As long as there are no physical or verbal threats towards individuals, then I still don’t see how that trumps free speech, though. If the ACLU is on the side of the 1st amendment, then they should be fighting for the rights of the protesters to protest.
Correct. No one attempts to stop protesters from protesting, praying, or otherwise expressing themselves outside of the clinics. We have a strict policy of non-confrontation, and everyone, including volunteers, signs a statement acknowledging that policy. Most recently (Good Friday), we had a large number of people outside the clinic, praying, chanting, and carrying the requisite photoshopped dead fetus poster. They did not encroach on the property, stayed on the sidewalk and did not attempt to bar the entrances. No one attempted to stop them or even speak to them.
No one is trying to deprive them of that right. As per my example above, they are free to say and do whatever they like so long as they don’t encroach on private property.
The objection applies to those who attempt to harrass/impede our patients, physically or otherwise. Protesters have tried to get names, have tried to intimidate, have even taken pictures of license plate numbers. That violates those patients’ right to privacy.
yes yes, my statement was not intended as parody but it was an attempt to find some protection of victim rights that maybe the ACLU is overlooking.
and again
We digress. The point is how does the ACLU view the preamble? Is not the purpose of the preamble to guide the interpretation and subsequent enforcement of the balance of the document?
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.
As examples I offer
The city of DC has got to significantly reduce its death toll. Is it not wiser to for the many to put up with gun seizures (at least in the short term) so the lives of a few can be saved? DC’s only remaining course may be marshal law and curfews.(Amendment #4 pertains)
A man cannot be separated form his god. (Amendment #1 pertains)
According to Shodan’s cite, that is not strictly correct:
If, indeed, the ACLU was making this argument, then I stand by what I said. It doesn’t sound to me like a matter of encroaching on private property.
ETA: Where was the ACLU in San Francisco when protesters were physcially not allowing people to enter their place of business?
No, again, that was a matter of harrassing patients. Honest question: Do you see a difference between standing outside a clinic and praying and attempting to stop someone from entering or taking a picture of their license plate number to find out who they are? Can you explain how the second can be interpreted as freedom of speech?
I’m not sure. Are we still talking about abortion protesters? You didn’t add a link, so I can’t really comment. Did someone solicit the ACLU on their behalf when it happened?
Of course I can. I just don’t see the relevance in this case, since standing 15 feet away won’t prevent someone from taking a photo, and it doesn’t take a 15-foot buffer zone to keep them from preventing people from entering. It’s already illegal to physically accost someone. If I’m walking down the street, other pedestrians don’t have to stand 15 feet away from me, as long as they’re not touching me or preventing me from going where I want to go.
No, we are not still talking about abortion protesters. In my earlier post, I asked if anyone knew whether the ACLU was helping the military personnel who were prevented from going to work by protesters who barred their door. It was national news, so I don’t think the ACLU was unaware of the incident. I never heard, however, that they were arguing for a 15-foot buffer zone there.
See, this is my whole point, that I think there is evidence that the ACLU picks its battles according to a particular political POV. Which is fine, that’s their right to do so, but it’s my answer to the OP as to what problem righties might have with the organization.
It is hard to reconcile this view with the sum of the evidence. For every case where the ACLU defends an abortion clinic, there is one where they are defending Fred Phelps. For every case where the ACLU is defending atheists, there is one where they are defending Christians.
It is true that they defend a particular legal POV. But even that POV is not one that falls along a right/left axis (though parts of it, as pointed out by Bricker, clearly do).
That is true, and as I said much earlier in this thread, I don’t really have too much of a problem with them. I do think that when it comes to abortion and guns, they lose their focus a little.
ETA: When the OP says “righties,” I personally don’t think of “Christians,” because I’m not one of those religious conservative types, but more of a fiscal conservative/libertarian type. I don’t think that the ACLU is anti-Christian, necessarily.
I’m guessing you’re talking about the Berkely protests? If people were breaking the law, they were breaking the law, but what was the ACLU supposed to do about it? They’re not security guards. In the abortion clinic case, they were defending a legal injunction. They wanted a court to agree with them that a given behavior should be illegal. In Berkely, the kind of behavior you’re talking about was already illegal and no one was challenging it, so there was nothing for the ACLU to do.
They could file a lawsuit against the city of SF, on the behalf of the people who were prevented from going to work, since the cops weren’t doing their jobs that day.
Could they? I’m not sure you can sue a city for failing to take some police action. Can you lay out how that suit would work?
Are you aware of any instance of the preamble to the Constitution being cited for substantive legal effect?
(1) In what legally significant document is this principle found?
(2) If a man cannot be separated from his god, then what’s the problem, exactly?
Like I said, what was the ACLU supposed to do about it? They defend civil rights in courtrooms. They ask courts to agree that certain laws should or should or should not be in effect, but they don’t enforce laws. What law should the ACLU have challenged in the Berkely demonstrations?
I’m sure the ACLU agrees with you there.
I don’t fully understand you here. I don’t think I’m willing to conceed that DC’s only choices to reduce their murder rate (which has dropped a lot in the past ten years, btw…DC’s murder rate is about the same as New Orleans’s, and just above Las Vegas’s, and way below New York’s, Detroit’s, L.A.'s, Houston’s and Dallas’s) are either a voluntary search program or martial law.
I think the ACLU would agree with you there, too, and in fact, has gotten involved in cases of religious freedom.
Well, that depends. They don’t have to stand 15’ away from you, that’s true. But would you feel intimidated, threatened or harassed if two people walked up on either side of you, got within six inches of you, and started telling you that you were going to hell? Or telling your child not to go into that place, they kill babies in there? We have volunteers to walk patients in, but why should patients be forced to endure that kind of harassment just to get access to care?
Sure, but I still see it as a matter of perception.
No, they couldn’t, because it wasn’t the city of San Francisco, it was Berkeley. But addressing your main point: they didn’t have to. The people who were prevented from entering were US military, and were well represented by…well…the US military. In fact, the city of Berkeley was threatened with having their federal funding removed by the US Congress for asking the recruiters to leave. What more could the ACLU have done that the US Congress did not?
I am not a civil rights lawyer (or any type of lawyer for that matter), but…
The ACLU could go after the city council for giving a preferred parking spot to the pink panthers. The ACLU could go after the police for not enforcing the law. They are the ones with attorneys who have the education and focus to protect the rights of others, so perhaps they could find ways to use their muscle to protect the rights of people who wanted to go into the recruiting station, but were prevented by both the actions and inactions of the City of Berkeley.
Wrong - the protesters also prevented members of the public from entering the recruiting station.
I see what you’re saying…in the abortion protest cite that Shodan gave, they were arguing for the Constitutionality of the 15-foot buffer zone, which obviously here is not at issue, because such a law hadn’t been proposed or passed. But it seems to me that there is no reason for them to not step in in a case where one party is clearly being given preferntial treatment by the law. Can’t they sue a city to ask that they enforce the law equally?
Could you seek a writ of mandamus to compel the action? It might be fun to look into, anyway.
Look, I don’t like their methods any more than you do. But, we are talking about the right to free speech, and whether the ACLU tries to protect certain speech more than others. In this case, I would say that they were showing a bias.
OK, well, that’s my perception.
Sorry, you are right, it was Berkeley. So, they could go after Berkeley. But as I understand it, some of the people were civilians…they are not being protected by the US Military…no one is going to compensate them for their civil rights being taken away.