[486] in libertarians
Re: ACLU
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sethf@MIT.EDU)
Thu Dec 8 20:59:36 1994
From: sethf@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 20:57:12 -0500
To: tjic@icd.teradyne.com
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU
> but charges of "utter fabrication" seem to be a bit excessive. The
> vast majority of the previous mail seemed to cite examples of actual
> ACLU positions:
But from your list, you leave off claims which were false, such as:
"the ACLU having changed its policy after having defending the
Nazis marching on Skokie years ago. I believe they no longer take such
cases, and stick to "liberal" agenda type cases nowdays."
And sneaky misleading statistics such as:
"In 1948, he reported, this agenda encompassed 94 percent of the ACLU's
cases; by 1987 is accounted for only 45 percent."
Comparing 1948 to 1987 is not very instructive. There is no
reason to expect proportion to remain the same as the organization grows
and the world changes. Things are MUCH better post-60's for free speech
than they were in 1948, so the caseload in fact SHOULDN'T be the same.
I'm not going to go through everything line by line, isn't this
thread long enough?
Other comments:
>(1) support for quotas
This charge was made, and I looked into it, but couldn't find the
things which were alleged. I have my doubts, but I can't find a solid
refutation either.
> (2) implicit support for gun control at a National level, and explicit
> at at least one state level
I didn't take issue with this, in fact I specifically pointed it
out as the one very accurate charge.
> (3) cooperation with HCI, Greenpeace, etc.
There's a long file on the server about mailing lists and other
organizations. It's neither shocking or a secret, mailing lists go
around all the time (in fact, didn't a mailing list with Vernon's name
on it lead to the start of this discussion?).
>(4) decrease in percent of cases dealing with 'the rights of free speech, free
Factoid. I dealt with this already.
> (5) backing federal funding of free speech/art, as opposed to backing
> merely federal tolerance of privately funded speech/art
ACLU != Libertarian Party. Assuming we have federal funding,
their position is correct.
> (6) The situation that was described as "Their attorneys argue that
> teenage girls are competent to have an abortion without parental
> consent, but a teenage boy can't choose the United States over a
> totalitarian state. The only answer that makes sense is that their
> decisions aren't based on civil liberties but liberal politics."
And the writer had to go back many years to get this. It's
Red-Baiting, pure and simple. In fact, the next phrase (that you
omitted), makes the tactics very clear : "The ACLU likes abortion, and
it likes the Soviet Union.". The case was a political football. The
writer would have a better case that it was hate of the government
attorneys involved than love for the Soviet Union.
Just for a moment, if we can get over Red-Baiting and the spin,
doesn't even the biased description make some sense? Someone can believe a
minor is competent to decide "I want this medical procedure, I do not
want to raise a child for 18 years now", but not "I want my parents to
have their parental rights terminated because we disagree on politics".
In fact, if it weren't for the anti-Communistic aspect, I'd think many
of the people usually denouncing this one would be on the other side,
citing "family values" (to the credit of Libertarians, the position here
is consistent. But it's not much of a factor in the legal system).
> (7) The belief that "A fine should always be the preferred form of the
> penalty," the ACLU says. For those who do go to jail, "probation
??? I thought this WAS a Libertarian position, that penalties
should focus on restitution as opposed to imprisonment. Imprisonment is
an expensive government function that requires a lot of bureaucracy, why
favor it?
> (8) The opposition to "work requirements at government-assigned tasks
> as a condition of eligibility for welfare benefits or for any transfer
Something that needs to be thought through a little more deeply.
Essentially, that takes jobs away from both private and public employees.
> (9) The opposition to private parties implementing movie rating
> systems. (Policy 18, Rating Systems Sponsored by the Communications
> Industries.)
No, it's ratings systems backed up by the threat of government
force. Anyone can rate anything. But when they are put in by the threat
of government action if not used, as has been the history, then
Libertarians should howl. It's "Censor yourselves, or we'll censor you".
And the major systems (The Hays Code, the Comics Code, the MPAA,
video games) all follow this pattern.
I've in fact studied this one a lot. The mechanism is much more
complicated that "government / no government, pubic vs. private". I
believe the issue is best understood in very complex terms, of
certain large producers using government force in order to regulate the
market and drive rivals out of competition. But that's a whole different
argument.
Once again, the ACLU has been around for 75 years, and is made
up of many chapters. It's no trick at all to go through everything, and
by picking and choosing, come up with an indictment. But that's not at
all impressive, and shouldn't be convincing.
================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu
