the ACLU's principled non-partisanship that it can garner the support of people with such disparate economic ideas. It does that by sticking consistently to the principles that its members share: no government limits on pure speech, no government endorsement of religion, and strict enforcement of privacy and due process rights.
You may not share these beliefs. If you think that some speech (e.g. WBC) is too evil to allow, that a little government-endorsed religion (e.g. the pledge of allegience) is good for the soul, that a little trampling on due process right (e.g. Miranda) shouldn't prevent a prosecution, then you do not share those beliefs. But that doesn't mean those beliefs are hypocritical or inconsistent.
Posted by: David Wright on May 27, 2006 12:13 PMWhat is inconsistent is the part of their name that includes "Civil Liberties", as their secular jihad really has nothing to do with civil liberties, as our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Posted by: Palouse on May 30, 2006 09:35 AM