Name a civil liberty, guaranteed by the Constitution, that you didn't think the ACLU should have defended.

Question

I'm with Simon Legree and coragryph, they should defend all whether offensive to some or not. As was stated, they were defending NAMBLA's right to petition the government, NOT advocating pedophilia. I asked this question because I continually see the ACLU dragged through the mud here, but mostly with no explanation, or explanations that have no basis in fact. More extremist right-wing radio propoganda, it seems.

Answer 1

I think all liberties guaranteed by the Constitution should be defended. If not by the ACLU, then by anyone else who can.

EDIT: To those who keep mentioning NAMBLA, the ACLU never defended their right to engage in pedophilia. Check your history. They only defended the right to have a website advocating for a change in the current laws.

And whether we agree with that or not. it's not illegal to ask that the laws be changed, so it's still protected speech.

Answer 2

In a similar posted question, I suggested that those who are against the ACLU should ALSO be against antibiotics because they help cure good people as well as bad people. I suspect now that it's not a matter of laws that defend human and civil rights of all but moreso a matter of a few loud mouth simpletons and ignoramuses that are too full of hate and feelings of inadequacies that shout and rant over nothing... really.

The ACLU has never advocated squat about NAMBLA other than the same right that affects us all, and that is to voice an opinion, to have the right to petition law changes, etc. Laws exist and should be adhered to without encrouching on the human and/or civil rights of others simply because they may be unpopular or have been accused of some heinous crime.

We all believe that Freedom of Speech is important except when some hateful person or group exercises his/her/their right to Free Speech and Freedom of Expression (Dubya, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, for example, or Hil Clinton, Al Gore... or Al Sharpton... or the KKK, Neo-Nazis and other hate groups). The fact of the matter is that the law MUST protect all or none; it cannot be selective (who decides who should or should not be protected... those in power? The wannabees? The have-nots? Should we institute a national popularity contest to determine who should have rights or not?)

It is often suggested that illegal aliens should not have rights. I doubt very much that our Founding Fathers had similar notions in mind, or they would have written that in the Declaration of the Independence or the Preamble of the Constitution or in our Bill of Rights, but NOWHERE does it state that these inalienable rights (liberties and freedoms) are exclusive to "Americans" or citizens of the USA and/or residents... it does NOT exclude any one person or group. Nowhere does it state that "some are more equal than others."

The Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land, protecting all or none, otherwise it is would be a mere farce! The ACLU is merely guaranteeing that everyone's rights, liberties and freedoms are respected by would-be tyrants and those who overstep their authority or abuse their limited authority. It protects those who may be unpopular at any given time, like some who are hated simply because they've been ACCUSED of a heinous crime!

Just because someone who is not in good standing in public opinion uses a particular law doesn't make the law bad; it merely proves that within our Democracy there are those who are exercising their rights, liberties and freedoms to be idiots, nothing more; why should anyone complain?

Answer 3

Just as a for instance:

1. The ACLU awarded a scholorship to a Oklahoma Student for Refusing a drug-test required for extracurricular activities.
(press release 5/23/01 - aclu.com). This is not a issue of illegal/unreasonable search and seizure - if you know drug tests are a requirement of extracurriculars, either dont do drugs, or don't do EXTRAcurricular activities.

2. Taking the city of Farmers Branch, Texas to court to overturn a housing regulation requiring all landlords to make sure tenants are of legal citizenship. Since housing laws are not constitutionally mentioned, as you know would then be left to the states or the people respectively per the 10th amendment.

3. Same as #2 - Escondido, California

4. Of course the Boy Scouts. Balboa park in San Diego, which was the center of the law suit there, was not only used by the boy scouts, but the San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Festival is held there. The Scouts have spent millions of dollars developing and maintaining the public park over the years, without burden to the city and its taxpayers. Through fundraising and volunteer work, a state-of-the-art swimming pool and a 600-seat outdoor amphitheater were constructed. In 1949, the Boy Scouts Desert Pacific Council headquarters building was completed. SO, even though the boy scouts do public work for the city at no charge, the ACLU would have me to believe that since the city of San Diego allows the boy scouts to hold meetings at that park, the city its self is contributing to the boy scouts. Further that the city is establishing a religion, or violating some queer's civil rights. I think not.

Here is the point. I don't want to be FORCED to be tolerant. Nor do I want others to be FORCED to be tolerant of me. I just don't like the ACLU's position on most things...for instance. ILLEGAL immigrants DO NOT HAVE CONSITUTIONAL RIGHTS. The US Constitution applies to American Citizens. I don't think INMATES deserve much...for instance, I don't think they should they get to choose kosher meals. If their religion was important enough to eat kosher, they would not be in prison.

Well, that is just a few.

Have a good rest of the weekend.

Answer 4

The structure does no longer assure civil liberties it in undemanding words affairs that particular rights are god given rights and not in any respect the rights granted by ability of guy and therefore won't be able to be taken away.

Answer 5

The right of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) to post on their website instructions on how to seduce little boys.

Yes, the Anti-Christ Liars Union (ACLU) represented Nambla! What do you expect from an organization founded by a card-carrying atheistic Communist?

Answer 6

There is no civil liberty that the ACLU shouldn't have defended anywhere. Our civil liberties are important to us. Freedom of speech and others in the First Amendment are essential to us. Without it, people could force religions on us, censor the press, or even censor your question! (Censoring like the "f-word" should be allowed but things like censoring peoples' opinions shouldn't...this is off-topic)

Though the ACLU is kind of radical at times, they are only defending our rights. Don't take your rights for granted.

Answer 7

The Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties are all faultlessly upheld and protected by the ACLU. Backing NAMBLA, however..I just can't see past that.

Answer 8

NAMBLA's right to play with little boy's
It was not just the websight..the websight..and I QUOTE...

"NAMBLA is "not just publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law," says Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who is arguing the Curleys case in federal court. NAMBLA, he says, "is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them."

the ACLU lately has stained the dark side of its reputation through its actions in two cases involving the treatment of vulnerable, young Americans. The ACLU is defending those who abuse children while attacking those who give them moral guidance. This contrast reveals the priorities of today's ACLU.

Answer 9

Affirmative action. It's blatantly REVERSE discrimination, since, as a white male, I am denied those same points or hiring quotas.

Although in The Constitution it isn't called "Affirmative Action". The defense the ACLU uses is based on a variety of premises covered by the Constitution, however. In example:

Equal Access (How am I treated equally under Affirmative Action?)

Discrimination (I am DENIED those extra points BECAUSE of my color and race)

Answer 10

Prisoners to have TV as constitutional right.