I have no problem with people who wish to stand by their principles. As a matter of fact, I often think that too few people are willing to do so these days. But this whole de-linking party seems rather excessive to me in light of the Stop The ACLU's past willingness to allow those who disagree with their assessment of the ACLU to post comments to Stop the ACLU's blog.
After all, it is not as if Mr. Reynolds expressed his unquestioning loyalty to the ACLU and all of its causes. And Mr. Reynolds did not even criticize Stop The ACLU, but rather the practice of demonizing the ACLU, which Stop The ACLU has allowed dissenting commenters to do on their blog — albeit never without swift and firm counterarguments (thus making for fascinating discussions).
However, let's not omit any potentially important back stories or other details. Mr. Reynolds, who is a law professor at the University of Tennessee, has worked with the ACLU in the past, and has written that he will probably do so again.
Most recently, Mr. Reynolds worked with the ACLU on a legal brief for the New Orleans rave case, in which the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration (D.E.A.) tried to prosecute three New Orleans concert promoters under the federal "crack house law."
The "crack house" law makes it a felony to maintain a facility in which illegal drugs are consumed. In the past, the law had been applied to traditional crack houses and "shooting galleries" (places where heroin users inject their illegal drug of choice) until former U.S. Attorney Eddie Jordan reasoned that since some of the people who go to "rave" parties sometimes use illegal drugs at them, that concert promoters must know of the illegal drug use (especially in light of the presence of "drug paraphernalia," such as bottled water and glow sticks) and therefore a "rave" must be an event that takes place "for the purpose of drug consumption," under the federal crack house law.
The federal district court dismissed the charges, calling them a violation of the First Amendment. And this was likely due, in part, to the work of the ACLU and Mr. Reynolds.
Of course, most of the folks over at Stop The ACLU are prohibitionists, but they also acknowledge that Mr. Reynolds and others are entitled to their opinions. However, it might just be that the people of Stop The ACLU only respect peoples' right to informed opinions.
Article comments
1 - Steve S
David Brock used to be a member of the Right but went Left. The Left accepted him in spite of his past. The Left is about inclusion and tolerance.
The response you are witnessing isn't surprising to me, Margaret, for it's those elements on the Right that exhibit intolerance, ostracization and love to exile based on their concept of morality. Those people would cut off their own limbs if they thought their limbs had an association with anything liberal in their past.
2 - Natalie Davis
Not surprising, but it sure is petty.
I would imagine that those de-linking him equate a link to his site with an endorsement of his site. That is probably how they justify it. Seems to me, though, that they are going on quite a tear about it, though -- it smacks of a publicity stunt.
Sad (and I am not a fan of Mr. Reynolds): I mean, if they supported him yesterday and don't support him today because of one dissenting viewpoint, that support must have been pretty shallow to begin with.
3 - Margaret Romao Toigo
You'd think that the forces of any given "side" would be happy to have a former member of the other side as a convert, if only as an example of how some people eventually manage to come around to their "sane and sensible" side.
Interestingly enough, the ACLU collaborates with conservatives such as former Congressman Bob Barr, who works with the ACLU as a consultant on certain issues.
In his capacity as an ACLU consultant, Mr. Barr wrote testimony for a hearing on the Federal Marriage Amendment.
It is an interesting read because Mr. Barr, who authored DOMA and who still opposes the recognition of same-sex marriage, very carefully takes issue with the principles of federalism as they pertain to the FMA without lending his support to the issue of marriage equality, "Resisting the temptation to use the federal government to meddle in state matters is the test of this conservative principle. Indeed, it is the test separating conservative federalists from hard-line social conservatives, willing to sacrifice the Constitution in their understandable anxiety over the sorry state of modern morality."
Sometimes, the left and the right are closer than they appear on the surface, even if their motivations may be somewhat different.
4 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Natalie Davis wrote, "...it smacks of a publicity stunt."
I thought of that angle, too. However, I did not feel that I had sufficient evidence to warrant such an allegation.
Jay from Stop The ACLU left a comment on my blog, which leads me to think that he did not intend to cause such a stir:
Jay also mentioned that he would be making a new post later tonight to explain things better, in which case a follow-up article may be necessary.
We shall see...
5 - Natalie Davis
Ms. Toigo, I allege nothing. It was just a thought that occurred to me. As you say, we shall see.
6 - The Uncooperative Blogger
I think it is obvious by Jay’s statement that he will not link to anyone who is against his agenda. There is nothing wrong with that, I only put links on my blog that I consider blogs worth visiting. Thus my readers get only links that I believe are worthy. I will not just post links for the sake of posting links. That is not an attack on anyone.
I personally never had any use for the Instapundit site. I do not even consider it a blog. Blogs require comments, trackbacks and actually doing more than providing links to stories IMO. So, I personally have never linked to Instapundit.
I think any attention your bringing to this topic will just help the Stop the ACLU cause.
Disclosure: I am a member of their Stop The ACLU Blog Burst.
Oh, BTW the left will take anyone it can get, and there is more to politics than Left and Right.
7 - One Monkey's Uncle
What I have never been able to truly understand is why the Right - particularly, the strict Intentionalists of today, who insist on strict adherence to the Constitution's text - would be so violently opposed to the ACLU, whose sole mission is to ensure that the rights ennumerated (and, yes, God help us, implied and accepted by decades and centuries of use and interpretation) are protected for all Americans, not just those with whom the Right happens to agree (or, with whom they find it convenient to agree for other political purposes).
8 - RogerMDillion
I'm baffled by the fuss. If people want to de-link, they have every right to regardless of their reasons. Glenn isn't entitled to them.
You should put Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing" in the Amazon links of this post.
9 - Raidernation1
"David Brock used to be a member of the Right but went Left. The Left accepted him in spite of his past. The Left is about inclusion and tolerance.
The response you are witnessing isn't surprising to me, Margaret, for it's those elements on the Right that exhibit intolerance, ostracization and love to exile based on their concept of morality. Those people would cut off their own limbs if they thought their limbs had an association with anything liberal in their past."
Is this guy joking? Ever hear the names David Horowitz, Peter Collier, Berard Goldberg, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Dennis Miller, Tammy Bruce, Kristol, Podhoeretz, Bill Bennett, Nat Hentoff, Chris Hitchens...Ronald Reagan?
What do they all have in common? All former Dems/Libs (some current Libs) that came to their senses. Embraced by the Right? You betcha! So much for that unsupportable assertion.
The difference between Right/Left is...to be embraced by the Left, you must shed EVERYTHING you once stood for as a member of the "Right" or even as a moderate (look at the dance Lieberman has to dance to be Crazy Al's running mate in '00). The Right doesn't require complete apostacy because it is the Right that in truth values "diversity." Check out the partial list I mentioned above -- you'll find a lively discussion at that party. Not so with David Brock, Areola Huffer and company.
10 - kender
"What I have never been able to truly understand is why the Right - particularly, the strict Intentionalists of today, who insist on strict adherence to the Constitution's text - would be so violently opposed to the ACLU, whose sole mission is to ensure that the rights ennumerated....are protected for all Americans..."
Actually the ACLU is attempting to twist those rights, leading the charge on seperation of church/state, which, as they couch their argument would make it sound as if they Constitution reads "respecting a religious establishment" and not the way it truly reads.
11 - Margaret Romao Toigo
I don't really have a side in this matter, I merely reported -- with ever so slight spin -- the details of the controversy.
To me, it is a tempest in a teapot, Much Ado About Nothing, but it does matter to both Stop The ACLU and Mr. Reynolds because it isn't nothing to them.
Sure, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU and, as such, I am in complete disagreement with just about everything Stop The ACLU stands for. But that does not mean that I do not respect Stop The ACLU's right to their opinions or to establish their own linking/de-linking policies.
I must give Stop The ACLU credit for being bold enough to actually invite people with opposing viewpoints to comment on their blog, which is not done on very many other partisan blog sites -- on either the left or the right.
What I did not include in the article -- and should have, now that I've thought about it some more -- was some speculation over why Mr. Reynolds cared enough to even blog about Stop The ACLU's de-linking.
After all, it is not as if he is hurting for an audience and will miss the 40 or so links from sites whose readers are unlikely to have much of an interest in anything posted over at Instapundit.
12 - Cao
That's hilarious. When you consider that the DU and others simply delete comments made from people wit a viewpoint from the "right", Margaret.
Actually it was 40 or so blogs in 1 single day who saw this as a legitimate cause. Can you imagine how many it will be over time?
Glenn will only end up with ACLU lawyers who agree with his socialist position on issues...which is perfectly fine. He doesn't allow comments on his blog, either.
Neither does this guy. And there are many more examples of how "tolerant" leftists are.
The Left is not totalitarian by accident; totalitarianism is its life‑force. Without its totalitarian feature, it would not exist. The purpose of the Left is, to build a new and perfect world, which means that this present existence must be destroyed, so that the slate can be wiped clean to start building the earthly paradise it dreams of. The objective for education for leftists, therefore, is indoctrination. They have appointed themselves as social redeemers and see their duty as building revolutionaries.
The left quite simply does not want the other side of the story told, since it would interrupt the path toward the utopian world it is building.
13 - pia
Cao, Cao, Cao, you're talking about deleting comments? You once changed a whole post on me. And don't deny it, or do your usual thing on me being an idiot, because it won't hold water here.
And many people watched that with much interest
Love the blanket "left" and "socialists" you're always referring to
Thanks for defining what the left is. Understand you a bit better. Not that I particularly wanted to.
And thanks for explaining what you think my beliefs are. Though when I tried summarizing and rewriting your second to last paragraph so that I could understand it, and understand what my motives are, it didn't make sense.
We're totalitarians who want to indoctrinate people and educate them to begin building an earthly paradise we dream of, and have appointed ourselves as social reedemers?
Have many problems with that beginning with: social reedemers aren't totalitarians. I could go on, but...
Margaret; they're using the AClU as a symbol for their movement. You see it defends people who need lawyers.
Probably think if they end up stopping the ACLU, they can end "innocent before proven guilty," and while they're at it, why have trials at all?
just declare every person who isn't on the radical right guilty and be over with it.
Yeah Cao, Kender, Jay, all them, they're really tolerant people who care so much about helping people, it warms my heart.
14 - Margaret Romao Toigo
My my, all of this silly partisan bickering over a concept that doesn't even really exist.
There is no clear "line in the sand" between the "left" and the "right," and there are all sorts of liberals and all sorts of conservatives.
The members of both the Republican and Democratic parties often fight amongst themselves about where their respective parties should stand on the issues. Neither major party marches in lockstep and I do not care if their propaganda says otherwise.
There are liberal and conservative socialists as well as liberal and conservative capitalists. Then there are both liberal and conservative libertarians and authoritarians, as well as liberal and conservative imperialists and isolationists. There are a lot more than two viewpoints and a lot more than two kinds of Americans.
Believe this or not, there are even some actual issues that are non-partisan. For example, the war on drugs (or Prohibition II, the bigger budgeted, glitzy sequel with a much higher body count) is supported by both liberal and conservative prohibitionists and it is called the miserable failure that it is by both liberal and conservative advocates of reform.
See my spin? Is my position on the matter of US drug policy obvious? Does it put me on the left or the right? Is it really that easy to pigeonhole people according to which positions they take on which issues?
Suffice it to say that every blog owner has the right to make his or her own linking/de-linking policies as well as the right to edit/delete comments for whatever reasons he or she pleases.
And, of course, all Americans have the right to be blind partisan fools.
15 - kender
Pia, allow me then [edited].
The aclu pushes many policies that are, at the heart of it, the first steps to to socialism.
I am not going to rehash that education [edited].
Suffice it to say that many, many of those spouting the left's lines and lies are burying there heads in the sand and arguing from a position of emotionalism only, rather than reality tempered with compassion, as they once did.