In a story today, the New York Times reports that the F.B.I. has reports on the A.C.L.U., Greenpeace, the American Indian Movement of Colorado, and United for Peace and Justice. There are a reported 2,400 pages of information on Greenpeace which has protested the Bush administration's environmental policies and the war in Iraq. There are 1,200 pages on the A.C.L.U.…
Article comments
26 - Nancy
Probably. Especially if they're not sure 'who' (yuk yuk) they are, or they sound even vaguely threatening, or the lead character is somehow a non-conforming, antiauthoritarian type they're afraid someone could rally round or make a 'hero' of. I kid you not, you wouldn't believe what they keep files on. Someone dressed as a Klingon could, after all, be antigovernment.
27 - RJ
GreenPeace has engaged in what could be described as eco-terrorist actions in the past. Same with some Native American radicals.
28 - RJ
Didn't the ACLU defend NAMBLA, which is an organization dedicated to teaching its members how to procure pre-teen boys for anal sex?
29 - Dave Nalle
That they did, RJ. That's what I was referencing in my original comment.
Dave
30 - Nancy
The ACLU is so screwed up. One would think they'd exercise a LITTLE judgement in who or what they defend. Do they have any criteria?
31 - ClubhouseCancer
The ACLU's criteria is quite clear: They defend the Constitution.
They have defended the free-speech and other rights of members of organizations like the Nazis, NAMBLA, the Santeria church, Nike, and even some Christian churches.
They are non-partisan and post their agenda publicly on the Internet at ACLU.org.
One of their founding principles in defending free speech rights is the obvious fact that nice, happy speech needs little Constitutional protection. It is speech we disagree with that most needs protection.
CC (proud to be card-carryin')
32 - Nancy
But speech advocating criminal activity is not protected in the constitution, let alone activity that is criminal, so why are do they work for people like the man-boy love group, etc?
33 - ClubhouseCancer
You're misinformed re: the Constitution and its free-speech protections.
Of course the idea of child sex is repulsive to me, but so is the restriction of free speech. People can't be punished for advocating criminal activity unless the court has said their speech is intended and likely to incite imminent lawless actions. This is the "fire in a crowded theater" argument, and is perfectly sensible standard.
If you examine the facts of the case (it was in 2000, in Mass.), you'll see the ACLU is right.
34 - Nancy
So...I can go out & advocate online that people should sell their kids into prostitution, & it's protected?
35 - RJ
The ACLU will gladly support (pro bono) a group whose entire purpose is to anally rape little boys. But they ATTACK the Boy Scouts because they won't allow open homosexuals to take little kids into the woods alone at night.
Yeah...non-partisan...