Will the ACLU seem hypocritical if they don't defend Mark Foley?

Question

After defending Nambla and would this make them lose thier liberal supporters?

Answer 1

Good question!!!
I think they will just keep their mouths shut...they wouldn't want to alienate the Democratic party/support

Answer 2

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

Answer 3

because of the fact so some distance, Foley isn't charged with something. He resigned. If he have been charged, and if the ACLU did undertake his protection, they might in all likelihood place self assurance in the recommendations of Justice Hugo Black, who suggested that the 1st modification say congress shall make "no" regulation abridging the liberty of speech: none, zip, nada. The justice suggested that people who disagree would desire to accomplish that by potential of attempting to repeal the 1st modification, not by potential of judicial activism to hold that "no regulation" potential that some rules are ok. So, if conservatives adversarial to judicial activism rather meant it, they might call for that the courts supply result to the unambiguous words of the 1st modification. That conservatives do not advance this way of place potential in straightforward terms that they are no much less hypocritical than the different political group.

Answer 4

The ACLU filed a brief on behalf of right winger Rush Limbaugh.


The ACLU only deals with Constitutional or Bill Of Rights issues I believe. Is there something in the Constitution that you disagree with?

Answer 5

I'm sure they will if it becomes a civil rights issue - which is not the same as defending a crime.

Most people who criticize them have never bothered to learn about them, and why they do what they do. They are the staunchest defenders of the constitution around.

Answer 6

They defend NAMBLA, North American Man Boy Love Association.

Answer 7

If they are the defenders for NAMBLA why wouldn't they defend this wretched pedophile? In their view isn't that a valid "life choice"? It makes me want to puke!

Answer 8

the ACLU has been number 1 on my sheet list for years. if they defend foley i'll lower them to number 3.

Answer 9

Keep drinking that kool aid.

Answer 10

Hee hee. Good question. Don't they normally defend the criminals?