Why is the ACLU so unpopular?

[Skyhi]

msmith mentioned his negative feelings towards the organization in another thread, and I know they're not exactly a popular group? For those who do not like the ACLU, why not? What changes would you like them to make to further their mission of ensuring the government does not impose restrictions on our civil liberties?

[msmith198025]

I have simply seen them do, or threaten to do, things here in mississippi, and alabama, that are not justified.
That and I disagree with many of their positions.

That said, I do think that they do some good at times, and are probably a necessary "evil" if you will.

[Skyhi]

I have simply seen them do, or threaten to do, things here in mississippi, and alabama, that are not justified.
That and I disagree with many of their positions.



Like what? I'm not trying to be a d***, I'm just curious.

[msmith198025]

Like what? I'm not trying to be a d***, I'm just curious.

Well, I feel that they have a preconceived opinion about the south, and the white people that live here in particular. Based on some of the lawsuits and threats of lawsuits (among other things), it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Their position on the death penalty is at odds with mine.
The defending of the Westboro Baptist "Church" for picketing soldiers funerals.
How many of their actions seem to have a left leaning political slant behind them (maybe that is just me)

There are others, but you get the idea.

[stevenl]

The problem people have with the ACLU is they defend EVERYONES rights.. And not just the rights of people you agree with. Like msmith and the WBC.. Its people like them that the 1st amendment were made for.. The ACLUS support for NAMBLA or the KKK or anyone. The ACLU protects EVERYONEs rights. Thats what drives some people nuts about them.

[msmith198025]

Probably true

[fallout2600]

I think partisan folk are the one's disagreeing with them when it debunks their position.

Example: The ACLU is the primary reason Obama has been forced to release the torture photos later this month. They filed the lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act. So, the right-wing will try to blame and deface the ACLU instead of dealing with the cruel reality that the Bush administration used torture.

[iceturkee]

I have simply seen them do, or threaten to do, things here in mississippi, and alabama, that are not justified.
That and I disagree with many of their positions.

That said, I do think that they do some good at times, and are probably a necessary "evil" if you will.


the necessary evil is a good description.

[HDRoberts]

The problem people have with the ACLU is they defend EVERYONES rights.. And not just the rights of people you agree with. Like msmith and the WBC.. Its people like them that the 1st amendment were made for.. The ACLUS support for NAMBLA or the KKK or anyone. The ACLU protects EVERYONEs rights. Thats what drives some people nuts about them.

Agree. Whenever you hear about them in the news, they are rushing to support what seems like the wrong side a good portion of the time. They need to learn to choose their battles more carfuly. If the biggest problem with this country is NAMBLA can't hold a rally, we are doing pretty good.

[stevenl]

Agree. Whenever you hear about them in the news, they are rushing to support what seems like the wrong side a good portion of the time. They need to learn to choose their battles more carfuly. If the biggest problem with this country is NAMBLA can't hold a rally, we are doing pretty good.

No they dont need to chose their battles. They need to defend the civil libertires of everyone and continue to be non-partisan. They should defend the law, and our rights now their opinion.. What if instead of just nambla they hate catholics? Should they stop defending catholic rights as well? They should not pick and choose, they should defend EVERYONE.

NAMBLA has as much rights to be around as the klan, and the boyscouts.

The 1st Amendment was designed to protect the speech we dont agree with. At that same token that means me and you have a right to counter protest all those groups as well.

Welcome to the Land of the Free my friend.

[HDRoberts]

Well, why can't they defend the civil liberty of a soldier's family to bury their family member in peace?

[stevenl]

They do. But that right does shall not impede the right of the Westboro church to counter it. As long as the westboro group follows the laws in the states they are in then their is nothing that can be done about it.

[HDRoberts]

They do.

Example?

[Madtown HD Junkie]

They are so unpopular because they are so moon-bat crazy 98% of the time it outweighs the 2% they actual are right.

[Skyhi]

No they dont need to chose their battles. They need to defend the civil libertires of everyone and continue to be non-partisan. They should defend the law, and our rights now their opinion.. What if instead of just nambla they hate catholics? Should they stop defending catholic rights as well? They should not pick and choose, they should defend EVERYONE.

NAMBLA has as much rights to be around as the klan, and the boyscouts.

The 1st Amendment was designed to protect the speech we dont agree with. At that same token that means me and you have a right to counter protest all those groups as well.

Welcome to the Land of the Free my friend.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

I'd have a problem with them if they decided to pick and chose who to defend.

[Skyhi]

Well, why can't they defend the civil liberty of a soldier's family to bury their family member in peace?

I don't think a quiet burial is a constitutionally guaranteed civil liberty.

[Skyhi]

They are so unpopular because they are so moon-bat crazy 98% of the time it outweighs the 2% they actual are right.

"Present your point and back it up. Facts are Welcome."

[HDRoberts]

Then I guess the other 95% of us are free to hate them for supporting blowhard extremists over the regular Joe that doesn't want to listen to insane rantings.

[HDRoberts]

I don't think a quiet burial is a constitutionally guaranteed civil liberty.

And man boy love is?

[Skyhi]

Then I guess the other 95% of us are free to hate them for supporting blowhard extremists over the regular Joe that doesn't want to listen to insane rantings.

That's probably what it boils down to. They're not supporting the extremists speech, they're supporting their right to say it. The government silencing any speech is far more disturbing to me than anything the klan or the westboro baptist church has to say.

[Skyhi]

And man boy love is?

The right to promote man boy love is a guaranteed civil liberty. The right to practice it is not.

The ACLU has never defended anyone accused of child molestation.

[HDRoberts]

The right to promote man boy love is a guaranteed civil liberty. The right to practice it is not.

The ACLU has never defended anyone accused of child molestation.

Really?


For example, the City of Indianapolis last year passed an ordinance that fines convicted child molesters, predators and rapists $600 if they are found within 1000 feet of playgrounds, swimming pools, recreation centers, or sports fields when children are present. The ordinance provides for a number of exceptions – including if the sex offender is accompanied by an adult who is not a sex offender. Amazingly, this past week, the ACLU filed a lawsuit claiming that this ordinance violates the constitutional rights of child molesters and child predators.

http://ff.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=376

[Skyhi]

My phrasing was off. I'll try again:

The ACLU has never defended an individual during his/her child molestation trial.

[stevenl]

Really?



http://ff.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=376

Most of these laws are unconstitutional.. I mean After a person serves their time how then can you punish them for the rest of their life?

I know a friend who was convicted of a sex crime (he had pictures of himself and a few ohter kids taken when he was like 17 and the kids a bit younger) messing around take pictures of themselves naked etc. (I didnt get into detail with him) But he was charged with having like 2 images found on an old pc with him and these kids. So he was charged plead guilty got 5 years probabtion. Now for the rest of his life he has to be a registered sex offender (even though he never had sex with a child) etc. He also just recently was forced to move from his mothers house because its to close to a park even though hes lived there for 4 years while on probabtion.

They make things so difficult for these types to reintergrate back into society and to live a normal life. It makes it so hard that the odds of them repeating go up, because they have nothing else in life to live for.

Now I know his case is special and a serial child rapist is different but these "blanket" laws like this effect people who have really committed no crime and no foul.

[HDRoberts]

Most of these laws are unconstitutional.. I mean After a person serves their time how then can you punish them for the rest of their life?

I know a friend who was convicted of a sex crime (he had pictures of himself and a few ohter kids taken when he was like 17 and the kids a bit younger) messing around take pictures of themselves naked etc. (I didnt get into detail with him) But he was charged with having like 2 images found on an old pc with him and these kids. So he was charged plead guilty got 5 years probabtion. Now for the rest of his life he has to be a registered sex offender (even though he never had sex with a child) etc. He also just recently was forced to move from his mothers house because its to close to a park even though hes lived there for 4 years while on probabtion.

They make things so difficult for these types to reintergrate back into society and to live a normal life. It makes it so hard that the odds of them repeating go up, because they have nothing else in life to live for.

Now I know his case is special and a serial child rapist is different but these "blanket" laws like this effect people who have really committed no crime and no foul.

I agree that many offender laws are too strict in many cases, but staying 1000 feet from playgrounds ONLY WHEN UNACCOMPANIED sounds pretty reasonable. It is less than two tenths of a mile.

[stevenl]

I agree that many offender laws are too strict in many cases, but staying 1000 feet from playgrounds ONLY WHEN UNACCOMPANIED sounds pretty reasonable. It is less than two tenths of a mile.

I just read the article you posted and my word, could they be any more biased?

The same reason I gave above was the reason the ACLU was against it. Because it would force a person to move from a home they may have lived at forever simply because now they violate this ordinence. It also would infringe on someones right to vote if the voting place happens to be near a playground or at a school..

See the ACLU always has a reason behind its madness. Another thing the article says the ACLU gets tax payer money.. This guy is obviously an idiot because the ACLU is a private NON-Profit group and gets the majority of its funding from its over 500k members (like myself) who give yearly donations. You can give as little as 5$ or as much as I guess you want.

Its possible they have got a grant or somthing before somewhere along the lines, but they are not a tax payer funded group. The article you posted is a poorly done hit pieace.

[Skyhi]

I just read the article you posted and my word, could they be any more biased?

The same reason I gave above was the reason the ACLU was against it. Because it would force a person to move from a home they may have lived at forever simply because now they violate this ordinence. It also would infringe on someones right to vote if the voting place happens to be near a playground or at a school..
Bingo. The government is forbidden from imposing ex post facto laws.

[HDRoberts]

I think when they said taxpayer finding it is that all these lawsuits have to go to court, which takes big taxpayer bucks.

[Skyhi]

I think when they said taxpayer finding it is that all these lawsuits have to go to court, which takes big taxpayer bucks.

That's a stretch. The judge and court staff are being paid regardless if a lawsuit is brought. Plus, it costs money for a plaintiff just to file a lawsuit in most jurisdictions. I think its around $200-$300 in cuyahoga county, ohio.

[stevenl]

I think when they said taxpayer finding it is that all these lawsuits have to go to court, which takes big taxpayer bucks.

Well when the writer says

"To add insult to injury, the ACLU uses our tax dollars to fund these law suites"

Not sure how you came to your conclusion. Mine seems more feasable.

[HDRoberts]

That's a stretch. The judge and court staff are being paid regardless if a lawsuit is brought. Plus, it costs money for a plaintiff just to file a lawsuit in most jurisdictions. I think its around $200-$300 in cuyahoga county, ohio.

$300 buys like an hour of the judges time.

It's a valid point, though you certainly can disagree.

[Skyhi]

$300 buys like an hour of the judges time.

It's a valid point, though you certainly can disagree.

We're arguing semantics, but.....:)

Judges are not paid by the hour.....$300 * 300 cases = 90k. That around what a typical judge makes in a year (I think).

[HDRoberts]

We're arguing semantics, but.....:)

Judges are not paid by the hour.....$300 * 300 cases = 90k. That around what a typical judge makes in a year (I think).

With overhead, a judge cost 3 times that, I bet. Plus a court reporter, bailiff, cost of the building and it's operation, etc. And I'm not sure a judge really sees 300 cases.

[stevenl]

Its just the cost of doing business.

[Skyhi]

With overhead, a judge cost 3 times that, I bet. Plus a court reporter, bailiff, cost of the building and it's operation, etc. And I'm not sure a judge really sees 300 cases.

In Cuyahoga county they do...I'm sure other county courts and federal judges see less.

My point is that they're all salaried w/no overtime. The judicial system is basically budgeted as a fixed cost and the ACLU filing a lawsuit isn't "wasting" any additional taxpayer money.

[stevenl]

The point is the person did not say "The tax payers have to pay for the courts" He said the Tax payers FUND the lawsuites. Which is not the case.

[HDRoberts]

Well, maybe we could get buy with less judges with less lawsuits. But whatever. This debate is going nowhere.

I don't like the ACLU, and the ACLU should be the biggest supporter of my right to feel that way.

[stevenl]

The ACLU is a big supporter of you. In fact they support all your rights.

[froggigger]

$300 buys like an hour of the judges time.

It's a valid point, though you certainly can disagree.

In some areas, $300 buys a judge. :D