A Response to Anti-ACLU Sentiment

Great Debates
1

In this thread (which I didn’t want to hijack), ralph124c and ExTank et al. express a common right-wing anti-ACLU viewpoint.

I think this viewpoint comes from a lack of knowledge, which is why this in GD and not the Pit.

There are people who think that black people shouldn’t be allowed to marry white people or go to school with them or vote equally with them, that Creationism should be taught in schools alongside prayer, that state governments shouldn’t be limited by the First Amendment, that the police should be able to take evidence from your home without a warrant and use it against you, that criminals should not be guaranteed lawyers, and that women and gays are not equal under the law.* So they’d rather live in a world without the ACLU.

But I give you guys the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are simply unaware that the ACLU was instrumental in changing those things.

And let’s be clear, you cannot have the ACLU that overturned the ban on interracial marriage without the ACLU that stood up for Nazis in Skokie. You have to understand the two things about the way the law works. First, it operates by precedent. If it’s OK to do it in one case, that makes it OK to do it in all future cases. Second, the law is blind to political viewpoints. Nazis and nuns have the same civil liberties in the eyes of the law for obvious reasons; if the majority gets to pick and choose who gets fundamental liberty, then we are reduced to mob rule.

Combine these two principles, and you get a dangerous potential in the law. Since we operate by majority rule, we tend to only violate the rights of people who are really disliked. But if we let that happen, because the law operates by precedent and is viewpoint neutral, we allow the law to change in ways that reduce everyone’s civil liberties. Therefore, if you want to fight the key cases, you’ve got to defend nasty people.

The willingness to take the cases of Nazis and other untouchables is necessary to protect our rights.

And the ACLU has been very successful at doing so. The 20th century saw a revolution in individual rights. Most of the rights we think of today (especially first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment rights) exist because of 20th-century legal decisions implementing the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights simply wasn’t used in this way until the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. And much of that work was done by the ACLU. You may not agree with each case, but would any of you like to say that you don’t want any of those rights? And you certainly can’t say they only take marginal cases.

So, my question for debate is: will those of you that share ralph124c’s and ExTank’s opinions care to reconsider? I think that even very socially conservative people can appreciate most of the work the ACLU has done, while holding respectful reservations about the cases with which they disagree. Am I wrong?

    • Virtually every major Supreme Court case related to civil liberties has either been argued by the ACLU or the opinion has been significantly affected by—often directly quoting—the ACLU’s amicus brief. A very brief list (alluded to in the second paragraph):

Gitlow v. NY (allowing the first amendment to be used against state governments) Mapp v. Ohio (preventing police from violating Fourth Amendment)
Engel v. Vitale (no mandatory prayer)
Gideon v. Wainwright (providing attorneys for all criminal defendants)
Escobedo v, Illinois (right to counsel in interrogations)
Reynolds v. Sims (one person one vote)
Miranda v. Arizona (Miranda rights)
Tinker (free speech rights for students)
Frontierro v. Richardson (part of line of cases applying 14th amendment to women)
Brown v. Board (ending school segregation)
Loving v. Virginia (striking down ban on interracial marriage)
Nazis v. Skokie (cannot restrict free speech because of controversial opinions)
Edwards v. Aguillard (no Creationism in schools)
Romer v. Evans (cannot deny protection of laws to gays)

2

My libertarian brother (he calls himself a “radical libertarian” but he’s never had anything to do with the party, so, small-l) says he would support the ACLU but for its support for affirmative action, which in his view has nothing to do with “liberty.”

3

That’s an issue on which the ACLU itself was split. They eventually sided with the University of California in Bakke (a key affirmative action case), but some of the leadership wasn’t too upset that they lost.

I think for strategic purposes, if nothing else, they should have stayed out of it. It does stray somewhat from their primary mission and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund is perfectly capable of handling those cases.

Samuel Walker, an ACLU historian, cites that case as one of the key ones that split neoconservatives off from the ACLU.

4

Another common misconception I’ve seen is that the ACLU is against religion. The ACLU has fought many cases to protect people’s religious freedom.

5

Not to mention the example in the thread that spawned this one.

6

My concern with the ACLU (and I have been a donor at times):

Their lawsuit against the city of LA for the mission on the seal. If that is where they are spending their time and money today - they no longer need my support. They have gone from protecting individual rights of EXPRESSION of religion / speech to suppressing it when it might be associated with a governmental agency. They make it appear that they are anti-religion, not just pro rights. Another good example is the Mt. Soledad Cross where they fight simple transfer of the property.

Their support of affirmative action - an affront against individual rights.

Their UNwillingness to support 2nd amendment rights.

That all said, they are an important organization in the US. The majority of their work supports civil rights, but I think that they sometimes lose the way. They are a net contributor to our nation - speaking as a semi-right wing libertarion type.

7

The ACLU attacks a lot of religious symbols, in addition to various prayer activities. They go against the Boy Scouts as well. All of these are wrapped in the issue of public lands or some layer of governmental approval / support.

I understand where they are coming from, though I completely disagree with their stance on many of the particulars.

This is where they get their “anti-religion” taint.

8

I appreciate your balanced views.

I would say one thing in the ACLU’s defense. You’ve got to remember that what is important for the ACLU is the implication of the case. Small cases can have big implications because it is the question of law, not the facts, that matters. I don’t know much about the instances you cite (and I don’t know much about first amendment law), so maybe they truly are petty and have no serious legal implications. But law textbooks are filled with famous and important decisions that came from pretty minor and insubstantial wrongs.

9

Oh sure, go and mess all the hatin’ up with some REAL information.

Spoil sport.

(thank you. That other thread pisses me off.)

10

They honestly have a good point in many of these. Unfortunately, it often can turn into a baby/bathwater moment as well.

The Mt. Soledad Cross, for example. It has a cross on the top since 1913. Now - the ACLU is right that a cross on gov property is wrong. However, they have ALSO made it more difficult than necessary to transfer it. I again understand their point (they don’t want it be a free transfer to a religious authority), but at the same point pushing this one to its extreme finally steps on my personal toes.

They do great work, and we need groups that do not compromise at all. However, when you are the extremists you are going to lose some at the middle.

11

…to starve to death on the street? When Giuliani was mayor of NYC, the ACLU filed lawsuits to prevent mentally ill persons from being confined to a hospital. Which left them free to freeze to death on the street.along with defacating on the sidwalks, and stinking up public libraries. The ACLU sued the city of Morristown ,NJ, on behalf of a menatl patient who sat in the reading room, generously sharing his body odors with the other patrons.
Yeah, ACLU, keep on defending those 1st-Amendment Rights!

12

I was a Boy Scout. My father was a Boy Scout, and in fact he was a Scoutmaster and won a fairly important award. But the ACLU’s issue with the Boy Scouts is their status as a recipient of government support while they discriminate.

It isn’t just the ACLU. The city of Berkeley used to give free docking privileges to the Sea Scouts, but withdrew them when the Sea Scouts refused to allow gay kids in. I got the most vitriolic letters from the Scoutmaster of the Sea Scouts ranting on about how Berkeley was violating his religious freedom - to be a bigot, obviously.

Recently, showing that Og does smile on us, this guy was arrested for child molestation.

I’m kind of ashamed of having been a Scout at this point.

13

I have issues with the Scouts with their anti-gay stance as well - but I work from the inside. It really saddens me when people say they are ashamed of having been a Scout - it means that you are focusing on one aspect without remember the rest that it did for you.

The Sea Scout issue is one of my issues, however. I have been involved in Scouts, and Scouting stops gays from being ADULT leaders, not being youth members. They are wrong on this (making the mistake of equating gay with pedophilia), but you are misquoting the Scouts.

Tell me, did another youth group get the slip? Or did the ACLU help say a big “Go to Hell” to kids who wanted to learn to sail without a decent subsitute? That is the EFFECT of some of their work.

Also - I hope that Og does not smile on child molestation. That comment is disgusting.

14

I believe your first example is the case of Joyce Brown. What, exactly, do you find objectionable about representing someone who was involuntarily committed who, according to the testimony of expert witnesses, may not have been mentally ill?

Your second example, Kreimer v. Morristown, is at least debatable. The ACLU’s position was that the behavioral rules set by the library were overbroad and could be used to expel patrons with legitimate purposes. In addition, the rule limited legitimate activity to “reading, studying, or using library material,” which the ACLU felt would hinder the role of libraries for other important purposes.

Perhaps more importantly, a library is what is called a “designated public forum.” In free speech law, that means they fall somewhere between parks and private homes. Any decision made with respect to this designated public forum could apply equally to others, which include university campuses, school board meetings, and the like. So, while allowing a library to kick out an annoying homeless guy may seem like no big deal, allowing the government to reject people from designated public forums on vague grounds could be a big deal.

But even if you disagree with both these cases, that doesn’t seem to justify your overall contempt for the organization. Do you think they do nothing of benefit?

15

Well, somebody had to defend that mental patient’s rights, and obviously it wouldn’t have been you.

The person whose aroma so unsettled you is an American citizen, with as much right to use public facilities as anyone else; it would be cruel and unjust to deprive said person of his/her right to sit in a Public place utilizing *public *property (the library’s media) in the manner for which it was provided, especially by bringing the machinery of the law to bear upon the situation; but that’s exactly what a plurality of “just folks”, and those they appoint to enforce their laws, would do if they got the chance and the choice. They’d essentally punish an ill and undefended person for being ill and undefended.The ACLU was there to protect this socially down-power individual from being treated in an oppressive manner due to a manifestation of his or her debilitating condition; nobody else was.

A person’s smelling bad (perhaps because of being homeless and unable to keep clean?) is trivial compared to citizens who aren’t breaking any laws being denied their liberty to come and go as they would.

If this person, instead of being a smelly lunatic, were disfigured by a [noncommunicable] disease or a birth defect them so badly s/he was frightening or unpleasant to look at, would you be equally offended by that as to your example’s body odor? Should this theoretical hideously homely person be denied the rights of a citizen – including the use of community resources like libraries?

16

Voyager said that Og smiled on us because the guy was arrested for child molestation, not the molestation itself. In other words, the guy was doing bad things, but a good thing followed. He was caught.

17

Links referring to the Morristown Library case, involving a homeless man whose access to showers and laundry were limited:

http://www.ahcuah.com/lawsuit/federal/kreimer1.htm

He apparently managed to stay gainfully employed in Denver for 5 years during the 1990s, after winning the 1991 lawsuit. He’s since come down with diabetes, and is back in action, suing NJ transit for their treatment of the homeless.

18

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit: I can’t approach this issue from a dispassionate standpoint - I am profoundly mentally ill. Not a danger to myself or others, but demonstrably “not right in the head.”

Are you seriously trying to claim that the rights of the mentally ill have not been trampled in the past? Often on the flimsiest of reasons?

Do you really think that being odoriferous in the public library is just cause for involuntary incarceration? The standards for what may and may not be cause for involuntary commitment have been in flux for 30 years, at least. To give a counter-example, do you really think that society and the law acted in the best interests of Rosemary Kennedy when she was lobotomized?

Finding a balance between respecting the rights of people to be different and protecting them from themselves is not easy. Honestly, though - I prefer to live in a world where I don’t have to worry about being locked up if I have to run out to the supermarket before I take a shower.

This is one of the reasons why I get so annoyed when people castigate Reagan era health cuts for the mentally ill being on the streets. I’m not trying to deny that aspect of it, but it’s also a result of returning civil rights to many people who had not been protected prior to that time. It may be trite to say, but freedom and liberty isn’t always pretty.

It doesn’t help that I tend to believe that forced treatment for the mentally ill, the alcoholic, or the drug addict is often a waste of time and resources for all involved. Unless the patient (Excuse me, consumer) is actually a willing participant in his/her treatment nothing is going to change for the long term. Even today, I believe that there is a fraction of the chronically homeless population that has been cycled through treatment programs for years. To very little effect.

I tend towards the conservative view of society and politics, but I am glad the ACLU is out there. Even when I disagree with the specific cases that they choose to support. IMNSHO, they’re acting out the eternal vigilance required to preserve liberty.

19

I’m a long time ACLU member, and I certainly don’t agree with them all of the time. In fact, it would be worrying if I did. If they only represented people with whom I had an agreement, they would not be fulfilling their mission.

The biggest problem I had, which almost led me to leave, was over abortion matters. I think the ACLU came down fundamentally on the wrong side - supporting the use of laws to restrict the rights of abortion protestors. Now, I will say I am 100% pro-choice, and I may even be willing to support some of those laws myself (though I would need to look at the details). However, it didn’t seem like the sort of thing the ACLU should be supporting.

20

That is very fair-minded of you to understand all sides of the abortion argument… and it was indeed unfair to take away a person’s right to protest simply because the aclu did not agree with what they are protesting (that’s how it appears anyway). It’s this type of lawsuit that makes the aclu appear slanted or as though they’re harboring an agenda.