The American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, is a non-governmental organization devoted to defending civil rights and civil liberties in the United States. Lawsuits brought by the ACLU have been central to several important developments in U.S. constitutional law. The ACLU provides lawyers and law in cases where it believes civil rights are being violated. In many cases where it does not provide legal representation, the ACLU submits ''amicus curiae'' brief (law)s in support of its positions. The ACLU is non-partisan and has never supported or opposed a political candidate, though it has been harshly critical of various elected officials of both major parties over the years. However, many regard the ACLU as a Liberalism in the United States institution (see American_Civil_Liberties_Union#Critics_of_the_ACLU). ==Positions== The ACLU's stated mission is to defend the civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Over the years, the ACLU has consistently fought in the court system for a liberal interpretation of the United States Constitution that allows for as much individual liberty as possible. Among other positions, the ACLU: * Supports the separation of church and state in the United States; under this mandate, the ACLU: ** Opposes the government-sponsored display of religious symbols on public property; ** Opposes official prayers, religious ceremonies, or "moments of silence" in public schools or schools funded with public money; ** Supports the rights of public school students to pray on their own; * Supports full First Amendment to the United States Constitution rights of the press, including school newspapers; * Supports reproductive rights, including the right to choose an abortion, on the basis of an implied right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; * Supports full civil rights for homosexuals, including government benefits for homosexual couples equal to those provided for heterosexual ones; * Supports affirmative action; * Supports the rights of defendants and suspects against unconstitutional police practices; * Supports the decriminalization of drugs such as heroin, cocaine and marijuana ([http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicy.cfm?ID=12401&c=19 ACLU's Drug Policy]); * Opposes demonstration permits and other requirements for protests in public places The organization's position on gun control is less well-defined. While the official policy of the national ACLU argues that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides only for a right to armed state militias [http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25], the issue seems outside of the organization's scope, as it has avoided gun-related cases. The ACLU has been noted for vigorously defending the right to express unpopular, controversial, and extremist opinions on both the left and right. Some have expressed the view that the ACLU sometimes plays a role comparable to that played by public defenders, helping to ensure that even unpopular defendants receive due process. Executive Director Anthony Romero, President Nadine Strossen, and Legal Director Steven Shapiro currently head the organization. ==History and notable cases== The ACLU was formed in 1920 as the National Civil Liberties Bureau (NCLB). Founders include Crystal Eastman and Roger Nash Baldwin. During that year, it took the side of aliens threatened with deportation by U.S. Attorney General Alexander Mitchell Palmer for their radical views (see Palmer Raids). It also opposed attacks on the rights of the Industrial Workers of the World and other labor unions to meet and organize. Since its founding, the ACLU has been involved in many cases. A few of the most significant are discussed here: In 1925, the ACLU persuaded John T. Scopes to defy Tennessee's anti-evolution law in a court test. Clarence Darrow, a member of the ACLU National Committee, headed Scopes' legal team. The ACLU lost the case and Scopes was fined $100. The Tennessee Supreme Court later reversed the fine, but not the conviction. In 1942, a few months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the ACLU affiliates on the West Coast became some of the sharpest critics of the government's policy on enemy aliens and U.S. citizens descended from enemy ancestry. This included the relocation of Japanese American Internment, internment of aliens, prejudicial curfews (''U.S. v. Hirabayashi'', 1942), and the like. In 1954, the ACLU played a role in the case of ''Brown v. Board of Education'', which led to the ban on segregation in U.S. public schools. In 1973, the organization was the first major national organization to call for the impeachment of President Richard M. Nixon, giving as reasons the violation by the Nixon administration of civil liberties. That same year, the ACLU was involved in the cases of ''Roe v. Wade'' and ''Doe v. Bolton'', in which the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right of privacy extended to women seeking abortions. In 1977, the ACLU filed suit against the Village of Skokie, Illinois, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of three town ordinances outlawing Nazi parades and demonstrations (Skokie had a large Jewish population). A federal district court struck down the ordinances in a decision eventually affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ACLU's action in this case led to the resignation of about 15 percent of the membership from the organization (25 percent in Illinois), especially of Judaism members. A cutback in its activities was avoided by a special mailing which elicited $500,000 in contributions. Federal Judge Bernard M. Decker described the principle involved in the case as follows: "It is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear ... The ability of American society to tolerate the advocacy of even hateful doctrines ... is perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in this country." The ACLU filed suit to challenge the Arkansas 1981 creationism statute, which required the teaching in public schools of the biblical story of creation as a scientific alternative to evolution. The law was declared unconstitutional by a Federal District Court. The terrorist attacks of September_11,_2001_attacks, and the ensuing debate regarding the proper balance of civil liberties and security including the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, led to a 20% increase in membership between August 2001 and December 2002, when its total enrollment reached 330,000 [http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20021202aclusidebarp8.asp]. The growth has continued; in August 2004, ACLU membership was at 400,000 [http://www.madison.com/tct/news/images/index.php?ntid=7175&ntpid=0]. The ACLU has been a vocal opponent of the PATRIOT Act of 2001, the proposed (as of 2003) Domestic_Security_Enhancement_Act_of_2003 Act, and associated legislation made in response to the threat of domestic terrorism, that it believes violates either the letter or the spirit of the United_States_Bill_of_Rights. In response to a requirement of the PATRIOT Act, the ACLU withdrew from a Federal Donation Program that provides matching funds from the federal government for federal employees. The requirement was that ACLU employees must be checked against a federal anti-terrorism watch list. The ACLU estimates that it will lose approximately $500,000 in such contributions. ''See also:'' ACLU v. Ashcroft ==Controversial defense stances== The organization believes that free speech rights must be available to all citizens of the United States. Therefore, it has taken on extremely controversial cases to defend the free speech rights of unpopular clients such as Ku Klux Klan members, neo-Nazi groups, and North American Man-Boy Love Association, a group which supports legalization of pedophilia. The ACLU has defended Frank Snepp formerly of the Central Intelligence Agency (from an attempt of this government agency to gag him) and Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North (convicted on the basis of coerced testimony—a violation of his Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution). ==Funding== The ACLU and its affiliated tax-exempt foundation receive substantial yearly support from the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, Field Foundation, Tides Foundation, Gill Foundation, Arcus Foundation, Horizons Fund, and other foundations. However, recently the ACLU rejected $1.5 million from both the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations because it viewed a clause in the donation agreement stipulating that "none of the money would go to underwriting terrorism or other unacceptable activities" as a threat to civil liberties. The ACLU also withdrew from a federal charity drive, losing an estimated $500,000, taking a stand against the attached condition that it would "not knowingly hire anyone on terrorism watch lists." ==Critics of the ACLU== The ACLU's most vocal critics are generally those who consider themselves conservatives. Many of these conservatives allege that the ACLU has not dedicated itself only to the defense of constitutional rights, but seeks to advance a liberal agenda. Some critics point to its opposition to the death penalty, which has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States since 1976, although it had been declared unconstitutional from 1973 to 1976. The ACLU continues to argue that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution restriction against "cruel and unusual punishment" and against Universal Declaration of Human Rights norms. Critics also argue that the ACLU has not been consistent in defending all civil liberties, pointing out that it is not active in protecting Gun politics in the US. Critics claim gun rights enjoy the similar constitutional protection as "civil rights" and should be treated equally by the ACLU if it is not motivated by a political agenda. The organization contends that the Second Amendment applies to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. [http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25] The Ohio chapter of the ACLU was criticized for presenting the Council on American-Islamic Relations with an award in October, 2003. Critics contend that CAIR is dedicated to the advancement of radical Wahhabism. [http://cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=32696&page=NB] Bill O'Reilly (commentator) often refers to the ACLU as "the most dangerous organisation in America" on his various broadcasts, and Bill_O%27Reilly_%28commentator%29#American_Civil_Liberties_Union. Former ACLU member Nat Hentoff has also criticized the organization for promoting affirmative action, where it had once been against all forms of state-sponsored racial and ethnic discrimination, and for supporting government-enforced, liberal speech codes enacted on college campuses and the workplace [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff092099.asp 1]. The ACLU also has been subject to criticism by some, mainly on the political left, who support the bulk of its mission, but object to the organization's advocacy for corporations to enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights, for example, corporate personhood. ===Christian and other religious critics=== At the local level, the ACLU often involves itself in cases involving the separation of church and state. Therefore, one of the most consistent critics of the ACLU is the Fundamentalist Christian community in the United States. Many in this community contend that the ACLU is part of an effort to remove all references to religion from American government. In 2004, for example, the ACLU of Southern California (ACLU/SC) threatened to sue the city of Redlands, California if it did not remove a picture of a cross from the city's seal. The ACLU/SC argued that having a cross on the seal amounted to a government-sponsored endorsement of Christianity and violated separation of church and state. The city complied with the ACLU/SC and removed the cross from all city vehicles, business cards, and police badges. However, the issue will be put on the November 2005 ballot[http://www.redlandsseal.org]. The ACLU/SC also threatened Los Angeles County, California if it also did not remove an image of a cross from its seal. As in the Redlands case, the county board complied with the demands and voted to remove the cross from its seal as well. There is currently a petition against the changing of the seal, which will end on August 15, 2005 [http://www.savetheseal.net]. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, the Rev. Jerry Falwell remarked that the ACLU, by trying to 'secularize America,' had provoked the wrath of God, and therefore caused the terrorist attacks to happen. (Falwell later apologized for the remark.) Other critics of the ACLU do not make such strong accusations, but claim that the organization pushes the concept of separation of church and state beyond its original meaning. Many minority religious groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims have at times been defended by the ACLU and are ardent supporters of it. In the Mormon community, the ACLU is viewed positively by some, who cite Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, a case litigated by the ACLU on behalf of a Mormon student concerning school prayer [http://wenger.blogspot.com/2003_08_10_wenger_archive.html#106087652143939285]. However, a good number of Mormons, including some local leaders, are strongly against the activities of the ACLU.[http://www.timesandseasons.org/archives/000198.html]. There have been false allegations that the ACLU has urged the removal of cross-shaped headstones from federal cemetery and has opposed prayer by soldiers; such charges have been deemed to be urban legends. [http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp] ==National affiliates== Although the ACLU has a national headquarters located in New York City, the organization does most of its work through locally based affiliates that are located throughout the United States. These affiliates maintain a certain amount of autonomy from the National organization, and are able to work independently from each other. Many of the ACLU's cases originate from the local level and are handled by lawyers from the local affiliates. At times, this has led to conflicts between the various branches. For instance, the national ACLU refused to get involved in Japanese-American internment cases during World War II. Against the threat of being kicked from the organization, the Northern California branch litigated ''Korematsu v. United States'', taking it to the Supreme Court. Below are some of the ACLU's bigger affiliates: * [http://www.aclu-sc.org/ ACLU of Southern California] * [http://www.aclunc.org/ ACLU of Northern California] * [http://www.aclu-nca.org/ ACLU of the National Capital Area (District of Columbia, and Prince George's and Montgomery Counties of Maryland)] * [http://www.aclufl.org/ ACLU of Florida] * [http://www.aclu-il.org/ ACLU of Illinois] * [http://www.aclu-mass.org/ ACLU of Massachusetts] * [http://www.aclu-mn.org/ ACLU of Minnesota] * [http://www.aclu-em.org/ ACLU of Eastern Missouri] * [http://www.aclunebraska.org/ ACLU of Nebraska] * [http://www.aclu-nj.org/ ACLU of New Jersey] * [http://www.nhclu.org/ New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union] * [http://www.acluohio.org/ ACLU of Ohio] * [http://www.aclupa.org/ ACLU of Pennsylvania] * [http://www.acluva.org/ ACLU of Virginia] * [http://www.aclu-wa.org/ ACLU of Washington] ==External links== * [http://www.aclu.org Official website] * [http://arar.essortment.com/acluamericanci_rmal.htm History of the ACLU] * [http://www.topix.net/news/aclu ACLU News from Topix.net] Government watchdog groups in the U.S. Civil rights Legal defence organizations
Once again, I have to ask: Why this obsession with slashes after URLs? It works just as well. -- User:Zoe :This is pure geek pedantry, but technically "http://www.aclu.org" is not a valid URL without this final slash. What you're pulling up in your browser is a page, not a site per se. Putting the slash means "Show me the default file in the main web directory on the ACLU site." Without the slash, you're saying "I want the ACLU site, but I'm not telling you which file I want to see." It really doesn't matter, since all popular browsers put the slash in for you if you leave it out, just like they put in the "http://" in front if you leave that out. But it's more correct to leave it in. User:Quadell User_talk:Quadell 13:28, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC) ------ ==Criticism== '''The Criticism section contains mostly straw men, designed to make the ACLU's critics seem fanatical. Someone needs to fix this up and put in some more legitimate, centrist criticisms.''' :There seems to be only one genuine criticism on the whole page, which is the paragraph about removing the crosses from the seals. But even this paragraph is weakened by its inclusion under the heading "Christian and other religious critics". Most of the other so-called "criticisms" are really straw men that in effect support the ACLU, e.g. the Jerry Falwell quote. - - Some groups criticize the ACLU for its opposition to requiring prayers in public schools, display of religious symbols on public property, its support of abortion, support of the rights of homosexuals, and the defense of freedom of speech for persons with unpopular or controversial opinions. - - The ACLU has defended the free speech rights of neo-Nazi groups and NAMBLA (a pro-pedophilia group). - - On their website, the ACLU states that they defend the United States Constitution; however, critics argue that this is not true for all positions that they hold. For example, the ACLU opposes capital punishment, in spite of the fact that, since 1976, the US Supreme Court has determined that capital punishment is constitutional. One of the key factors in the Supreme Court's decision was evidence in the Constitution itself: the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "No person shall be ... deprived of life ... without due process of law", and the Fourteenth Amendment says, "No state shall ... deprive any person of life ... without due process of law." - - However, the ACLU has continued to fight against the death penalty since its reinstatement in 1976, arguing that it violates the consitutional restriction against "cruel and unusual punishment." - - ==Official Statements== - - *"The United States Bill of Rights are fundamental rights that protect from government abuse of power. These rights are indispensable to a freedom society. Moved criticism to talk page perhaps we can have critique of the ACLU page to go along with Environmentalism (Critique of George W. Bush's politics) User:Smith03 22:34, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC) I restored the criticisms. If you don't like them, make counterarguments instead of wholesale deletions. User:RickK 02:36, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::Hear, HearUser:Ark30inf 02:41, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::That isn't what NPOV is about: you don't get to write critiques hoping that someone comes along to give the other side. The article is supposed to be neutral. I intend to keep deleting these until you write a neutral article, and if you don't like it, appeal to the administrators. User:66.82.116.82 14:30, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) :::I ''am'' an administrator. I'm gald to see that you decided to actually make some useful contributions besides just deleting what you didn't like. It makes no difference, but I am a strong supporter of the ACLU, but I can't allow people to come in and just start stripping out things they don't agree with. That's also not NPOV. User:RickK 04:06, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC) Hi there 66.82.116.82 can you than please explain why you put in the critique of Bush's enviromental record in his page if you are concern about making sure things are balance? User:Smith03 14:33, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::I didn't, or at least I didn't intend to. I'm going to check the history; but if I did, then it was an unintended glitch, and I apologize for the error. I did remove the critique of Bush's environment record from the other page. Even though I happen to agree with the "environmentalist" critique of Bush almost entirely, I didn't think it was neutral and I did cut it out of the other page, intending redirect the article to the G. W. Bush article and to paste the environmentalist critique back into the George W Bush article, after editing it. Perhaps it was still in my Windows clipboard and I pasted it in this ACLU somehow when I was removing the critique section. In the end, when I went to "Save Page" in the George W. Bush article, there was an Editing Conflict, and I gave up on that for the time being. My opinion of NPOV is not that it sanctions one-sided critiques in articles and places the duty on the world to leave them or render the articles neutral, but rather that it places on a duty on writers to be neutral in what they write. User:66.82.116.82 14:54, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::I can't find in the history of the main ACLU article or in this Talk page any record of my having pasted the "environmentalist" critique of Bush. What are you asking me to explain, again? User:66.82.116.82 15:04, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) It looks what you did from page histories was redirect the envorment critique to the Bush page and than added it (the critique) to the Bush page, but had some one click on the critique it would have routed them back the page they were already at. I tend to agree with you that people should write a balance article and not just pick one side and figure (wink) that someone else will come along and balance them out. However I think it would be better to put facts in to balance the article than just remove the criticism. Do you have any info about the ACLU that can be added to this to make it more balance? User:Smith03 15:08, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::If I had the time to write an article detailing the many accomplishments of the ACLU, I would do so. However, I don't right now. People who write or edit articles have the burden to make (or leave) them neutral. Violations of NPOV should not be allowed to stand while waiting for somebody else to come along and assume the burden of rendering them neutral. Otherwise, the Wikipedia will end up with a lot of opinionated articles which have not been balanced out. Articles or sections of articles that violate NPOV should not be permitted to stand. I am seeing a lot of this kind of thing in the Wikipedia and it diminishes it in my eyes, even when, as in the case of the Environmentalism critique, I happen to agree with the opinions being expressed. (I'm not quite sure why we are discussing my slip-up with the Environmentalism article here, though.) In any case, in this case, there is another and less time-consuming way to make the ACLU article neutral than writing paragraphs to balance the material that is not neutral, and that is simply to delete it. The non-neutral "critique" material is in the page history, and this discussion is here in the Talk page. The criticisms can be resurrected when somebody has time to write a fuller, more neutral article. Meanwhile, the ACLU article is better left short and neutral. User:66.82.116.82 15:34, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) By leaving valid critism in the page, perhaps someone who has the time to write the many accomplishments, will be motivated to soUser:Smith03 15:59, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) If that attitude prevails, then the NPOV is meaningless. I'm going to insist on this, and the only resolution is going to be a public debate -- unless you relent. Think about whether you want to defend the paragraphs you are insisting upon. User:66.82.116.82 16:03, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::Someone kept deleting the Pristina incident from Wesley Clark because they said that Clark's view was not presented. I kept reverting it. Finally I went out and found a BBC interview and I myself added Clark's view of the incident. If you feel strongly then FIX the article. I added Clark's view for this guy because he didn't want to take the time to do it himself, but I don't have the time or inclination to do that for every opposing view someone deletes. Go find the info and fix what you see the problem to be, but don't delete other views because nobody has taken the time to add the other side yet.User:Ark30inf 16:08, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) Again, you are able to write the many accomplishments and good things the ACLU has done, it seems like you probably know them, instead of just removing valid critism add their good stuff. It makes for a better paper.User:Smith03 16:05, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) Absolutely. Would someone please add some facts, history, famous cases, people involved, anything other than just pro/anti arguments. Some of us would like to know something about the ACLU. User:DJ Clayworth At this point, it is a question of an important principle. Are people to be permitted to write one-sided, unbalanced articles, and have these left in the Wikipedia as a challenge to those who disagree? Or does the requirement of a NPOV mean that if criticisms of an organization, person, etc are included, that the other side also be presented sympathetically? Is it the duty of somebody writing an article to do all the research, or may they do only the research that supports their own POV, and leave it to others to do the rest of the research? Does NPOV mean that all sides have equal access to the articles, and the article zigs and zags its way to neutrality as each side chimes in? Or does it mean that each contributor must strive to achieve neutrality and that the article should be neutral at every stage? If you read the material elsewhere in the Wikipedia about the NPOV, I don't think there is any question on these points. If you keep dragging back this biased material, you are going to have to justify yourself eventually to somebody besides me. Ark, if you want this unbalanced material to stay, you had better repeat your Pristina action and provide the balancing material. It isn't my duty to provide it, since I didn't write the unbalancing material. User:66.82.116.82 16:36, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::These are valid criticisms in the article. We should not be deleting (censoring) valid information just because you don't have the time to add more valid information. I did not right this article either, nor did I write the Pristina one. You are obviously the one who feels strongly that additional info needs to be added but you don't feel strongly enough to actually add it yourself and somehow the burden falls on me to satisfy you or you will delete the information. During the time you have been deleting and arguing you could have done a Google search and actually added the information.User:Ark30inf 17:08, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) Hello, I do not believe anyone who has responded to questions /concerns add the criticism section. Why are they or myself the one to add balance, again you are able to add balance to the articleUser:Smith03 16:57, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) Can I give you an example I recently worked on the Pat Robertson page not because I agree with him ( I tend to think he a little shady), but his article was blantly against him. I didn't remove all the critism, I check it and attempted to add balance. User:Smith03 17:05, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) Looks much better.User:Ark30inf 17:24, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) thanks Ark Can we all live this Ark30inf verision ?User:Smith03 17:28, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::Its not my version, its 66.82's, I reverted it before reading (slaps self). I can live with this one fine. More can still be added on many cases, but its much better now.User:Ark30inf 17:30, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::66.82 is still working on it. Looks like we might end up with a decent article.User:Ark30inf 17:46, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) As a one time employee of the ACLU I just want to say that I think the current POV is acceptable in the Critism section. People at the ACLU tend to be somewhat proud of our controversial stances. I don't think it is possible to understand who or what the organization is without knowing about some of the sometimes harsh criticism directed at the group. User:Konky2000 14:57, 29 May 2004 (PST) Can someone please explain why "Some critics point to its opposition to the death penalty, which has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States while the ACLU continues to argue that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution restriction against "cruel and unusual punishment" and against Universal Declaration of Human Rights norms." appears in the criticism section? The proffered reason for the criticism is just incoherent--if the ACLU were to only advance positions that a Supreme Court majority agreed with, it would be some sort of bizarre judicial propaganda front, not a legal advocacy organization. User:SS451 :I think it's basically saying that critics disagree with the ACLU's anti-death penalty stance. It might be a little wordy and confusing, you're correct that the Supreme Court's rulings are secondary to the dispute. I think it boils down to the fact that the ACLU does not support the death penalty, but its critics do. This is similar to ACLU opposition from gun rights activists. User:Rhobite 20:22, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC) I removed the paragraph about Bill O'Reilly as it provides no concrete information whatsoever and is borderline irrelevent in that he is a just a present-day TV/talk show host. : I agree that the paragraph could probably use more information about why O'Reilly thinks the ACLU is the most dangerous organisation in America. But I definitely don't think the paragraph should be completely removed. He's the host of a very popular talk show and one of the biggest critics of the ACLU which makes his opinion relevant. User:Monkeyman 15:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC) == Public defenders... == Source is, among others, a statement from a former federal prosecutor for the state of New Jersey. Happens to be my own view that the prosecutor was agreeing with. I'm not and never have been a member of the ACLU. obsolete Like it or not mainstream America thinks of the ACLU the same way that they think of unions, obsolete and continually irrelevent in our times. Severl polls conducted by Rand , TimeLife and others have consistently shown that outside of the NE and the left coast the ACLU and unions both have public perception problems which cause the mainstream to view both as anacronisms.--User:68.42.11.91 11:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Quotes from critics == I'm not sure of the best way to section quotes from critics. "Quotes from critics" isn't suggested in the manual of style, I just thought it would be better in its own section than at the top of the criticism section. If someone knows a better way to integrate this quote, feel free. Also, while it appears to be a genuine quote I've seen versions where he says "25 years" and ones where he says "10 years." Can someone get access to this back issue of Reason magazine and check? User:Rhobite 17:35, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC) ==Gun Control== A recent edit referred to an archived 1996 position page on Gun Control to state the ACLU endorses Gun Control; this is a mischaracterization of what the page stated, which was a legal opinion based more on the interpretations of the Supreme Court of the Second Amendment, precious few indicating some acceptance of regulation of arms ownership. This is hardly an endorsement of Gun Control on any level, merely a statement that it is within the perview of Legislatures to act upon. Furthermore, the 1996 page is a bad source; It is not timely, having been archived and unupdated for years; Furthermore, it was the end-product of all the internal debate in the ACLU up until that point, which may not be entirely representative of the organization's stance at that point in time, and certainly can't be construed to be at this point. The issue is the center of a deal of internal conflict. The ACLU does not argue one way or the other, and the critical point drawing attention to that fact has been made. Reverted the edit as it was unnecessary and biased. --User:Alexwcovington 08:58, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) :I don't really think you can explain away that page. It clearly says that the ACLU does not believe the second amendment gives citizens a right to own guns: "the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." This is also explained on a page dated from 2002: [http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25] Furthermore, speculating about the reason for their gun control policy is POV and it should be attributed. User:Rhobite 13:05, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) :I agree with Rhobite. The ACLU's own answer to that question is not a "bad source". Simply because the ACLU hasn't changed its position since 1996 doesn't mean that its position is out of date. What the ACLU says is its position on the Second Amendment is what we should report. If you have any evidence that what the ACLU claims as its position is actually ''not'' its position, then you should list it. But, as Rhobite said, speculation isn't helpful. For this reason, I'm reverting the page. User:Quadell User_talk:Quadell 14:44, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) ::If [http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html this source] were to be accepted, then it should be characterized by what it actually says, not interpreted in a light portraying the ACLU in opposition to gun rights. :::''The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.'' :::''Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.'' :::''The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.'' ::To say ''the organization does not believe that the Second Amendment confers the right for individuals to own firearms'' is a mischaracterization and slants the original intent. The ACLU maintains that the Second Amendment is not an inviolable legal barrier protecting a right to bear all types of arms (which MAY include certain and/or all firearms, but not necessarily). The inclusiveness of the term "arm" forces consideration of newer arms technologies developed since 1789; while flintlock pistols, rifles, and cannons might be covered by original intent, is the 2nd Amendment elastic? Does it include fully or semi-automatic weapons? Does it include nuclear devices? The ACLU does not draw the line; they simply state that Congress has the power to resolve such questions. But they do not allow them free reign, stipulating that restrictions must be "reasonable." Thus the possibility is open for the ACLU to take issue with a piece of gun control legislation. ::As the current statement does not accurately reflect the source, I have modified it. --User:Alexwcovington 11:05, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) :::Both statements accurately reflect the source, because the ACLU also says "Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." So the ACLU sort of says two different things on that page. In this case the best approach is to present both your sentence and a sentence summarizing their "policy 47" and let the reader decide. Also we should get them out of parens. OK? User:Rhobite 15:30, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC) I originally put this at the bottom of the page. I scanned this talk page before I added it...I have absolutely no idea how I missed this Gun Control section. Mea culpa. Nevertheless, I believe my statement below is accurate. User:Atlant recently reverted an edit of mine in the gun rights section. I've since reverted it back. It's my belief that the version that was there was a POV dress-up of the actual policy, which I've quoted directly below. In addition, I removed and replaced a dead link with a valid one. From [http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25]: ACLU POLICY "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47 I know there are some that don't believe this is what the ACLU thinks, but this is their official policy, and it should be cited as-is. If someone would prefer a direct quote rather than a paraphrase to remove any chance of POV influence, I would support that, but I think it's rather a bulky solution to the problem. --User:MikeJ9919 15:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC) == amicus curiae == The "friend of the court" part is unnecessary and it smacks of pedantry. Most readers already know what amicus curiae means; and if not they can click on the link and see the article. The translation doesn't provide any useful information and it is slightly patronizing. ==Additions of Sept. 30== *I would appreciate a citation for the recent additions; specifically, I don't believe the ACLU supports child pornography, and it seems odd that they would oppose both permit requirements for protests ''and'' pro-life demonstrations. I suspect that these statements are at the least misleading, if not completely inaccurate, and have reverted the changes until a citation is provided. All the best, User:Meelar_User_talk:Meelar">User:Meelar|User:Meelar User talk:Meelar 17:37, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
**Agreed. Neutrality\">User:Neutrality_(User_talk:Neutrality)">User:Neutrality|Neutrality\">User:Neutrality (User talk:Neutrality) 22:13, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
== Alan Dershowitz quote ==
I think it would be helpful if the article stated what year Dershowitz made the given quote, to give a better context. I tried to google for a source of the quote but only came up with this article and a couple blogs.
== Funding and Membership ==
Can someone locate and add what the ACLU's funding and membership has been since its founding (maybe in chart or table form)? I think this would make a good addition to the article. User:Monkeyman 15:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I can't promise when I'll remember to do it/be able to do it, but I'll certainly try to ask our local affiliate's Executive Director if she has this info or knows where to get it. (This shouldn't stop anyone else from "beating me to it" and getting the requested info first!) User:Atlant (NHCLU board member)
== Ariah Naier ==
I met a man named Ariah Naier at a speakin engagement at my college, Colby College.
As I understand it he was one of the key figures in the Skokie, Illinois debate, and was ejected from the ACLU by the board for his defense of the Nazis' right to free speech.
Can anyone confirm this? I wuold like to make an article about him but I don't remember that much. All I know is the above and that he currently chairs an international human rights organization.
I googled his name, but I fear I have remembered the wrong spelling, and I got no matches.
My essential comment is this:
--->I think it would be fitting to have a reference to him in the ACLU History section. Once we find the correct spelling, of course.
--User:Zaorish 01:39, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Aryeh Neier was indeed a key figure in the Skokie case. He was at that time the ACLU's Executive Director. According to one site, it's not so much that he was "ejected", but rather that the organization's defense of Nazis was very unpopular and caused a drop in membership, prompting Neier's resignation because he " found himself unable to reconcile the organization's activities with available funds". [http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/finding_aids/aclu/] There certainly doesn't seem to be any lingering ill will, given that the ACLU named a fellowship after Neier ([http://www.aclu.org/Jobs/Jobs.cfm?ID=11505&c=215&Type=s&insearch=fellowships]). User:JamesMLane 10:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==The "Anti-Christian Litigation Unit"==
Recently, someone removed this comment:
:''A common running joke among conservatives, religious conservatives in particular, is that the ACLU stands for the "Anti Christ Litigation Unit" (also used are the "Anti-Christian Liberal Union" etc.).''
So long as it's properly categorized, I actually think it's useful to keep ignorant crap like this in the article as it does correctly reflect how some folks feel about the ACLU. They're wrong, of course, but it is a true reflection of their ignorance.
(And I say this as a board member of the NHCLU, the New Hampshire affiliate of the ACLU.)
Obviously, I'd welcome discussion on this.
User:Atlant 16:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:A lot of criticism of the ACLU is along these lines, I know, but have you seen this specific example around? --User:Twinxor 20:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I haven't seen this (specifically), but then again, I haven't looked for it either. I'll bet a Google search would be thoroughly depressing :-).
User:Atlant 23:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:It doesn't surprise me either, but unless it's a frequently-used slogan it shouldn't be in the article. User:Rhobite 23:19, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
This page is bias, It needs some work
:Says the anonymous, grammar-weak author.
:User:Atlant 00:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
::Hey, don't insult contributors personally. -User:Grick(User_talk:Grick)
I have seen "Anti-Christian Litigation Unit" used on occasion, but I don't really see the point of including it here. I'm sure the ACLU's detractors call it all sorts of terrible things, but we certainly aren't here to categorize them. User:SS451 03:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with American_Civil_Liberties_Union:
American_Civil_Liberties_Union
American_Civil_Liberties_Union
American Civil Liberties Union
The American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, is a non-governmental organization devoted to defending civil rights and civil liberties in the United States. Lawsuits brought by the ACLU have been central to several important developments in U.S. constitutional law. The ACLU provides lawyers and law in cases where it believes civil rights are being violated. In many cases where it does not provide legal representation, the ACLU submits ''amicus curiae'' brief (law)s in support of its positions. The ACLU is non-partisan and has never supported or opposed a political candidate, though it has been harshly critical of various elected officials of both major parties over the years. However, many regard the ACLU as a Liberalism in the United States institution (see American_Civil_Liberties_Union#Critics_of_the_ACLU). ==Positions== The ACLU's stated mission is to defend the civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Over the years, the ACLU has consistently fought in the court system for a liberal interpretation of the United States Constitution that allows for as much individual liberty as possible. Among other positions, the ACLU: * Supports the separation of church and state in the United States; under this mandate, the ACLU: ** Opposes the government-sponsored display of religious symbols on public property; ** Opposes official prayers, religious ceremonies, or "moments of silence" in public schools or schools funded with public money; ** Supports the rights of public school students to pray on their own; * Supports full First Amendment to the United States Constitution rights of the press, including school newspapers; * Supports reproductive rights, including the right to choose an abortion, on the basis of an implied right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; * Supports full civil rights for homosexuals, including government benefits for homosexual couples equal to those provided for heterosexual ones; * Supports affirmative action; * Supports the rights of defendants and suspects against unconstitutional police practices; * Supports the decriminalization of drugs such as heroin, cocaine and marijuana ([http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicy.cfm?ID=12401&c=19 ACLU's Drug Policy]); * Opposes demonstration permits and other requirements for protests in public places The organization's position on gun control is less well-defined. While the official policy of the national ACLU argues that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides only for a right to armed state militias [http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25], the issue seems outside of the organization's scope, as it has avoided gun-related cases. The ACLU has been noted for vigorously defending the right to express unpopular, controversial, and extremist opinions on both the left and right. Some have expressed the view that the ACLU sometimes plays a role comparable to that played by public defenders, helping to ensure that even unpopular defendants receive due process. Executive Director Anthony Romero, President Nadine Strossen, and Legal Director Steven Shapiro currently head the organization. ==History and notable cases== The ACLU was formed in 1920 as the National Civil Liberties Bureau (NCLB). Founders include Crystal Eastman and Roger Nash Baldwin. During that year, it took the side of aliens threatened with deportation by U.S. Attorney General Alexander Mitchell Palmer for their radical views (see Palmer Raids). It also opposed attacks on the rights of the Industrial Workers of the World and other labor unions to meet and organize. Since its founding, the ACLU has been involved in many cases. A few of the most significant are discussed here: In 1925, the ACLU persuaded John T. Scopes to defy Tennessee's anti-evolution law in a court test. Clarence Darrow, a member of the ACLU National Committee, headed Scopes' legal team. The ACLU lost the case and Scopes was fined $100. The Tennessee Supreme Court later reversed the fine, but not the conviction. In 1942, a few months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the ACLU affiliates on the West Coast became some of the sharpest critics of the government's policy on enemy aliens and U.S. citizens descended from enemy ancestry. This included the relocation of Japanese American Internment, internment of aliens, prejudicial curfews (''U.S. v. Hirabayashi'', 1942), and the like. In 1954, the ACLU played a role in the case of ''Brown v. Board of Education'', which led to the ban on segregation in U.S. public schools. In 1973, the organization was the first major national organization to call for the impeachment of President Richard M. Nixon, giving as reasons the violation by the Nixon administration of civil liberties. That same year, the ACLU was involved in the cases of ''Roe v. Wade'' and ''Doe v. Bolton'', in which the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right of privacy extended to women seeking abortions. In 1977, the ACLU filed suit against the Village of Skokie, Illinois, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of three town ordinances outlawing Nazi parades and demonstrations (Skokie had a large Jewish population). A federal district court struck down the ordinances in a decision eventually affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ACLU's action in this case led to the resignation of about 15 percent of the membership from the organization (25 percent in Illinois), especially of Judaism members. A cutback in its activities was avoided by a special mailing which elicited $500,000 in contributions. Federal Judge Bernard M. Decker described the principle involved in the case as follows: "It is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear ... The ability of American society to tolerate the advocacy of even hateful doctrines ... is perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in this country." The ACLU filed suit to challenge the Arkansas 1981 creationism statute, which required the teaching in public schools of the biblical story of creation as a scientific alternative to evolution. The law was declared unconstitutional by a Federal District Court. The terrorist attacks of September_11,_2001_attacks, and the ensuing debate regarding the proper balance of civil liberties and security including the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, led to a 20% increase in membership between August 2001 and December 2002, when its total enrollment reached 330,000 [http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20021202aclusidebarp8.asp]. The growth has continued; in August 2004, ACLU membership was at 400,000 [http://www.madison.com/tct/news/images/index.php?ntid=7175&ntpid=0]. The ACLU has been a vocal opponent of the PATRIOT Act of 2001, the proposed (as of 2003) Domestic_Security_Enhancement_Act_of_2003 Act, and associated legislation made in response to the threat of domestic terrorism, that it believes violates either the letter or the spirit of the United_States_Bill_of_Rights. In response to a requirement of the PATRIOT Act, the ACLU withdrew from a Federal Donation Program that provides matching funds from the federal government for federal employees. The requirement was that ACLU employees must be checked against a federal anti-terrorism watch list. The ACLU estimates that it will lose approximately $500,000 in such contributions. ''See also:'' ACLU v. Ashcroft ==Controversial defense stances== The organization believes that free speech rights must be available to all citizens of the United States. Therefore, it has taken on extremely controversial cases to defend the free speech rights of unpopular clients such as Ku Klux Klan members, neo-Nazi groups, and North American Man-Boy Love Association, a group which supports legalization of pedophilia. The ACLU has defended Frank Snepp formerly of the Central Intelligence Agency (from an attempt of this government agency to gag him) and Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North (convicted on the basis of coerced testimony—a violation of his Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution). ==Funding== The ACLU and its affiliated tax-exempt foundation receive substantial yearly support from the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, Field Foundation, Tides Foundation, Gill Foundation, Arcus Foundation, Horizons Fund, and other foundations. However, recently the ACLU rejected $1.5 million from both the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations because it viewed a clause in the donation agreement stipulating that "none of the money would go to underwriting terrorism or other unacceptable activities" as a threat to civil liberties. The ACLU also withdrew from a federal charity drive, losing an estimated $500,000, taking a stand against the attached condition that it would "not knowingly hire anyone on terrorism watch lists." ==Critics of the ACLU== The ACLU's most vocal critics are generally those who consider themselves conservatives. Many of these conservatives allege that the ACLU has not dedicated itself only to the defense of constitutional rights, but seeks to advance a liberal agenda. Some critics point to its opposition to the death penalty, which has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States since 1976, although it had been declared unconstitutional from 1973 to 1976. The ACLU continues to argue that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution restriction against "cruel and unusual punishment" and against Universal Declaration of Human Rights norms. Critics also argue that the ACLU has not been consistent in defending all civil liberties, pointing out that it is not active in protecting Gun politics in the US. Critics claim gun rights enjoy the similar constitutional protection as "civil rights" and should be treated equally by the ACLU if it is not motivated by a political agenda. The organization contends that the Second Amendment applies to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. [http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25] The Ohio chapter of the ACLU was criticized for presenting the Council on American-Islamic Relations with an award in October, 2003. Critics contend that CAIR is dedicated to the advancement of radical Wahhabism. [http://cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=32696&page=NB] Bill O'Reilly (commentator) often refers to the ACLU as "the most dangerous organisation in America" on his various broadcasts, and Bill_O%27Reilly_%28commentator%29#American_Civil_Liberties_Union. Former ACLU member Nat Hentoff has also criticized the organization for promoting affirmative action, where it had once been against all forms of state-sponsored racial and ethnic discrimination, and for supporting government-enforced, liberal speech codes enacted on college campuses and the workplace [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff092099.asp 1]. The ACLU also has been subject to criticism by some, mainly on the political left, who support the bulk of its mission, but object to the organization's advocacy for corporations to enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights, for example, corporate personhood. ===Christian and other religious critics=== At the local level, the ACLU often involves itself in cases involving the separation of church and state. Therefore, one of the most consistent critics of the ACLU is the Fundamentalist Christian community in the United States. Many in this community contend that the ACLU is part of an effort to remove all references to religion from American government. In 2004, for example, the ACLU of Southern California (ACLU/SC) threatened to sue the city of Redlands, California if it did not remove a picture of a cross from the city's seal. The ACLU/SC argued that having a cross on the seal amounted to a government-sponsored endorsement of Christianity and violated separation of church and state. The city complied with the ACLU/SC and removed the cross from all city vehicles, business cards, and police badges. However, the issue will be put on the November 2005 ballot[http://www.redlandsseal.org]. The ACLU/SC also threatened Los Angeles County, California if it also did not remove an image of a cross from its seal. As in the Redlands case, the county board complied with the demands and voted to remove the cross from its seal as well. There is currently a petition against the changing of the seal, which will end on August 15, 2005 [http://www.savetheseal.net]. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, the Rev. Jerry Falwell remarked that the ACLU, by trying to 'secularize America,' had provoked the wrath of God, and therefore caused the terrorist attacks to happen. (Falwell later apologized for the remark.) Other critics of the ACLU do not make such strong accusations, but claim that the organization pushes the concept of separation of church and state beyond its original meaning. Many minority religious groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims have at times been defended by the ACLU and are ardent supporters of it. In the Mormon community, the ACLU is viewed positively by some, who cite Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, a case litigated by the ACLU on behalf of a Mormon student concerning school prayer [http://wenger.blogspot.com/2003_08_10_wenger_archive.html#106087652143939285]. However, a good number of Mormons, including some local leaders, are strongly against the activities of the ACLU.[http://www.timesandseasons.org/archives/000198.html]. There have been false allegations that the ACLU has urged the removal of cross-shaped headstones from federal cemetery and has opposed prayer by soldiers; such charges have been deemed to be urban legends. [http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp] ==National affiliates== Although the ACLU has a national headquarters located in New York City, the organization does most of its work through locally based affiliates that are located throughout the United States. These affiliates maintain a certain amount of autonomy from the National organization, and are able to work independently from each other. Many of the ACLU's cases originate from the local level and are handled by lawyers from the local affiliates. At times, this has led to conflicts between the various branches. For instance, the national ACLU refused to get involved in Japanese-American internment cases during World War II. Against the threat of being kicked from the organization, the Northern California branch litigated ''Korematsu v. United States'', taking it to the Supreme Court. Below are some of the ACLU's bigger affiliates: * [http://www.aclu-sc.org/ ACLU of Southern California] * [http://www.aclunc.org/ ACLU of Northern California] * [http://www.aclu-nca.org/ ACLU of the National Capital Area (District of Columbia, and Prince George's and Montgomery Counties of Maryland)] * [http://www.aclufl.org/ ACLU of Florida] * [http://www.aclu-il.org/ ACLU of Illinois] * [http://www.aclu-mass.org/ ACLU of Massachusetts] * [http://www.aclu-mn.org/ ACLU of Minnesota] * [http://www.aclu-em.org/ ACLU of Eastern Missouri] * [http://www.aclunebraska.org/ ACLU of Nebraska] * [http://www.aclu-nj.org/ ACLU of New Jersey] * [http://www.nhclu.org/ New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union] * [http://www.acluohio.org/ ACLU of Ohio] * [http://www.aclupa.org/ ACLU of Pennsylvania] * [http://www.acluva.org/ ACLU of Virginia] * [http://www.aclu-wa.org/ ACLU of Washington] ==External links== * [http://www.aclu.org Official website] * [http://arar.essortment.com/acluamericanci_rmal.htm History of the ACLU] * [http://www.topix.net/news/aclu ACLU News from Topix.net] Government watchdog groups in the U.S. Civil rights Legal defence organizations
American Civil Liberties Union
Once again, I have to ask: Why this obsession with slashes after URLs? It works just as well. -- User:Zoe :This is pure geek pedantry, but technically "http://www.aclu.org" is not a valid URL without this final slash. What you're pulling up in your browser is a page, not a site per se. Putting the slash means "Show me the default file in the main web directory on the ACLU site." Without the slash, you're saying "I want the ACLU site, but I'm not telling you which file I want to see." It really doesn't matter, since all popular browsers put the slash in for you if you leave it out, just like they put in the "http://" in front if you leave that out. But it's more correct to leave it in. User:Quadell User_talk:Quadell 13:28, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC) ------ ==Criticism== '''The Criticism section contains mostly straw men, designed to make the ACLU's critics seem fanatical. Someone needs to fix this up and put in some more legitimate, centrist criticisms.''' :There seems to be only one genuine criticism on the whole page, which is the paragraph about removing the crosses from the seals. But even this paragraph is weakened by its inclusion under the heading "Christian and other religious critics". Most of the other so-called "criticisms" are really straw men that in effect support the ACLU, e.g. the Jerry Falwell quote. - - Some groups criticize the ACLU for its opposition to requiring prayers in public schools, display of religious symbols on public property, its support of abortion, support of the rights of homosexuals, and the defense of freedom of speech for persons with unpopular or controversial opinions. - - The ACLU has defended the free speech rights of neo-Nazi groups and NAMBLA (a pro-pedophilia group). - - On their website, the ACLU states that they defend the United States Constitution; however, critics argue that this is not true for all positions that they hold. For example, the ACLU opposes capital punishment, in spite of the fact that, since 1976, the US Supreme Court has determined that capital punishment is constitutional. One of the key factors in the Supreme Court's decision was evidence in the Constitution itself: the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "No person shall be ... deprived of life ... without due process of law", and the Fourteenth Amendment says, "No state shall ... deprive any person of life ... without due process of law." - - However, the ACLU has continued to fight against the death penalty since its reinstatement in 1976, arguing that it violates the consitutional restriction against "cruel and unusual punishment." - - ==Official Statements== - - *"The United States Bill of Rights are fundamental rights that protect from government abuse of power. These rights are indispensable to a freedom society. Moved criticism to talk page perhaps we can have critique of the ACLU page to go along with Environmentalism (Critique of George W. Bush's politics) User:Smith03 22:34, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC) I restored the criticisms. If you don't like them, make counterarguments instead of wholesale deletions. User:RickK 02:36, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::Hear, HearUser:Ark30inf 02:41, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::That isn't what NPOV is about: you don't get to write critiques hoping that someone comes along to give the other side. The article is supposed to be neutral. I intend to keep deleting these until you write a neutral article, and if you don't like it, appeal to the administrators. User:66.82.116.82 14:30, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) :::I ''am'' an administrator. I'm gald to see that you decided to actually make some useful contributions besides just deleting what you didn't like. It makes no difference, but I am a strong supporter of the ACLU, but I can't allow people to come in and just start stripping out things they don't agree with. That's also not NPOV. User:RickK 04:06, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC) Hi there 66.82.116.82 can you than please explain why you put in the critique of Bush's enviromental record in his page if you are concern about making sure things are balance? User:Smith03 14:33, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::I didn't, or at least I didn't intend to. I'm going to check the history; but if I did, then it was an unintended glitch, and I apologize for the error. I did remove the critique of Bush's environment record from the other page. Even though I happen to agree with the "environmentalist" critique of Bush almost entirely, I didn't think it was neutral and I did cut it out of the other page, intending redirect the article to the G. W. Bush article and to paste the environmentalist critique back into the George W Bush article, after editing it. Perhaps it was still in my Windows clipboard and I pasted it in this ACLU somehow when I was removing the critique section. In the end, when I went to "Save Page" in the George W. Bush article, there was an Editing Conflict, and I gave up on that for the time being. My opinion of NPOV is not that it sanctions one-sided critiques in articles and places the duty on the world to leave them or render the articles neutral, but rather that it places on a duty on writers to be neutral in what they write. User:66.82.116.82 14:54, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::I can't find in the history of the main ACLU article or in this Talk page any record of my having pasted the "environmentalist" critique of Bush. What are you asking me to explain, again? User:66.82.116.82 15:04, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) It looks what you did from page histories was redirect the envorment critique to the Bush page and than added it (the critique) to the Bush page, but had some one click on the critique it would have routed them back the page they were already at. I tend to agree with you that people should write a balance article and not just pick one side and figure (wink) that someone else will come along and balance them out. However I think it would be better to put facts in to balance the article than just remove the criticism. Do you have any info about the ACLU that can be added to this to make it more balance? User:Smith03 15:08, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::If I had the time to write an article detailing the many accomplishments of the ACLU, I would do so. However, I don't right now. People who write or edit articles have the burden to make (or leave) them neutral. Violations of NPOV should not be allowed to stand while waiting for somebody else to come along and assume the burden of rendering them neutral. Otherwise, the Wikipedia will end up with a lot of opinionated articles which have not been balanced out. Articles or sections of articles that violate NPOV should not be permitted to stand. I am seeing a lot of this kind of thing in the Wikipedia and it diminishes it in my eyes, even when, as in the case of the Environmentalism critique, I happen to agree with the opinions being expressed. (I'm not quite sure why we are discussing my slip-up with the Environmentalism article here, though.) In any case, in this case, there is another and less time-consuming way to make the ACLU article neutral than writing paragraphs to balance the material that is not neutral, and that is simply to delete it. The non-neutral "critique" material is in the page history, and this discussion is here in the Talk page. The criticisms can be resurrected when somebody has time to write a fuller, more neutral article. Meanwhile, the ACLU article is better left short and neutral. User:66.82.116.82 15:34, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) By leaving valid critism in the page, perhaps someone who has the time to write the many accomplishments, will be motivated to soUser:Smith03 15:59, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) If that attitude prevails, then the NPOV is meaningless. I'm going to insist on this, and the only resolution is going to be a public debate -- unless you relent. Think about whether you want to defend the paragraphs you are insisting upon. User:66.82.116.82 16:03, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::Someone kept deleting the Pristina incident from Wesley Clark because they said that Clark's view was not presented. I kept reverting it. Finally I went out and found a BBC interview and I myself added Clark's view of the incident. If you feel strongly then FIX the article. I added Clark's view for this guy because he didn't want to take the time to do it himself, but I don't have the time or inclination to do that for every opposing view someone deletes. Go find the info and fix what you see the problem to be, but don't delete other views because nobody has taken the time to add the other side yet.User:Ark30inf 16:08, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) Again, you are able to write the many accomplishments and good things the ACLU has done, it seems like you probably know them, instead of just removing valid critism add their good stuff. It makes for a better paper.User:Smith03 16:05, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) Absolutely. Would someone please add some facts, history, famous cases, people involved, anything other than just pro/anti arguments. Some of us would like to know something about the ACLU. User:DJ Clayworth At this point, it is a question of an important principle. Are people to be permitted to write one-sided, unbalanced articles, and have these left in the Wikipedia as a challenge to those who disagree? Or does the requirement of a NPOV mean that if criticisms of an organization, person, etc are included, that the other side also be presented sympathetically? Is it the duty of somebody writing an article to do all the research, or may they do only the research that supports their own POV, and leave it to others to do the rest of the research? Does NPOV mean that all sides have equal access to the articles, and the article zigs and zags its way to neutrality as each side chimes in? Or does it mean that each contributor must strive to achieve neutrality and that the article should be neutral at every stage? If you read the material elsewhere in the Wikipedia about the NPOV, I don't think there is any question on these points. If you keep dragging back this biased material, you are going to have to justify yourself eventually to somebody besides me. Ark, if you want this unbalanced material to stay, you had better repeat your Pristina action and provide the balancing material. It isn't my duty to provide it, since I didn't write the unbalancing material. User:66.82.116.82 16:36, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::These are valid criticisms in the article. We should not be deleting (censoring) valid information just because you don't have the time to add more valid information. I did not right this article either, nor did I write the Pristina one. You are obviously the one who feels strongly that additional info needs to be added but you don't feel strongly enough to actually add it yourself and somehow the burden falls on me to satisfy you or you will delete the information. During the time you have been deleting and arguing you could have done a Google search and actually added the information.User:Ark30inf 17:08, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) Hello, I do not believe anyone who has responded to questions /concerns add the criticism section. Why are they or myself the one to add balance, again you are able to add balance to the articleUser:Smith03 16:57, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) Can I give you an example I recently worked on the Pat Robertson page not because I agree with him ( I tend to think he a little shady), but his article was blantly against him. I didn't remove all the critism, I check it and attempted to add balance. User:Smith03 17:05, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) Looks much better.User:Ark30inf 17:24, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) thanks Ark Can we all live this Ark30inf verision ?User:Smith03 17:28, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::Its not my version, its 66.82's, I reverted it before reading (slaps self). I can live with this one fine. More can still be added on many cases, but its much better now.User:Ark30inf 17:30, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::66.82 is still working on it. Looks like we might end up with a decent article.User:Ark30inf 17:46, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) As a one time employee of the ACLU I just want to say that I think the current POV is acceptable in the Critism section. People at the ACLU tend to be somewhat proud of our controversial stances. I don't think it is possible to understand who or what the organization is without knowing about some of the sometimes harsh criticism directed at the group. User:Konky2000 14:57, 29 May 2004 (PST) Can someone please explain why "Some critics point to its opposition to the death penalty, which has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States while the ACLU continues to argue that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution restriction against "cruel and unusual punishment" and against Universal Declaration of Human Rights norms." appears in the criticism section? The proffered reason for the criticism is just incoherent--if the ACLU were to only advance positions that a Supreme Court majority agreed with, it would be some sort of bizarre judicial propaganda front, not a legal advocacy organization. User:SS451 :I think it's basically saying that critics disagree with the ACLU's anti-death penalty stance. It might be a little wordy and confusing, you're correct that the Supreme Court's rulings are secondary to the dispute. I think it boils down to the fact that the ACLU does not support the death penalty, but its critics do. This is similar to ACLU opposition from gun rights activists. User:Rhobite 20:22, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC) I removed the paragraph about Bill O'Reilly as it provides no concrete information whatsoever and is borderline irrelevent in that he is a just a present-day TV/talk show host. : I agree that the paragraph could probably use more information about why O'Reilly thinks the ACLU is the most dangerous organisation in America. But I definitely don't think the paragraph should be completely removed. He's the host of a very popular talk show and one of the biggest critics of the ACLU which makes his opinion relevant. User:Monkeyman 15:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC) == Public defenders... == Source is, among others, a statement from a former federal prosecutor for the state of New Jersey. Happens to be my own view that the prosecutor was agreeing with. I'm not and never have been a member of the ACLU. obsolete Like it or not mainstream America thinks of the ACLU the same way that they think of unions, obsolete and continually irrelevent in our times. Severl polls conducted by Rand , TimeLife and others have consistently shown that outside of the NE and the left coast the ACLU and unions both have public perception problems which cause the mainstream to view both as anacronisms.--User:68.42.11.91 11:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Quotes from critics == I'm not sure of the best way to section quotes from critics. "Quotes from critics" isn't suggested in the manual of style, I just thought it would be better in its own section than at the top of the criticism section. If someone knows a better way to integrate this quote, feel free. Also, while it appears to be a genuine quote I've seen versions where he says "25 years" and ones where he says "10 years." Can someone get access to this back issue of Reason magazine and check? User:Rhobite 17:35, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC) ==Gun Control== A recent edit referred to an archived 1996 position page on Gun Control to state the ACLU endorses Gun Control; this is a mischaracterization of what the page stated, which was a legal opinion based more on the interpretations of the Supreme Court of the Second Amendment, precious few indicating some acceptance of regulation of arms ownership. This is hardly an endorsement of Gun Control on any level, merely a statement that it is within the perview of Legislatures to act upon. Furthermore, the 1996 page is a bad source; It is not timely, having been archived and unupdated for years; Furthermore, it was the end-product of all the internal debate in the ACLU up until that point, which may not be entirely representative of the organization's stance at that point in time, and certainly can't be construed to be at this point. The issue is the center of a deal of internal conflict. The ACLU does not argue one way or the other, and the critical point drawing attention to that fact has been made. Reverted the edit as it was unnecessary and biased. --User:Alexwcovington 08:58, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) :I don't really think you can explain away that page. It clearly says that the ACLU does not believe the second amendment gives citizens a right to own guns: "the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." This is also explained on a page dated from 2002: [http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25] Furthermore, speculating about the reason for their gun control policy is POV and it should be attributed. User:Rhobite 13:05, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) :I agree with Rhobite. The ACLU's own answer to that question is not a "bad source". Simply because the ACLU hasn't changed its position since 1996 doesn't mean that its position is out of date. What the ACLU says is its position on the Second Amendment is what we should report. If you have any evidence that what the ACLU claims as its position is actually ''not'' its position, then you should list it. But, as Rhobite said, speculation isn't helpful. For this reason, I'm reverting the page. User:Quadell User_talk:Quadell 14:44, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) ::If [http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html this source] were to be accepted, then it should be characterized by what it actually says, not interpreted in a light portraying the ACLU in opposition to gun rights. :::''The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.'' :::''Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.'' :::''The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.'' ::To say ''the organization does not believe that the Second Amendment confers the right for individuals to own firearms'' is a mischaracterization and slants the original intent. The ACLU maintains that the Second Amendment is not an inviolable legal barrier protecting a right to bear all types of arms (which MAY include certain and/or all firearms, but not necessarily). The inclusiveness of the term "arm" forces consideration of newer arms technologies developed since 1789; while flintlock pistols, rifles, and cannons might be covered by original intent, is the 2nd Amendment elastic? Does it include fully or semi-automatic weapons? Does it include nuclear devices? The ACLU does not draw the line; they simply state that Congress has the power to resolve such questions. But they do not allow them free reign, stipulating that restrictions must be "reasonable." Thus the possibility is open for the ACLU to take issue with a piece of gun control legislation. ::As the current statement does not accurately reflect the source, I have modified it. --User:Alexwcovington 11:05, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) :::Both statements accurately reflect the source, because the ACLU also says "Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." So the ACLU sort of says two different things on that page. In this case the best approach is to present both your sentence and a sentence summarizing their "policy 47" and let the reader decide. Also we should get them out of parens. OK? User:Rhobite 15:30, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC) I originally put this at the bottom of the page. I scanned this talk page before I added it...I have absolutely no idea how I missed this Gun Control section. Mea culpa. Nevertheless, I believe my statement below is accurate. User:Atlant recently reverted an edit of mine in the gun rights section. I've since reverted it back. It's my belief that the version that was there was a POV dress-up of the actual policy, which I've quoted directly below. In addition, I removed and replaced a dead link with a valid one. From [http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25]: ACLU POLICY "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47 I know there are some that don't believe this is what the ACLU thinks, but this is their official policy, and it should be cited as-is. If someone would prefer a direct quote rather than a paraphrase to remove any chance of POV influence, I would support that, but I think it's rather a bulky solution to the problem. --User:MikeJ9919 15:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC) == amicus curiae == The "friend of the court" part is unnecessary and it smacks of pedantry. Most readers already know what amicus curiae means; and if not they can click on the link and see the article. The translation doesn't provide any useful information and it is slightly patronizing. ==Additions of Sept. 30== *I would appreciate a citation for the recent additions; specifically, I don't believe the ACLU supports child pornography, and it seems odd that they would oppose both permit requirements for protests ''and'' pro-life demonstrations. I suspect that these statements are at the least misleading, if not completely inaccurate, and have reverted the changes until a citation is provided. All the best, User:Meelar_
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
A
AB | AC | AD | AE | AF | AG | AH | AI | AJ | AK | AL | AM | AN | AO | AP | AR | AS | AT | AU | AW | AX | AY | AZ |Words begining with American_Civil_Liberties_Union:
American_Civil_Liberties_Union
American_Civil_Liberties_Union
Sponsored links: praca.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
