More on the ACLU: Defending the indefensible, supporting the “worst of the worst”.
August 25th 2008 00:47
I have been exchanging comments on Steven Barrett’s blog with a lady who is quite forthright in her condemnation of liberals in general and me in particular. She, at one point, remarked that
I then replied explaining my feelings about the ACLU and cited a previous post:
Really Long Link
I countered with my opinion that ACLU support should come from conservatives and everyone who loves the freedoms we enjoy in the United States. It’s easy to support free speech for the popular spokesperson, it’s easy to protest if your faith is threatened; the test is whether free speech and the other constitutional rights of people whose ideas you hate are worth fighting for.
Our Constitution and system of laws are not designed to protect the interests of the majority, the popular, and the agreeable. Those who need protection are the unpopular, the minority, and the despised among us. And that is what the ACLU does. There may come a time, however, when SL’s liberties are put in jeopardy and she’ll thank God that there is an ACLU.
There was one final response that I will address because it is a common misconception
among the Right that only so-called liberal positions are defended by the ACLU.
The American Civil Liberties Union is not monolithic and the different state chapters have grappled with the problem of supporting or opposing laws passed by many jurisdictions that forbid or limit protests of abortion clinics. Often these laws follow incidents of violence and even the threats to or actual killing of physicians working at such clinics. This was the case in Florida, as a matter of fact. I’ll get to Florida.
The general consensus is that the ACLU is active in protecting the First Amendment rights of protesters while being equally conscious of protecting the rights of women to exercise their rights to procedures that are legal under state law Sometimes the balancing act just serves to make everyone displeased and angry!
In Scottsburg, Indiana, the city was sued by the Indiana ACLU. The press release is worth reading,
In a similar case, the ICLU previously filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Old Paths Baptist Church last July against a Salem ordinance that would restrict public protest. The ordinance was aimed at curbing anti-abortion protests led by Pastor Lewis outside Washington County Courthouse. The ordinance required groups to apply for parade permits at least four weeks before any protest and pay a $100 application fee.
The ICLU has consistently defended the reproductive rights of women in the courts, in the Indiana General Assembly and in Congress. But the American way is to confront a contrary view, not to muzzle it, said the ICLU.
"Whether we agree with all of the message of Pastor Lewis and his followers is irrelevant," said ICLU Executive Director Fran Quigley. "The ICLU is dedicated to preserving the rights of religious expression and free speech for all Hoosiers."
In Massachusetts, a similar situation arose. See, for example,
Really Long Link
If one is intellectually honest, he or she must acknowledge that whenever two divergent rights collide, the Constitution requires a delicate balancing act.
The Florida ACLU issued a leaflet on the rights of protesters vis-à-vis the rights of owners or operators or patrons of a legal business, for example, abortion clinics. The message is worth repeating:
In summary, the ACLU is, like all human endeavors, imperfect; I again quote the statement from The American President:
I don't usually touch anything by Jim Stillman. He said to Youranter and to me once that he had handled cases for the ACLU. He's an ultra-lib and for some unimaginable reason, proud of it.
I then replied explaining my feelings about the ACLU and cited a previous post:
Really Long Link
I countered with my opinion that ACLU support should come from conservatives and everyone who loves the freedoms we enjoy in the United States. It’s easy to support free speech for the popular spokesperson, it’s easy to protest if your faith is threatened; the test is whether free speech and the other constitutional rights of people whose ideas you hate are worth fighting for.
Our Constitution and system of laws are not designed to protect the interests of the majority, the popular, and the agreeable. Those who need protection are the unpopular, the minority, and the despised among us. And that is what the ACLU does. There may come a time, however, when SL’s liberties are put in jeopardy and she’ll thank God that there is an ACLU.
There was one final response that I will address because it is a common misconception
among the Right that only so-called liberal positions are defended by the ACLU.
The ACLU only defends the worst of the worst and never stands up for a good cause. How often have they defended abortion clinic protestors?
The American Civil Liberties Union is not monolithic and the different state chapters have grappled with the problem of supporting or opposing laws passed by many jurisdictions that forbid or limit protests of abortion clinics. Often these laws follow incidents of violence and even the threats to or actual killing of physicians working at such clinics. This was the case in Florida, as a matter of fact. I’ll get to Florida.
The general consensus is that the ACLU is active in protecting the First Amendment rights of protesters while being equally conscious of protecting the rights of women to exercise their rights to procedures that are legal under state law Sometimes the balancing act just serves to make everyone displeased and angry!
In Scottsburg, Indiana, the city was sued by the Indiana ACLU. The press release is worth reading,
The Indiana Civil Liberties Union announced today that it has filed a lawsuit to stop city officials' unconstitutional infringements on the free speech rights of a Baptist preacher and his congregation.
In its lawsuit, the ICLU charges that Pastor John Lewis and his congregants from the Old Paths Baptist Church were repeatedly threatened with arrest and/or citation by the Scottsburg Police Department for using megaphones during anti-abortion demonstrations. Police officials told Pastor Lewis that they were concerned about the possible reaction of passersby who hear his message.
"Pastor Lewis and his church members were ordered to stop, not because there was some ordinance they were violating or that the noise rose to the level of disorderly conduct, but because the police were concerned that the persons hearing the message might react against it," said ICLU Legal Director Ken Falk. "This appears to be a classic case of a 'heckler's veto', which is unconstitutional."
In its lawsuit, the ICLU charges that Pastor John Lewis and his congregants from the Old Paths Baptist Church were repeatedly threatened with arrest and/or citation by the Scottsburg Police Department for using megaphones during anti-abortion demonstrations. Police officials told Pastor Lewis that they were concerned about the possible reaction of passersby who hear his message.
"Pastor Lewis and his church members were ordered to stop, not because there was some ordinance they were violating or that the noise rose to the level of disorderly conduct, but because the police were concerned that the persons hearing the message might react against it," said ICLU Legal Director Ken Falk. "This appears to be a classic case of a 'heckler's veto', which is unconstitutional."
In a similar case, the ICLU previously filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Old Paths Baptist Church last July against a Salem ordinance that would restrict public protest. The ordinance was aimed at curbing anti-abortion protests led by Pastor Lewis outside Washington County Courthouse. The ordinance required groups to apply for parade permits at least four weeks before any protest and pay a $100 application fee.
The ICLU has consistently defended the reproductive rights of women in the courts, in the Indiana General Assembly and in Congress. But the American way is to confront a contrary view, not to muzzle it, said the ICLU.
"Whether we agree with all of the message of Pastor Lewis and his followers is irrelevant," said ICLU Executive Director Fran Quigley. "The ICLU is dedicated to preserving the rights of religious expression and free speech for all Hoosiers."
In Massachusetts, a similar situation arose. See, for example,
Really Long Link
If one is intellectually honest, he or she must acknowledge that whenever two divergent rights collide, the Constitution requires a delicate balancing act.
The Florida ACLU issued a leaflet on the rights of protesters vis-à-vis the rights of owners or operators or patrons of a legal business, for example, abortion clinics. The message is worth repeating:
You have a constitutionally protected right to engage in peaceful protest in traditional public forums” such as streets, sidewalks or parks. But, the government can impose "time, place and manner" restrictions on speech by requiring permits. These restrictions are generally permissible as long as they are reasonable and not based on content. The government cannot impose permit restrictions simply because it does not like the message of a certain speaker or group.
The First Amendment does not protect speech that is combined with the violation of established laws such as trespassing, disobeying or interfering with a lawful order by a police officer. Although inflammatory speakers cannot be punished for merely arousing an audience, a speaker can be arrested for incitement if he/she advocates imminent violence or specifically provokes people to commit unlawful actions.
Demonstrators who engage in civil disobedience — peaceful, but unlawful, activities as a form of protest — are not protected under the First Amendment.
If you endanger others while protesting, you can be arrested. A protest that blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic is illegal without a permit. You do not have the right to block a building entrance or physically harass people. The general rule is that free speech activity cannot take place on private property, including outdoor malls, without the consent of the property owner. You do not have the right to remain on private property after being told to leave by the property owner.
The First Amendment does not protect speech that is combined with the violation of established laws such as trespassing, disobeying or interfering with a lawful order by a police officer. Although inflammatory speakers cannot be punished for merely arousing an audience, a speaker can be arrested for incitement if he/she advocates imminent violence or specifically provokes people to commit unlawful actions.
Demonstrators who engage in civil disobedience — peaceful, but unlawful, activities as a form of protest — are not protected under the First Amendment.
If you endanger others while protesting, you can be arrested. A protest that blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic is illegal without a permit. You do not have the right to block a building entrance or physically harass people. The general rule is that free speech activity cannot take place on private property, including outdoor malls, without the consent of the property owner. You do not have the right to remain on private property after being told to leave by the property owner.
In summary, the ACLU is, like all human endeavors, imperfect; I again quote the statement from The American President:
“America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's going to put up a fight. It's going to say 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man who's words make your blood boil, and who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.' You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, and celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.”
| 66 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog

















Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
(I'm not been facetious, that scene gives me chills).
Comment by Tyler Mills
They also tend to go way too far when persecuting religious freedom.
Comment by Randy Inman
Waxing Political
Football Dogz
NCstuff
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Randy Inman
Waxing Political
Football Dogz
NCstuff
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
Perhaps, my friend, that's because you only talk with those on the Right side of the spectrum. I consider the ACLUU an "equal opportunity" gadfly.
It may be that Liberals are more sympathetic to all restrictions on civil liberties, not just the ones that we support.
Comment by Jeff Musall