# Do AIDS advocacy groups receiving federal $ have a responsibility to behave politely? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2002, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559 "2002-08-19T05:24:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2002, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559/1 "2002-08-19T05:24:10Z")
Per this story [AIDS protest fuels audit request](http://www.msnbc.com/news/796020.asp) Parts of article. > [@](#): > > ## Aug. 19 — The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing the federal government’s financial support of more than a dozen prominent AIDS service organizations whose members joined in a noisy demonstration against Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson at last month’s international AIDS conference in Barcelona. > > ``` > Mark Harrington, executive director of Treatment Action Group, said he thinks that “all organizations are threatened” by the gathering of names and numbers, regardless of what’s done with them. “Anybody who hears what’s happened is going to think twice about signing another flier or planning another demonstration,” he said. > > ``` > > * * * > > Thompson was heckled on the third day of the weeklong conference when he delivered a speech on the U.S. government’s overseas AIDS activities. Protesters blew whistles, chanted “Shame, Shame,” rhythmically jabbed their fingers and eventually surrounded Thompson on the stage. He read his address to the end but his remarks were entirely inaudible. Handouts in both English and Spanish criticized the government for not spending enough on care and treatment of people infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in poor countries. At the bottom of the flier was a list of 12 organizations Does HHS have a right to put these groups on notice or yank funding for personally and publically humilating the HHS Secy? ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2002, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559/2 "2002-08-19T05:47:08Z")
Hmm, sort of a “you’ll be polite to me, young man, or I’ll cut your allowance” approach? I’d say “no”, since Tommy Thompson isn’t their dad. And what other groups get funding, and would they have to be polite, too? Decatur got a $50 million HUD grant to knock down low-income housing and build more, so if they don’t like the way HUD is running things, and they wanna complain, they have to be polite or risk losing the grant? Hmm… It still doesn’t work for me, but I’m not sure why. Maybe because in a Free Society we all have the right to speak our minds, and it isn’t always gonna be pretty. Or polite. I’m trying to visualize a veddy British-type oh-so-civilized debate instead of the protest that actually happened, and it just ain’t coming, sorry. Tommy should be thankful they didn’t actually throw things. And seems to me like the risk of occasional public humiliation is something that goes with the territory of “holding public office”. What’s next–lawsuits to recover damages for “pain and suffering” incurred because you weren’t re-elected? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2002, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559/3 "2002-08-19T16:15:20Z")
So, **Duck** , the groups getting funded have the right to disrupt other people from presenting their agenda, and the taxpayer is obligated to subsidize it? I thought you said we all had the right to speak our minds. Or Tommy Thompson has no First Amendment rights because he disagrees with ACT-UP, or whoever it is? Or does having AIDS give you the right to silence anyone you don’t like? I would yank their funding in a New York minute. If they don’t like it, maybe they can behave in a civilized manner instead of pitching a tantrum in public, and expecting to get paid for it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2002, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559/4 "2002-08-19T16:25:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Or Tommy Thompson has no First Amendment rights because he disagrees with ACT-UP, or whoever it is? Not at a privately organized and conducted conference in Barcelona, Spain, he doesn’t. I also liked this bit: > [@](#): > > HHS OFFICIALS said they launched the reviews at the request of 12 members of Congress, who also said they were upset by the absence of religious themes at the meeting. > > . . . On July 17, five days after the end of the conference, a letter signed by 12 members of Congress asked Thompson to provide “the total amount of U.S. federal assistance” that went to the AIDS conference. It also asked: “How many individuals — from both the government and non-government organizations — attended the conference with some form of federal assistance? Please provide a complete list of these individuals and their affiliations.” > > “Can you determine the current fed funding levels if any received by the following organizations that led the demonstration that shut down Secretary Thompson during his address last week?” the message asked, naming Gay Men’s Health Crisis, AIDS Project Los Angeles, AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Treatment Action Group. Six days later, Foster sent another message expanding the list to 16 AIDS community groups. > > . . . In the letter, the legislators complained mainly about what they viewed as a slighting of religion in Barcelona. They noted there were no major speeches on “faith’s role in the crisis,” and asserted that the Vatican “was uninvited” to the conference. Sorry, but this sounds to me like exactly the kind of thing that the First Amendment was designed to prevent – attempting to control an organization’s political speech by playing with the purse strings. Fund them or don’t fund them, for legitimate reasons, but don’t tell them that if they don’t say what you want, or if they don’t refrain from saying things the government doesn’t like, you’ll take it away. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2002, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559/5 "2002-08-19T22:58:44Z")
> [@](#): > > ## \*Originally posted by pldennison \* \*\* quote: > > ## Or Tommy Thompson has no First Amendment rights because he disagrees with ACT-UP, or whoever it is? > > Not at a privately organized and conducted conference in Barcelona, Spain, he doesn’t. > \*\* So the organizers and other attendees of the conference, who wanted to hear what Thompson had to say, don’t have any redress when these people overrule this decision by disrupting his speech, and preventing any point of view from being heard but their own. This is how my tax money should be spent? I beg to differ. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > \*\* > > Sorry, but this sounds to me like exactly the kind of thing that the First Amendment was designed to prevent – attempting to control an organization’s political speech by playing with the purse strings. Fund them or don’t fund them, for legitimate reasons, but don’t tell them that if they don’t say what you want, or if they don’t refrain from saying things the government doesn’t like, you’ll take it away. \*\* So the Constitution should read; > [@](#): > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and once some bunch of drama queens with an agenda gets a liplock on the public teat, nobody better say word one or you will be called a big bunch of meanies. No one is preventing these people from saying anything. It’s the other way around. They are preventing anyone else from speaking with whom they differ. And for the same reason that a dog will lick his balls, or rich people sometimes behave like jerks. Because they can get away with it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2002, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559/6 "2002-08-19T23:05:58Z")
It’s the God-given **right** of every dog to lick his own balls! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2002, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559/7 "2002-08-19T23:11:07Z")
**tracer** - Or anyone else’s, for all I care - just not on my dime. I have better uses for it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2002, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559/8 "2002-08-20T17:41:56Z")
> [@](#): > > **Shodan** > just not on my dime. Yep. > [@](#): > > This week, at least one other Bay Area organization learned it may be subjected to a federal “review” of its finances because of its involvement in protests against Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson at last month’s International AIDS Conference in Barcelona… > > Now HHS officials are investigating whether any federal funds were used to pay for travel and other costs of those who participated in the protests. [http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/08/20/ED236843.DTL](http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/08/20/ED236843.DTL) ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2002, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559/9 "2002-08-20T18:28:31Z")
Due to some strange server snafu, my post was accepted, but the thread wasn’t bumped up. (Mods please note.) So, I’m bumping it. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2002, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559/10 "2002-08-20T19:32:13Z")
> [@](#): > > So the organizers and other attendees of the conference, who wanted to hear what Thompson had to say, don’t have any redress when these people overrule this decision by disrupting his speech, and preventing any point of view from being heard but their own. Presumably, the organizers could have had the protestors removed from the venue, or rescheduled Thompson’s speech and barred those persons from attending. Why they did not is anyone’s guess. In any case, that’s an entirely different matter than your question about Thompson’s First Amendment rights. The First Amendment is entirely neutral concerning private goings-on in Barcelona. Thompson wasn’t so upset that he didn’t meet with those same people later, according to the linked article. Sorry, but this questioning of “reviewing” these groups’ funding, combined with the esteemed Congressmens’ concern over whether religious groups were excluded, smacks of McCarthyism to me. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2002, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559/11 "2002-08-20T20:00:04Z")
> [@](#): > > I would yank their funding in a New York minute. If they don’t like it, maybe they can behave in a civilized manner instead of pitching a tantrum in public, and expecting to get paid for it. Perhaps I was working under the misunderstanding that these groups are receiving funding to conduct AIDS advocacy work, not “acting in a civilized manner.” If the Treatment Action Group is in fact a good manners think tank, I will withdraw my objection that this is a bald and cynical attempt to cut funding to projects that this administration has deprioritized. Protesting HHS’ relatively appalling record on international AIDS advocacy is something I would gladly subsidize with my dime. Certainly more than, say, “faith-based” initiatives. Chacun a son gout. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2002, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559/12 "2002-08-20T20:40:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > \*\* > > Presumably, the organizers could have had the protestors removed from the venue, or rescheduled Thompson’s speech and barred those persons from attending. Why they did not is anyone’s guess. In any case, that’s an entirely different matter than your question about Thompson’s First Amendment rights. The First Amendment is entirely neutral concerning private goings-on in Barcelona. > \*\* The problem being that these were not “private goings-on” if they are happening at least partly at public expense. Sure the organizers could have taken other steps to prevent some bunch of jerks from disrupting the conference. How is that different from cutting off their funding, and seeing if that will get them to behave? The whole question under discussion is whether it makes sense to subsidize groups that do not recognize anyone else rights - or not. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > \*\* > Thompson wasn’t so upset that he didn’t meet with those same people later, according to the linked article. > \*\* Which is very much to his credit. He treated them far better than they treated him. Who do you think looks like the class act here - the hysterical soap-opera wannabes, or the elected official willing to overlook a public tantrum in the interest of the public health? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > \*\* > Sorry, but this questioning of “reviewing” these groups’ funding, combined with the esteemed Congressmens’ concern over whether religious groups were excluded, smacks of McCarthyism to me. \*\* McCarthyism was asking “Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?” and jailing those who refused to answer. This is asking “Why should I subsidize your hissy fits?”, and asking those who try to scream everyone else off the stage to either shut up, or do it at their own expense. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > \*\* > > Perhaps I was working under the misunderstanding that these groups are receiving funding to conduct AIDS advocacy work, not “acting in a civilized manner.” > \*\* Do you really think it is necessary to act like a jerk to conduct AIDS advocacy? I don’t see why the two are necessarily opposed. Martin Luther King did his advocacy with peaceful protest. Gandhi did as well. Why is the gay lobby the only one who feels called upon to have a screaming fit when confronted with someone with whose position they disagree? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > \*\* > Protesting HHS’ relatively appalling record on international AIDS advocacy is something I would gladly subsidize with my dime. Certainly more than, say, “faith-based” initiatives. > \*\* Isn’t it a good thing that you feel you have a choice. If the AIDS protestors get their way, no one will be allowed to advocate anything except what **they** want. And you will get sent the bill every time they have a case of the vapors. No, they can shut up and wait their turn to speak just like we all learned on the playground. If those rules are too much for them to abide by, let them raise their own funds. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2002, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559/13 "2002-08-20T21:06:19Z")
From the cite in the OP > [@](#): > > Many of the targeted groups provide services to AIDS patients through government contracts at the same time they act as advocates for various causes. I’m sorry that the government support covers advocacy as well as service. I’m happy to pay taxes to help people with AIDS. However, I don’t even know what the advocates are advocating. I also don’t know what fraction of their money goes to health care and what fraction goes to advocacy. I would rather not support that aspect. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2002, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559/14 "2002-08-20T21:22:01Z")
> [@](#): > > The problem being that these were not “private goings-on” if they are happening at least partly at public expense. No. I mean, I don’t mean to be rude, but “no” is simply the only word that covers it. The fact that some groups may have traveled to this conference using money provided by the Federal government in no way places the conference itself under the auspices of the U.S. Government, its Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. To argue otherwise is simply specious. This was an international conference, held in Spain, and [sponsored](http://196.13.141.230/Include/IE_Content.asp?path=/Content/Sponsors/sponsors.html) by several dozen groups including private corporations, charities, the CDC, HHS, and other countries’ health organizations. First Amendment rights, whether for Tommy Thompson, the Gay Men’s Health Crisis, or anyone else. > [@](#): > > Sure the organizers could have taken other steps to prevent some bunch of jerks from disrupting the conference. How is that different from cutting off their funding, and seeing if that will get them to behave? Because the people organizing the conference are not the people providing the funding. The people doing the funding are the United States Congress. The people organizing the conference are the International AIDS Society, which is headquartered in Sweden and governed by representatives from five geographic regions around the world. I trust you can see the difference. Yes? ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2002, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559/15 "2002-08-21T04:55:58Z")
If a group of people I’m paying act like jerks in the same country that I’m a guest in, I will undergo steps to make sure that they think twice before doing that again. At minimum, I’ll make sure that they do this on their own budget. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2002, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559/16 "2002-08-21T14:49:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > \*\* > > No. I mean, I don’t mean to be rude, but “no” is simply the only word that covers it. The fact that some groups may have traveled to this conference using money provided by the Federal government in no way places the conference itself under the auspices of the U.S. Government, its Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. To argue otherwise is simply specious. > \*\* You aren’t being rude, but you are missing my point. The conference is not under the auspices of the federal government, but the disrupters are. If they are using my money to go to Spain and try to shout down their opponents, I want that stopped. At the least, I want to know that I am in no way supporting this kind of neo-fascist behavior. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > \*\* > Because the people organizing the conference are not the people providing the funding. The people doing the funding are the United States Congress. The people organizing the conference are the International AIDS Society, which is headquartered in Sweden and governed by representatives from five geographic regions around the world. I trust you can see the difference. Yes? \*\* The difference was never in dispute. I do not want the conference stopped. What I want stopped is the funding used by certain of the groups attending to disrupt the proceedings. The conference or the International AIDS Society does not have to do anything different, because they did not receive federal funding and then behave like assholes. The disrupters do, because they did. If the gay groups who behaved in so disgraceful a fashion want to use their funding to attend the conference, to lobby the UN or the Spanish government for increased funding, to promote safer sex, or in other ways to petition who they like “for redress of grievances”, have at it. This is, as far as I can tell, what funds for advocacy are intended to achieve. If they wish to use their funding to disrupt the order of the conference, scream down those who they dislike, or otherwise behave “impolitely”, their funding should be cut off. Whether this happens in Spain or in my back yard. My assertion is that all public subsidies come with an implied requirement that the money not be used in harmful ways. If you need welfare, I am willing to supply it, but I want to be able to require that you do not use the money to buy liquor or to gamble. If I hire a construction company to build a road, I don’t want the money to be used to run a protection racket. And if I fund an AIDS group, I don’t want them to use the money to attend a conference and try to prevent any other voice from being heard but their own. All these people spent the 90s telling us that “silence equals death”. Now it is the 21st century, and what are they doing? Trying to silence the ones they don’t like. And expecting me to pay for it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2002, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559/17 "2002-08-21T15:54:52Z")
I have no problem with the activists’ actions. Advocacy is as much a part of solving the problem of AIDS as anything else - if it weren’t for early groups that steadily pressured the government to recognize a disease they wanted to just ignore, we wouldn’t be where we are today (which is far, far from a permanent solution). My $0.02. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2002, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-aids-advocacy-groups-receiving-federal-have-a-responsibility-to-behave-politely/124559/18 "2002-08-21T18:45:26Z")
At the risk of violating Godwin’s Law, it sounds too much like brownshirts to me. > [@](#): > > You have not converted a man because you have silenced him. I read this in The Autobiography of Malcolm X, but I think he was quoting someone else. Anyway, not all the pressure was for the government to recognize AIDS. Remember the rhetoric about closing the bath houses in NYC? I can’t remember the name of the public health commissioner in New York, but I read his book. He describes those opposed to the closings as using this same kind of tactic, or worse. Please understand that I don’t necessarily think AIDS groups need to say “Pretty please” before they do anything. It is just that the line between ‘street theater’ and publicity stunts on the one hand, and harassment and threats on the other, may be a fine one - but it exists nonetheless. Regards, Shodan