ACLU-beating: a game anyone can play
HB of How Appealing posts the following:
Well, I don't know Wendy Kaminer. I do know the WSJ, and its famous hostility (at least on the Editorial and Op-Ed pages) towards liberties of any sort other than economic or pro-conservative.
Wendy may be right. The ACLU's failure to act in this case may mean... something.
I'm just going to stop thinking there. I am going to bet otherwise.
People... in general... who comment on the ACLU's beliefs, tendencies, trends, or nature because of their SILENCE and INACTIVITY in a given situation are usually blowing smoke.
The ACLU is not a government. The ACLU is not a nanny. The ACLU does not owe you anything, and if you don't support it, then much like a job or a relationship, it will go away.
The ACLU takes on cases - not all cases - in which important considerations of constitutional liberties are at stake, and the case is either winnable, or should be hard fought.
If the ACLU thinks that a case is being adequately managed, it will generally not waste its (finite) resources. If the ACLU for whatever reason thinks a case should not be won, then it will do the same. If the ACLU is just too busy to work on a case, even an important case, because there are more important cases, the same.
If the ACLU fails to act... that says precisely nothing about anything other than the very fact.
In contrast, when the ACLU does act, speak, participate, or litigate, you can draw your own reasonable conclusions from their affirmative behavior.
Failure to get involved in a case pitting important 1st Amendment considerations against the rights of schools? I mean, they've done that case. Their position is known. Other people can argue that case. Would an amicus from the ACLU clarify something that wasn't known before? Should they be telling people that this involves free speech?
People who criticize the ACLU often have valid reasons. I always wonder, though, when the reasons they state, are not valid ones. What is it about liberty, free speech, or constitutional protections that these critics hate? Or is it just that they aren't paying attention, or being disingenuous, trying to win political points despite knowing better?
This is another way of asking, "Fool or knave?" Again, this isn't about Ms. Kaminer. For all I know, she's put her finger right on the big problem with the ACLU, and I'm not going to waste my own time reading anything in a WSJ op-ed criticizing the ACLU. Wake me up when it's a story in a reputable source ("having some integrity") about the same thing.
And with that, I'm done wasting my time about that post on HA, period.
"The American Liberal Liberties Union: The ACLU is becoming very selective about what it considers 'free' speech." Today in The Wall Street Journal, Wendy Kaminer has an op-ed (free access) in which she writes, "One of the clearest indications of a retreat from defending all speech regardless of content is the ACLU's virtual silence in Harper v. Poway, an important federal case involving a high-school student's right to wear a T-shirt condemning homosexuality."
Posted at 08:47 AM by Howard Bashman
Well, I don't know Wendy Kaminer. I do know the WSJ, and its famous hostility (at least on the Editorial and Op-Ed pages) towards liberties of any sort other than economic or pro-conservative.
Wendy may be right. The ACLU's failure to act in this case may mean... something.
I'm just going to stop thinking there. I am going to bet otherwise.
People... in general... who comment on the ACLU's beliefs, tendencies, trends, or nature because of their SILENCE and INACTIVITY in a given situation are usually blowing smoke.
The ACLU is not a government. The ACLU is not a nanny. The ACLU does not owe you anything, and if you don't support it, then much like a job or a relationship, it will go away.
The ACLU takes on cases - not all cases - in which important considerations of constitutional liberties are at stake, and the case is either winnable, or should be hard fought.
If the ACLU thinks that a case is being adequately managed, it will generally not waste its (finite) resources. If the ACLU for whatever reason thinks a case should not be won, then it will do the same. If the ACLU is just too busy to work on a case, even an important case, because there are more important cases, the same.
If the ACLU fails to act... that says precisely nothing about anything other than the very fact.
In contrast, when the ACLU does act, speak, participate, or litigate, you can draw your own reasonable conclusions from their affirmative behavior.
Failure to get involved in a case pitting important 1st Amendment considerations against the rights of schools? I mean, they've done that case. Their position is known. Other people can argue that case. Would an amicus from the ACLU clarify something that wasn't known before? Should they be telling people that this involves free speech?
People who criticize the ACLU often have valid reasons. I always wonder, though, when the reasons they state, are not valid ones. What is it about liberty, free speech, or constitutional protections that these critics hate? Or is it just that they aren't paying attention, or being disingenuous, trying to win political points despite knowing better?
This is another way of asking, "Fool or knave?" Again, this isn't about Ms. Kaminer. For all I know, she's put her finger right on the big problem with the ACLU, and I'm not going to waste my own time reading anything in a WSJ op-ed criticizing the ACLU. Wake me up when it's a story in a reputable source ("having some integrity") about the same thing.
And with that, I'm done wasting my time about that post on HA, period.