Media Bias

While he did revise the charter to get rid of Communists, he never really did give up his socialist Nazi values, and that shines through to this day. My point is that the the ACLU is a liberal organization and anybody can see that unless they are hiding under a rock, and should be classified as such. Do you really want to trust 100% of what the ACLU says about itself and simply take it as fact. You wanna talk bias, well how can it get more biased that what a organization says about itself?

Yes, the ACLU is a liberal organization.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.

I completely agree.
 
Werbung:
While he did revise the charter to get rid of Communists, he never really did give up his socialist Nazi values, and that shines through to this day. My point is that the the ACLU is a liberal organization and anybody can see that unless they are hiding under a rock, and should be classified as such. Do you really want to trust 100% of what the ACLU says about itself and simply take it as fact. You wanna talk bias, well how can it get more biased that what a organization says about itself?

That's baloney. The ACLU has taken up all kinds of cases - left wing, right wing, Christian, Athiest etc.
 
Really? The ACLU was all in support of the restricting free speech in Harpers V. Poway but they consistantly defend the right to wear anti-Bush, or anti-war shirts. Kind of telling isn't it? They don't want protection of the Constitution. They want protection of what they feel the constitution should be.
 
Really? The ACLU was all in support of the restricting free speech in Harpers V. Poway but they consistantly defend the right to wear anti-Bush, or anti-war shirts. Kind of telling isn't it? They don't want protection of the Constitution. They want protection of what they feel the constitution should be.

Depends on the details of the cases. Usually, the rightwing spin tends to leave out a lot of pertinant facts.
 
Really? The ACLU was all in support of the restricting free speech in Harpers V. Poway but they consistantly defend the right to wear anti-Bush, or anti-war shirts. Kind of telling isn't it? They don't want protection of the Constitution. They want protection of what they feel the constitution should be.

http://www.aclusandiego.org/news_item.php?article_id=000255

ACLU DEFENDS FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF EVERYONE
Response to Today's Wall Street JournalOp-Ed

In today’s Wall Street Journal, writer Wendy Kaminer asserts that the ACLU has gradually moved from defending the free speech rights of everyone to only defending the rights of liberals. This is simply wrong, as a few minutes of research would have revealed.

Kaminer charges the ACLU with failing to weigh in on a San Diego free speech case, Harper v. Poway Unified School District. In fact, this affiliate has been working on an amicus brief for many months, and will be filing it on the schedule set by the court. If she had contacted us, or run a simple internet search, she would have discovered that when Harper filed his lawsuit, our then-legal director commented on the record to the San Diego Union Tribune, saying that “The school district is not empowered to censor based on what they deem inflammatory, it has to be based on a constitutional standard.” He noted that a t-shirt could not be construed as harassment because harassment has to be directed against a particular individual. (Harassment of LGBT students is a problem in schools, and is unlawful. The ACLU of San Diego submitted an amicus brief in Donovan v. Poway Unified School District, to show the many constitutional ways that schools can take action to prevent harassment.)

In April 2006, a Ninth Circuit panel issued an unprecedented opinion in Harper on new issues not addressed in the district court, greatly expanding the power of schools to censor speech. At that time, the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties began working on an amicus brief taking issue with the panel opinion. The brief will be posted on this website when it is filed.

The San Diego affiliate, and the ACLU as a whole, have always defended and continue to defend the rights of everyone. If Kaminer had glanced at our website, she would have seen a number of recent examples: we defended the right of a 15-year-old to wear an American flag in her back pocket to school during tense immigration debates, and prevailed, and spoke up in defense of the free speech rights of a San Diego State University professor who is associated with the Minutemen.

Unfortunately, Kaminer did not let these facts get in the way of her argument. The ACLU has written a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal to set the record straight.
 
Convenient how they failed to act on this until it was clear that the case would be vacated soon. Just how they failed to act to protect the freedoms of cartoonists publishing pictures of Mohammed until there was a public outcry for them to do so.
 
Convenient how they failed to act on this until it was clear that the case would be vacated soon. Just how they failed to act to protect the freedoms of cartoonists publishing pictures of Mohammed until there was a public outcry for them to do so.

Point IS - they did it.

They don't have to take every case you know.
 
Convenient how they failed to act on this until it was clear that the case would be vacated soon. Just how they failed to act to protect the freedoms of cartoonists publishing pictures of Mohammed until there was a public outcry for them to do so.

as PaleRider would say, my brother, "Dodge, Shuck and Jive".

:D
 
Point IS - they did it.

They don't have to take every case you know.

But something that is extremely high profile should draw immediate attention, that is, if they are actually interested in protecting civil rights instead of promoting an agenda.
 
But something that is extremely high profile should draw immediate attention, that is, if they are actually interested in protecting civil rights instead of promoting an agenda.

If they only choose high profile cases, don't you think that in itself is promoting an agenda?

Point is - they have a visable and verifiable record of taking on all kinds of cases - it's indisputable. It's like when the religious right rant about the ACLU's anti-Christian actions yet they completely ignore all the pro-Christian cases they have fought. You just keep denying it becuase it doesn't fit with your bogeyman image of ACLU.
 
Werbung:
But something that is extremely high profile should draw immediate attention, that is, if they are actually interested in protecting civil rights instead of promoting an agenda.

I live in San DIego, and I didnt hear about this.

couldnt be that 'high profile'. If they wanted the ACLU's support they could have contacted them.
 
Back
Top