# ACLU - Good and Bad **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 5, 2005, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924 "2005-10-05T17:52:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924/121 "2005-10-07T03:08:51Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I’d be quite insulted by that label, because it’s not true. Any reasonable person realizes that myself, the Republican party and the current administration is not “anti-American”. (Opinions of far-left message board posters being the exception, of course.) > > When any of us propose putting US soldiers and citizens in harms way for no good reason except to release a bunch of photos that don’t contain any new information and only serve to inflame opinions against the US then you can go ahead and call us whatever you like. 😃 OK lets try some facts, [AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al.,](http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/legal/ruling092905.pdf) this is the decision about the photos, > [@](#): > > ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: > The **American Civil Liberties Union and other plaintiffs have demanded that the government produce relevant documents** concerning the “treatment of Detainees in United States custody,” the “death of Detainees in United States custody,” and the “rendition of Detainees and other individuals” to countries known to employ torture. **Plaintiffs’ demands under the Freedom of Information Act** (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, were first made on October 7, 2003. **The government, after being inattentive for many months to the obligations imposed on it by FOIA,** see Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep’t of Def., 339 F. Supp. 2d 501 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) > (“Opinion and Order of September 15, 2004”), has made large, but not complete, production, > reviewing and turning over thousands of documents from various of its agencies. The present motions relate to documents claimed to be possessed by, or of concern to, two government agencies, the Department of Defense (“DOD”) and the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”). More than one year ago, on August 16, 2004, in order to facilitate the government’s processing of documents, plaintiffs created a priority list of enumerated documents (the “August 16, 2004 List”). The priority list was a subset of previous demands that plaintiffs most wished to be produced and which, based on public references to such documents,2 plaintiffs believed the government could readily process. The priority list focused on specifically identified records, such as records “provided by defendant agencies to Congress, members of Congress, or congressional committees,” or “discussed or identified in the media.” > My Opinion and Order of September 15, 2004 set out an expedited procedure with respect to the > August 16, 2004 List.1 Specifically, the **government was required to produce the documents responsive to the List, or provide a declaration showing that an exemption against production applied** , see Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), following which there would be motions for partial summary judgment to resolve disputes regarding documents claimed to be exempt… > > 1 With respect to the remainder of plaintiffs’ outstanding requests, the Opinion and Order of September 15, 2004 required the government to produce responsive documents or identify them in a log to be publicly filed or examined ex parte and in camera. > 2 The CIA informed plaintiffs on April 15, 2005 that all Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) documents pertaining to ongoing investigations or law enforcement activities were exempt under FOIA. The CIA subsequently informed plaintiffs, in a letter dated July 15, 2005, that all responsive documents in the files of the OIG that no longer relate. The case is **NOT** about the photos it’s about the > [@](#): > > “[Department of Justice (DOJ)](http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/) Freedom of Information Act”. > > …all federal agencies{are}required under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) **to disclose records requested in writing by any person**. However, agencies may withhold information pursuant to **nine exemptions and three exclusions contained in the statute**. The FOIA applies only to federal agencies and does not create a right of access to records held by Congress, the courts, or by state or local government agencies. Each state has its own public access laws that should be consulted for access to state and local records. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924/122 "2005-10-07T13:03:28Z")
> [@What the .... ?!?!](#): > > Thanks for the list. Truly. I’ll think twice before I’m so quick to judge them in the future. Good for you for keeping an open mind, that’s more than most people do. It’s also good to be wary of hyper-biased sources, as that reclaimamerica site seems to be. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924/123 "2005-10-07T13:25:28Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > I take exception to your claim that programs aren’t “creative output” ([demos](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoscene) are a huge counterexample), My claim is not that programs aren’t “creative output,” only that bare computer coding is not creative output. In my view coding is like a mathematical formula or data – it’s just an algorithm, a series of steps or instructions for doing something. That shouldn’t be protected as creative works. The code, however, when run might produce something that is creative and that might be . > [@](#): > > and as for that hypothetical, I see no problem with it - as long as you don’t commit fraud by claiming your changes were written by McLaughlin and Kraus, or claiming you wrote the entire book yourself. Well, then we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one and I can be happy that copyright law is on my side. It seems to me nearly impossible under your rubric for a single person to control his or her own intended message. There’s almost no way to ensure that the public will understand that slightly different versions of the books are not the output of the original author. And it allows **free riding**. That is, the later people are basically using the original author’s talent and hard work to their advantage to push a message that the original author didn’t intend. I think that an author of a novel or a painting or a sculpture has a right to prevent others from making changes without his or her permission. This is a pretty important concept in copyright law and it’s often referred to as the **moral right** of the creator. If I write, for example, an anti-racism book then your making minor changes to it If you want a different work, I say, do one yourself from scratch without copying any of the creative output of someone else. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924/124 "2005-10-07T13:56:09Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > My claim is not that programs aren’t “creative output,” only that bare computer coding is not creative output. In my view coding is like a mathematical formula or data – it’s just an algorithm, a series of steps or instructions for doing something. Ah yes, just like sheet music is only a series of instructions for playing an instrument. > [@](#): > > The code, however, when run might produce something that is creative and that might be . If you’re going to go in that direction, then I guess an MP3 file isn’t a creative work either. It’s basically just a compressed series of instructions for an audio synthesizer, and it doesn’t produce anything creative until you run it (by feeding it into an MP3 decoder). So, free trading of music files? > [@](#): > > And it allows **free riding**. That is, the later people are basically using the original author’s talent and hard work to their advantage to push a message that the original author didn’t intend. If no one ever built on anyone else’s work, we wouldn’t have any of the music, movies (I’m looking at you, Disney), or books that exist today. Even Shakespeare was a free rider. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924/125 "2005-10-07T14:03:40Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > If no one ever built on anyone else’s work, we wouldn’t have any of the music, movies (I’m looking at you, Disney), or books that exist today. Even Shakespeare was a free rider. There’s a difference between building on someone else’s work and actually copying their expression. Shakespeare was not a free rider, any more than any author who creates an original work today under our copyright laws is. Shakespeare took stories and plots that were already existing, but the words he wrote were original. Similarly, the pictures that Disney created were original. No one is stopping anyone from reusing ideas. But copying someone else’s expression directly is just plain stealing and misappropriation. the author should have the right to control the message of his or her own creation. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924/126 "2005-10-07T14:06:08Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > If no one ever built on anyone else’s work, we wouldn’t have any of the music, movies (I’m looking at you, Disney), or books that exist today. Even Shakespeare was a free rider. Not to mention Led Zeppelin. They admit that most of their songs are outright theivery. Or, without the Simpsons there would be no Family Guy. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924/127 "2005-10-07T14:09:06Z")
[QUOTE=Mr2001] Ah yes, just like sheet music is only a series of instructions for playing an instrument. If you’re going to go in that direction, then I guess an MP3 file isn’t a creative work either. It’s basically just a compressed series of instructions for an audio synthesizer, and it doesn’t produce anything creative until you run it (by feeding it into an MP3 decoder). So, free trading of music files?QUOTE] No on both of these, because it’s the same as the computer programme example. As I said before, the images that running a computer programme produces _can_ be copyrightable, the same way that the playing of a musical piece or the playing of an mp3 pod produces a work that is copyrightable. The question is what do you get when you _use_ the programme code the way it’s meant to be used. I’m just saying that you shouldn’t be able to copyright a mere algorithm. In other words, “I was the first to write these lines of code that allow two numbers to be added together and put a blue dot on the screen, therefore no one else can do it.” ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924/128 "2005-10-07T14:36:52Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > There’s a difference between building on someone else’s work and actually copying their expression. […] Shakespeare took stories and plots that were already existing, but the words he wrote were original. Similarly, the pictures that Disney created were original. I don’t think it’s a morally significant difference. One might argue that coming up with the plot is the hard part, not expressing it; after all, once you have a story in mind, the book is just a series of sentences explaining how it goes. 😉 There are countless ways to write those sentences, some of which are better than others (subjectively or objectively), but the same is true of computer code. > [@](#): > > I’m just saying that you shouldn’t be able to copyright a mere algorithm. In other words, “I was the first to write these lines of code that allow two numbers to be added together and put a blue dot on the screen, therefore no one else can do it.” Algorithms would be subject to patent, not copyright. Copyright governs expression: “x := y + z; Canvas.SetPixel(0,0,clBlue);” is just one possible expression of the concept of adding two numbers together and drawing a blue dot. And, as above, once you have the concept in mind, you can easily think of a million ways to express it. You can even express an algorithm in the form of [poetry](http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/decss-haiku.txt). A big program like a word processor or web browser is much more complicated than just adding a few numbers together… most beginners wouldn’t even know where to start writing one. Also, the code of, say, Mozilla Firefox is far more creative than the actual image Firefox makes on my screen, which is just a few standard Windows controls, a few icons that are just a variation on every other browser’s icons, and a big panel containing a straightforward interpretation of someone else’s HTML code. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924/129 "2005-10-07T14:43:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yeah, hypocrite was a pretty foolish characterization. > > Here’s what I should say: > > The ACLU’s interpretation of the Bill of Rights is inconsistent. This I would very much agree with. IMO, **all ten** Articles of the Bill of Rights are meaningful. I seem to be very much in a minority in holding that stance, though. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924/130 "2005-10-07T15:03:35Z")
I don’t think their interpretation is inconsistent. Perhaps you could make a case that their approach to each amendment is inconsistent. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924/131 "2005-10-07T15:38:04Z")
> [@](#): > > **acsenray** said: > My claim is not that programs aren’t “creative output,” only that bare computer coding is not creative output. In my view coding is like a mathematical formula or data – it’s just an algorithm, a series of steps or instructions for doing something. Do you do much computer programming? I ask this because as someone who does freelance coding, I can tell you that there is a lot of creativity expressed in lines of C++ or Java or Perl or any other language that you care to take a stab at. If you look at coding merely as a mathematical process to get the job done, you certainly can come up with something that does get the job done. To do the job efficiently and with minimal drain on resources is an art form of manipulating data and variables into elegant functions and building elaborately and carefully sculpted abstract objects. The creativity lies not in doing the task, but in how the task is done. Take the same task and give it to two different coders - in the end, you will have two unique works. > [@](#): > > The code, however, when run might produce something that is creative and that might be . The code is that something. Unless you offer protection to the code I write, there is no protection for the product that the user sees. Without the code the programmer wrote, you don’t have the product. Running the program is just another way of looking at the code. You don’t seem to understand that all of the creativity is put into the code. Everything that makes a program unique, appealing, eye catching, functional, elegant, beautiful even… all of that was put there by the coder. When I code, I have an experience in mind that I want the user to have. I create that experience through the code that I write. That visual and auditory experience that you have when using one of my programs is created because I paint it for you. The languages are my paint, my pigments. The way that I mix and arrange them is my creativity. The finished painting is what you experience. ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924/132 "2005-10-07T15:54:28Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Who do you think the founders were talking about when they said “people”? They obviously meant citizens. > . > [@The US Constitution](#): > > Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. . . . > [@The US Constitution](#): > > Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. [quote =The US Constitution, ARTICLE IV) Section. 2. Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Clause 2: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. [/quote] > [@The US Constitution](#): > > AMENDMENT XIV > Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. > > Section 1. > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “Person” and “Citizen” are clearly not synonymous either prior to or subsequent to the Bill of Rights. “People” is more ambiguous. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924/133 "2005-10-07T16:10:57Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > The languages are my paint, my pigments. The way that I mix and arrange them is my creativity. The finished painting is what you experience. This is exactly the right analogy. You can’t stop people from using the same techniques for obtaining colours or mising paints or choosing brushes or for applying paint or brushstrokes. You only have a claim when the finished painting that the other person produces – what can be perceived by the viewer – is a copy of your work as it is perceived by the viewer. This is the expression. ---
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924/134 "2005-10-07T16:32:22Z")
> [@MMI](#): > > “People” is more ambiguous. It seems perfectly clear to me. “People” means “people.” Does that make me a Strict Constructionist? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924/135 "2005-10-07T17:35:33Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > I’m just saying that you shouldn’t be able to copyright a mere algorithm. In other words, “I was the first to write these lines of code that allow two numbers to be added together and put a blue dot on the screen, therefore no one else can do it.” You realize that algorithms, as experessed in papers, are copyrighted all the time, right? What was the case up until recently was that you could not patent an algorithm. Today, through the patenting of software, people are effectively patenting algorithms all the time. That’s the thing you should be worried about. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924/136 "2005-10-07T18:10:37Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You realize that algorithms, as experessed in papers, are copyrighted all the time, right? What was the case up until recently was that you could not patent an algorithm. Today, through the patenting of software, people are effectively patenting algorithms all the time. > > That’s the thing you should be worried about. Actually, I have some fundamental complaints about the patent system, but I deliberately made a choice not to talk about patents in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924/137 "2005-10-07T18:35:19Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > IMO, **all ten** Articles of the Bill of Rights are meaningful. I seem to be very much in a minority in holding that stance, though. You are in a minority indeed, if you think the Ninth or Tenth Amendments mean anything. Neither has ever been the basis for any important constitutional case. Some consider the Tenth a mere “truism.” See: > **[Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)** > > The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment was introduced during the drafting of the Bill of Rights when some of the American founders became concerned that future generations might argue that, because a certain right was not listed in the Bill of Rights, it did not exist. However, the Ninth Amendment has rarely played any ro... > **[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)** > > The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states' rights, by stating that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state. > The amendment was proposed by the 1st United States Congress in 1789 during its first term ... > **[What do the Ninth and Tenth Amendments really mean?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=195525)** > > The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, ends with two amendments whose meaning is rather ambiguous. The Ninth Amendment says: The Tenth Amendment says: I’m a lawyer, I went through courses in... [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-good-and-bad/324924.md?page=6)