Talk:American Civil Liberties Union

Colorado web site brief - Wikipedia:Recentism
Re recent edit to LGBTQ section adding Colorado web site case. This appears to be Recentism. The case is not decided yet; and the single 2ndary source is not too significant. This ACLU article is a very top-level history of ACLU. If we want to add info about minor briefs as they are filed, perhaps a dedicated section on ACLU/LGBTQ should be created? Noleander (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed this fairly unimportant sentence from the article based on several factors: Source was not great; Recentism;  the brief was filed by a state affiliate, not the US HQ;  no court decision reached; etc. Noleander (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The ACLU and the NSA may soon square off in the Supreme Court — over Wikipedia
Include in article?

National Security Agency and American Civil Liberties Union The ACLU and the NSA may soon square off in the Supreme Court — over Wikipedia - The NSA and the scope of state secrets privilege may be in front of the Supreme Court next term. Source: https://www.grid.news/story/technology/2022/09/27/the-aclu-and-the-nsa-may-soon-square-off-in-the-supreme-court-over-wikipedia/ September 27, 2022

"The Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that runs Wikipedia, last month asked the (Supreme Court) to hear arguments on its lawsuit over the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international phone and email communications. The organization, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, has been fighting the NSA in court over such “upstream surveillance” for the past seven years." ... "Wikimedia contends that given this surveillance, it cannot ensure the confidentiality of the tens of millions of people who read, edit and communicate about Wikipedia, one of the largest repositories of human information to ever exist."

Aeryn Palmer, legal director of compliance at the Wikimedia Foundation, said...“When we think about what we might be collecting from anyone who visits the site, when we think about how we do research with our readers or with our contributors to better understand what sorts of features they might like to see and how they want the projects to evolve, we’re continually thinking about how we can best protect their privacy,”

May1787 (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

1931 congressional investigation into ACLU report - ignored here
The report stated: "It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to attempt to protect the communists in their advocacy of force and violence to overthrow the government." Issued in January 1931. Maybe 17th Jan. I can’t conceive of any possible reason to exclude this. Boscaswell  talk  23:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * There could be many reasons, among them being that you did not provide a reliable source on this investigation or its report, any context in terms of tensions and red scare type fears (which ended up with labels of communist support and attacks on many people and organizations that were entirely undeserving of said labels), etc. Indeed, without a source provided, we don't even know if what you have given is a cherry picked quote of the opinion of one member of the investigation, rather than the conclusion of the report. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It’s here: |here
 * This was a formal report by no less an institution than the United States Congress! On the ACLU. Whether you consider it to be red-baiting is really of no consequence, surely. It deserves to be in the article!  Boscaswell   talk  03:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What I personally consider anything is not important. What reliable sources consider it, however, is. The HUAC and the Army–McCarthy hearings were by no less an institution than the United States Congress, but are largely viewed today quite negatively, and we don't turn around and say that random people accused (and blacklisted) by McCarthy actually were traitorous communists. Your own source shows the hyperbolic nature of these comments. It literally accuses the ACLU of intending to replace the American flag with that of the Soviet Union! This seems to be based on the Fish Committee, which as I guessed, is not exactly viewed as positive or even remotely accurate in its work. https://depts.washington.edu/depress/fish_committee.shtml There's also the question of weight and whether this is even important enough to have in the article (and no, being by Congress doesn't automatically make it important). Is this something that had genuine impact on the history of the ACLU, or is this just some footnote? It seems that, even at the time of its publication, the work of the Fish Committee was largely ignored. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10072151/1/Goodall%20Red%20Herrings%20-%20The%20Fish%20Committee%20and%20Anticommunism%20in%20the%20Early%20Depression%20Years.pdf Being a product of Congress doesn't make something notable or accurate. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Checking back on this, are we satisfied with leaving this out per WP:UNDUE? --OuroborosCobra (talk) OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Why yes, of course. It’s absolutely ridiculous of me to suggest that anythimg at all which refers to a leftist organisation as communist and anti-American is notable, particularly when it’s the report resulting from an investigation by the United States Congress. Ridiculous. I’m giving myself a big slap on the wrist. Boscaswell  talk  23:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's very possible that we could include some due, high-quality content on the ACLU and the Fish commission. The commission's report is mentioned in Paul L. Murphy's [[The Meaning of the Freedom of Speech], most relevantly on and around page 233. Maybe someone wants to go digging for more? It would not be neutral to present the commission's findings as fact, so at least a couple sentences on context would be needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

1960s and 1970s or 1970s and 1980s
In the Overview section, it is stated that, "In the 1970s and 1980s, the ACLU ventured into new legal areas involving the rights of homosexuals, students, prisoners, and the poor." However, in the "Victim groups" section, it is stated that, "During the 1960s and 1970s, the ACLU expanded its scope to include what it referred to as 'victim groups', namely women, the poor, and homosexuals."

Am I wrong in assuming there is a contradiction between the two sentences? If I am not wrong, is there a way to reconcile the two? Thanks, 2013creek (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is a contradiction. The article mentions a few cases involving students and prisoners in the 1960s, so maybe 1960s and 1970s is the correct one? 23impartial (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That would make sense. 2013creek (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I just changed it. It was a nice catch. 23impartial (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) 2013creek (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Primary Source In Intro?
Two out of three of the introducing sentence sources are directly from the ACLU describing themselves. Is this not some Verifiability AboutSelf conflict? Citing the organization as what the organization is, is problematic. I read the Institute for Justice that confidently labels them as libertarian without sourcing. Burden of proof seems incredibly low for that article.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210607011010/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html New York Times labels them as progressive as recently as 2021. HoadRog (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Re the ACLU sourcing itself, I've added "states that it", in order to place the quotation in context. Other characterizations can of course be added, per normal editing. — RCraig09 (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * AboutSelf is "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves." Since the ACLU is a reliable source, it does not apply. Furthermore, even if it did, it relates to material that is self-serving or makes exceptional claims.


 * Since the information was already in quotes, adding your qualification probably violates MOS:DOUBT.
 * TFD (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If the textual qualification were " claims that it...", then MOS:DOUBT might be applicable. But "states that it..." is neutral, and does not violate MOS:DOUBT. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've updated sourcing to be archived FAQ pages, as the three previous sources didn't have the exact quotation. Today's ACLU website doesn't seem to have such a concise overall mission statement, so I used older (archived) versions of the FAQ page. — RCraig09 (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)