ACLU Defender of the Constitution or Dispicable?

Since some say it's debatable that the ACLU is a honorably.

So I offer point one for my argument.
ACLU of Ohio defending Samuel Wurzelbacher(A.K.A. Joe The Plumber)

It is appalling that government officials believe they may access a person's private information simply for being in a newspaper headline. This unethical practice only confirms that our state government does not have adequate checks in place to protect our privacy, leaving our most personal information vulnerable to the whims of a person's curiosity. Many people also could be frightened from speaking to members of the media or expressing their views because they could come under scrutiny of our state government.

forums.military.com...

The problem with the ACLU is that for every attaboy like this, they have 100 "Aw, crap!"s.

They have a long way to go to gain my respect.

Definitely both. Like most parasites, lawyers are a neccesary part of the (eco)system.

reply to post by jsobecky


Ok give a source for your "Aw Craps". Otherwise you havn't proven your point. Just made a general statement.

We're debating facts here. Not generalized opinions.

reply to post by djpaec


Neither have you. Show me where the ACLU actually got involved in bringing suit on Joe the Plumber's behalf. Not just a general statement about how bad state officials have acted.

As for your question, here's one for ya:

ACLU to Represent NAMBLA

reply to post by jsobecky


I agree that many of the cases the ACLU take on are not popular within the context of whom they represent. However it is not who they are representing but what. The ACLU is all for helping you continue your ability to continue to have free speach - it also is simply put to defend your liberties, as per the constitution and laws of nation and state. You may not like the law, but to attack those who seek to defend it...

ColoradoJens

reply to post by jsobecky


blog.cleveland.com...

Ok so the Top of the ACLU raising the Issue isn't support for them defending Joe The Plumber? It shows they're not as partisan as some would like to think. And Law Suits take some time to happen, and if Good Ol' Joe is ready to sue, I'm sure the ACLU will be right by him.

As to the whole nambla thing. The ACLU had this to say about it:

As ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein sees it: "Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."

I may not agree with NAMBLA'S views but the first Amendment isn't an article for just some of the people.

Here's NAMBLA's stated views and opinions:

The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization in the United States that advocates the liberalisation of laws against sexual relations between adult and minor males - resolving to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships". NAMBLA also calls for "the adoption of laws that both protect children from unwanted sexual experiences and at the same time leave them free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences."[1] NAMBLA's webpage claims that: "NAMBLA does not provide encouragement, referrals or assistance for people seeking sexual contacts" and that it does not "engage in any activities that violate the law [or] advocate that anyone else should [violate the law]."

What they defended them on was a first amendment issue. Nambla didn't tell those sickos to kill a boy with a gasoline soaked rag and then violate his dead body. That would go against what they say they advocate, which I repeat again:

"the adoption of laws that both protect children from unwanted sexual experiences and at the same time leave them free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences."

To Quote a website Opposed to NAMBLA in regards to this whole ACLU thing:

Within the realm of nonfiction, as revolting as its ideas are, NAMBLA certainly has a First Amendment right to argue that America's laws should be changed to permit sexual relations between adult men and third-grade school boys. Most Americans would disagree vehemently, as well they should. That's called debate. It's the American way.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by djpaec]

I financially supported the ACLU for years. I agree with them in principal about defending the rights of people who have had their constitution rights trampled on one way or another.

I stopped supporting them back in 1985 when the group seemed to loose it's way with the specific cases it took on. I don't know if they had a new leader that took them in a different direction for choosing who or what they defend, but we parted ways.

It was never about nor never will be about the money aspect of it. It was just a change of philosophy. The NAMBLA example is a good idea about this. I despise the group or what they represent, but I support 100% their very right to free speech. I have sent the group's attorney money, for their court case, as it is a basic free speech issue.

To this day, when I see a case of someone fighting a lawsuit that I feel needs to be fought, I will send a check to the party if I can find the right person. My wife goes nuts over this at times, but court cases are or can be incredibly expensive. A few bucks won't take food off my table but it sure as hell can help defend a guy over some clarity of law that may affect me and my rights.

People talk about this or that, not a problem. Put some money in the fight if it really bothers you, then you have staked a claim.

wow the ACLU actually defending joe the plumber? hats off. the first time in about 1000 cases in which i actually agree with them. they are a crazy bunch that dont deserve to be in existence

Freedom of speech does not exist to protect people whose opinion aren't offensive or insulting to you.

The First Amendment exists to protect people whom you find insulting and offensive from YOU wanting to silence them. No matter what a persons beliefs might be, they are entitled to both believe it and vocalize it under the First Amendment.

The ACLU takes on cases where people's Civil Rights have been trampled on... and in a lot of cases, the people doing the trampling are behind the people prosecuting the person the ACLU is representing. In many cases, the American Public are the tramplers.

The Constitution was not written to enforce a "MAJORITY RULES" mentality of "What society believes GOES, and you had better agree with what society believes!"

It was written to Defend people who are minorities from the tyranny of Majority. So, whether I like the ACLU's cases or not, I applaud them for doing right by Humanity and America.

Well the ACLU loves to defend certain rights (ex. speech) but loves to ignore others (ex. gun rights). I grudgingly support them and see them as sort of necessary, even if I don't love everything they do.

Another "good", in my opinion, in ACLU's column.

Florida Gay Adoption Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
MIAMI — Florida's strict law banning adoption of children by gay people was found unconstitutional Tuesday by a state judge who declared there was no legal or scientific reason for sexual orientation alone to prohibit anyone from adopting.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman said the 31-year-old law violates equal protection rights for the children and their prospective gay parents, rejecting the state's arguments that there is "a supposed dark cloud hovering over homes of homosexuals and their children." She also noted that gay people are allowed to be foster parents in Florida.

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, who represent gay foster parent Martin Gill, said the case was the first in the nation in which numerous experts in child psychology, social work and other fields testified that there is no science to justify a gay adoption ban.

Source

It's important to remember the ACLU regards it's mission as defending the Constitutional rights of everyone, including unpopular groups.

They defend NAMBLA, NAZI's, Joe the Plumber ( ) not because they "like" them, but because it's unpopular groups (and individuals) like those that inspire politicians to make illegal end runs around the Constitution.

I'm an ACLU member, I support them because the work they do needs to be done, even if it doesn't make them popular.

I disagree with them on some things, certainly (their weak position on the Second Amendment being my biggest beef), but their core mission is to defend our Constitutional rights, and it's work that needs to be done.