If someone were to be charged with making a statement against a minority group, for the sake of this questions, lets use homosexuals. Say someone is sued for making derogatory remarks about homosexuals, and the ACLU is called in as counsel. Does the ACLU, who has advocated free speech in the past, take the side of the homosexual, or the person who made the comments? Since both issues have been argued by the ACLU, is it possible that lawyers from the ACLU could actually end up representing both clients?
2006-12-09 08:42:55 · 14 answers · asked by gtrplayer5555 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The ACLU is a political organization with their own agenda. They would take the side that could most advance their own organization, financially. Then if a similar case came up a year or so later, they may choose just the opposite, if the money was better.
The ACLU has absolutely nothing to do with civil liberties and we would be much better off without this money grubbing organization. They are a disgrace and they don't even see it.
2006-12-09 08:53:55 · answer #1 · answered by kjlh58 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There would be no "homosexual" side. The issue would be whether a government is enforcing an unconstitutional restraint on speech. For a person to be "charged with" means they ran afoul of some law. And the ACLU would side against the government and its law, since any such restraint of speech is unconstitutional.
People focus on the people making the speech, or on the people that are mentioned in the speech, and they accuse the ACLU or anybody defending against the government's action as supporting the groups involved, instead of realizing that the ACLU is only concerned with civil rights, and takes cases that are important to upholding the constitution.
The constitution does not say the government cannot abridge the right of free speech except when it doesn't like what is said. It says the government cannot abridge the right of free speech at all.
2006-12-09 09:00:11 · answer #2 · answered by sonyack 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They'd probably back away from the case, and usually do when such conflicts of interest exist.
And as far as I know, Freedom of Speech is still intact regarding the example you gave. However, it could come to the point where murder and major crimes are overlooked, and the only thing that will be considered a punishable offence in America is expressing your opinion that homosexuality is wrong.
Life imprisonment or the death sentence might become exclusively reserved for this expression of a viewpoint, with no objection and to the satisfaction of the radical homosexuals.
2006-12-09 08:45:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I doubt if the ACLU would ever put itself in that situation. The ACLU is much more focused on it's own political agenda than on protecting civil liberties.
2006-12-09 08:48:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The ACLU supported the KKK's right to march, one bigot is the same as another to them.
2006-12-09 08:50:37 · answer #5 · answered by Draco Paladin 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the aclu would side with the minority. they are more about political correctness than free speech.
2006-12-09 08:46:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Odds are that they would take the side of the group that called them in as council first, If both had a good case.
2006-12-09 08:45:17 · answer #7 · answered by The Big Box 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it really is what i opt to carry close? so a thoughts, i have in common words seen them help illegals. I figured Hispanic became Hispanic, sort of like unlawful is unlawful. I nonetheless won't be able to trust that the border patrol became jailed for a drug smuggler that became given immunity to testify adverse to them. What a stupid decision!
2016-11-25 01:21:37 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes its possible.
the statement would be slander against a minority.
but the statement was part of freedom of speech.
now depending on how and exactly what was said they the ACLU may not represent the statement maker, because it might be flat-out, undeniable, inarguable slander.
2006-12-09 10:25:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hmm...well, they'd have to choose which side they were going with. They can't be on BOTH---that would be a conflict of interest and their lawyers would be commtting legal malpractice.
2006-12-09 08:45:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋