Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-17-2017, 09:32 AM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,055
Question about legal standing

How do advocacy groups such as the ACLU, the SPLC, or the Heritage Foundation have legal standing to even bring lawsuits?

I sometimes see cases entitled ACLU v. Government Officials XYZ. The ACLU, itself, hasn't suffered any injury. How does this work?
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 07-17-2017, 09:38 AM
Pixel_Dent Pixel_Dent is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,075
In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union which related to the Communications Decency Act they published George Carlin's "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" monologue on their website to give them standing.

Last edited by Pixel_Dent; 07-17-2017 at 09:39 AM.
  #3  
Old 07-17-2017, 09:47 AM
mhendo mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 24,502
Well, the first thing i would ask the OP is whether his memory is actually accurate.

In my experience, the vast majority of cases in which the ACLU involves itself do NOT actually list the ACLU as the plaintiff. For example, the famous same-sex marriage case, in which the ACLU of Ohio played a crucial role, was called Obergefell et al. v. Hodges.

And if you go to this page, where the ACLU lists significant civil rights cases by year, you'll see very few references to the organization in the case titles. In fact, going back ten years on that page, i did not find a single case listed as ACLU v. Someone.

Last edited by mhendo; 07-17-2017 at 09:50 AM.
  #4  
Old 07-17-2017, 10:05 AM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
Well, the first thing i would ask the OP is whether his memory is actually accurate.
My memory is fine, thank you very much.

A quick Google search finds:

ACLU v. Clapper
ACLU v. Department of Homeland Security
ACLU v. Department of Defense
ACLU v. DOJ
  #5  
Old 07-17-2017, 10:08 AM
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 5,293
Typically when an advocacy group wants to challenge a law they have to go searching for a plantiff. In a couple of famous cases like Griswold and the Scopes case they also have the cooperation of local authorities who agree to arrest the person in order to provoke a trial and then an appeal.
  #6  
Old 07-17-2017, 10:12 AM
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 19,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
ACLU v. Clapper
Just reading the wiki page for this case we have this:

Quote:
They claimed that the bulk metadata collection program violates their First and the Fourth Amendment rights. In specific, they argued that, as Verizon subscribers, the NSA's collection of their call metadata constituted an invasion of privacy and unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment and that collecting the data could inhibit their and their partners' free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Bolding added - it sounds like the ACLU was a Verizon customer and therefore affected by the actions being taken.
  #7  
Old 07-17-2017, 10:16 AM
mhendo mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 24,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
My memory is fine, thank you very much.

A quick Google search finds:

ACLU v. Clapper
ACLU v. Department of Homeland Security
ACLU v. Department of Defense
ACLU v. DOJ
I didn't say it never happened. I was just pointing out that it is not typical.

And if you would read the actual cases that you have Googled, you would find at least one pretty straightforward answer to your question: in three of the four cases you have listed above, the ACLU was seeking the release of documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

That's how they got standing: they wanted the documents, and the agencies in question had refused to release them. Basically anyone can file a FOIA request, and if they believe that their request has been improperly ignored or denied, they can also file a lawsuit seeking the documents.

In the case of ACLU v. Clapper, the organization had standing because it was affected by the government's collection of metadata from "every phone call made or received by residents of the United States."

That is, pretty much, how you get standing in a case: by being one of the affected parties. They note in the complaint that the government had acknowledged collecting metadata from phone calls made in the United States, and thus they filed suit as a party affected by this collection.

Last edited by mhendo; 07-17-2017 at 10:18 AM.
  #8  
Old 07-17-2017, 10:16 AM
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 19,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
ACLU v. DOJ
And in this case, the wiki article notes:

Quote:
On January 17, 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on its own behalf, and on the behalf of three other organizations and five individuals, sued the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief arguing the TSP was unconstitutional and a violation of federal law. The government argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed or alternatively be granted summary judgment based on the State Secrets Privilege and the plaintiffs' lack of standing.

On August 17, 2006, District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, ruling that the TSP specifically involving "international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations" within the United States of America, was unconstitutional and illegal, and ordered that it be halted immediately.[1] She stayed her order pending appeal. She did not rule on the alleged NSA database of domestic call detail records, citing the State Secrets Privilege.

On January 31, 2007, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court ruling on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not show that they had been or would be subjected to surveillance personally, and therefore they lacked standing before the Court. The Court emphasized, however, that FISA and Title III are the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance is permitted and that no other authorization can comply with the law.

On February 19, 2008, the United States Supreme Court, without comment, turned down an appeal from the [ACLU] to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks."[2]
  #9  
Old 07-17-2017, 10:21 AM
mhendo mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 24,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
And in this case, the wiki article notes:
Actually, the title ACLU v. DoJ is pretty non-specific. There are dozens of cases that the ACLU has filed against the Department of Justice. The majority of them seem to be related to FOIA issues.
  #10  
Old 07-17-2017, 10:27 AM
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 19,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
Actually, the title ACLU v. DoJ is pretty non-specific. There are dozens of cases that the ACLU has filed against the Department of Justice. The majority of them seem to be related to FOIA issues.
You are correct. I was just looking for a case where the ACLU was denied standing on a case. In fact, that case is ACLU vs NSA -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...ecurity_Agency
  #11  
Old 07-17-2017, 10:43 AM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
In the case of ACLU v. Clapper, the organization had standing because it was affected by the government's collection of metadata from "every phone call made or received by residents of the United States."
"Affected" is not the same thing as injury, though. What damages did the ACLU suffer?
  #12  
Old 07-17-2017, 10:49 AM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
"Affected" is not the same thing as injury, though. What damages did the ACLU suffer?
Isn't that for the court to decide?
  #13  
Old 07-17-2017, 11:17 AM
friedo friedo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 23,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
"Affected" is not the same thing as injury, though. What damages did the ACLU suffer?
ACLU argued that the federal government violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure (of the ACLU's call records) through the program. The courts have long held that an illegal search is itself injurious, even if nothing interesting was found.
  #14  
Old 07-17-2017, 11:22 AM
mhendo mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 24,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
"Affected" is not the same thing as injury, though. What damages did the ACLU suffer?
As friedo notes, a violation of your Constitutional rights (which is what the ACLU was alleging) is an injury in and of itself, in the legal sense.
  #15  
Old 07-17-2017, 12:51 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
As friedo notes, a violation of your Constitutional rights (which is what the ACLU was alleging) is an injury in and of itself, in the legal sense.
Ok, but that's one case, based on the Fourth Amendment. What about the others that are based on FOIA requests?

I'm not a lawyer, but I thought that in order to be successful in a lawsuit, one had to show actual, not illusory, damages.
  #16  
Old 07-17-2017, 12:52 PM
friedo friedo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 23,333
If you were entitled to documents under FOIA, and you didn't get them, you have been injured by the government failing to provide a service which the law requires.
  #17  
Old 07-17-2017, 12:59 PM
mhendo mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 24,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Ok, but that's one case, based on the Fourth Amendment. What about the others that are based on FOIA requests?

I'm not a lawyer, but I thought that in order to be successful in a lawsuit, one had to show actual, not illusory, damages.
The lawsuits based on FOIA requests are suits that seek to have documents released under the FOIA. Most of these suits are brought after an FOIA request is submitted and the relevant government agency fails to release the requested documents.

Here is one example. In this case, the ACLU and its co-complainants made two separate FOIA requests for documents related to the torture of prisoners in US detention centers outside the country. They also, in the second application, asked for expedited processing.

As their Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief says:
Quote:
5. Although the public interest in the release of the records
at issue here is manifest, the only record that the government has
released in response to plaintiffs’ request is a set of talking
points used by the DOS in communications with the media. None of the
defendant agencies has released any other records in response to
plaintiffs’ request. Further, none of the defendant agencies has
granted plaintiffs’ application for expedited processing.

6. To vindicate the public’s right to information about
government conduct, plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring defendant
agencies immediately to process plaintiffs’ request and to release
records that are and have been unlawfully withheld.
  #18  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:03 PM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 20,948
And of course, you don't have to prove that you actually were injured by the defendant to sue them, that's what the lawsuit is for. To get standing you have to meet a much lower bar.
  #19  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:15 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
I'm not a lawyer, but I thought that in order to be successful in a lawsuit, one had to show actual, not illusory, damages.
You don't have to prove damages to enter into a lawsuit. You claim that damages exist and the court decides whether you have or not. That is the essence of our entire court system.

It is often not clear who has legal standing for any particular claim. Again, that is the court's decision. A plaintiff is not required to show proof of standing before it goes to court. How could that possibly work?

The process is clear. A person or entity makes a claim of damages. It enters a civil lawsuit. The court decides whether it has standing and then whether damages exist and then whether the defendant is guilty of causing those damages. That's oversimplified but answers your question.

So the ACLU has a perfect right to file these lawsuits, just as you do personally, or other individual or group. It does not have an automatic right to win. Sometimes it will win. Sometimes it will be denied standing or denied damages. Sometimes the outcome is fairly clear-cut from the beginning. At other times, courts need to look closely at the individual facts that had not been litigated before in the light of new or reinterpreted laws. These can't be known ahead of time. Courts exist precisely to make these determinations.
  #20  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:54 PM
dofe dofe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 675
FOIA provides that courts have "jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). An agency's "withholding" of such records from a requester in violation of FOIA therefore provides the "injury" that the OP asked about.

As explained by the third Circuit:

Quote:
The FOIA "is fundamentally designed to inform the public about agency action...." A person seeking information under the FOIA therefore need not have a personal stake in the information sought. Rather, the FOIA creates a private cause of action for the benefit of persons who have requested certain records from a public agency and whose request has been denied. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3). The statute requires nothing more than a request and the denial of that request as a predicate to a suit in the district court.
McDonnell v. US, 4 F.3d 1227, 1238-38 (3rd Cir 1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
  #21  
Old 07-17-2017, 03:30 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by dofe View Post
FOIA provides that courts have "jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). An agency's "withholding" of such records from a requester in violation of FOIA therefore provides the "injury" that the OP asked about.

As explained by the third Circuit:



McDonnell v. US, 4 F.3d 1227, 1238-38 (3rd Cir 1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Thank you. That was the factual answer I was asking for.
  #22  
Old 07-17-2017, 04:01 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Thank you. That was the factual answer I was asking for.
Actually, the questions you put into words were answered by half a dozen people. If you wanted case law you could have asked for it at any time.
  #23  
Old 07-17-2017, 05:23 PM
dofe dofe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Thank you. That was the factual answer I was asking for.
I should note that my post only addresses lawsuits under the FOIA. Obviously, not all lawsuits brought by organizations are based on claims of FOIA violations, and the issue of standing in those cases would require a different analysis. As other posters have mentioned, injuries to constitutional, statutory, and common law rights are sufficient to provide a plaintiff with standing in federal courts. For example, complaints filed under the FOIA would fall under the second category (violation of statutory rights).

But the Supreme Court has recognized other injuries beyond those three, and the question of what constitutes an "injury" sufficient for an association to have standing is a complicated one that continues to evolve. You see these sorts of questions come up frequently with environmental cases. In Massachusetts v. EPA, for example, the Supreme Court found that states had standing to sue the EPA based on alleged harms resulting from global warming caused by the EPA's failure to promulgate regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions. On the other end, you have cases like Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, where the Court found that the environmental groups who brought the lawsuit did not have standing because the alleged harm resulting from the extinction of protected species was too speculative (though Lujan may be a special case because it also raised questions of Congress's limits in creating standing through statute).
  #24  
Old 07-17-2017, 05:34 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Actually, the questions you put into words were answered by half a dozen people. If you wanted case law you could have asked for it at any time.
No, some people gave their opinion, in a forum dedicated to factual questions and answers.

And that's ALL I will say in this forum.
  #25  
Old 07-17-2017, 05:43 PM
running coach running coach is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 31,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
No, some people gave their opinion, in a forum dedicated to factual questions and answers.

And that's ALL I will say in this forum.
Then it was a bad idea to look for legal opinions in a forum dedicated to factual questions and answers.

Last edited by running coach; 07-17-2017 at 05:44 PM. Reason: better phrasing
  #26  
Old 07-17-2017, 05:59 PM
mhendo mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 24,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
No, some people gave their opinion, in a forum dedicated to factual questions and answers.
LOL.
  #27  
Old 07-17-2017, 07:48 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
LOL.
Your entire post (#3 in this thread) was opinion, not facts.

Don't LOL me. If you want to make this personal, at least take it the appropriate forum.
  #28  
Old 07-17-2017, 07:49 PM
mhendo mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 24,502
LOL. You funny.
  #29  
Old 07-17-2017, 11:45 PM
Senegoid Senegoid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 14,217
There's an entirely 'nother situation where seeming unaffected parties gain standing, not yet mentioned in this thread that I can see.

IANAL (and never regretted it), so I can't claim to have all the details quite right, but here are the basics:

Some laws appear to be written that explicitly give standing to parties that are otherwise uninvolved. This seems to happen a lot in civil rights legislation. I don't know if this happens much in Federal law, or much in many State laws. It seems to happen here in California, at least.

You may recall, some years ago, there was a big "Political Correctness" stink about the words that real estate and rental advertisers could use in their advertisements. It was (and is) illegal to discriminate, e.g, "Whites only need apply" or "Irish/Jews/Blacks/whatever need not apply". It got crazy: If you wrote "Near schools", you were "steering" childless couples away; if you wrote "Great ocean views" you were discriminating in favor of the sighted and against the blind; if you wrote "Walking distance to shopping/wherever" you were discriminating in favor the the abled and against the disabled. Real estate lawyers published big lists of "forbidden" words (in red); "use with caution words" (in yellow); and "safe words" (in green) -- I used to have such a list, on a laminated plastic card.

(ETA: IIRC, this was a nationwide phenomenon, not just in California. And I don't know if the laws explicitly made anyone-and-everyone a plaintiff with standing, or if the courts "discovered" that in the concept that the laws were for the benefit of all society and not just for the benefit of aggrieved individuals.)

Okay, so what about the question in this thread? There arose cadres of self-appointed civil-rights arm-chair lawyers (who may have been actual lawyers) who scoured real estate and rental ads in the classified sections looking for forbidden words, and filing lawsuits (some would say, nuisance lawsuits) against violations that they found. The suits may have been mostly junk, but they cleaned up by collecting settlement money from defendants who found it cheaper to settle than fight the suits.

And where did those cadres of self-appointed civil-rights lawyers get their standing? Because somewhere in some anti-discrimination laws, it said that anyone could bring those suits on behalf of the "public good". You see, discrimination wasn't held to be hurtful only to those individuals who were discriminated against, but rather, was held to be hurtful to civil society in general. Thus, anyone and everyone had standing.

Here in Stanislaus County, CA., there has been something very similar going on for several years now. They file ADA violation lawsuits by the hundreds (often with an actual disabled shill as the named plaintiff, so maybe not exactly what OP is questioning); often at places those alleged plaintiffs have never even visited; often over trivialities.

Anyway, here are three articles I just googled up on the subject, two in Stanislaus or surrounding counties; one in Bay Area counties:

Wave of disability lawsuits threatens small businesses in Stanislaus County
Lawsuits fail to satisfy either side of ADA coin
Serial ADA lawsuit filer striking Bay Area

I also noticed a few headlines that seem to suggest that, at long last, the state legislature and governor are taking some baby steps to crack down on the problem:
Governor signs bill to limit lawsuits, allow ADA fixes

Now, in these ADA cases, it seems that the plaintiff's lawyers actually have a named disabled plaintiff, but they are claimed to be just shills. Now, I wonder if a lot of those cases with ACLU, SPLC, etc., might work similarly: The organization actively recruiting aggrieved plaintiffs, possibly in mass production numbers, to support their suits. To be sure, flaming liberal that I am, that's fine with me (well, sort of) when ACLU or SPLC does it -- but if that's true (is it?) it does seem sleazy.

Last edited by Senegoid; 07-17-2017 at 11:47 PM.
  #30  
Old 07-18-2017, 02:42 AM
engineer_comp_geek engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 19,309
Moderator Note

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
LOL. You funny.
That's enough.

Take it to the Pit if you want, but no more of this in GQ.
  #31  
Old 07-18-2017, 05:08 AM
Roderick Femm Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 5,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Your entire post (#3 in this thread) was opinion, not facts.
This does not appear to me to be factually correct. He used the phrase "in my experience" which is very different from "in my opinion." His experience has proved in subsequent posts to be correct. And in that post he gave a cite that corroborated his experience.
  #32  
Old 07-18-2017, 10:01 AM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Your entire post (#3 in this thread) was opinion, not facts.
You made a statement in your OP, "The ACLU, itself, hasn't suffered any injury." that was itself factually wrong. Posters had to patiently explain to you how the court system works just to get to a point where your questions could be answered.

Florida House Bill 989 gives standing to every adult in a county, whether or not they have children in schools, to complain about any textbook, library book, or instructional material and force a hearing officer to rule on whether it can be allowed. The public comments submitted make it clear this is to battle modern claims about science.

Damage? Injury? Standing? You don't get to decide those things.
  #33  
Old 07-18-2017, 10:08 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 7,384
Perhaps the confusion is with when the ACLU or NCAAP are extremely active in a court case, but are not technically a plaintiff ... for example, the NCAAP actively recruited folks to file lawsuit claiming racial segregation in Topeka, KS public schools was harmful ... Oliver Brown was the most compelling of the cases and thus we have the Brown vs Board of Education ruling ... lawyers, guns and money were the NCAAP's ...
  #34  
Old 07-18-2017, 10:19 AM
igor frankensteen igor frankensteen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,109
Actually, MOST legal wranglings don't depend on proving injury. That test bar is only for certain kinds of cases, such as defamation lawsuits by public figures. Even then, it's not a bar to ATTEMPTING to bring a case, it's only a bar to WINNING.
  #35  
Old 07-18-2017, 10:31 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by igor frankensteen View Post
Actually, MOST legal wranglings don't depend on proving injury. That test bar is only for certain kinds of cases, such as defamation lawsuits by public figures. Even then, it's not a bar to ATTEMPTING to bring a case, it's only a bar to WINNING.
In the federal system, every single case requires that the parties have standing, so they must at least have alleged an injury.

Every single time.

This requirement arises from the constitutional language in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1 which limits the judicial power to cases in which an actual controversy exists.

Last edited by Bricker; 07-18-2017 at 10:33 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017