Talk:American Civil Liberties Union/Archive 1

URL

Once again, I have to ask: Why this obsession with slashes after URLs? It works just as well. -- Zoe

This is pure geek pedantry, but technically "http://www.aclu.org" is not a valid URL without this final slash. What you're pulling up in your browser is a page, not a site per se. Putting the slash means "Show me the default file in the main web directory on the ACLU site." Without the slash, you're saying "I want the ACLU site, but I'm not telling you which file I want to see." It really doesn't matter, since all popular browsers put the slash in for you if you leave it out, just like they put in the "http://" in front if you leave that out. But it's more correct to leave it in. Quadell (talk) 13:28, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

• FYI, it does make an actual difference when the URL is not the root of the site. http://aclu.org/DrugPolicy will make a request of the web server which will cause it to redirect to http://aclu.org/DrugPolicy/ -- using the latter saves that extra indirection. For the root, it does exactly the same thing, because the empty string is not a legal GET request. — brighterorange (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Its single-minded defense of civil rights without regard to political philosophies or agendas has resulted in criticism from both sides of the political spectrum over the years.

This statement is obviously pro-ACLU and its critics would not agree with it. —Casey J. Morris 17:53, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

It's also the truth. Does that affect your opinion of this statement?

!Atlant 23:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Except...it's not true. Libertarians and Objectivists such as myself realize that there is no such thing as a right to eat in a restaurant owned by someone else, yet the ACLU contends that it is. A better phrasing would state tat it defends what it CONSIDERS to be civil rights. Kurt Weber 17:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Positions

I have started to edit this page. one thing i do not think is fair is to have the positions section focus on the controversial positions of the aclu. i want to try to rework that soon. i mean, i am fine with it including the controversial ones, but the whole section is dominated by things that are "controversial." if this is an article about the ACLU and not an article about its critics, then i think the positions section should focus on what its positions are. if you look on their website they have a huge list of "issues" like prisoner's rights, voting rights, drug policy, HIV/AIDS that are not covered in the positions section. so, what i am saying is that when this whole article focuses on criticisms, it unfairly respresents what the ACLU does and is. especially, since many of the critics don't even actually know what the ACLU is, but just follow one or two cases that are specifically important to them. i intend to have strong representation of the criticisms, but i do not think it is fair for the entire article to be dominated by the views of the critics.

Criticism

The Criticism section contains mostly straw men, designed to make the ACLU's critics seem fanatical. Someone needs to fix this up and put in some more legitimate, centrist criticisms.

There seems to be only one genuine criticism on the whole page, which is the paragraph about removing the crosses from the seals. But even this paragraph is weakened by its inclusion under the heading "Christian and other religious critics". Most of the other so-called "criticisms" are really straw men that in effect support the ACLU, e.g. the Jerry Falwell quote.

- - Some groups criticize the ACLU for its opposition to requiring prayers in public schools, display of religious symbols on public property, its support of abortion, support of the rights of homosexuals, and the defense of freedom of speech for persons with unpopular or controversial opinions. - - The ACLU has defended the free speech rights of neo-Nazi groups and NAMBLA (a pro-pedophilia group). - - On their website, the ACLU states that they defend the United States Constitution; however, critics argue that this is not true for all positions that they hold. For example, the ACLU opposes capital punishment, in spite of the fact that, since 1976, the US Supreme Court has determined that capital punishment is constitutional. One of the key factors in the Supreme Court's decision was evidence in the Constitution itself: the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "No person shall be ... deprived of life ... without due process of law", and the Fourteenth Amendment says, "No state shall ... deprive any person of life ... without due process of law." - - However, the ACLU has continued to fight against the death penalty since its reinstatement in 1976, arguing that it violates the consitutional restriction against "cruel and unusual punishment." - - ==Official Statements== - - *"The Bill of Rights are fundamental rights that protect from government abuse of power. These rights are indispensable to a free society.

Moved criticism to talk page perhaps we can have critique of the ACLU page to go along with Environmentalism (Critique of George W. Bush's politics) Smith03 22:34, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I restored the criticisms. If you don't like them, make counterarguments instead of wholesale deletions. RickK 02:36, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hear, HearArk30inf 02:41, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That isn't what NPOV is about: you don't get to write critiques hoping that someone comes along to give the other side. The article is supposed to be neutral. I intend to keep deleting these until you write a neutral article, and if you don't like it, appeal to the administrators. 66.82.116.82 14:30, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I am an administrator. I'm gald to see that you decided to actually make some useful contributions besides just deleting what you didn't like. It makes no difference, but I am a strong supporter of the ACLU, but I can't allow people to come in and just start stripping out things they don't agree with. That's also not NPOV. RickK 04:06, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi there 66.82.116.82 can you than please explain why you put in the critique of Bush's enviromental record in his page if you are concern about making sure things are balance? Smith03 14:33, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I didn't, or at least I didn't intend to. I'm going to check the history; but if I did, then it was an unintended glitch, and I apologize for the error. I did remove the critique of Bush's environment record from the other page. Even though I happen to agree with the "environmentalist" critique of Bush almost entirely, I didn't think it was neutral and I did cut it out of the other page, intending redirect the article to the G. W. Bush article and to paste the environmentalist critique back into the George W Bush article, after editing it. Perhaps it was still in my Windows clipboard and I pasted it in this ACLU somehow when I was removing the critique section. In the end, when I went to "Save Page" in the George W. Bush article, there was an Editing Conflict, and I gave up on that for the time being. My opinion of NPOV is not that it sanctions one-sided critiques in articles and places the duty on the world to leave them or render the articles neutral, but rather that it places on a duty on writers to be neutral in what they write. 66.82.116.82 14:54, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I can't find in the history of the main ACLU article or in this Talk page any record of my having pasted the "environmentalist" critique of Bush. What are you asking me to explain, again? 66.82.116.82 15:04, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It looks what you did from page histories was redirect the envorment critique to the Bush page and than added it (the critique) to the Bush page, but had some one click on the critique it would have routed them back the page they were already at. I tend to agree with you that people should write a balance article and not just pick one side and figure (wink) that someone else will come along and balance them out. However I think it would be better to put facts in to balance the article than just remove the criticism. Do you have any info about the ACLU that can be added to this to make it more balance? Smith03 15:08, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If I had the time to write an article detailing the many accomplishments of the ACLU, I would do so. However, I don't right now. People who write or edit articles have the burden to make (or leave) them neutral. Violations of NPOV should not be allowed to stand while waiting for somebody else to come along and assume the burden of rendering them neutral. Otherwise, the Wikipedia will end up with a lot of opinionated articles which have not been balanced out. Articles or sections of articles that violate NPOV should not be permitted to stand. I am seeing a lot of this kind of thing in the Wikipedia and it diminishes it in my eyes, even when, as in the case of the Environmentalism critique, I happen to agree with the opinions being expressed. (I'm not quite sure why we are discussing my slip-up with the Environmentalism article here, though.) In any case, in this case, there is another and less time-consuming way to make the ACLU article neutral than writing paragraphs to balance the material that is not neutral, and that is simply to delete it. The non-neutral "critique" material is in the page history, and this discussion is here in the Talk page. The criticisms can be resurrected when somebody has time to write a fuller, more neutral article. Meanwhile, the ACLU article is better left short and neutral. 66.82.116.82 15:34, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

By leaving valid critism in the page, perhaps someone who has the time to write the many accomplishments, will be motivated to soSmith03 15:59, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If that attitude prevails, then the NPOV is meaningless. I'm going to insist on this, and the only resolution is going to be a public debate -- unless you relent. Think about whether you want to defend the paragraphs you are insisting upon. 66.82.116.82 16:03, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Someone kept deleting the Pristina incident from Wesley Clark because they said that Clark's view was not presented. I kept reverting it. Finally I went out and found a BBC interview and I myself added Clark's view of the incident. If you feel strongly then FIX the article. I added Clark's view for this guy because he didn't want to take the time to do it himself, but I don't have the time or inclination to do that for every opposing view someone deletes. Go find the info and fix what you see the problem to be, but don't delete other views because nobody has taken the time to add the other side yet.Ark30inf 16:08, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Again, you are able to write the many accomplishments and good things the ACLU has done, it seems like you probably know them, instead of just removing valid critism add their good stuff. It makes for a better paper.Smith03 16:05, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely. Would someone please add some facts, history, famous cases, people involved, anything other than just pro/anti arguments. Some of us would like to know something about the ACLU. DJ Clayworth

At this point, it is a question of an important principle. Are people to be permitted to write one-sided, unbalanced articles, and have these left in the Wikipedia as a challenge to those who disagree? Or does the requirement of a NPOV mean that if criticisms of an organization, person, etc are included, that the other side also be presented sympathetically? Is it the duty of somebody writing an article to do all the research, or may they do only the research that supports their own POV, and leave it to others to do the rest of the research? Does NPOV mean that all sides have equal access to the articles, and the article zigs and zags its way to neutrality as each side chimes in? Or does it mean that each contributor must strive to achieve neutrality and that the article should be neutral at every stage? If you read the material elsewhere in the Wikipedia about the NPOV, I don't think there is any question on these points. If you keep dragging back this biased material, you are going to have to justify yourself eventually to somebody besides me. Ark, if you want this unbalanced material to stay, you had better repeat your Pristina action and provide the balancing material. It isn't my duty to provide it, since I didn't write the unbalancing material. 66.82.116.82 16:36, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

These are valid criticisms in the article. We should not be deleting (censoring) valid information just because you don't have the time to add more valid information. I did not right this article either, nor did I write the Pristina one. You are obviously the one who feels strongly that additional info needs to be added but you don't feel strongly enough to actually add it yourself and somehow the burden falls on me to satisfy you or you will delete the information. During the time you have been deleting and arguing you could have done a Google search and actually added the information.Ark30inf 17:08, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hello, I do not believe anyone who has responded to questions /concerns add the criticism section. Why are they or myself the one to add balance, again you are able to add balance to the articleSmith03 16:57, 26 Aug 2003

(UTC)

Can I give you an example I recently worked on the Pat Robertson page not because I agree with him ( I tend to think he a little shady), but his article was blantly against him. I didn't remove all the critism, I check it and attempted to add balance. Smith03 17:05, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Looks much better.Ark30inf 17:24, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

thanks Ark Can we all live this Ark30inf verision ?Smith03 17:28, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Its not my version, its 66.82's, I reverted it before reading (slaps self). I can live with this one fine. More can still be added on many cases, but its much better now.Ark30inf 17:30, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

66.82 is still working on it. Looks like we might end up with a decent article.Ark30inf 17:46, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As a one time employee of the ACLU I just want to say that I think the current POV is acceptable in the Critism section. People at the ACLU tend to be somewhat proud of our controversial stances. I don't think it is possible to understand who or what the organization is without knowing about some of the sometimes harsh criticism directed at the group. Konky2000 14:57, 29 May 2004 (PST)

Can someone please explain why "Some critics point to its opposition to the death penalty, which has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States while the ACLU continues to argue that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment restriction against "cruel and unusual punishment" and against international human rights norms." appears in the criticism section? The proffered reason for the criticism is just incoherent--if the ACLU were to only advance positions that a Supreme Court majority agreed with, it would be some sort of bizarre judicial propaganda front, not a legal advocacy organization. SS451

I think it's basically saying that critics disagree with the ACLU's anti-death penalty stance. It might be a little wordy and confusing, you're correct that the Supreme Court's rulings are secondary to the dispute. I think it boils down to the fact that the ACLU does not support the death penalty, but its critics do. This is similar to ACLU opposition from gun rights activists. Rhobite 20:22, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph about Bill O'Reilly as it provides no concrete information whatsoever and is borderline irrelevent in that he is a just a present-day TV/talk show host.

I agree that the paragraph could probably use more information about why O'Reilly thinks the ACLU is the most dangerous organisation in America. But I definitely don't think the paragraph should be completely removed. He's the host of a very popular talk show and one of the biggest critics of the ACLU which makes his opinion relevant. Monkeyman 15:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

i am concerned that an article that is supposed to be about the aclu it is more or less dominated by what its criticis think. this in itself does not seem fair to me. I want there to be a solid criticism section, but i don't understand why over half of the article is about things people how disagree with the aclu say. I have been trying to edit this in some ways lately and will continue to do so. like, in the introduction, i don't understand why there is a need to say that "its stances have engendered criticism from both sides of the political spectrum, though conservatives are more likely than liberals to criticize the organization." why not leave the liberal conservative stuff to the criticism section and just say that it is controversial in the introduction. i tried to change it in that way, but someone changed it back. i will probably erase the "hough conservatives are more likely than liberals to criticize the organization" part sometime again.

The ACLU also ignores the right of the people to govern themselves, for example, (at least some) leaders have stated that fundamental decisions should not be based on what the people feel is right, but what unelected judges decide. Their bizarre interpretation of our Constitution doesn't help much either (they tread all over the freedom of religion, and don't seem to understand freedom of speech at all). Not to mention that they pick and choose what they read and don't read into the constitution (they can't read into the Second Amendment to find a right for everyone to own arms, but they can read into several other Amendments to find a non-existant right to privacy). GreatGatsby 15:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Public defenders...

Source is, among others, a statement from a former federal prosecutor for the state of New Jersey. Happens to be my own view that the prosecutor was agreeing with. I'm not and never have been a member of the ACLU.

obsolete

Like it or not mainstream America thinks of the ACLU the same way that they think of unions, obsolete and continually irrelevent in our times. Severl polls conducted by Rand , TimeLife and others have consistently shown that outside of the NE and the left coast the ACLU and unions both have public perception problems which cause the mainstream to view both as anacronisms.--68.42.11.91 11:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Quotes from critics

I'm not sure of the best way to section quotes from critics. "Quotes from critics" isn't suggested in the manual of style, I just thought it would be better in its own section than at the top of the criticism section. If someone knows a better way to integrate this quote, feel free. Also, while it appears to be a genuine quote I've seen versions where he says "25 years" and ones where he says "10 years." Can someone get access to this back issue of Reason magazine and check? Rhobite 17:35, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Gun Control

A recent edit referred to an archived 1996 position page on Gun Control to state the ACLU endorses Gun Control; this is a mischaracterization of what the page stated, which was a legal opinion based more on the interpretations of the Supreme Court of the Second Amendment, precious few indicating some acceptance of regulation of arms ownership. This is hardly an endorsement of Gun Control on any level, merely a statement that it is within the perview of Legislatures to act upon.

Furthermore, the 1996 page is a bad source; It is not timely, having been archived and unupdated for years; Furthermore, it was the end-product of all the internal debate in the ACLU up until that point, which may not be entirely representative of the organization's stance at that point in time, and certainly can't be construed to be at this point.

The issue is the center of a deal of internal conflict. The ACLU does not argue one way or the other, and the critical point drawing attention to that fact has been made. Reverted the edit as it was unnecessary and biased. --Alexwcovington 08:58, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't really think you can explain away that page. It clearly says that the ACLU does not believe the second amendment gives citizens a right to own guns: "the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." This is also explained on a page dated from 2002: [1] Furthermore, speculating about the reason for their gun control policy is POV and it should be attributed. Rhobite 13:05, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Rhobite. The ACLU's own answer to that question is not a "bad source". Simply because the ACLU hasn't changed its position since 1996 doesn't mean that its position is out of date. What the ACLU says is its position on the Second Amendment is what we should report. If you have any evidence that what the ACLU claims as its position is actually not its position, then you should list it. But, as Rhobite said, speculation isn't helpful. For this reason, I'm reverting the page. Quadell (talk) 14:44, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

If this source were to be accepted, then it should be characterized by what it actually says, not interpreted in a light portraying the ACLU in opposition to gun rights.

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

To say the organization does not believe that the Second Amendment confers the right for individuals to own firearms is a mischaracterization and slants the original intent. The ACLU maintains that the Second Amendment is not an inviolable legal barrier protecting a right to bear all types of arms (which MAY include certain and/or all firearms, but not necessarily). The inclusiveness of the term "arm" forces consideration of newer arms technologies developed since 1789; while flintlock pistols, rifles, and cannons might be covered by original intent, is the 2nd Amendment elastic? Does it include fully or semi-automatic weapons? Does it include nuclear devices? The ACLU does not draw the line; they simply state that Congress has the power to resolve such questions. But they do not allow them free reign, stipulating that restrictions must be "reasonable." Thus the possibility is open for the ACLU to take issue with a piece of gun control legislation.

As the current statement does not accurately reflect the source, I have modified it. --Alexwcovington 11:05, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Both statements accurately reflect the source, because the ACLU also says "Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." So the ACLU sort of says two different things on that page. In this case the best approach is to present both your sentence and a sentence summarizing their "policy 47" and let the reader decide. Also we should get them out of parens. OK? Rhobite 15:30, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

I originally put this at the bottom of the page. I scanned this talk page before I added it...I have absolutely no idea how I missed this Gun Control section. Mea culpa. Nevertheless, I believe my statement below is accurate.

Atlant recently reverted an edit of mine in the gun rights section. I've since reverted it back. It's my belief that the version that was there was a POV dress-up of the actual policy, which I've quoted directly below. In addition, I removed and replaced a dead link with a valid one.

From [2]: ACLU POLICY "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

I know there are some that don't believe this is what the ACLU thinks, but this is their official policy, and it should be cited as-is. If someone would prefer a direct quote rather than a paraphrase to remove any chance of POV influence, I would support that, but I think it's rather a bulky solution to the problem. --MikeJ9919 15:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

amicus curiae

The "friend of the court" part is unnecessary and it smacks of pedantry. Most readers already know what amicus curiae means; and if not they can click on the link and see the article. The translation doesn't provide any useful information and it is slightly patronizing.

Additions of Sept. 30

• I would appreciate a citation for the recent additions; specifically, I don't believe the ACLU supports child pornography, and it seems odd that they would oppose both permit requirements for protests and pro-life demonstrations. I suspect that these statements are at the least misleading, if not completely inaccurate, and have reverted the changes until a citation is provided. All the best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:37, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:13, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Like it or not, the ALCU does support the "right" to own and disseminate child pornography. They don't support the creation of it, but the organization holds no qualms over possession and distribution. And if I read your statement correctly, the ALCU supposedly opposes permits for protests and opposes pro-life demonstrations. This is completely in-line with their philosophy. They're the supreme hypocrites, they only appear to support freedom of speech/protest/gather/religion if it applies to their beliefs. GreatGatsby 15:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz quote

I think it would be helpful if the article stated what year Dershowitz made the given quote, to give a better context. I tried to google for a source of the quote but only came up with this article and a couple blogs.

Communist agenda

The ACLU was founded in the 1920s by Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman, described as a "progressive" and "the perfect feminist."

Earl Browder was general secretary of the Communist Party of the United States from 1930 through its dissolution in 1944. When the party was reconstituted as the Communist Political Association later that year, Browder was chosen as its president. Browder proudly proclaimed that the ACLU functioned as "a transmission belt" for the party.

The main reason the ACLU, like many other radical left wingers, are against gun rights is because a well armed populace stands in their way of realizing their dream of a communist state.

The ACLU is also notoriously selective in what cases it does and doesn't take.

--Marcel1975 18:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever, Marcel. But you may want to consider whether defending the rights guaranteed to you in the Bill of Rights is, in fact, a "radical left wing" idea.

Atlant 23:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Remember, both of you: Wikipedia is not a place for political debate. Unless it's about the article, take it outside. Meelar (talk) 23:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

The "Anti-Christian Litigation Unit"

Recently, someone removed this comment:

A common running joke among conservatives, religious conservatives in particular, is that the ACLU stands for the "Anti Christ Litigation Unit" (also used are the "Anti-Christian Liberal Union" etc.).

So long as it's properly categorized, I actually think it's useful to keep ignorant crap like this in the article as it does correctly reflect how some folks feel about the ACLU. They're wrong, of course, but it is a true reflection of their ignorance.

(And I say this as a board member of the NHCLU, the New Hampshire affiliate of the ACLU.)

Obviously, I'd welcome discussion on this.

Atlant 16:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow, then you're not biased as all, coming from the organization. The ACLU's blatant ignorance of what the separation of church and state actually means gives support to the Anti-Christian moniker given to the group. "They're wrong"? For someone coming from the organization, you're quite ignorant of the founding and ideals of the group. "Ignorant crap." You work for a group that thinks child pornography is protected by the freedom of speech, but that silent prayer or meditation isn't. They're a step away from thought police. GreatGatsby 15:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

A lot of criticism of the ACLU is along these lines, I know, but have you seen this specific example around? --Twinxor 20:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen this (specifically), but then again, I haven't looked for it either. I'll bet a Google search would be thoroughly depressing :-).

Atlant 23:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me either, but unless it's a frequently-used slogan it shouldn't be in the article. Rhobite 23:19, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

This page is bias, It needs some work

Says the anonymous, grammar-weak author.

Atlant 00:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, don't insult contributors personally. -Grick(^{talk to me!})

I have seen "Anti-Christian Litigation Unit" used on occasion, but I don't really see the point of including it here. I'm sure the ACLU's detractors call it all sorts of terrible things, but we certainly aren't here to categorize them. SS451 03:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, someone here seems to have an orgasmic love of the ACLU... maybe he should read Nat Hentoff's columns such as "ACLU Better Clean Up its Act," "Expelling Huck Finn," "ACLU: Guilty Until Presumed Innocent," and "The ACLU violates its principles-- yet again!" Also, their stance on The Second Amendment is laughable when juxtaposed against their position on abortion-on-demand and The Fourth Amendment.

Above unsigned comment by anon 24.130.117.205

That's besides the point. Listing all the various cute names the ACLU's opponents have for it wouldn't add anything meaningful to the article, and would, if anything, only serve to caricature its more legitimate critics. The final, somewhat more substantial criticism that you referred to is already in the article, albeit in a somewhat more NPOV form. Aquillion 05:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The alleged Roger Baldwin quote

Regarding the most recent edit by 66.129.224.36, can anyone verify the source and its credibility? The journal article cited is not available online as far as I can see. --Veronique 00:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

On a quick perusal of Google, I don't see any versions of this that don't track back to one or another virulently anti-ACLU site, so I've removed the quote for now.

Atlant 12:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI, the National Federation for Decency is now the American Family Association - not exactly an unbiased source. I'm curious about the origins of this quote. Seems unlikely that they'd fabricate it, but I'm sure it's taken out of context. Let's keep it out of the article until we can find its original source. Rhobite 16:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I came across that quote again while editing Baldwin's own page (that page still needs a lot of work, BTW, if anyone here is interested in it.) The quote removed here appears to be a composite, but the meat of it, based what I could find, is something Baldwin supposedly said in his college years, based on a quote from a 30th-anniversary college scrapbook, where the quote is apparently recalled by an unnamed college college contemporary of unspecified relation to Baldwin thirty years of after he supposedly said it (and after Baldwin had already become a controversal figure). I don't think that's an especially trustworthy source for a quote. Aquillion 21:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Aquillion, excellent research. I had tried to track down the quote myself, and pulled up an "Insight on the News" Lexis-Nexis article from 1997 that included it as something that appeared in Baldwin's 35th reunion notes. Could you provide the source where you found this information about it being a second-hand recalled quote? Thanks. Sdedeo 18:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

My understanding was that it was in a section "spotlighting" his class, where the people writing the yearbook (not the alumni themselves) summerized the achievements and views of an earlier class by, for example, quoting them. Aquillion 21:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hee hee. If the notes are the same as they are today, the form is for alumni to write in and summarize their lives every five years; the collection is printed as a book. Sdedeo 02:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, everything seems to point to the "Harvard Class Book" from 1935. I am going to try to raise my contacts to see if I can get a verification that it appeared there. Sdedeo 18:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the quote from Baldwin's page, and also removed some spurious claims that he was a Communist. Unfortunately, I suspect there's likely to be a dispute there over that; that page doesn't get much attention, and when I first arrived at it a few months ago it was little but the claim that he was a Communist. Aquillion 21:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion, I think you may have gone too far by removing the letter quote from the Baldwin page. It is entirely plausible that Baldwin was a communist in his early years -- especially given the fact that he was involved in the pacifism movement during WW1. Many, many intellectuals were self-described communists before WW2 and the Stalinist excesses (and some remained so afterwards.) While you've raised doubts about the truth of the HCB quote that I'll check the next time I'm in Cambridge, I see no reason to doubt the other one. The only reason I don't want to put them back in is that I can't find any substantiation online other than from virulently anti-ACLU sites, who don't provide footnotes.

Just googling around, it's clear that later Baldwin was anti-communist -- see "For the next several years, Baldwin sought to work for international human rights, producing a volume, A New Slavery, which condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny, forced labor."" [3]. Ah -- here is a note from a Columbia library site saying Baldwin was initally pro-Communism: "America's greatest civil libertarian was initially also a staunch defender of Communist Russia." [4].

I applaud you for wading into the Baldwin article, and wish you luck. It seems like there needs to be documentation!

In any case, I'm pretty sure the quotes don't belong on the ACLU page, whatever their provenance. Sdedeo 02:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

ACLU and punishment

Article modifications come in waves. There will be a week of "Baldwin was a communist, dude read this quote" edits, and then it will disappear. This week, the edits seem to be all about "lenient sentences". Here's the most recent edit (a previous one stated that the ACLU was against punishing child molesters):

"...as well as its support for more lenient punishments for acts that libertarians and Objectivists hold are rightly illegal (such as murder, theft, rape, and battery"

The ACLU does not support "more lenient punishments" in general (obviously), although it does oppose the death penalty (already discussed in the article) and other sentencing practices that it believes violate "cruel and unusual." One thing the ACLU has gotten into is the "three strikes" law [5]; if "libertarians and Objectivists" object to the ACLU's opposition to a life sentence for the theft of $150 of video tapes, I guess we should include it, but there would need to be a credible source.

Sdedeo 17:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Citation

Could someone find a citation for "Bill O'Reilly refers to the ACLU as "the most dangerous organization in America" on his various broadcasts, and frequently lambastes the group." and place it in the article? I don't doubt the truth of the statement, but i think it would make the article better if there was a link so that people could better judge whether or not the statement is true.134.173.94.191 03:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It's here [6] --Veronique 05:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)