[488] in libertarians
ACLU, IRF; conservatives on civil liberties
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (hhuang@MIT.EDU)
Fri Dec 9 00:18:45 1994
From: hhuang@MIT.EDU
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 00:15:11 +0500
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU
I'll try to be brief.
I'm with Seth on IRF v ACLU. IRF is more interested in
partisan anti-PC politics than civil liberties, and it's a lot more
blatant and obnoxious about it than the ACLU would ever be. The ACLU
record is mixed, but the ACLU still takes up a lot of unpopular cases
that nobody else does.
In general, conservative groups are inconsistent on civil
liberties. A lot of campus conservatives and their outside supporters
can talk the freedom of expression line, but ask them if they think
obscenity laws should be repealed. It's easy to answer "yes," so I
bring up examples: public deceny laws, FCC regulation of public
airwaves and channels, pornography restrictions, compulsory movies
ratings, internet or BBS content-based restrictions. I ask if the
following would disturb them enough that they might wish it to be
banned: any book, movie, show, CD, or internet newsgroup no matter no
obscene, offensive, subversive, or violent; gays or lesbians having
sex on their own front lawns; desecration of religious symbols;
explicit personals (both pictorally and verbally) in the local
newspapers; flag burning; advertisements and solicitations for orgies
in the local paper or other media channels; unrestricted strong
cryptography (more subversive than it sounds).
Censorship is pervasive and often appears invisible until you
try to imagine what it would be like to not have such censorship.
Many civil libertarians and some leftists/liberals are radically
against censorship (as are libertarians, of course). Conservative
attempts to support freedom of expression seem lame and isolated in
comparison.
-Han
