How long before DU decides to turn on the ACLU...

their Constitutional arguments really are weak on why CU is okay.

I think the ACLU takes the pure position every time. I expect them to do that, regardless of practicalities, and I'm grateful that they do, even when they work against my interests. There's bigger principles at play here and it's good that there's a group out there holding that line.

Citizens United decision sucked, of course, but the ACLU isn't the party that made that terrible decision.

Ever since the Shrub got in and started wreaking havoc, I have sent the ACLU money........

I won't turn on the ACLU... they do important work.

https://www.aclu.org/aclu-and-citizens-united

Snip: In our view, the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.

And don't when I don't.

They are dead wrong on this.

Citizens United was wrong, and so is this.

It's not just about who is a good guy with them.
So I respect the organization for that.

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/19/a-history-of-the-aclu-defending-confederate-veterans-the-kkk-and-rush-limbaugh/

Source: https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/flag-desecration

I get frustrated when it seems free speech advocates bend over backward to protect the rights of fascists. But the ACLU protects the constitutional rights of all, regardless of content.

when they went to court on behalf of a Nazi march through Skokie. Ill., a town where 1 in 6 then residents was a Holocaust survivor.

for those who never heard of this event:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

Free clue: if it doesn't apply to everyone, it's not a principle, it's a preference. Popular speech needs no protection- it's popular.

Me? I support free speech. Not as a preference, but as a principle.

sure as heck not going to do it with MY money.

the opposite conclusion, from that event.

And I say this as someone from a Jewish family that had relatives in those camps. And I have friends in Skokie. I remember when this all happened.

But I do believe- as noxious as Nazis and Neo-Nazis are- that defending the principle which allowed them to air their foul views, was defending a bedrock cornerstone of liberty that is the exact antithesis of everything Naziism is about.

By allowing them to speak, the Nazis lost. If a precedent had been established that government could shut down unpopular or offensive speech- that would have been one step down the road to the exact sort of situation those fuckheads want.

Exactly. If it can be denied to anyone, it can be denied to us.

for standing up for the constitutional rights of those Nazi scumbags in Skokie.

The First Amendment applies to everyone, even Nazi scum. We are incredibly lucky to have the ACLU.

"You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours"

- The American President

If he wishes to spend his own money to further his speech, fine. But my money is MY speech and I refuse to put it behind HIS speech which is abhorrent to me. That's My red line .

So.... you agree with Citizens Unitied? $$$ = free speech

...a two-toned Dodge and run them in to a lake.

At least some have attacked the ACLU one time or another.

...they're no better than a collection of robots.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

This doesn't change my already low opinion of them.

far as I know he free to come back to the USA.

1st Amendment threads, in particular, can be downright depressing.

I imagine that a great many here already hate them. For many here and in the general population, free speech only applies to those who agree with them.

Not as a whole (or even close to it really). Free speech is messy and uncomfortable. Everyone here claims to be its biggest fan, until it's speech they don't particularly like. It's like it never occurred to them that unpopular speech is the only kind the ACLU ever has to defend.

and were too broad a reading of the constitution (citizen united?)

people can have nuanced opinion you know.

1. The ACLU already took a big hit here 7 years ago after that Citizens United bullshit...

2. The ACLU's "Free Snowflake" campaign is damn near three years old, nevermind the fact that Eddie isn't in prison so there's nothing to "free" him from... This "campaign" is just getting revived as a tie-in with the movie being released this week..

3. The ACLU isn't infallible, and has hitched their wagon to indefensible loser cases before (See: al-Awlaki)

They are all in favor of dissent when Republicans are in power, but when a Democrat is, they are in competition to see who can be the biggest cheerleader. You can see this in the discussion around Obama's drone bombing campaign. If Bush was doing it, they would be screaming from the rafters.

I support the ACLU always, because they stand on principle, because the principle of free speech is most important when the speech is unpopular, despicable or just wrong. I also think Snowden is not the enemy here. Our government is, if not our enemy exactly, certainly not acting in the principles we are alleged to stand for. He should be treated as a whistle-blower, certainly no different than Daniel Ellsberg, but Obama's government has been particularly hard on whistle-blowers.

I certainly won't turn on them and I venture to guess most others won't either.

Better assholes in the open rather than skulking around in the shadows.

ACLU is an American institution of enduring principals.

Snowden is a whistleblower, a hero, and a martyr.

Is aggressive influence - coercion or blackmail free speech? Is lying - fraud - free speech? Coercion, blackmail, libel, slander, and misleading speech with the purpose to harm or defraud have legal definitions and are regulated under law.
That's the problem in a nutshell.
Breaking laws and legal contracts, even unjust ones carries a cost, even if it's just a day in court to prove the law or legal contract cannot withstand scrutiny.
While a whistleblower has a right to call attention to illegal or dangerous activities, there's also the disgruntled and equally liable employee who wants to stir shit by "exposing" strategies or activities out of context or picking on a few particular activities to justify bringing down an organization as payback for not getting what s/he wants from it.

I'm not saying Snowden is one or the other when he blew the whistle and exposed confidential material from his employer to the public. He did what he did, whether it was for his stated reasons, or for others, or a mix of the two. I personally have a problem with his eventual flight to Russia, but that's because of my feelings about the state of and respect for information security - especially personal information, not just state information - in Russia. Russia isn't Iceland or Switzerland; there's a geo-political element in Russia that is just as interested in hegemony and is just as fascist as elements in the US are.

He has the right to have his day in court - especially since he is not in the military and not considered extra-constitutional. Who knows, he may get an impartial judge and jury - because I'm sure he will be able to access ACLU lawyers who are willing to make the point that he isn't a shit stirrer, but an actual whistleblower, and deserves protection.
That's what they're there for. To give everyone a chance to actually look at the legal issues behind all aspects in case by case situations, not only popular opinion, social trends, or traditions.
The ability for others to twist a position that ensures fairness under the Constitution for their own benefit is no reason to throw out that position for the people who need it.
(Though I do have some question to the idea that the ability to purchase rights being the same constitutionally as the rights of people in general...)

As to the potential for social ostracism issue that goes along with being a whistleblower, that's part of the risk of whistleblowing.
In history, most heroes - especially whistleblowers and those who seek to fight for the betterment of society at large only become Heroes after they're dead. Being a Hero isn't easy, and requires courage to face the fact one may have to be considered a villain while society comes to terms with what needs to be done. A Hero takes his or her lumps.
The expectation of being lauded a Hero for doing the right thing while still living is for deluded Walter Mitty types or narcissistic fame seekers.

Haele