Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
CDA Government The Courts News

Joining the ACLU? 259

Posted by Cliff from the fight-for-liberty dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Joining the ACLU? More

Joining the ACLU?

Comments Filter:

  • The organization has an obvious slant (Score:4, Informative)

    by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @06:35PM (#6727283) Journal
    The ACLU believes that the first amendment protects the rights of child pornographers but that the second amendment has nothing to do with the right to bear arms.
    • The number one thing you always hear in praise of the ACLU is that they follow their principles regardless of whose behalf they're being applied. Two things I always found odd about that:

      1) People act like ideological consistency is equivalent to saintliness. Is it really so extraordinary to have a basic sense of principle at the expense of convenience?

      2) As you note, while the ACLU supports the most massively expansive interpretation of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and that mysterious bit of
      • 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.

        • Re:The organization has an obvious slant (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Chasuk ( 62477 ) <chasuk@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @01:07AM (#6730025)
          The ACLU didn't forget about the second amendment. They just disagree with the populist interpretation of it.

          To quote them:

          "If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction."

          For what it's worth, I happen to agree with them.
          • Unfortunately, that argument works equally well against their own stance on the First Amendment:

            "If indeed the First Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to free speech, then it must allow individuals to possess child pornography and to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, for they, like letters to the Editor, are speech. Yet few, if any, would argue that the First Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to any speech they please. But as soon as we allow government

      • They also take particular philosophical stances based on particular assumptions which are easy to prove wrong, and are clearly derived from a religious bias.

        The classic example is the "right" to abort, which the ACLU promote. If you kill a baby after (s)he is born, it's murder. A week before (s)he is born, it's not. Why not? If (s)he were born 20 weeks premature, killing him/her a week later (ie, 18 weeks earlier than if (s)he'd been aborted a week before term) is also unquestionably murder. Ridiculous, is

        • The only reasoning which could lead one to believe that a change of location (from inside a uterus to inside a nappy) includes a change of status from non-human "bunch of cells" to full humanity

          While the abortion issue is a tough one and one of the ones that I don't totally agree with the ACLU about, I don't follow your "proof" here at all. In fact, I see a clear distinction that could be used, and that is that before birth, the fetus is dependent on the mother to sustain its life, and after birth it is l
          • > after birth it is living on its own. (Of course
            > , in practice, the mom usually takes care of
            > the baby after birth, too!)

            His point exactly. A 2 day old baby won't survive if left on its own either, but that doesn't mean we should kill it.

            > we need to make that distinction
            > somewhere [...] Pre-conception is hopeless

            Of course.

            > we understand that moment well biologically
            > and know it to be really just cells dividing

            Hm. Doesn't "just cells dividing" apply to every other moment of

    • Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)

      by missing000 ( 602285 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:02PM (#6727549)
      The ACLU says [aclu.org] that the second amendment does not apply to individuals, but to state militia.

      You could read it before you infer that it says something it does not say.
      • I know exactly what they say. And my point still stands. The ACLU has quite an expansive view of personal liberty, including some views that take a great deal of effort to read into the constitution (like abortion). Why is it that they back off on personal liberty in this one issue, and call it a matter of state's rights? It doesn't seem consistent, does it?

        • Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

          by missing000 ( 602285 )
          Because the law does not infer an individual liberty. How can they be expected to defend a right that you do not have?

          Also, if you do decide that the right is personal, you have to admid that it is as applicable to tactical nuclear weapons as to hunting rifles.

          • Actually, if you take a look at the first amendment, you'll notice that it only applies to Congress. Our view of the freedoms stated in the bill of rights have expanded from the time when they were first written. (Also note that while Congress is supposed to make no law respecting the establishment of religion, it also restricts Congress from prohibiting any free exercise of religion.)

            A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

          • Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)

            by benjamindees ( 441808 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @09:40PM (#6728727) Homepage
            It's become obvious to anyone who has studied the issue that those who deny and disparage the right to keep and bear arms do so under either extreme ignorance or outright dishonesty. I don't know which category you fall under, but you obviously haven't studied the issue.

            nuclear weapons are not 'arms' [guncite.com]:

            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.


            It is an individual right [constitution.org]:
            The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense".

            • Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Tom7 ( 102298 )
              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 weapon

      • Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dr. Bent ( 533421 )
        Funny. That's not what the Founding Fathers said [guncite.com]. You'd think an orginization devoted to defending the Bill of Rights would have at least read it's user manual [loc.gov].
      • The ACLU says that the second amendment does not apply to individuals, but to state militia.

        In this case, the ACLU is clearly spouting nonsense. The Constitution speaks only to individuals, not states, so why force this one Amendment to do otherwise? You might stop to ask why the ACLU wants to warp the interpretation like this.

      • The word "militia" in 18th century english referred to all the able-bodied men of the state who could be called upon to defend her in the event of attack. The debate of the first ammendment and the Virginia bill of rights (upon which the 1st ammendment is based) make this clear.

        The intent of this ammendment was not to place power in the hands of state governments, but to ensure that congress could not do what had been done in e.g. Ireland, and forbid ordinary citizens from bearing arms, thereby eliminati

  • I've even sent them an unanswered e-mail about the percentages of money spent on their main positions.

    While an email may not be an adequate investigation, I believe that seeing where the money goes is a great idea and that you should follow up some more before giving them your money. You might be amazed at how many organizations you would not care to give to based on where the money goes. Even "highly respected" groups like the United Way become highly suspect when you examine the financials.
  • Hmmm, if I ran an government agency and was looking for techy subversives, how could I get a list of dangeratti?

    Maybe by posting a question somewhere....? Like, I don't know... HERE?

  • They're rather (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tm2b ( 42473 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @06:53PM (#6727453) Journal
    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 [mergemag.org] the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) [mergemag.org]... 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 [skepticfiles.org] and fascist Nazi-praising groups [ku.edu] 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 [nyclu.org] 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.
    • 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.

      don't [aclu.org]

      • Re:No... they... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tm2b ( 42473 )
        They support the right to say anything, not bully people who disagree with them in front of private businesses.
        • Too bad the Supreme Court doesn't agree [ppslr.org] with you or these idiotic politically-inspired claims.
        • Firstly, they don't support Christian groups whose freedom of speech is being impinged up. Interesting exception, that.

          Secondly, they litigate against (as here) groups that are using their freedom of speech to incite criminal acts. I don't mind the ACLU doing that at all, but it's the pinnacle of hypocrisy for them to also defend other groups who use their own freedom of speech to incite criminal acts.

      • Yes they do. (Score:4, Informative)

        by MarkusQ ( 450076 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:44PM (#6727912) Journal

        I think you're missing a key distinction in their position: they supported both sides's right to voice their opinion; but they opposed ones side's use of extortion to try to silence the other. Specifically, when the leaders of one side "directed activists involved in that group...to use threats and acts of intimidation and extortion in their efforts to shut down" the other group, the ACLU said that this crossed the line from speach to action and thus was not protected.

        Basically, someone is allowed to think my nose is too big, and even to say publically that they think it's too big, but they aren't allowed to wave a knife in my face to make their point.

        -- MarkusQ

        • Sure, but they didn't sue the people who 'waved the knife'. They sued the people who encouraged them to 'wave the knife'. By that logic, Greenpeace would be the largest racketeer in the US.

          They've tried it again and again since, accusing anti-abortion website operators of murder and suing them under RICO as well.

          If you look into it deep enough, and actually understand the laws they are suing these people under, you'd quickly realize that this is nothing more than a politically-motivated campaign to sile

          • Sure, but they didn't sue the people who 'waved the knife'. They sued the people who encouraged them to 'wave the knife'. By that logic, Greenpeace would be the largest racketeer in the US.

            Hmmm. I'll admit right off that I'm not familliar with the details of this case, but seems to me if someone was sending attackers of any form against their opponent they aren't just "speaking" anymore, and ought to be held accountable. There are quite a few parallels (hiring a hit man is illegal, as is inciting to

      • CHICAGO -- A jury here has found that leading antiabortion groups violated federal racketeering laws, designed to prosecute mobsters, by directing protesters to use extortion and threats of violence in attempts to shut down two abortion clinics, the Washington Post reports.

        Extortion and threats of violence are not protected speech, though. If your point is that they only support protected speech, you're right. If your point is that they only support the left, you're wrong.

        • Re:No... they... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by benjamindees ( 441808 )
          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 politic

        • Extortion and threats of violence are not protected speech, though.

          Neither were many of the types of speech which the ACLU defended, before the ACLU defended them.

          If your point is that they only support protected speech, you're right.

          Actually, you'd be wrong. The ACLU has lost free speech cases in the past. That means they were supporting unprotected speech.

  • Definitions... Discuss (Score:3, Funny)

    by benjamindees ( 441808 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @06:55PM (#6727466) Homepage
    Natural Rights/Human Rights- Rights granted by virtue of existence

    Civil Rights- Rights granted by virtue of citizenship

    Civil Liberties- Rights granted by virtue of legislative fiat
    • Natural Rights/Human Rights- Rights granted by virtue of existence

      Some people would argue (including the Founding Fathers), that Human Rights are granted by a Higher Power and not simply by the virtue of existence.

      I'm not one of those people, but for a complete discussion, you must at least consider it.
      • That would be Natural Rights to which you refer. Human Rights are a product of modern liberalism, and preclude the existence of a Higher Power.

        Since, under Natural Law, human existence is dependent upon a Higher Power, the common feature of both Natural and Human rights is existence, from whatever source derived.

        I don't necessarily aim to present a historical depiction of the evolution of rights; rather a modern, self-consistent description of those rights.
    • Natural Rights/Human Rights- Rights granted by virtue of existence
      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 res

  • Depending on your political beliefs, perhaps the Libertarian Party would be a better place to put your time and money. I don't know what actions of ACLU offend you. (For me, it is some of thier more Leftist defenses.) That's how I ended up contributing to the Party. Just my humble, undereducated, red necked, opinion.
    • I would say that the Libertarian party is *not* the best place to put in time or money, unless the poster enjoys strengthening those who would pronounce a death sentence on what's left of our pitiful environment and on those who depend on social programs to live. Personally, I have been fundamentally frightened by the Libertarians I have met, without fail. I accept the possibility that I've just run into a bad crop, but the Libertarians I've met are in favor of abolishing minimum wages, abolishing OSHA, eli
      • Just a few points:

        Libertarians I've met are in favor of abolishing minimum wages.

        This is correct. Why should the government get involved in the relationship between employers and employees? If an employer wants to get the level of employee that they get for $1/hr then they should be able to do so.

        abolishing OSHA

        This is correct. Again, the government shouldn't be involved in the employee/employer relationship. HOWEVER...

        eliminating the right of workers to sue their employers

        This is not correct

        • I have lots of issues with the libertarians, but this one statement is the ultimate silliness:

          ...and airlines should be able to offer a "we don't check anyone" option if they desire...

          If there were an airline that didn't check passengers for weapons as they boarded, then which ones do you think the bad guys would fly? Before 11/09/01 I would have glossed over this one, but now we know that an airline with lax security puts far more people at risk then just those on board. The problem I have with libertari

          • If there were an airline that didn't check passengers for weapons as they boarded, then which ones do you think the bad guys would fly?

            The one where the passengers aren't permitted to have weapons. Seriously.

            I think most criminals are smart enough to realize that if weapons are permitted on airplanes then they have an increased chance of getting shot. The potential rewards of successfully sneaking a weapon through security are much greater when noone else on the airplane has any sort of meaningful wea

            • You miss my point. The in-flight shootout between hijacker and NRA members doesn't just endanger those on board, who took a calculated risk, but as we learned the hard way, also endangers the lives of people on the ground, and in tall buildings, who did not opt in to the risk of flights free of security checkpoints.

  • ACLU Acts on Principles, Not Popular Perception (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:08PM (#6727595) Homepage Journal

    They're really an admirable organization in being dedicated to principles of civil liberties.

    This often takes them into positions that are strictly correct in terms of principle, but extremely unpopular in terms of practice.

    They will defend the rights of Nazis and pornographers to free speech, for example.

    And they will sue to exclude any possible mention of God, Ten Commandments in official government documents.

    And the right to refrain from saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

    All of this makes great fodder on talk shows, where people can emotionally vent about how ridiculous this is.

    Some people like that emotional venting more than they like the fundamental principles of liberty. That's fine for them.

    Personally, I take those liberties very seriously. They are special conditions of being an American that make our country unlike most others.

    As soon as you concede that any of those rights can be abridged for any reason under any circumstance, then you open up a potential Pandora's box.

    If someone can decide Nazis and pornographers belong to a special class of people for whom civil liberties do not apply, then you have to admit that someone will have the power to put you into a similar classification some day and to silence your opinion. Your opinion could be "hate-speak" or "obscene" by John Ashcroft and you could be jailed.

    If you say that mixing religion with government is OK, then you admit that it would be just fine if ever a hypothetical Muslim majority in the United States should decree that the Koran and sharia law would be posted in all schools and to which everyone must memorize and adhere, rigth after one of the 5 prayer sessions during the day.

    [One very good reason our founding fathers tried to separate church and state was based on centuries of bloody evidence in Europe. Recall that Catholics and Protestants killed each other viciously for a long time. Many nations today Muslim fundamentalist are going down the same road today with wars between Shia, Sunni, Muslim and Hindu or Christian. How many centuries it will take for those conflicts to prove the point our foudning fathers recognized in the late 18th century I don't know.]

    It's not popular or always expedient to be principled, but it's more enduring.

    • Nail on the head.
    • If you say that mixing religion with government is OK, then you admit that it would be just fine if ever a hypothetical Muslim majority in the United States should decree that the Koran and sharia law would be posted in all schools and to which everyone must memorize and adhere, rigth after one of the 5 prayer sessions during the day.

      The "Seperation of Church and State" has no foundation in the constitution. This is the text of the first amendment:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment

      • Re:ACLU Acts on Principles, Not Popular Perception (Score:4, Interesting)

        by PeteyG ( 203921 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @08:45PM (#6728362) Homepage Journal
        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.
      • 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 pray

      • Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

        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.

        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 prve

      • Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians (Score:5, Informative)

        by tm2b ( 42473 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @01:14AM (#6730059) Journal
        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


        Uh... no.

        The "Founding Fathers," were generally Deists [www.des], not Christians. Deist beliefs are incompatible with Christianity. [deism.com] Deism, and the entire philosophy of Natural Rights, is an outgrowth of the Age of Reason that embraced a Creator that did not reveal itself by revelation but through its creation itself.

        Let's look at what some of the best-known "founding fathers" said about Christianity, society, and Law:
        • Thomas Jefferson [nobeliefs.com] : Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
        • Ben Franklin: "I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
        • Thomas Paine [about.com] : The fable of Christ and his twelve apostles, which is a parody on the sun and the twelve signs of the zodiac, copied from the ancient religions of the eastern world, is the least hurtful part."
        • James Madison: "Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
        • John Adams: As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
        Here are some other links on the whole "Founding Fathers were Christian" bogon:

  • My thoughts on them (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Experiment 626 ( 698257 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:10PM (#6727608)
    The ACLU are pretty aggressive organization about pursuing various causes, but they have a very obvious idealogical axe to grind that prevents me from personally supporting them. If you happen to like civil liberties with a severe leftward slant (and many Slashbots do) then by all means go for it.

    Some examples of my problems with them...

    On the First Amendment, they will argue the "separation" part of freedom of religion till they are blue in the face, but completely ignore the "free exercise" part. I think the framers of the Constitution did a brilliant job of balancing these two concepts and to wildly expand on one by gutting the other detracts from what makes this amendment so great.

    For a so-called civil liberties organization to actively pursue the anti-civil liberties side of the debate over the Second Amendment seriously undermines their credibility.

    In too many stories I read in the news, they just seem to "get it wrong". For instance in the current debate over the California Recall, the ACLU wants a postponement until electronic voting machines are ready in all districts. Given that electronic voting really doesn't enhance the democratic process or voting security, this strikes me as an overly partisan move to buy embattled Mr. Davis more time. I would prefer an organization that raises issues for their own merit, not as some sort of political tactic.

    In short, I would much rather there be a non-tech counterpart to the EFF... someone who doesn't just champion liberal civil liberties causes, or conservative civil liberties causes, or what have you, but consistently argues for freedom and liberty itself. While individual members no doublt have partisan leanings, keeping a pure message of "we support civil liberties, period" would better serve an organization than confounding the message with unrelated or contradictory positions for political sake.

    • On the First Amendment, they will argue the "separation" part of freedom of religion till they are blue in the face, but completely ignore the "free exercise" part. I think the framers of the Constitution did a brilliant job of balancing these two concepts and to wildly expand on one by gutting the other detracts from what makes this amendment so great.

      I would love to hear an instance of the ACLU cracking down on "free exercize" of religion. Really, I would. I don't claim to have followed every ACLU r

  • And the Sierra Club? (Score:3, Offtopic)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:14PM (#6727634) Journal
    As long as we're dropping napalm:

    I've been a member of the Sierra Club for about 10 years, one of their few but not negligible Republican members. My membership is running out soon and I'm unlikely to renew.

    As soon as George Bush was elected they started a relentless, hysterical campaign against him. (Or, realistically, to raise money by tossing around his name.) In fact, there are plenty of his environmental policies with which I disagree (ANWR drilling, for example) but the Sierra Club gleefully tossed around nonsense like the "Bush wants to add arsenic to drinking water!" story and has ignored or denigrated all the positive things he's done.

    The same thing happenend with Newt Gingrich. He was an environmentalist, and a Sierra Club winner. But working with him was less lucrative than scaring the NPR crowd with his name.

    The global warming stuff also is starting to grate on me. All the environmental groups have embraced the notion that any deviation from the party line must be denounced and ignored. I'm getting increasingly suspicious about the religious nature of their claims, which generate suspicion about the nature of all the rest of their scientific claims (e.g. how best to deal with forest fires).

    The last straw for me was their opposing the war in Iraq. I give them money to reduce fuel consumption and to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I do not give them money to promote a doctrinaire leftist national security policy.
    • May I ask what their grounds were for opposing the war in Iraq?
      • I'm not in the Sierra Club, but I am a scientist and a bit of an environmentalist.

        Wars have all sort of environmental effects. Apart from Saddam's possible lighting of oil wells on fire, or the spilling of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf, there is also much heavy metal contamination in the theatre of operations from depleted uranium and lead and lots of particulates greenhouse gasses and smog from all the planes and vehicles used.

  • The ACLU is about mechanism, not policy. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mellon ( 7048 ) * on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:18PM (#6727678) Homepage
    The government frequently passes laws to stop the bad guys from doing things, but these laws frequently can be used against regular joes as well. So when the ACLU sees a prosecution that's been done in a way that would work on a regular joe as well as a bad guy, it often goes to bat for the bad guy. The point isn't to defend what the bad guy is doing. It's to make the government use a method of stopping the bad guy that is discrimatory - that only works on bad guys, and not on regular joes.

    Consider RICO. Its intent was to stop organized crime. Apparently it works pretty well at that. Unfortunately, it also works for corrupt police departments who just want to acquire stuff or fluff their budget. They go after someone who has something that they want, and looks dirty, but that they don't really know is dirty. They use a court order to confiscate things under the RICO statute. The person whose stuff has been confiscated has to sue to get it back, has to prove that they are not guilty. The cops don't have to prove anything.

    Consider the Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act. CDA sounds like a great idea - protect kids from online porn. Unfortunately, it doesn't work - there's plenty of online porn that kids can access. Worse, it actually protects kids from information that they might need - if you're 15, and wondering if having sex with your boyfriend can get you pregnant the first time, now you can't get information about it. If you want to know what the risks are from AIDS and how to fight them, that information is not available to you. COPA has actually succeeded in bowdlerizing the internet as seen from public libraries (google "Thomas Bowdler" to find out where that word came from). Although this was supposedly intended to protect children, the result is that it's also "protecting" adults who access the Internet from public libraries.

    So I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU. Hm, actually, I think I let it lapse. Hm. :'} Point is, they're good folks. Their methods are a bit difficult to fathom if all you read about them is what CNN says, but there's truly a method to their madness, and they do good work.
    • Unfortunately, it doesn't work - there's plenty of online porn that kids can access. Worse, it actually protects kids from information that they might need - if you're 15, and wondering if having sex with your boyfriend can get you pregnant the first time, now you can't get information about it.

      Why don't they just ask their parents? I'm sure their parents know whether a girl can get pregnant the first time she has sex. The information will probably be more credible then what one could turn up on the in

  • So send them less money! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by oolon ( 43347 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:19PM (#6727689)
    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

    • and your donation can be tax-deductible if you donate to the "ACLU Foundation" [aclu.org], instead of the ACLU:


      "Gifts to the ACLU Foundation are fully tax-deductible to the donor; membership dues and gifts to the ACLU are not tax-deductible.

      This is because the ACLU engages in substantial legislative lobbying, which cannot by law, be supported by tax-deductible funds. The ACLU Foundation, on the other hand, conducts our litigation and communications efforts, and contributions to it are tax-deductible.

      Many donors
    • Except half of that $50 will go to stuff you don't approve of, so you'll have to withhold that. Then you have to withhold another $12.50...

      It's actually a lot simpler than that. Either you approve of their ends (making sure the Bill of Rights covers everybody) and their means (litigating against abridgement of the Bill of Rights, no matter whose rights are being abridged), or you don't. If you do support their strategy, you're just going to have to live with the fact that Nazis, Pedophiles, and other unco

      • No, what I am saying is general people who are wanting to give to any charity will not like some of the things they do, but will like other parts, the parts people do not like are probably relatively evenly spread. So although on people part of my money WILL go to something I don't like but someonelse money will go to a part they don't like which I do. This will tend to counteract the not liking part, but because I do not like everything they do I choice to give them less.

        Its still perference in charities,
        • If a charity is doing things you don't approve of, it doesn't make sense to give them money. It doesn't matter how much you give them -- some of the money will go to activities that you think are wrong.

    • One tool that I've come to value in helping me decide what non-profit organizations to donate to and how much, has been the information put out by The American Institute of Philanthropy [charitywatch.org]. They publish a Charity Rating Guide that lists pretty much every non-profit org that you can think of along with information on such things such as how much cash they have in reserve and what percentage of donor's contributions actually goes towards programs and what percentage goes towards paying the costs of fund raising

  • Why I think the ACLU is a good thing. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Klaruz ( 734 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:30PM (#6727794)
    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.
    • I understand the reasonings for hating the ACLU, but think the people that hold those beliefs aren't seeing the whole picture. Yes, the ACLU supported the rights of the NAMBLA to post information about how to rape young boys--the ACLU certainly doesn't support this action (I don't think anybody besides the NAMBLA does), but the ACLU believes everybody has the right to say anything. They said that posting a tutorial, if you will, of a crime is different than committing a crime.

    • What I'd like to know is why every American doesn't support the ACLU.

      Simple. The ACLU's policy on prayer [aclu.org] disagrees with all Americans who have even minimal religious beliefs. Their policy makes no sense: the Constitution guarantees the right to freely exercise religion in prison [aclu.org], but not on public school grounds?!

      • From the document linked, emphasis mine:

        "We do not need a school prayer amendment. Every child in the United States already has the right to pray in school on a voluntary basis -- it's called the First Amendment. ... Children, who are required to attend school by law, should not be placed in the position of having to choose between pressures from their teachers and peers and their parents' instructions on religious practice. Where official school prayer has been permitted, the result has not been pretty:

  • What's With the ACLU (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:36PM (#6727851) Homepage Journal
    People have a hard time understanding the ACLU, because they keep trying to put it into some kind of political pigeon hole. It just doesn't work. The ACLU isn't a political movement. It's a bunch of lawyers who litigate in defense of their interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

    There was a case back in 88 that demonstrates the role of the ACLU in all its irony. If you remember that year, you probably remember Bush the First packing as many Hot Button Keywords into his presidential campaign speeches as possible. One really nasty example is that he repeatedly referred to his opponent as a "card-carrying member of the ACLU", terminology obviously meant to evoke left wing associations [uiuc.edu].

    Now somewhere in the midwest (I think it was Ohio) a woman tried to put "Elect Bush" signs on her front lawn, only to be told she was violating local zoning ordinances. She placed a call to the local ACLU chapter -- and got a callback from the state chairman, who informed her that she had raised a vital free speech issue, and the state ACLU would back her and her Bush signs with everything it had!

    Of course, that's not the biggest irony connected with the ACLU -- it doesn't come close to all those Nazi and White Supremicist bozos who turn to the ACLU for legal representation, which often comes in the form of Jewish or African-American lawyers! But it's all part of the same idea: that for the Constitution to work, its protections have to be extended to everybody: pedophiles, Nazis, and even people who attack the ACLU itself.

    Which makes association with the ACLU pretty difficult: you have to accept that your dues are going to go to protect the legal rights of a lot of people you happen to despise.

    I actually have no problem with this: I'm a Jewish American who happens to think that everybody should read The Turner Diaries [adl.org]. The more appalling an idea is, the more you need to bring it out in the open. Anyway, freedom of thought (including stupid thought) is the most fundamental of rights.

    I do have a major issue with the ACLU. Not their rabid defense of the rights of despised minorities, but rather their assumption that litigation is the only way to do it. Lawyers do play an important role in protecting the rights of their clients. But the courts aren't always the best protector of personal liberties. As Dred Scott [wustl.edu] learned, they often give a high priority to maintaining the status quo. And even when they don't, having a social change mandated by a federal judge is no guarantee of the change actually happening. Any African American trying to find a place to live will tell you that!

  • I won't tell you not to send money to the ACLU, or where to send your money instead, but it sounds like you have pretty mixed feelings about it. Why not find an organization that you really feel strongly about? There are so many people out there trying to help other people in different ways, you could not possibly support all the good causes. So find one that you passionately support.

  • ...It's up to you if you agree with what they do enough to join them or give them money. Their website is particularly well-done in terms of the amount of information present, so I would recommend a bit of research there.

    As for my personal opinion, I think you should make as large of a donation as possible, and join if you can. The ACLU is one of the few organizations out there which operates on the principles of freedom, not just the ones that they agree with. For example, the ACLU has defended Nazi's rig
  • If you agree with most of the policies, Join and Use your membership voice to mold the other policies you disagree with. You'll never change them as an outsider.
  • A little bit less controversial group you may want to look at is the Libertarian Party. [lp.org] While they stand for many of the same things as the ACLU, they try to get them through the normal political process instead of through the court system. I hear a LOT of Libertarian-like viewpoints here on slashdot.

    On the LP's web page there is also the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" [lp.org] which is basically a 10 question quiz which will help you know what political "area" you fall into.

  • why i joined (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jfruhlinger ( 470035 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @09:50PM (#6728809) Homepage
    I was listening to a radio report on the longstanding tradition in Texas of a prayer being read over the loudspeaker before a public high school football game. I was really trying hard to maintain some objectivity. There was a girl being interviewed who often read the prayer before the game, who was speaking very passionately about this being her religion, and that ACLU-spearheaded attempts to stop the prayer were interfering with her free exercize of it. Then the interviewer asked her: What if there was a Mormon or Buddhist student in her high school who wanted to read a prayer before a game?

    "Oh, I wouldn't like that," she said. "I mean, we pray to God. I wouldn't want a prayer to a false god."

    That's when I signed up for the ACLU. The thing that most pissed me off was the unthinkingness of it. I grew up in Buffalo, NY, which is overwhelmingly Catholic. If there were prayers in the public schools there, they would probably be Our Fathers and Hail Marys and calls for intercessions with saints -- all things that a good Southern Baptist like the girl being interviewed would find to be horrifying popery. The reason that governments (including school districts and their appointed representatives) shouldn't lead prayers is that by selecting certain prayers, they are declaring some gods to be false, just like our interviewee. And that is completely against the "no established religion" clause.

    jf

  • The ACLU is one of the few organizations that you see, repeatedly in the news, and repeatedly winning cases. They really do make a difference, and that is why I am a member.

    I suppose there are some issues where I don't totally agree with them -- but that's ok, because I don't expect them to succeed on every front. In that sense I think they are appropriate for even fairly moderate leftists like are found in great numbers on slashdot. Like RMS, they represent an important (and rational) extreme position tha

  • I'm an ex-member. Here's why. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PapaZit ( 33585 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @10:29PM (#6729034)
    I like the work that the ACLU does. I can even appreciate their stance on some issues where I disagree with them. After Sept. 11, I knew that Bad Shit (tm) would soon be coming from Washington, and they looked like the group that was most likely to do something.

    I gave them $50 or so. In return, I started receiving weekly "Oh no! Those wacky republicans are at it again! Give us more money!" letters.

    The info wouldn't have been bad: it's good to be informed. What bothered me was the hysterical "Be afraid!" tone, the constant pleading for money (with that sleazy "but wait, there's more!" tone that comes with offers for time-shares), and the regular deulge of thick envelopes (with a pre-paid business reply envelope in each). I suspect that the entirety of my donation was spent on the weekly pleas for more money. I felt like I was supporting the post office and the envelope industry, not civil liberties.

    Now, I drop more money to the EFF, and I make a point of writing my congressmen when I think I can argue the issue intelligently. It's not the broad-based defense of liberty that I'd prefer, but it's less annoying that donating to the ACLU.

  • ACLU fought against WWII Japanese internment (Score:3, Insightful)

    by asmithmd1 ( 239950 ) on Monday August 18, 2003 @10:48PM (#6729213) Homepage Journal
    What other group has that kind of history of being on the right side of an issue when it was very unpopular?
    check it out here [aichi-gakuin.ac.jp]
  • of joining the ACLU. I like them both, but the EFF is far more strapped.

  • ACLU does not live up to its principles. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rjh ( 40933 ) <rjh@sixdemonbag.org> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:26AM (#6729846)
    My beef with the ACLU centers around the Second Amendment. Not because I'm a gun-toting psychopath, but because our civil liberties are protected only to the degree that all of them are protected--including the ones we might disagree with. Regardless of whether you're pro-gun or anti-gun, the Second Amendment is still part of the Bill of Rights and is thus a civil right under American law.

    The only problem is, the ACLU doesn't see it that way. Ask the ACLU why they have not once, not ever, taken a pro-Second Amendment case and you'll get the same answer every time: "because we believe the Second Amendment is a guarantee of the state's right to equip a militia, not the individual's right to possess firearms."

    It would be an admirable sentiment, were it not for one fact... not one reputable legal scholar in America takes that position. Alan Dershowitz, a very far-left liberal Democrat lawyer and legal professor, has given the best analysis of why no reputable law professor has embraced this position.

    According to Dershowitz, the Second Amendment reads "the right of the people..." The very instant you say "the right of the people" actually means "the right of the state", then you've thrown the entire Bill of Rights out the window. If "the right of the people" actually means "the right of the state", then what does that mean for any of the rights we cherish? Suddenly, we no longer have any individual rights; they're all held collectively by the state, which becomes our guardian, able to exercise our liberties in our name while not permitting us those liberties for our own use.

    It's really a very 1984 example of doublespeak.

    There is not one Supreme Court case which supports the collectivist interpretation of the Bill of Rights, either as a whole or for one specific amendment. In the most recent Supreme Court Second Amendment case, Miller v US, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the Second Amendment as an individual--not a collective--right.

    For the ACLU to claim that the Second Amendment is correctly read as a collective right is... I can't figure it out.

    What I suspect is this: the ACLU has a lot of support from a lot of people who, while adamantly in favor of free speech and privacy and all manner of other things, are also staunchly in favor of the notion that nobody should have guns except the cops. And as a result of this, the ACLU has decided to cut the Second Amendment loose to fend for itself, on the theory that "it's better to lose one-tenth of the Bill of Rights than it is to piss off 95% of our contributors, and thus kill any good we can do for the nine-tenths that still remains."

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close