3 ms·

Isn't the ACLU non-partisan?

beat 10y ago
Yes, they are. The thing that really put them on the map was decades ago, when they defended the right of Nazis to march in the heavily Jewish community of Skokie, IL.
- LesZedCB 10y ago
  Link for those interested in this piece of history. https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp...
jessriedel 10y ago
Nominally, but so are other organizations that are clearly partisan in practice. I don't think anyone disputes that members of the ACLU are overwhelmingly democrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#Allegations_of_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... It's hard to imagine this doesn't have real-world consequences, e.g., strategically choosing to not defend right-leaning speech as vigorously as left-leaning speech.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  They defend actual Nazis. That's about as right-leaning as you can possibly get.
  - lol214365 10y ago
    Well that is a zero-risk move politically. Defending Nazis gives you credibility and it's not like that makes Republicans any more influential.
  - DashRattlesnake 10y ago
    Actually, I think a more telling test is "would they defend a Republican's civil rights (against liberals)?"
    - grzm 10y ago
      What would that meaningfully look like? Can you come up with an example? The majority of the ACLU cases are filed against a government or individual representing the government, so perhaps you can find one where it's against a Democratic administration or official. https://www.aclu.org/defending-our-rights/court-battles https://www.aclu.org/defending-our-rights/court-battles Can you see anything there that would be representative of what you're saying?
      - jessriedel 10y ago
        An example: Forbes argues that the ACLU explicitly refused to take a position against free-speech infinging anti-religious-defamation resolution at the UN, even though they have taken public stances on many international resolutions more aligned with the left. http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/20/aclu-free-speech-opinions-contributors-blasphemy.html http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/20/aclu-free-speech-opinions-c... Another example: Techdirt argues that ACLU fails to defend free speech of wedding photographer who violated equal protection legislation by refusing photograph gay wedding. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131121/02445825319/unfortunate-aclu-wrong-side-free-speech-case.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131121/02445825319/unfor...
        grzm 10y ago
        Thanks for the links! Right off, I want to clearly state that I'm not a lawyer, so my ability to judge the merits of these cases is very suspect. To the point where I'm hesitant to attempt to address them at all for fear of appearing exceedingly ignorant. With the UN resolution, I see the inconsistency between their avowed reason for not joining the other groups (we don't get involved in international issues). The rest of the article is speculation as to the real reason why, on which I think reasonable people can disagree on. It's not clear to me that this is a clear-cut case of consistent anti-conservative bias. For example, I can imagine without too much difficulty American religious conservatives wanting protection from defamation of religion. For the wedding photography case, I don't think it's a free speech issue: I think it's a protected-class issue which falls under the Civil Rights Act and its extensions, as in this instance the wedding photographer is acting as a business providing a service, and depending on the jurisdiction, the couple may be a protected class. I'm exceedingly unsure about this whole area of law, though, I'd defer to just about anyone. I don't know how judges decide the balance between free speech and the Civil Rights Act, though I'm sure there's precedent and guidelines.
- morgante 10y ago
  The ACLU tries pretty hard to stick to their values, even when it puts them in opposition to Democrats. They've sued the Obama administration several times and have frequently defended groups (ex. Nazis) which liberals find repugnant. For example, the ACLU supports the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United even though the majority of liberals and democrats strongly oppose it.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    The ACLU has not defended the Nazi cause; the ACLU has defended the cause of free speech and peaceable assembly, even when those speaking and assembling peaceably are themselves Nazis. The distinction is quite critical.
    - morgante 10y ago
      You're right that "cause" is not quite the right word, but they have literally defended Nazis (a decision I absolutely applaud).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

beat 10y ago

Yes, they are. The thing that really put them on the map was decades ago, when they defended the right of Nazis to march in the heavily Jewish community of Skokie, IL.

LesZedCB 10y ago
Link for those interested in this piece of history. https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp...

jessriedel 10y ago

Nominally, but so are other organizations that are clearly partisan in practice. I don't think anyone disputes that members of the ACLU are overwhelmingly democrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#Allegations_of_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... It's hard to imagine this doesn't have real-world consequences, e.g., strategically choosing to not defend right-leaning speech as vigorously as left-leaning speech.

TheCoelacanth 10y ago
They defend actual Nazis. That's about as right-leaning as you can possibly get.
- lol214365 10y ago
  Well that is a zero-risk move politically. Defending Nazis gives you credibility and it's not like that makes Republicans any more influential.
- DashRattlesnake 10y ago
  Actually, I think a more telling test is "would they defend a Republican's civil rights (against liberals)?"
  - grzm 10y ago
    What would that meaningfully look like? Can you come up with an example? The majority of the ACLU cases are filed against a government or individual representing the government, so perhaps you can find one where it's against a Democratic administration or official. https://www.aclu.org/defending-our-rights/court-battles https://www.aclu.org/defending-our-rights/court-battles Can you see anything there that would be representative of what you're saying?
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      An example: Forbes argues that the ACLU explicitly refused to take a position against free-speech infinging anti-religious-defamation resolution at the UN, even though they have taken public stances on many international resolutions more aligned with the left. http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/20/aclu-free-speech-opinions-contributors-blasphemy.html http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/20/aclu-free-speech-opinions-c... Another example: Techdirt argues that ACLU fails to defend free speech of wedding photographer who violated equal protection legislation by refusing photograph gay wedding. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131121/02445825319/unfortunate-aclu-wrong-side-free-speech-case.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131121/02445825319/unfor...
      - grzm 10y ago
        Thanks for the links! Right off, I want to clearly state that I'm not a lawyer, so my ability to judge the merits of these cases is very suspect. To the point where I'm hesitant to attempt to address them at all for fear of appearing exceedingly ignorant. With the UN resolution, I see the inconsistency between their avowed reason for not joining the other groups (we don't get involved in international issues). The rest of the article is speculation as to the real reason why, on which I think reasonable people can disagree on. It's not clear to me that this is a clear-cut case of consistent anti-conservative bias. For example, I can imagine without too much difficulty American religious conservatives wanting protection from defamation of religion. For the wedding photography case, I don't think it's a free speech issue: I think it's a protected-class issue which falls under the Civil Rights Act and its extensions, as in this instance the wedding photographer is acting as a business providing a service, and depending on the jurisdiction, the couple may be a protected class. I'm exceedingly unsure about this whole area of law, though, I'd defer to just about anyone. I don't know how judges decide the balance between free speech and the Civil Rights Act, though I'm sure there's precedent and guidelines.
morgante 10y ago
The ACLU tries pretty hard to stick to their values, even when it puts them in opposition to Democrats. They've sued the Obama administration several times and have frequently defended groups (ex. Nazis) which liberals find repugnant. For example, the ACLU supports the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United even though the majority of liberals and democrats strongly oppose it.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  The ACLU has not defended the Nazi cause; the ACLU has defended the cause of free speech and peaceable assembly, even when those speaking and assembling peaceably are themselves Nazis. The distinction is quite critical.
  - morgante 10y ago
    You're right that "cause" is not quite the right word, but they have literally defended Nazis (a decision I absolutely applaud).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]