# 200 idiotic ACLU staffers are trying to destroy this invaluable organization **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2017, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452 "2017-10-10T08:54:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/81 "2017-10-10T21:03:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t; the ACLU staffers do. > The ACLU doesn’t defend calls to violence, in the legal sense of credible and imminent threats. The staffers don’t think Nazis and other groups should be defended when they try to express themselves non-violently. Of course the staffers would pitch a bunch of stuff about how non-violent protest is violent because it hurts people’s feelings, but that’s just double-think. > > Regards, > Shodan Advocating that the Jews should be removed from the planet may not qualify as illegal advocacy for violence, but it’s still advocacy for violence, in my view. It’s reasonable to suggest that maybe limited resources to fight for free speech should be directed elsewhere other than defending those who advocate that the Jews be removed from the planet. Do you disagree with either sentence? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/82 "2017-10-10T21:20:39Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t; the ACLU staffers do. […] > > The staffers don’t think Nazis and other groups should be defended when they try to express themselves non-violently. Of course the staffers would pitch a bunch of stuff about how non-violent protest is violent because it hurts people’s feelings, but that’s just double-think. Can we just remind ourselves here that AFAICT, we have seen exactly **one sentence** alleged to be actually quoted from the alleged “open letter” from these ACLU staffers in [the only article claiming to be based on actual access to the letter](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/aclu-charlottesville-white-supremacists.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0)? > [@](#): > > Our broader mission — which includes advancing the racial justice guarantees in the Constitution and elsewhere, not just the First Amendment — continues to be undermined by our rigid stance Everything else that has been claimed about these ACLU staffers’ opinions is just second-hand speculative blather. We don’t know exactly what they think the ACLU should be doing differently, and we don’t know how they explain or justify their views. So maybe ease up on the rate of manufacturing exaggerated strawman arguments to ascribe to them until we have more information about what they actually said. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/83 "2017-10-10T21:31:59Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s reasonable to suggest that maybe limited resources to fight for free speech should be directed elsewhere other than defending those who advocate that the Jews be removed from the planet. Well, elsewhere is certainly where I’d personally prefer to spend my money in this instance. However, I’m left with the same question that I asked in my response to **MrDibble** upthread: **Why should we assume that allocating our civil-liberties defense resources to explicitly exclude certain groups will not adversely affect our ability to defend the civil liberties of other groups?** Even if I agreed in principle that one could make a consistent case for limiting free-speech rights to exclude the free expression of Nazi ideology and other hate-speech ideas, I’d want to see some damn good evidence that such limitations wouldn’t change the courts’ reception of ACLU arguments in favor of free speech for non-Nazis. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/84 "2017-10-10T21:45:51Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, elsewhere is certainly where I’d personally prefer to spend my money in this instance. However, I’m left with the same question that I asked in my response to **MrDibble** upthread: **Why should we assume that allocating our civil-liberties defense resources to explicitly exclude certain groups will not adversely affect our ability to defend the civil liberties of other groups?** > > Even if I agreed in principle that one could make a consistent case for limiting free-speech rights to exclude the free expression of Nazi ideology and other hate-speech ideas, I’d want to see some damn good evidence that such limitations wouldn’t change the courts’ reception of ACLU arguments in favor of free speech for non-Nazis. Those are also reasonable questions, and I don’t know all the answers. I’m not really convinced either way on this, but I think it’s an important conversation to have. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/85 "2017-10-10T22:00:55Z")
It really seems to come down to a few things: how prevalent and accepted racism (to take one shade of the debate) is in American society, how much power it has, and whether advocating Nazi beliefs leads directly to violent action. Everybody admits there are lines (Christian Scientists have, IIRC, been successfully prosecuted for following their sincerely held religious beliefs). Where those lines lie for you greatly depend on your life experiences, I think. As with gun control and health care, when people feel their lives are being directly threatened, you aren’t going to persuade then with “you’re just being silly; there’s no problem here”. It’s possible, but again as with gun control and health care, you’re going to need to have a damn good reason to decide their fear doesn’t matter, or to look that person in the eye and say “your life is a sacrifice that must be paid to serve the greater good of general rights for all” if you’re going to calm them down. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/86 "2017-10-10T22:09:50Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I have no problem with this at all. This is the type of discussion that we as a country really need. We have swung way too far in seeing freedom of speech as a good unto itself. We must always be willing to challenge our traditions. Nothing can be sacred. > > This is a discussion we need to have. We need to figure out why we can’t say “we’ll defend everything but hate speech.” Or maybe find out that we can. That society will be better. > > I know for a fact that freedom of speech can hurt people. It was mentioned by an actual member of the ACLU in another thread. The cost of freedom of speech is disproportionately laid on the disadvantaged. Every time you help a Nazi, you are hurting several minorities. There MUST be a balance. > > We must realize that some forms of speech can be as bad as an actual violent act. We already admit this in defamation. Why not defamation of entire groups of people? > > There is a reason why other countries with freedom of speech draw the line differently. They have considered things that our 18th century founding fathers were just not aware of. Racism wasn’t a social problem back then. It was just the way thing were. Sexism and homophobia were just natural. These sorts of things were never considered when we created the concept. > > In the same way you guys say the Church needs to get with the times, we have to have governments do so, too. That means challenging firmly held beliefs. That which holds steadfastly to the old and refuses to consider the new will eventually perish. > > And I can’t think of a better place to have this conversation than within the ACLU, just like it would be best if we could have gun control discussion within the NRA. Same. I agree. As I understand it, the ACLU’s decision is not that they will pick and choose whose free speech to defend, but that they will not defend groups with a history of violence, groups that promote hate speech and glorify violence, groupos that come to the parade armed to the teeth hoiping for trouble. [http://thehill.com/homenews/347053-aclu-revises-policy-to-avoid-supporting-hate-groups-protesting-with-firearms](http://thehill.com/homenews/347053-aclu-revises-policy-to-avoid-supporting-hate-groups-protesting-with-firearms) > [@](#): > > ACLU executive director Anthony Romero told The Wall Street Journal that the group would have stricter screenings and take legal requests from white supremacist groups on a case-by-case basis. > > “The events of Charlottesville require any judge, any police chief and any legal group to look at the facts of any white-supremacy protests with a much finer comb,” Romero told the Journal. “If a protest group insists, ‘No, we want to be able to carry loaded firearms,’ well, we don’t have to represent them. They can find someone else." > **[ACLU Will No Longer Defend Gun-Carrying Protest Groups](https://www.newsweek.com/free-speech-hate-speech-aclu-civil-liberties-donald-trump-652050)** > > The ACLU has decided to defend people that many of its supporters dislike. > [@](#): > > Civil Liberties Body ACLU Will No Longer Defend Gun-Carrying Protest Groups > > While the ACLU does still advocate for such groups, it is now laying out some strict boundaries about what it is willing to stand up for. Prior to the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, the ACLU acted in support of the organizers, who were originally denied a permit to gather. However, that gathering resulted in violent clashes and the death of a woman when a man drove his car into a group of anti-fascist counterprotesters. > > On Thursday, the ACLU made a statement specifying that it would not defend groups that wanted to incite violence or march “armed to the teeth,” the Los Angeles Times reported. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/87 "2017-10-10T22:17:33Z")
Where I’m flexible on it (although I’m not very, and I guess that shows) is that access to loud expensive reaches-the-public “free” speech isn’t free, and therefore access isn’t equal. I don’t know where, exactly, I would draw the line but somewhere between shouting “Lynch the President! Follow me!” (or “Lynch the wicked abortionist! Follow me!” for that matter) on the one hand and “I think the practitioners of the evil religion Christianity are an abomination in the eyes of God and should be barred from voting, owning property, being outdoors where people have to see them, and, especially, reproducing their foul kind”. (or insert some other group identity and express the same sentiment) on the other. The former is a direct incitement to do violence and I don’t think free speech should encompass it as legal, whereas the latter is a horrid sentiment but if I were something akin to a Supreme Court justice and were ruling on the matter I’d say free speech covers it because it urges within-the-system action, however horrid I find it, against a group of people. Your mileage may vary a bit. ---
**Author:** ![coffeecat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coffeecat/32/3405_2.png) [@coffeecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coffeecat)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/88 "2017-10-10T22:42:50Z")
As a Jew and an ACLU member, I am happy to have my membership dues helping to protect the rights of Nazis. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/89 "2017-10-10T23:08:40Z")
What a silly thread. You accuse people, some of whom have dedicated their professional lives to defending free speech and the ACLU, of trying to destroy it—without having the least clue exactly what they said or what they are asking for. I promise you that the vast majority of the people who signed that letter know more than the OP about what it actually means to fight for and preserve our liberties. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/90 "2017-10-10T23:17:24Z")
Has anyone found a link to the actual letter yet? Seems like we are debating (or pissing and moaning about) something that none of us has actually seen. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/91 "2017-10-10T23:19:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Has anyone found a link to the actual letter yet? Seems like we are debating (or pissing and moaning about) something that none of us has actually seen. It hasn’t been made public. The only people who have seen it are folks on ACLU list serves and the reporter to whom it was leaked. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/92 "2017-10-10T23:23:29Z")
I will come back and respond to individual posts later, when I have a bit more time. For right now, I want to urge everyone (especially those sympathetic with the 200 ACLU staffers’ objections) to read these excerpts from the SCOTUS opinion _W. Virginia v. Barnette:_ > [@](#): > > A person gets from a symbol the meaning he puts into it, and what is one man’s comfort and inspiration is another’s jest and scorn.[…] > > Any credo of nationalism is likely to include what some disapprove or to omit what others think essential, and to give off different overtones as it takes on different accents or interpretations.[…] > > It was said that the flag-salute controversy confronted the Court with 'the problem which Lincoln cast in memorable dilemma: 'Must a government of necessity be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?" and that the answer must be in favor of strength. [But] the utterance cited would resolve every issue of power in favor of those in authority and would require us to override every liberty thought to weaken or delay execution of their policies. > > Government of limited power need not be anemic government. Assurance that rights are secure tends to diminish fear and jealousy of strong government, and by making us feel safe to live under it makes for its better support. Without promise of a limiting Bill of Rights it is doubtful if our Constitution could have mustered enough strength to enable its ratification. To enforce those rights today is not to choose weak government over strong government. It is only to adhere as a means of strength to individual freedom of mind in preference to officially disciplined uniformity for which history indicates a disappointing and disastrous end.[…] > > True, the task of translating the majestic generalities of the Bill of Rights, conceived as part of the pattern of liberal government in the eighteenth century, into concrete restraints on officials dealing with the problems of the twentieth century, is one to disturb self-confidence. These principles grew in soil which also produced a philosophy that the individual was the center of society, that his liberty was attainable through mere absence of governmental restraints, and that government should be entrusted with few controls and only the mildest supervision over men’s affairs. We must transplant these rights to a soil in which the laissez-faire concept or principle of non-interference has withered at least as to economic affairs, and social advancements are increasingly sought through closer integration of society and through expanded and strengthened governmental controls. These changed conditions often deprive precedents of reliability and cast us more than we would choose upon our own judgment.[…] > > Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be.[…] > > Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. > > It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent.[…] > > Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization.[…] > > We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. > > If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/93 "2017-10-10T23:28:13Z")
Mansplaining Barnette to the ACLU is just _chef kisses fingers_ ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/94 "2017-10-10T23:28:57Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > For right now, I want to urge everyone (especially those sympathetic with the 200 ACLU staffers’ objections) What objections? As has been pointed out repeatedly, **we don’t actually know what these staffers’ objections are** , except for the one sentence that was quoted in the [original article](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/aclu-charlottesville-white-supremacists.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0). By the way, **SlackerInc** , how long have you been a member of our “invaluable organization”? :dubious: > [@John Mace](#): > > Has anyone found a link to the actual letter yet? > [@Richard Parker](#): > > It hasn’t been made public. Which, as I said before, makes the descriptor “open letter” for this document kind of questionable. An open letter is usually one that is published, you know, openly. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/95 "2017-10-10T23:47:48Z")
Open in the sense of made available to disgruntled National board members like Meyers despite being neither sender nor recipient. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/96 "2017-10-10T23:56:51Z")
AKA “passed around and gossiped about”. Certainly, there’s no reason we can’t debate specific stances on ACLU policy even without knowing which ACLU staffers, if any, agree with which positions. But all the concern trolling about how hyper-leftist SJW borers-from-within are destroying the ACLU’s noble mission really needs to wait for some more facts. (Apparently Google doesn’t recognize the phrase “borers from within” unless you put it in quotes, which somehow makes me feel old. Not that I was around for the origins of the phrase in the first Red Scare, but I kind of took it for granted that it was still a recognized expression, you know?) ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/97 "2017-10-11T00:17:34Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Same. I agree. > > As I understand it, the ACLU’s decision is not that they will pick and choose whose free speech to defend, but that they will not defend groups with a history of violence, groups that promote hate speech and glorify violence, groups that come to the parade armed to the teeth hoping for trouble. I agree as well, with some reservations, but with the certainty that some groups are going to push the limits of free speech into areas which strain the sensibilities of its greatest defenders. That is not the ACLU’s fault. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/98 "2017-10-11T00:23:41Z")
I like it when the bigots expose themselves for who they really are. As the saying goes, “sunlight is the best disinfectant”. > [@BigT](#): > > They have considered things that our 18th century founding fathers were just not aware of. Racism wasn’t a social problem back then. It was just the way thing were. Sexism and homophobia were just natural. These sorts of things were never considered when we created the concept. **BigT** , this is absolutely, 100% batshit. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/99 "2017-10-11T00:54:25Z")
Hm, a perspective I hadn’t considered: it seems that some of the really leftist people out there think the “sunlight is the best disinfectant” and “counter speech with more speech” ideals have FAILED, apparently because of a generally conservative and corporate controlled media that normalizes advocating genocide for money. Does the state of the media play into the discussion? After all, we hear complaints about Fox News and Breitbart all the time, not to mention that conservative leaning media company whose name I’ve forgotten buying up all the local news stations, and the polarization of the Internet. Could it be possible that today’s media landscape makes the right approach different, or at least more difficult? I’m not sure. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2017, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452/100 "2017-10-11T00:59:22Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > You’re right that not all forms of verbal articulation fall into the category regarded as “constitutionally protected speech”. I thought you were trying to differentiate between kinds of speech that all **do** fall into that category. The point I’m making is that the distinction between whether some verbal articulation is protected or not protected is a distinction that, in theory, can be changed with a stroke of the pen. So when you go on about how all constitutionally protected speech should be treated equally, I’m making a rather obvious point that the meaning of the phrase isn’t exactly ironclad. > [@](#): > > You seem to be conflating “having a core mission with some accompanying intrinsic negative effects” with “being a bad actor”. There’s a difference between just trying to get away with selfish or irresponsible behavior and standing up in a principled way for crucial liberties that nevertheless have some negative impacts. Corporations are under fairly serious pressure not just to make profits and avoid harm, but also make socially responsible change that doesn’t necessarily relate to their core missions. As I said before, just because he ACLU makes lots of contributions to our society in areas X, Y, and Z, doesn’t mean they should automatically get a free pass if their actions in area K end up causing harm to issue A. > [@](#): > > It’s exhausting trying to argue a centrist position against both sides at once, especially when neither of your interlocutors is thinking very clearly. You aren’t arguing a centrist position. And you’re kind of a dick to think that someone like me who thinks this question ought to be taken seriously, and not just dismissed because you already have an opinion on it, isn’t thinking clearly. I guess everyone has their sacred cows. > [@Kimstu](#): > > In the meantime, I would like to extend my apologies to **Ravenman** and **Jeff**. When I snarked them for “not thinking very clearly”, I had forgotten what it’s like talking to **doorhinge** , beside whom both of them are crystalline perfection of mental clarity. And you smell good compared to that flower that reeks of rotting flesh. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > I will come back and respond to individual posts later, when I have a bit more time. For right now, I want to urge everyone (especially those sympathetic with the 200 ACLU staffers’ objections) to read these excerpts from the SCOTUS opinion _W. Virginia v. Barnette:_ So what? I agree with the outcome of that case, and think that the precedent it overturns was ghastly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200-idiotic-aclu-staffers-are-trying-to-destroy-this-invaluable-organization/798452.md?page=6)