Do you support the work of the ACLU?

[2banon]

The American Civil Liberties Union says on their website:

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country

Note: I've been a "card carrying" member for almost my entire adult life and thats a number of decades now. I operate on the premise all "Liberals" proudly make that claim as well, sing their praises and certainly defend and support their work. But since the Snowden revelations, it occurs to me that my assumptions may no longer be based on reality, hence this poll.

Here's a list of the groups and/or issues which the ACLU dedicates their work and energy to:

Capital Punishment

Criminal Law Reform

Disability rights

Free Speech

Human Rights

Immigrant's Rights

National Security

Technology and Liberty

Voting rights

Women's Rights

LGBT Rights

Prisoners Rights

Religious Freedom

Reproductive Freedom

31 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired
	I support the ACLU, wholly agree with the principles of the organization and their work.
	26 (84%)
	I do not support the ACLU and do not agree with their principles of the organization or their work.
	0 (0%)
	Somethings the ACLU fights for I support, Somethings I do not..
	4 (13%)
	other
	1 (3%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[DiverDave]

1. Yep, Too poor to give, tho.

Likes me some ACLU and SPC

[Cirque du So-What]

2. I support the ACLU in all their endeavors

and although I find it irksome when they defend, say, the rights of Illinois nazis to march in Skokie, I realize that they're standing up for everyone's rights - even the fucking nazi party - because when any group is denied those rights, we're all in danger of losing them.

[rgbecker]

3. Well said, I'm with you on that.

[NuclearDem]

6. Pretty much what I was going to say.

[sarisataka]

12. This

I find some groups revolting but if they are silenced our values are a sham.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Me, too.

It's sad that some so-called progressives can't or won't grasp that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

57. this. nt

[DireStrike]

4. I haven't donated to them since citizens united.

[Logical]

9. It was the correct decision. n-t

[Logical]

10. Also, dumb idea, lets say 95% of the time you like their side of it. Why not support them? n-t

[FreeJoe]

15. I support them

Even on Citizens United. They were right.

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

[Blue_Tires]

39. I'm guessing you're a billionaire, then?

[FreeJoe]

62. You'd be wrong

I just have this thing about free speech. I think it is a good thing and that trying to restrict it is a bad thing. I'm with the ACLU on the issue.

[Blue_Tires]

68. I just have this thing about $$$$ being legally equated with speech

Because it gives free reign for the few to 'speak' louder than millions of the rest of us...

Kind of completely nullifies that whole "one man, one vote" thing, wouldn't you say?

Kind of ironic that in defense of universal rights and liberties, this policy enables the wealthy to single-handedly install politicians who would merrily curtail the rights of the unwashed masses...

[Nye Bevan]

71. Are you OK with banning a corporation from publishing a book during election season

if the book says mean things about one of the candidates running in the election?

[FreeJoe]

73. $$$ aren't speech, but banning spending on speech is banning speech

I'm happy with laws banning the giving of money to candidates. I'm happy with laws banning coordination of ad campaigns with candidates. I'm not happy with laws banning companies from producing and distributing movies, books, articles, etc on political issues. That is what I saw the CU case to be about. They made a political movie to influence an election. I haven't seen their movie and would probably puke if forced to, but I completely support their right to do it.

I do realize that some people can afford to speak more than others. For that reason, I support funding elections, but not restricting people from spending additional money. At the end of the day, it really is one-person, one-vote.

[2banon]

16. They do take on things that I find really hard to support or am in complete disagreement

I completely opposed Citizens United, still do and support all efforts to repeal that decision.

[Blue_Tires]

38. +1

I used to be a big supporter, but I soured on them after that...

I realize technically they had a good reason to take the legal stance they did, but if they didn't have the foresight to see the obvious can of worms they were opening, I don't know what else to say...

[Comrade Grumpy]

5. Yeah, I'm a libertarian. A civil libertarian.

I guess you could take that a couple of ways.

[Savannahmann]

7. Donated for years.

[Logical]

8. I would love to see the people who voted against the ACLU reasons. n-t

[Nye Bevan]

22. My guess would be that this is because the ACLU supports the Citizens United decision,

whereas I get the impression that most DUers oppose it. Indeed, not only did they support the decision, but they also filed an amicus brief in the case.

[2banon]

30. yeah, I agree that was actually infuriating.

When you see that they're chartered as a corporation (which I didn't know before) and that one division is solely for lobbying on behalf their charter mission, I suspect that they see Citizens United as huge lift for their goals. I'm not justifying, I'm just speculating.

Here's what they say about that:

We understand that the amount of money now being spent on political campaigns has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system that raises serious concerns. We firmly believe, however, that the response to those concerns must be consistent with our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech and association. For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech.

At the same time, we recognize that the escalating cost of political campaigns may make it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money often plays a significant role in determining who runs for office and who is elected.

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.

There's more

[MADem]

31. My take on that, simplistic, but I think, to the point: If Money Equals Speech, then the

poor, by virtue of their poverty, are muzzled.

[2banon]

32. Exactly so. Not simplistic at all, it's just what it boils down to. n/t

[NutmegYankee]

11. Card carrying member since 2000. nt

[hrmjustin]

13. I support the ACLU and their aims.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. They strongly support the 1st Amendment

which drives certain people with a censorship fetish buggy.

[Nye Bevan]

33. Well, to be fair, free speech is great, except when people use it to say mean things (nt)

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Or when people get unauthorized jollies from looking at consenting adults nude.

THEY MUST BE STOPPPPPED

[bigwillq]

17. I changed my vote to other

From the "somethings" ones.

I don't support them 100 percent of the time. I rarely support any kind of political organization 100 percent of the time, but I support them most of the time. So other is the best choice for me in this DU poll.

[2banon]

25. ACLU has two separate entities. One for Lobbying, and one for Protection/Litigation work

Thanks for that explanation..


I find this tidbit useful information:

American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU Foundation: What is the Difference?

The ACLU comprises two separate corporate entities, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation. Although both the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation are part of the same overall organization, it is necessary that the ACLU have two separate organizations in order for the ACLU to do a broad range of work in protecting civil liberties. This Web site collectively refers to the two organizations under the name "ACLU."

Although there is some overlap in the work done by each organization, certain activities the ACLU does to protect civil liberties must be done by one organization and not the other. This is primarily in the area of lobbying. The American Civil Liberties Union engages in legislative lobbying. As an organization that is eligible to receive contributions that are tax-deductible by the contributor, federal law limits the extent to which the ACLU Foundation's may engage in lobbying activities. Therefore, most of the lobbying activity done by the ACLU and discussed in this Web site is done by the American Civil Liberties Union. By contrast, most of the ACLU's litigation and communication efforts described in this Web site are done by the ACLU Foundation.

[Agony]

18. Sure I mostly support what the ACLU stands for

but they don't need my 25 bucks since they can afford to pay their director a 1/2 million dollar salary.

He can shell out the 25 bucks in my name if he wants to.

[MADem]

19. I support their mission in principle; in actual fact they occasionally take on a case that

I find personally distasteful, if I am to be absolutely honest. I don't have a lot of patience for Nazis or racists; that said, I understand that they have to tackle these ugly cases to ensure justice for the more pedestrian ones.

[2banon]

26. We agree on something!!

[Warren DeMontague]

64. I don't, either.. However I understand that the principle of free speech is more antithetical to

those folks' agendas, than censoring them ever could be.

[MADem]

65. Certainly. In the public square, anyway, the solution to speech is more speech. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

66. Oh yeah. I mean, those kinds of arguments don't apply for instance to DU, right.

Or like my living room. I'm under no obligation to allow a Nazi rally there.

[MADem]

67. Precisely! nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

20. I agree with them most of the time...

And even when I don't I still appreciate the work that they do.

[badtoworse]

21. I didn't see 2nd Amendment rights on the list. We don't have a cafeteria style Bill of Rights

I'll support them (i.e. send checks) when they attach the same level of importance to the 2nd that they do to the rest of the BOR.

[2banon]

34. Priorities are given to that which is threatened

2nd Amendment is not under threat.

[badtoworse]

36. You can't be serious.

If you are, you're just not paying attention.

[2banon]

37. Oh, I've been paying attention.

How can anyone avoid hearing/reading about the NRA's manufactured paranoia in every corner of this country?

[badtoworse]

40. There'd be no need for an NRA if gun control zealots weren't pushing ever more restrictive gun laws.

In any case the NRA is irrelevant. Look at the legislation being proposed in states like NY, NJ, CT, CA, CO and others - the explicit aim is to make gun ownership more and more onerous. To say the 2nd Amendment is not under attack is laughable.

[2banon]

43. I live near Oakland.

I don't know if it's the "gun capital" of the world but it certainly seems to be in the region. The population is well armed. My pov is certain strict regulations should be in place but that is not to say gun ownership should be outlawed.

[badtoworse]

45. There is a point at which "strict regulation" of rights becomes denial of rights

Look at what it took for residents of Chicago and Washington D.C. to be able to legally own a handgun. Even then, Chicago tried all set up so many barriers that it was impossible for anyone to comp[ly with their "strict regulation". Fortunately, that did not survive court scrutiny. If the 2nd Amendment were not under attack, this type of court action wouldn't be necessary and wouldn't be happening.

[2banon]

46. That principle applies to all of our rights..

and I don't argue against for the obvious reasons. Do you believe there should no restrictions whatsoever?

[badtoworse]

48. There needs to be restrictions on all rights, but only the minumum necessary.

For example, it's OK to recover the costs of processing a permit application, but not OK to charge an exorbinant amount for it so average people can't afford it. If there is a valid reason why you should be denied a permit, the onus should be on the state to prove why - you shouldn't have to demonstrate a need to exercise your rights. A state shouldn't be able to just take away firearms that you've legally owned for years. If I get a permit from one state, why shouldn't every other state have to honor it? You don't lose any of your other rights when you cross a state line. I could go on, but I think you get the point. All of those things have either been tried, are being planned or are ongoing now. None of those restricitions are either reasonable or necessary and you don't think the 2nd Amendment is under attack? Seriously?

[2banon]

49. I'm in complete agreement with the principle on policies you've posited here

and the framework of which restrictions should be enacted. Completely agree.

I think the point of contention centers around the type of weaponry for one, and secondly shouldn't restrictions be made on people who have been convicted of murder, and those with documented history of mental illness? I realize the slippery slope aspect to who gets to make the determination of who is mentally disturbed. That's a problem to flesh out.

I should say, that this isn't a hot topic for me so I haven't dedicated much thought and consideration to the underpinning issues you've made here.

That said, my perspective is shaped by the NRA itself and it's actions over the decades. It has effectively quashed any movement to what I would consider as reasonable, rational regulations. And they've used extremely irresponsible, thuggish divisive rhetoric in achieving their aims, which by the way I think is nefarious, i.e. the Arms Industry.

My position has evolved to the point that if the NRA is for it, then I'm against it, and vice versa. I realize that's a reactionary position, but there it is. The NRA along with it's supporters engage in thuggish rhetoric and extremist political actions which only serves to re-affirm my position against them and everything they stand for on principle.

My assertion that the 2nd Amendment is not under threat is primarily based on the well funded and extremist actions of the NRA. It's impossible to come to a place of shared understanding and mutual agreement as long as that organization is allowed to be the primary "spokesperson" at the table.

[badtoworse]

70. "if the NRA is for it, then I'm against it, and vice versa"

The rightness or wrongness of policy stands on its own. You need to start doing your own thinking and making up your own mind.

[LanternWaste]

52. We can all remember when the NRA so valiantly saved our country in 1996

"say the 2nd Amendment is not under attack is laughable..."

We can all remember when the NRA so valiantly saved our country in 1996 from the CDC doing research into firearm-related violence. Under attack, indeed; laughable, even more so...

[Lurks Often]

50. The ACLU at the national level doesn't support the 2nd Amendment

although there are occasionally cases where they and the NRA are in agreement.

https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

However I have heard that at least some of the state level ACLU groups have actively supported the 2nd Amendment.

[Maedhros]

54. Here is an issue on which the NRA and ACLU are collaborating:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/nra-fearing-gun-registry-joins-aclu-opposing-nsa-phone-records-v20483283

[Maedhros]

53. I'll flip that around on you:

I'll pay attention to the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the 2nd Amendment crowd when they commit even a fraction of their impassioned rhetoric toward defending the rest of the Bill of Rights.

[Paladin]

59. +1000. (nt)

[hootinholler]

56. They do attach the same importance to the 2nd as others

They don't take on many 2nd cases because there are well funded organizations devoted solely to the 2nd.

[Paladin]

58. Blowing off the ACLU over their 2nd Amend. stance is the very essence of cafeteria-style behavior.

"when they attach the same level of importance": i.e., when the ACLU makes common cause with such constitutional authorities as Wayne LaPierre, Larry Platt, Ted Nugent, Sarah Palin and (last and least) Antonin Scalia. That's way too high a price to pay to get a few bucks out of you.

[eridani]

23. I don't agree with their support of Citizens United n/t

[yuiyoshida]

24. Pretty much...

I don't own a card, but I think they are necessary.

[Vashta Nerada]

27. Everything but Citizens United.

[aikoaiko]

28. They are benighted on the 2nd Amendment

[SteveG]

29. been a dues paying member since Reagan was elected

as well as a member of Americans United.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. I support them and I'd like to see them put in charge of the NSA and CIA.

[2banon]

61. Indeed! That'd be day for celebration.. :) n/t

[Throd]

42. Yes, even when I don't.

[2banon]

44. that's about the way i see it.. n/t

[Zorra]

51. I'm a member and a huge fan. nt

[LostOne4Ever]

55. Im almost in 100% agreement with them on every issue

But until a year ago, I just did not have the spare change to get a membership.

Been a card carrying member ever since then

[Token Republican]

60. Don't agree with them on every specific case they support

but I support the general principles behind why they support those cases.

Living in a free society means we pay the cost of having the right to do or say some things that are ugly or repugnant.

Freedom is won or lost at the edge of what may be unpopular with some or all of society.

So yes, I support the ACLU

[Blue_In_AK]

63. The ACLU is one of the few organizations I still support

[Jefferson23]

69. Member here...K&R. n/t

[Romulox]

72. As long as $$$$$$$ = "speech" to them, they could never work for me. They work for $$$$$$. nt