Talk:American Civil Liberties Union/Archive 2

Funding and Membership

Can someone locate and add what the ACLU's funding and membership has been since its founding (maybe in chart or table form)? I think this would make a good addition to the article. Monkeyman 15:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't promise when I'll remember to do it/be able to do it, but I'll certainly try to ask our local affiliate's Executive Director if she has this info or knows where to get it. (This shouldn't stop anyone else from "beating me to it" and getting the requested info first!) Atlant (NHCLU board member)

Ariah Naier

I met a man named Ariah Naier at a speakin engagement at my college, Colby College.

As I understand it he was one of the key figures in the Skokie, Illinois debate, and was ejected from the ACLU by the board for his defense of the Nazis' right to free speech.

Can anyone confirm this? I wuold like to make an article about him but I don't remember that much. All I know is the above and that he currently chairs an international human rights organization.

I googled his name, but I fear I have remembered the wrong spelling, and I got no matches.

My essential comment is this:

--->I think it would be fitting to have a reference to him in the ACLU History section. Once we find the correct spelling, of course. --Zaorish 01:39, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aryeh Neier was indeed a key figure in the Skokie case. He was at that time the ACLU's Executive Director. According to one site, it's not so much that he was "ejected", but rather that the organization's defense of Nazis was very unpopular and caused a drop in membership, prompting Neier's resignation because he " found himself unable to reconcile the organization's activities with available funds". [1] There certainly doesn't seem to be any lingering ill will, given that the ACLU named a fellowship after Neier ([2]). JamesMLane 10:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chile case

The Walter Polovchak case is sometimes compared with a case where the New Jersey ACLU supported a minor's right to asylum when the country the minor didn't want to return to was Chile. Does anyone have a reference to this? I couldn't find anything specific on the Internet. Ken Arromdee 18:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• [3] is the only thing I could find. What would be really good is if we could find an official ACLU position on the Polovchak case (e.g., what were they thinking?). There's nothing at aclu.org, however. Sdedeo 22:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

reorg article?

Hi all --

There is a lot of material on controversial ACLU cases, and it is sort of spread around. Is there a better way to organize it? We could organize it by subject, e.g., "pornography and sex", "church and state"? Or by decade? Anyway, just a suggestion to think about. I personally think this is an excellent article, and because of people's work one of the few places to find unbiased information about some of the most controversial cases (which are barely discussed on the ACLU's homepages, and are usually given in distorted form when they come from anti-ACLU sources.) Sdedeo 19:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

critics wording

An anon IP has been making edits to the page; in particular, s/he wants to remove statements to the effect that the most vocal critics of the ACLU come from the right. This is really not a debatable point, although we do qualify later in the article that some liberals are also critics of the ACLU, in particular over campaign finance and pornography.

Furthermore, it is flat out inaccurate to describe critics of the ACLU's 1st amendment policies as "Christian" without qualification. As discussed later in the article, a number of Christian groups, including Jehovah's Witness and the Mormons, have a much more nuanced approach to the ACLU; furthermore, there are a great number of Christian groups (the Quakers, for example) who have been strong supporters of the ACLU's work on church-state issues.

It is necessary that the article draw distinctions and be as accurate as possible. You may feel that all Christians should be critics of the ACLU, but that does not change the fact that many are not. Please discuss here before making further edits in this vein.

Sdedeo 00:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sdedeo,

Yes, there is political bias in the article. You are wrong when you say that Christians need to be qualified, with regard to various ACLU actions.

• Sdedeo, I think the article is okay now, as it says "some Christians" -- it makes clear it's not a blanket inclusion. And, to Sdedeo's unsigned critic, I would suggest you refrain from calling people "wrong" in matters of opinion. IMHO, that's contrary to the consensus-building atmosphere of Wiki. You're entitled to your opinion, as is Sdedeo, but no one person's opinion is more valid than another's. JuanOso 20:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

partial reorg

Hi all -- I have done a partial reorg of the critics section, dividing it into three groups: conservative crits, conservative christian crits, liberal crits. I realize that logically conservative christian crits should be a subset of conservative crits, but actually, it seems to work better this way, since the two both overlap, and differ in emphasis.

Note that I've gone ahead and used the term conservative christian to describe what was previously referred to as just christian. This is semi-controversial, I guess, but if people find significant opposition to the ACLU from more "liberal" christians, then there's an obvious place to add it -- in the liberal section. I have not found any sources that point towards strong resistance to the aclu from more liberal groups (e.g., the episcopalians, unitarians, etc., etc.), or groups whose political POV may vary depending on the person (e.g., Catholics.)

(Of course, the Catholic Church will find itself on the opposite side of the ACLU on legal questions especially abortion questions, but the critics section is not a place to list every single person who disagrees with the ACLU; rather to list groups who specifically and consistently criticize the ACLU on both particular and general grounds.)

(...and again: this is not to say that, e.g., a Catholic person may not criticize the ACLU in many matters; rather that that opposition should not be described as "Catholic" or coming from a Catholic POV, but could rather be better subsumed under, e.g., "conservative crits.)

Sdedeo (tips) 01:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Good work

I'm just dropping by to say good job. Your article is well sourced, well organized, well written, and well balanced. Regards, Durova 23:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

O'Reilly edits

Mrmiscellanious, I don't understand why your edits to the O'Reilly section are more NPOV, and apparently neither does Sdedeo. I think it's entirely reasonable to mention facist, even if he hasn't used it recently. As for conservative, he is the model of the modern conservative. Beyond not toteing himself as conservative, I'd like some evidence that he claims he's not conservative or someone claims he's not conservative before even adding a note about it to this article.--Prosfilaes 17:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like some claims to back up that "he is the model of the modern conservative". Arkon 00:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, not sure about Prosfilaes, but I think it's fair to put O'Reilly's remarks in the general "Conservative" section; whether or not he is a true-blue conservative, it's certaintly the case that the aspects of the ACLU's program he objects to are in the conservative vein. Furthermore, I think it's pretty accurate to say that O'Reilly is commonly regarded by others as being more conservative than liberal. Sdedeo (tips) 00:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Court Awarded Damages

Sdedeo, Some mention the ACLU's collections of court awarded damages should be added. The ACLU has collected millions in monetary damages from the courts. Specific to this, if the citizens of a town are damaged/violated by a violation of Church and State, the ACLU sues, and wins both correction of the violation and monetary damages, shouldn't the money go to the victims?

I could add it but you're the better author...peace, take care. 68.52.59.234 04:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea where judgement money goes. Do you have a source talking about it? My guess -- and IANAL! -- is that in many cases, the ACLU gets involved on behalf of a third party; the few cases where it really is "ACLU v. someone", my guess is that damages are not involved. I'm not sure if they collect attorney fees if they do win, though they probably do; further, don't know if anyone has criticized them for taking excessive fees in a case they did. Thanks for the praise, but it should be said the ACLU article is the product of a great deal of work by a very large number of people! Sdedeo (tips) 05:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm -- OK, found a few references, will try to integrate. Sdedeo (tips) 05:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A great number of people contributed to this article and none were aware the ACLU collects millions in court awarded damages??? Not possible. It is plausible that this article is biased and some of the folks didn't want to provide derogatory facts about the ACLU. Not to worry, if these facts aren't placed on the article soon, I'll edit.

You really didn't know about the ACLU monetary awards? Wow, what else have we neglected in the article?68.52.59.234 10:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi 68.52.59.234 -- as you can see, the question of monetary awards is on its way to being established in the article (see the funding section.) If you have specific citations of large monetary awards going to the ACLU as the result of a legal judgment, please add it in. Again, let me just stress that external sources (ideally, e.g., a news report about a specific judgment) are really required here. Sdedeo (tips) 14:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with this. $9,565,959.00. 22 judgements, all with links. http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/News/newspage.asp?story=2859. It'll be a while before I have time to add it, thanks for your help. Happy New Years!68.52.59.234 23:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks 68.52.59.234; this is very interesting and there are a number of links there to independent newspapers -- great. I will add in this info soon, either tonight or tomorrow. Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 00:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've added this new material in. I can't link to all the cases discussed by the article (just too long), so I linked to a smattering of them and tried to draw general conclusions about the nature of cases that lead to judgments. Sdedeo (tips) 00:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be valuable to better relate how the ACLU's handling of monetary awards compares to the policies of other non-profit organisations involved in legal advocacy and litgation, and to general standards of lawyers involved in 'pro bono' work overall. Right now, the detailed emphasis on this subject seems to me (despite meritable attempts at remaining NPOV in phrasing) to be playing into the hands of the ongoing right wing smear campaign against the ACLU. Dayv 05:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dayv -- this would indeed be very interesting info. Put very briefly, I think it's most likely true that the ACLU does the same thing with regard to legal fees as any other legal advocacy organization. Do you have any source that states this? A general secondary source would be great, or perhaps just a few links to statements about other groups. I would take it as "self-evident" and just put it in, but I'm wary of doing so because, well, I've learned how little I know about this facet of legal work. (PS: as for coverage, I think we go into "just the right amount" of detail -- of course I would, since I wrote it!)

Anyway, any info you have about this issue, please put it in, perhaps at the end of the funding discussion?, or if you want just drop a line on the talk page with links to sources and I'll do it myself in the coming days. Sdedeo (tips) 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, finding sources was actually much easier than I thought. I put in a ref to similar recovery of fees by the Thomas More Law Center, which I think establishes that its common practice regardless of political orientation (I also put a brief ref to ABA rules for commercial firms.) Sdedeo (tips) 06:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm the user that started this section. I have created a section for Court Awarded Damages. The issue of Court Awarded Damages was in the Funding section, which seems humorous, but hardly factual. A total amount was added, with a cite, although this number is likely a fraction of the true court awarded damages the ACLU has received. Scribner 23:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it not factual? One of the sources of the ACLU's funding is CADs! Sdedeo (tips) 23:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo, a court awarded damage is an award for damages, not funding. Scribner 23:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter either way, although most arguments about this sort of thing are mad because the ACLU is partly funded by CADs. Anyway, I think your decision to split the sections is fine. Sdedeo (tips) 23:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing the reference to Center for Reclaiming America for Christ? They are the people who made the estimate -- they should be credited as such. Sdedeo (tips) 23:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding it. It's irrelevant to the information. Don't attempt to bias the information. The cite is good, drop it. Scribner 23:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

They are the group that made the estimate! They should be credited! Sdedeo (tips) 23:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC) It's hardly irrelevant -- they are the people who made the estimate. That a group opposed to the ACLU made the estimate is hardly surprising. I'm sorry, I can't accept that deletion of useful information. Sdedeo (tips) 23:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see the site. Each claim is referenced. You do not credit any other group or resource. Do you want me to add 22 links? I will. Scribner 23:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

22 links to what? All I am doing is specifying which group did the research. If they are not the original group and are just repeating a press release, we should find out who originated the release. Sdedeo (tips) 23:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If you revert again, you will be in violation of 3RR. Sdedeo (tips) 23:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool off and think about it. 22 links to articles, compiled by the RR group. I will cite all 22 articles if need be but your addition of RR to this is POV. I'll leave it as is for now. Scribner 23:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am quite cool, thanks. What is the RR group? We should reference them. This is how things work: you cite a source, and you tell people which source it is. This is totally standard wikipedia practice. You shouldn't link all 22 articles yourself -- that would be original research. I still don't understand why you think citing CFRAFC is POV -- can you explain? Sdedeo (tips) 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Religious right. They did not make the estimate. They provided 22 cites for CAD for the ACLU. I added up the separate amounts and provided the amount. You type so fast, I didn't know where the 9.5 came from or the repeated reference to the RR group. Honestly, I didn't realize you were adding it over and over. But the addition of the RR is POV and will have to go. The 22 cites stand without the RR and I'll reference each one if need be. Your pick as to how to handle that in good faith. Scribner 23:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

CFRAFC is the group that made the estimate. Either cite them, or remove the information. On the principle that more information is better, but 22 links is too much (and also original research) I suggest you leave the sentence as it currently stands. Sdedeo (tips) 00:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

They provided the cites. It's POV as it stands. What I want is an approximate total of CAD. Citing the RR adds bias. Let me see if the ACLU will provide the amount. Scribner 00:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, it seems very simple to me. Some group takes a selection of cases, adds up the numbers. BTW, I very much doubt they include the CADs in cases where the ACLU was defending the right to religious expression. We should cite that group. I already cited a number: "18% came from court awarded attorney fees" in the case of the NJCLU. Sdedeo (tips) 02:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I added up the numbers; They provided the cites. I did attempt to contact the ACLU, no answer, and I doubt they will offer that information over the phone even if they have it, but the information may be a matter of public record. I'm looking for total CADs, not specific to cause. Scribner 03:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are looking for numbers not specific to cause, I've provided them -- 18% in the case of NJ. Your CADs from the CFRAFC are only for the cases they disagree with and it would be not NPOV to cite them without source. It is pretty simple to get the numbers, just get the newsletter. Sdedeo (tips) 04:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also changed the title of the section. The ACLU does not receive damages, it receives attorney's fees; i.e., compensation for expenses associated with litigating the case. Sdedeo (tips) 04:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you reverted. You are in violation of 3RR. Please check the sources; the ACLU receives attn'y's fees, not "damages" as you claim. Sdedeo (tips) 05:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

(see, e.g., [4]. I suppose you could add "and expenses" if you wanted to be anal.) Sdedeo (tips) 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the ACLU receives damages. When the ACLU sues, they for damages, not attorney fees. A lawsuit is an action to redress damages incurred. The amount of the damages, if awarded are determined by a judge. A judge does not base his decision of monetary damages awarded on the amount litigants pay for legal services, including the ACLU. Scribner 05:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have provided a source showing that it is "attny fees". Please provide a source for the opposite -- preferrably from the ACLU itself, not a "RR" source. Sdedeo (tips) 05:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll read the source tomorrow. The RR was 22 cited publications, which means the damages are far higher than they reported. The terminology is "damages", what they do with the money is not my concern.Scribner 05:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course the RR source doesn't include e.g., the cases where the KKK lost to the ACLU [5]; that is why it is important to indicate the source of the list. We have a source that counts all the judgments -- the ACLU NJ itself -- which gives the figure 18%. Please go ahead and read the sources -- educate yourself. Sdedeo (tips) 05:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No rush. We'll leave it as is for now. They receive "damages", sorry can't change legal terminology just for the ACLU. As for how much, the total CODs to date, let's ask the ACLU.Scribner 05:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if your legal knowledge is not up to scratch: att'n'y fees are different from damages, which is why even in the Hostettler resolution [6] you are presumably in favour of they are referred to separately. Sdedeo (tips) 05:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To quote you earlier, "It doesn't matter either way, although most arguments about this sort of thing are mad because the ACLU is partly funded by CADs."

Sounds like your just getting up to speed, also ;). OK, that bill is what 13 months old? The section title of Injunctive Relief and Attorney Fees seems to fit the section better. Because Injunctive Relief is what they're suing for, right. The total amount of attorney fees collected and damages, if any, are valid content.Scribner 06:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of letting it drop, I suppose that's OK. Sdedeo (tips) 13:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Injuctive relief wasn't in the section, so having it in the title made no sense, right? I didn't find it in the article and injuctive relief is the primary reason the ACLU sues, but I found that they do seek damages for others, voter rights violations, etc--also not in the article. At some point, injuctive relief, damages and attorney fees might be merged into a simple paragraph, and the Court awarded... section trimmed down to collective amounts. Scribner 15:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure -- I could imagine the ACLU working pro bono to secure damages for a client, but not for itself -- again, as far as I understand, the proper thing is recovery of fees. Let me fix the capitalization, since we now seem to be in agreement over the section heading. Sdedeo (tips) 16:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Large scale statistics

Hello all -- it would be helpful if we could get some statistics about the ACLU. In particular, it would be great to know: how many cases are undertaken by the ACLU and its chapters each year? In how many cases does the ACLU simply file an amicus, how many actually are litigated by the ACLU itself, and how many are referred to a law firm working pro bono? Sdedeo (tips) 05:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

(Stuck a few stats in from ACLU-NJ annual report which I got a hold of. Sdedeo (tips) 16:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Polovchak v. Meese

"The 1980 Polovchak v. Meese case is also sometimes considered evidence of liberal sympathies on the part of the ACLU."

This uncited sentence has always bugged me. It's debatable, but I've always felt that the ACLU took the conservative side in this case. That may be an overgeneralization of corporal punishment debate, but I'd anticipate more liberals would agree that a child has the right to choose where to live than conservatives. Since the key point here was returning to the Soviet Union, perhaps communist should be used instead of liberal?--Prosfilaes 09:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, I think the first step here is to find and source a citation to someone who cites this case. Then we won't need to guess what the allegations are! Sdedeo (tips) 16:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Finding citations of people who refer to the case is easy; put "Polovchak" and "ACLU" in Google. Most of them don't seem to say "the ACLU is liberal, as shown by..." but the case is usually criticized by conservatives and libertarians. One casual mention at [7] and uses the word "Left", but in this context I don't think there's much difference between "left" and "liberal". It's not a major source anyway (but it does mention the Richard Long case, which we also might want to include.) [8] is a National Review article which uses the words "liberal" and "socialist", but also looks like a copyright violation. Ken Arromdee 22:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the two lawyers who worked pro bono on Polovchak's (the son's) case are Erika Holzer and her husband, who are both now associated with FrontPage Magazine. My guess is that they themselves would regard themselves as taking the conservative side against a "liberal ACLU". The first page of google pulls up [9], which generally paints the ACLU as a supporter of the Soviet regime. My guess, given both the stuff I and Ken have pulled up, is that it's pretty accurate to say that the ACLU took the most heat from conservatives on this, and that conservatives consider the case an example of the ACLU's hidden political sympathies while liberals are more likely to view the ACLU's taking on of the case in the same way they view, e.g., the ACLU's involvement with NAMBLA. Sdedeo (tips) 22:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Holzer:

It still strikes me as strange. The ACLU has a children's rights project. 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. The ACLU likes abortion, and it likes the Soviet Union.

Sdedeo (tips) 22:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That's an odd quote, considering that the "teenage boy" who "can't choose the United States over a totalitarian state" is almost certainly a reference to Elian Gonzales, who was not a teenager when he was returned to Cuba. He was six years old at the time.

Why on earth would it be a reference to Gonzales? The comment about the Soviet Union and the teenage boy part makes it pretty clear the comment is about Polovchak.--Prosfilaes 00:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I just read the Polovchak v. Meese stub, and it seems to me that the difference between as quoted a teenage girl's decision to have an abortion and a tennage boy's decision to stay in America is the girl's decision is about her body, while the boy's case is about the limits of custody. The quote is very, very right wing. False Prophet 16:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't one or the other. It's about both. It's about the *conflict* between custody rights and the right of the minor to control his/her body. In the case of the girl wanting an abortion, the girl wants control over her own body (getting an abortion) and the person with custody doesn't. In Polovchak's case, he wanted control over his body (living in a free society) and the person with custody didn't. Ken Arromdee 18:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Critics

Please find names, saying "some critics" over and over makes me suspect that this was the editor's view as does the phrase, "gun rights", which redirects to an artical of a different name.Pelegius 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, who doubts that claim. 01:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Easy folks. I think Pelegius is correct that we should strive to source criticisms as much as possible. On the other hand, I don't think we should go ahead and remove all the criticisms not yet sourced. Do go ahead and try to find sources in particular cases that bug you. Sdedeo (tips) 02:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragragh

The ACLU is extreme in its political activism, FAR MORE THAN BEING CRITICAL, as the opening paragragh states. The opening paragraph needs to reflect the activism role.68.52.59.234 23:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added a short reference to ACLU activism, do not edit my post without discussion, thanks.68.52.59.234 00:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no way you can use the term 'extreme activism' in a NPOV way. Be reasonable. Wisco 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Want to bet. Go the ACLU page and claim otherwise.68.52.59.234 00:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is your opinion. Plenty of people believe otherwise. It's important that there be no editorializing in articles. Take your activism someplace where it matters and will make a difference. Wisco 00:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll dispute the article, you might want to seek the advice of others.68.52.59.234 00:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• It makes no difference. You're trying to bias the article against the ACLU. I doubt many editors would be in favor of that.

Please read Wikipedia is not a soapbox before making any further edits. Wisco 00:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Se also, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wisco 00:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added factual information, there is activism and omission of facts are bias.68.52.59.234 00:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi 68.52.59.234; I've looked over your edit. The problem is that the phrase you want to put in the opening paragraph, "taken the stance of extreme activism beyond the courts" is not neutral. It is fine to include criticism of the ACLU; we include a great deal of it, but it has to appear in the "Critics" section, and when it does appear there, it must be sourced to someone in particular. For example, we include the info that Bill O'Rielly thinks the ACLU is a "fascist organization"; we could not simply put this in the introductory paragraph, which is meant to be purely factual. Please see, for example, other articles about controversial organizations such as the NRA. Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 01:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Sededeo, having a NPOV is expressing what people believe, not what is fact, according to Jimbo Wales. All reasonable people believe the ACLU is practicing an activist role. It’s 50/50 on who likes it or doesn’t, that doesn’t matter. It’s not criticism, it’s what reasonable people agree upon. All reasonable people believe the ACLU is practicing an activist role. That is not criticism. Let’s remove “extreme” from my edit, and share our common knowledge with others. You’re looking for a Positive Point of View…it doesn’t work that way.68.52.59.234 02:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • But it's not true that "All reasonable people believe the ACLU is practicing an activist role." Can you demonstrate it? Twinxor t 03:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Yes, the ACLU is practicing an activist role. Go to the ACLU website [[10]] find the "Action Center" tab, click on it and you'll find many current causes, you will find ACLU pre-typed letters apposing Judge Alito, for instance, all you do is type in your name and click send (to your Senator), that's activism. It's activism, any reasonable person would agree. There are 39 different ACLU pre-typed letters for 39 different actions, that's activism.68.52.59.234 04:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Now let's talk about what 'taken the stance of activism' even means. It's a nonsensical phrase. Wisco 03:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Ok, well clean it up if you wish... "activism beyond the court" is good as well as the placement.68.52.59.234 04:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence is in error. The ACLU does not claim to defend the Bill of Rights, just selected rights. The National ACLU homepage confirms this. http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html

It says "We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." By definition, that is their stated goal. You may not think that's their actual goal, but that's irrelevant when discussing their stated goal. Rhobite 03:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't get cocky with me. Where does it say that is their goal? Looks to me more like some side not. Here is their stated mission, "The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

• Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
• Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
• Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
• Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs."

Notice the absence of them saying they are defending the Bill of Rights.

I am trying to answer your question. On the left-hand sidebar of [11], it says "We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." That is the text quoted in the intro to this article. The ACLU does claim to defend the Bill of Rights: "Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920. The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections..."

I'm guessing that you have a problem with the ACLU's murky stance on the second amendment. I wish they would support the rights of gun owners too. If you think you can improve Wikipedia's coverage of criticism of the ACLU, feel free to edit the article. Rhobite 04:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I too agree Rhobite. Maybe we should say they claim to be defenders of the bill of rights, but primarily defend 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment related cases? -Greg Asche (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if that's necessary. I think this article already does a good job of explaining the ACLU's stated goals, and then explaining common criticisms of the ACLU, such as the one you brought up. I think it would be POV for us to write that they claim one thing but do another. Rhobite 04:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I would generally agree with Rhobite here, although there are many subtleties. I think we should try to find statistics -- e.g., in how many cases does the ACLU cite the nth amendment? (However, it's important to remember that there are rules to filing amicus briefs; you can only file one if you make a point that is substantially different from points made by others involved in the case. So this will distort some of the statistics.) There's no question that the ACLU differs from the NRA in the interpretation of the second amendment; however, the ACLU does claim that its position on the second amendment is consistent and in keeping with what they believe it to mean.

We cover accusations of "bad faith" -- i.e., that the ACLU leadership "knows" that the 2nd means e.g. unlimited gun rights -- in the conservatives section, and we discuss their stated positions elsewhere. We should be careful to keep POV stuff out of the introductory paragraph. Sdedeo (tips) 05:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not POV stuff. ACLU supporters are using "The ACLU doesn't claim to defend the entire bill of rights" and citing the ACLU's homepage to back it up. Besides, how one interprets the 2nd amendment is irrelevant here. The ACLU interprets all amendments as broadly as possible and the just so happens to interpret the 2nd amendment narrowly?

Where does this article say that supporters argue that "The ACLU doesn't claim to defend the entire bill of rights"? Please keep your comments on the topic of improving this article. Rhobite 17:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Membership??

I am adding a membership section but I would like some assistance. I would appreciate it. Thanks!

JJstroker 22:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this again because it is highly suspect and there are no refernces for it. If someone could please give a citation and/or reference for the ACLU membership being "2/3 Jews", etc. it would be helpful. I have not been able to find any verification or justification for it. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 16:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean this isn't a sufficeint source? [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=272944] -Will Beback 06:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The book is 24 years old. Unacceptable as a source. Ladlergo 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Woah, creepy. Sdedeo (tips) 14:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal Expertise

The ACLU provides legal assistance in the form of lawyers and legal expertise. I fail to see how the word "expertise" can be construed as biased. Even critics of the ACLU recognize that it provides qualified lawyers. They've been to law school, passed the bar exam, etc. Moreover, they have a particular interest in and knowledge of civil liberties issues. That makes what they provide "expertise", whether or not you agree with their political stance or interpretation of the law. Changing "expertise" to "assistance" produces a sentence that doesn't really make sense. Bill 21:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a very minor thing, either is fine IMO, but I think Bill is correct here. Sdedeo (tips) 03:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Prostitution

I deleted an uncited assertion that the ACLU supports the legalization of prostitution. To my knowledge, this isn't true, and the failure to provide evidence of the assertion makes me suspect the editor may just be inferring this stance from other, related stances the organization has taken. If someone can find a reliable source indicating the ACLU supports the legalization of prostitution, it would be appropriate to re-insert. SS451 06:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this, don't know how it slipped by the rest of us! I looked around a little on the ACLU site, and they don't have an explicit position on prostitution. They have gotten involved with unequal enforcement of prostitution laws, but that's a separate matter. Sdedeo (tips) 14:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Did a brief search related to this issue, and this is what I discovered,

http://www.riaclu.org/20050526.html

http://www.aclunc.org/aclunews/news011106/friedman.html

Doesn't Policy 211 also call for the decriminalization-if not legalization-of prostitution?

Ruthfulbarbarity 06:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Alleged harboring of illegal aliens

The deleted allegations in this edit are a smear. The citation listed said nothing about the ACLU. Thanks for deleting baseless rumors and respecting Verifiability. -- Perspective 21:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted "& Left"

Cause no mention of leftist critics, per se, and no attempt to distinguish "left" from "liberal" above. Ethan Mitchell 03:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me! Sdedeo (tips) 05:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

A current criticism of the ACLU is the hypocrisy it has exhibited in at least two current matters: it has refused to take any position regarding the city of Boston's grant to a Mosque of valuable city property for a fraction of its actual worth, something that would normally have resulted in its disapproval over a church/state matter; and the ACLU's pressuring its directors to not make any public statements critical of the organization, seemingly a clear violation of the principals of free speach the ACLU claims to espouse. If no one else does it soon, I will add both matters to the body of the article.Incorrect

Two questions: 1) Has the ACLU been asked to take a stand on the Boston mosque? 2) Must the ACLU take up every cause that strikes the fancy of its opponents?

Atlant 12:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the ACLU was asked to get involved in the public givaway of land for the building of a Mosque:http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5401; and while the ACLU seems to be able to get involved in every city in America that has even a small religious display on public grounds, it decided NOT to get involved in the giveaway of millions of dollars of Boston taxpayer money for the building of a Mosque. So is the ACLU anti - Christian, or just pro Mosques?Incorrect 13:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Your "citation" (actually an editorial hit-piece on a Right-Wing website) still doesn't claim anyone asked the ACLU to get involved. It merely offended your author that the ACLU didn't get involved without any plaintiff having already come forward, something it almost never does.

Atlant 13:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A lawsuit has been filed: http://www.pluralism.org/news/index.php?xref=Islamic+Society+of+Boston+Controversy&sort=DESC#headline11265; and yes, the American Thinker is right wing (omg, a right wing news source, guess the ACLU protection of free speech only covers the left and Nazis) but clearly indicates the author tried to interest the ACLU in bringing an action. So we have here a Boston City giveaway of public lands for the building of a Mosque, a lawsuit filed over this, the ACLU being aware of this (since this is a big story in Boston even without the horrid right wing news source [bad right wing, bad right wing] but the ACLU failing to take a postition consistent with their decades long campaign against the use of public funds to aid in any fashion the Christian religion. Since I'm now running in the 3rr rule, and will have to wait 24 hours to reedit, any editor with npov perspective will redit this article to add in the Boston issue.Incorrect 13:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please give us recent news (less than 6 months old) and it may be considered noteworthy. In addition, I read the article and there is no mention of the ACLU. Ladlergo 13:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

that's the very point, Dr. Watson, the hounds haven't barked: given the controversy, why HASN'T the ACLU gotten involved?Incorrect 14:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

(Incorrect, please be sure you've read WP:CIV. -- Atlant 14:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

Let me check that I'm understanding you. You're upset because the ACLU originally didn't attack this breach of the separation of church and state, and now that the breach has been patched, is still not getting involved?

Other than the ACLU, for whatever reason, chose not to become involved in this case, is there anything you'd like to communicate? Ladlergo 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Failure to act is an action, the Boston situation is an indication of bias, beyond that I have nothing to add so I'm saying fairwell on this point.Incorrect 14:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have other non-biased sources for other cases like this, feel free to bring them here. However, one case cannot be the basis for a good argument. Ladlergo 14:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Incorrect -- regardless of the case, if the ACLU is not even mentioned in the source you provide, then it really doesn't belong here per WP:NOR. Sdedeo (tips) 15:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

References

Who wants to help me clean up the references? Two of them are footnotes and the rest are external links. I will be moving them to their proper grammatical position. Ladlergo 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that the "footnote" style is kind of hard to learn. Since we have so many people dropping in, it might be a good idea to keep the references inline [12] for now. That is pretty simple, and it makes it easier to scold people for introducing original research and negotiate for verifiability. Sdedeo (tips) 18:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite understandable; I'm getting some practice in it at Wii, but it's not the easiest thing to master. In that case, I'll be changing the two footnote-style references match the others. Ladlergo 19:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

standards for including criticism of the ACLU

Hi all -- as the recent appearences of User:Incorrect and User:Butchpenton show, we need to establish some groundrules for what kind of criticism to include here.

The main criteria is, I think, to organize things into common themes (e.g., stance on religion in government), which is what we have now. New criticisms need to either fit themselves into one of these themes, or should establish (with a lot of sources) a new theme. Any thoughts?

Sdedeo (tips) 21:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What I find more important is that it be cited, NPOV, and well-placed (not in the middle of the positions, for example). I think more detailed criteria should be left for when that issue comes up.--Prosfilaes 22:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure -- sounds like a plan! Sdedeo (tips) 22:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Butch's paragraphs

Bruce, I'm going to lay out why the paragraphs you kept on adding were innappropriate.

During the 2000 Presidential election voting crisis, the Supreme Court of the United States allocated for itself in Gore v Bush an unprecedented role.

• True, but it doesn't belong in the ACLU article.

Tallying votes in Florida for the presidential race had become a debacle, plagued by well-chronicled false claims of inaccuracies and inequities.

• References, please. And again, doesn't belong in the ACLU article.

The ACLU became a participant in a national campaign called "Right to Vote". They filed lawsuits in Florida, challenging the reliance on presumed flawed electoral systems that not only failed to count every vote equally, but was charged of operating in a racially discriminatory manner.'

• Basically fine, though overly wordy. And again, references.

The nation witnessed two recounts only to find that Governor Bush had won by an even stronger majority with each count.'

• Links to Florida Recount should be here. And once again, doesn't have anything to do with the ACLU.

Still, there were threats of riots in the streets.

• Needs (neutral) references. And doesn't belong under ACLU.

According to Jesse Jackson in a Rainbow/Push Coalition statement dated 13 December, 2000; "When the right ingredients are present, and the fuse is lit, an explosion happens."

• Irrelevant. Doesn't belong either here or under Florida Recount.

The ACLU attorneys were eventually successful in winning several lawsuits for voting reform but all claims of inaccuracies and inequities were never verified.

• References.

Yale University scholar John R. Lott Jr., found that the reality was just the opposite. "…by a dramatic margin, the group most victimized in the Florida voting was African American Republicans," Lott wrote. In fact, black Republicans were "in excess of 50 times more likely than the average African American to have had a ballot declared invalid.”

• No reference, and belongs in Florida Recount.

The ACLU was a participant in a national campaign to generate the appearance of a conspiracy and filed numerous lawsuits that kept racial tensions high; but in the end, failed to uncover a single "victim" to actually step forward with an actual civil rights violation.

• And now we get to the obvious bias. References, references, references.

[13]

• Please familiarize yourself with Wiki editing standards.

In general, you appear to not understand that Wikipedia is not a collection of essays, and editorial opinions are not appropriate for inclusion. Each statement needs to be references, not just paragraphs. Adding one link at the end and making other people dig through the links off of that page does not comply with writing standards. Overall, it is very obvious that you are PoV-pushing and more interested in writing editorial essays than encyclopedia entries. Ladlergo 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Christian (and Jewish) bias

There was no mention in this article of the ACLU's tendency of prejudice towards Judeo-Christian religious symbols in public places while turning a blind eye toward public symbols of other religions. I also think there should be at least some mention of the failed ACLU effort to prevent Iowa valedictorian graduate Mathew Reynolds from making any mention of his [Christian] religous faith during his acceptance speech. I would also go on to say that said effort failed when it was found to be a violation of free speech. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.85.63.23 (talk • contribs) .

ACLU policy is to oppose all violations of separation of church and state. Such violations in the United States overwhelmingly involve Christianity because Christianity is by far the most common religion and because Christianity is evangelical. Can you cite examples of attempts by other religions to impose themselves under public auspices that the ACLU did not oppose? Similarly, can you provide details of the Matthew Reynolds case? Was it merely a "mention" of his Christian faith that the ACLU opposed, or was he trying to use his OFFICIAL role as valedictorian to evangelize or pray? There is a distinction between official and individual roles.Bill 15:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I did a Google search for "Matthew Reynolds" and "ACLU". I found only one item discussing this case and it does not mention any involvement by the ACLU. It says that the high school principal told him not to thank Jesus Christ for his success in school and that the principal later relented. (Google listed this item because the ACLU was mentioned in another item on the same page.)Bill 17:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Between this comment talking about anti-semetism and the "2/3rd Jews" one earlier, I must conclude that the ACLU is the organizational equivalent of a Rorschach inkblot test. Sdedeo (tips) 18:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You do not have to put this in the article if you don't want to. Maybe I WAS a bit misinformed. I was only stating my opinion. I feel quite strongly that the ACLU is seeking to undermine the country, and when I read the article I thought it contained leftist bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.85.63.23 (talk • contribs) .

I think we cover the massive amounts of criticism the ACLU gets from certain Christian groups in the "Religious Critics" section pretty completely. In general, accusations that the ACLU is "anti-Christian" belong in that section. Sdedeo (tips) 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You just don't see that many instances of, for example, a high school valedictorian getting up and reciting a Jain prayer, or Hindu prayer, or even an Islamic or Jewish prayer. Essentially all instances of this controversy in the United States are directly attributable to Christians who apparently believe that their need to evangelize trumps the Constitution of the United States. Similarly, consider Judge Roy Moore and his Ten Commandments icon, or creches on the town common. That's why the actions of the ACLU in this area (church-state separation) seem disproportionately aimed at Christians; they're the ones violating the constitutional protections, not the Jews or the Jains.

Atlant 11:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Because protecting one's civil liberties undermines the Constitution. /sarcasm Ladlergo 12:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

ACLU's Defense of Religious Liberty

Clearly the ACLU has a strong record in defense of religious liberty in great contrast to the unfounded allegations above. Some useful links to demonstrate that:

• ACLU's Defense of Religious Liberty
• Religious Liberty:Resources
• Joint Statement of Current Law on Religion in the Public Schools (4/12/1995) - See list of major religious organization co-signers at the bottom. -- Perspective 17:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is also germane to point out the ACLU has multiple test criteria for litigating on a case. These include the presence of an actual plaintiff, the feasibility of a win, the potential costs of litigation, and the importance of the principle at stake. It is convenient for many groups to argue that the ACLU's "inaction" on specific cases is a sign of ____ist bias. In most cases, a closer examination of the cases in question shows that they are fairly hopeless, or are in the process of being settled out of court, or whatever. For example, the NRA frequently accuses the ACLU of not pushing 2nd ammendment cases, when in point of fact SCOTUS has basically refused to hear any such cases since Miller. So it becomes on the one hand a red herring and on the other hand a kind of ownership claim: "I think the ACLU sucks, but I want to be allowed to set their legislative priorities." Ethan Mitchell 00:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And sometimes, the defendents exercise their choice in who should represent them. I'm aware of a (nominal) "gunowner rights" case where the CLU extended a definite offer to defend on 1st Amendment grounds, but the plaintiff chose to accept the NRA's alternate defense on 2nd Amendment grounds. As it turns out, the plaintiff should have accepted the CLU's help; they lost on 2nd Amendment grounds (but, IMNSHO, would have had a slam-dunk on 1st Amendment grounds). So you have to be careful when trying to prove the ACLU's bias by examing the record of what cases they've participated in.

Atlant 13:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Tried Adding Other Rights As Well

Tried adding that they protect the rights of insurgents but it didn't work. Had a valid source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060616/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainee_abuse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.25.2 (talk • contribs) .

It worked, but it was reverted by another editor, probably because:

• It doesn't really belong in the article's "lede"

• By talking about the "comfort" of the prisoners, you telegraphed that you were editing to add Point-of-View to the article rather than facts.

Yes, the ACLU has stated its opposition to the shenanigans at Guantanamo Bay. So has John Hutson, former JAG of the Navy, a current Republican, and dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center. So have many others. The issue isn't "comfort", the issue is: Does America always stand for human rights, or do we toss them out any time it's convenient?

If the article doesn't already mention the ACLU's opposition to Gitmo, feel free to add it but in an appropriate context and without PoV.

Atlant 15:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Moment of Silence

The ACLU in my experience with them does not oppose moments of silence. I was recently involved with a dispute over a graduation prayer, and it was made very clear that the ACLU had no problem with a moment of silence. Can someone point out where they explicitly state that they are opposed to moments of silence? Until then, I'm going to remove "moment of silence" from the positions section.Neutronium 02:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Google for it: [14]. A salient quote from the ACLU: " At best, it is unnecessary since teachers already have the authority to ask their students to be quiet. At worst, it is organized prayer by stealth." I've restored the text. Sdedeo (tips) 02:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: the moment of silence article itself expands on this; what I'll do is qualify the statement. Sdedeo (tips) 02:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Clear Discrepency in the article intro

Please examine the discrepancy between the intro (which paints the ACLU as being non-partisan and non-political) and the critisism section (which clearly demonstrates the direction of the ACLU's efforts). The intro needs to be reworked to accurately reflect the history of ACLU's endeavors. Thanks. --DjSamwise 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The ACLU has a non-partisan stance; it does not ally itself with political parties. That said, political parties do disagree with the ACLU. Where is the conflict? Sdedeo (tips) 18:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The ACLU stands four-square in defense of the Constitution. For some strange reason, that isn't the stance that "conservatives" in the United States seem comfortable with. It is for this reason that the ACLU is so often pitted against the self-proclaimed "conservatives".

Atlant 18:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits, expanded the (virtual) child pornography defense quote

I applied some minor edits for English usage, punctuation, clarity and recentism. In a separate edit that I did not mark minor, I expanded the quote related to the child pornography case to clarify the core issue: according to the cited letter, the ACLU believes virtual child pornography, where no actual children are involved, is protected by the First Amendment. The critical word in the law that the ACLU opposes is "portrayal," which can include a painting, a drawing, or a computer-generated image (which the ACLU says should be protected) as well as a photo or video involving real children (which the ACLU agrees is not protected by the First Amendment). Without this clarification a reader of this article might miss the distinction and falsely believe the ACLU does not object to actual child pornography involving real children. Chester320 06:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction of a new editor

In addition to the above edit, tonight I read this article and the talk page and I am really impressed with the tone and content. But there are a few things I thought I could point out to help to make it better. I hope this isn't discussion overkill; I didn't want to just barge in and edit the article without talking about these things first.

I have split my notes into sections and signed each one, in case they spark separate discussions. Here goes. Chester320 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticizing politicians or policies?

In the article intro, I tripped over some of the phrasing.

"...though it has been harshly critical of various elected officials..."

Does the ACLU criticize politicians or policies? Perhaps the sentence could read that they are "...critical of the policies of [various politicians]." It's true they also criticize politicians themselves - just today I got ACLU literature in the mail that is (harshly) critical of George W. Bush. But in the intro I wouldn't want to leave the impression that they are only about criticizing people. Chester320 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Only two parties?

In the intro, the same sentence cited above goes on to say the ACLU has been critical of officials "of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party," and later that "its stances have engendered criticism from both sides of the political spectrum." Has the ACLU never been critical of a member from another party - or been criticized by one?

Throughout this article (and many others...) the phrasing is about both Democrats and Republicans, both the left and the right, both ends of the political spectrum. With this phrasing, you'd never know there were more than two parties in the United States, or more than two poles of political thought.

(Aside: the fact that a succession of careful editors can still make it sound like there are only two parties in this country speaks volumes about the success of those parties in controlling American political discussion and even thought, to the exclusion of others. But that's for a different forum.) Chester320 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed "both sides" to "all parts". Personally, I think the wording of that sentence is rather awkward; however, this is a quick fix.

Not really like public defenders

The end of the Positions section compares the ACLU to public defenders, but I don't think the comparison is apt. Public defenders exist mainly to ensure that destitute defendants receive representation, not that unpopular ones do. That's a secondary function at most. Is there another kind of office or department the ACLU could be compared to? Chester320 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Turning down funding

In turning down funding that came with the proviso that "none of the money would go to underwriting terrorism or other unacceptable activities," did the ACLU specify that the objectionable part was not "underwriting terrorism" but the other one? That second clause means the donor would get to decide what's acceptable. I ask because without a clarification a reader might think the ACLU wants to be able to underwrite terrorism. Chester320 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Emotion and editorial in laying out the facts

The paragraph in the "Notable Cases" section about Japanese internment says the West Coast ACLU affiliates "became some of the sharpest critics" of US policy. Does this need a citation - somebody other than the author saying they were among the "sharpest" vs. just being "critics" or even "sharply critical"?

In the same paragraph, can we really characterize the national ACLU position as "dodging" the issue? And why is "cleared" in quotation marks? That's a way for a writer to disparage the terminology or opinions of somebody he doesn't agree with. Chester320 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

General defensiveness

I get the sense there is a presumption on the part of the writer that I (the reader) start out with a negative attitude about the ACLU and the author wants to set me straight. That's not a good rhetorical tone for a supporter to take, and it's worse for an encyclopedia entry.

The Japanese internment paragraph in the Structure section is an example. It might have started as an illustration of national vs. local structure, but it seems to have become something about how certain events are "often misunderstood or misrepresented." When you break it down, the section reads like this: "Some have argued A, while others have claimed B, which is hard to square with C. In fact, D." I can't tell whether this is about the ACLU's national/local structure, its reaction to Japanese internment, or misinformation/misunderstanding about the ACLU's positions and actions.

The "court awarded attorney's fees" section is another one that sounds defensive and chaotic to me. The first sentence says some people allege a certain thing, and the second sentence says they're right. If they're right, then this structure makes no sense. Phrases like "It is sometimes asserted" and "while there are restrictions on how fees may be collected" and they have "indeed" received awards make it all sound like an argument in progress, not a collection of facts and information.

Here is another example, a tautology that need not be said at all: "In many cases, whether or not a stance is considered controversial depends on other political views the critic may hold."

I hope this bit of editorial commentary is not taken badly. I like the article, and I would like to see it be more crisp and tight. I'd be happy to try my hand at some of these items myself, but as I said before I didn't want to barge in without a little discussion here first. Chester320 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think lines like ""In many cases, whether or not a stance is considered controversial depends on other political views the critic may hold." are a sort of flotsam of the wiki editing process. Someone just had to flag something, and--perhaps after several tries--they found a way to flag it that was so innocuous (meaningless, in fact) that no else deleted it. Be bold...

re: multiple sections

I think the counsel here is to be bold and fix what you think is wrong. Be careful of deleting information, and do your best to respect other editors' decisions, but go ahead and clean as much as you see fit. Sdedeo (tips) 20:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC) PS: if you see things that need citation, but can't find one yourself, use the {{fact}} tag. Sdedeo (tips) 20:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Roger Baldwin quote

Please direct me to where this has been discussed and resolved. Seems like valid content. I've noticed you've deleted a couple of times. Seems POV to not include this quote. WP:OWN violation. Thanks. Scribner 03:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it keeps getting added in because it's a very popular quote with the right-wing -- who always fail to mention what comes next. The discussion went like this:

1. Baldwin was a communist! Look at this quote.
2. Well, OK, but Baldwin later wasn't a communist, so for NPOV we have to follow with a counterbalancing quote from later.
3. OK.
4. Why don't we explain that Baldwin was a communist, and then explain that he later stopped being a communist, without using inflammatory quotes?
5. OK.

And that's how the article stands now -- as you'll note. Sdedeo (tips) 03:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC) PS: This crops up all the time; check the archives. Of course, the best place to argue about this is on the Baldwin page itself, where I think the whole thing was discussed in detail. Sdedeo (tips) 03:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Who cares about the right wing. The quote is what he wrote. Your cutting it out is like censoring Roger Baldwin himself. I think Roger Baldwin would want people to see that quote. I think he is proud of it. Its removal is definite spin. This is an encyclopedia, not an ACLU mouthpiece. Your answer to Scribner is inadequate as it reflects your own biases and interests. You don't just cut out history because it changes later. I must admit your other edits seems fair -- this one, however, mischaracterizes the whole thing. It's just plain revisionist history to keep people from reading the quote. Do libraries stop people from reading Mein Kompf? And the best place to see this quote is on the ACLU page because Roger Baldwin founded the ACLU and, as he wrote, communism was the goal. Indeed that may have changed later in reality or just for show but you can't wipe away the past as if it never happened.

Forgot my signature. --SafeLibraries 04:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what else? Your point #2 is misleading because you say "follow with a counterbalancing quote" but you have removed the quote to be followed. And your point #4 is misleading because the issue is not whether Baldwin himself was a communist, rather whether the ACLU was founding for that purpose as stated by its founder. Totally different. --SafeLibraries 04:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting the quote back. You are just plain wrong to remove it. Saying Hitler was a Nazi is totally different then saying Hitler created the Nazi party on various beliefs. So the issue is not that Baldwin may have once been a communist, rather that Baldwin created the ACLU on various beliefs. The Baldwin quote evidences those beliefs. This is the ACLU page, after all. --SafeLibraries 04:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

SafeLibraries Please read this short article: [Baldwin history] Sdedeo is right that single quote doesn't define the man, entirely.

I'm going to revert to the original page. Think about it. You should always link outside of Wikipedia. Keeps us honest.

The whole think I honestly believe is covered very well by what we currently have:

In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either. The board declared that it was "inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarian dictatorship in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle." [3] [4] The purge, which was led by Baldwin, himself a former supporter of Communism, began with the ouster of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a member of both the Communist Party of the USA and the IWW [5]. The ACLU has been criticized by some of its later members for this policy, and in the 1960s there was an internal push to remove this prohibition. [6]

We cover that one of the founders was a Communist, and we cover his later actions as well that provide the full picture. BTW, the source of the Baldwin quote is a college yearbook; if you really want a Baldwin quote from the time of the NCLB founding, then I think we should find something more notable.

Sdedeo (tips) 05:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This wiki stuff is over my head. I'll leave it as is, but I don't agree with you. I say it is misleading to say on a page about an organization that the organization later disallowed communists when the whole truth is that the organization was created to use the legal system to bring communism to the USA in the founders own words and we have those words. Further, the communist purge may have been an intentional showing of the flag just when people started questioning the un-American activities of the ACLU -- and that has not been even addressed.

Further, the argument about the yearbook is not persuasive either. If he wrote it, he wrote it. If the source is true and accurate, it's true and accurate. After all, a college thesis is just a college thesis and carries no weight like a college yearbook, right? So why has Hillary Clinton worked as hard as she has to hide her college work if it was not "notable."

In sum, the ACLU wins again -- I'm giving up on this because of reasons of expediency, not truth, justice, and the American Way. --SafeLibraries 13:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

SafeLibraries Please remember you can address the issue again at any time, that is your decision. The Baldwin quote is an ACLU nightmare. Personally, I prefer the use of the history behind quotes being presented rather than the the quote itself, in all articles. Scribner 18:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We certainly don't have his word; a college yearbook is not where Baldwin explain the reason he founded the ACLU. It's where he explained his personal goals.--Prosfilaes 00:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And no one is allowed to think the personal goals of the person who created any organization at the time of the organization's creation is relevant to information about the creation of that organization? Did Madame Curie just suddenly become the first female professor and more and her personal goals had no relevance to her achievements? Now her notes were literally radioactive. But, in today's ACLU-saturated culture, the personal thoughts of Roger Baldwin trying to destroy America as we know it from within are strangely of no relevance, strangely radioactive. And to come to this conclusion we all have to pretend what. Pretend that the total effect of decades of ACLU control over our civilization has nothing to do with Roger Baldwin's personal goals.

My concerns about the ACLU relate to how they have influenced the American Library Association [ALA], what are the connections between the ALA and the ACLU that negatively affect the health and safety of children; and what techniques have the ALA learned from the ACLU that it uses to propagandize the public and government officials to ensure the continued sexualization of children such as, for one example, by awarding a book with oral sex and porn movies as the very best book of the year for "young adults" aged 12 and up.

Therefore, I'm not likely to contribute to this ACLU page much further. I can see the ACLU people have complete control on this page, making the ACLU look just so, and I'm merely a small flea to be brushed away like a blip on a wiki watch page. --SafeLibraries 01:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A large part of the challenge of Wikipedia is working with people who disagree with you to produce a WP:NPOV page. Hyperbole doesn't help that at all. Neither does a loud airing of your political views on the matter. It's a matter of patiently working on a thousand minor points, keeping the pure and simple facts in view.

I want to dissect your statement. But what you and I think about the ACLU isn't really relevant to this article. What matters is the facts and mainstream published opinions on the matter, and organizing them into a coherant, useful, WP:NPOV article.--Prosfilaes 06:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This Baldwin quote issue is still open. I'll repeat, I prefer the history behind the quote rather than the quote. Often the history of the quote is far stronger than the quote itself, as in this case.

WP:OWN violations are circling over this article. Scribner 06:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the quote in question is, or what Hitler and Marie Curie have to do with it. But it would seem that the only relevance such a quote would have is if it has become the focus of criticism of the ACLU. Baldwin graduated in, I think, 1907, and spent most of the next decade working with pacifists, anarchists, and the IWW. In 1920, when he founded the ACLU, he had een working most closely with the IWW, which at that point was as strongly identified with anarchism as with communism. All of which is to say that he was a leftist radical, but not wedded to any one group. I would suggest that we enhance the rather small article on his page, rather than bring in what seems like a very extraneous detail to this page. Ethan Mitchell 13:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm fine the section as is... here's the quote at the bottom of the page on this link: [baldwin quote] Scribner 17:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeow! That quote is even scarier than the one I added as it provides ever further damning evidence about the ACLU! --SafeLibraries 18:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Great quote. If it's legitimate (there is no citation on the linked page) it should definitely go to Baldwin's page, as it is a really explicit statement of belief. It does not, however, mention the ACLU per se, and since Baldwin worked with many different organizations, it would bit of a stretch to say that this quote embodies his vision of what the ACLU was about. Ethan Mitchell 02:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the proper way to dispute the relevance or propriety of a citation? The History section ends with a citation about an effort in the 1960's to remove the prohibition on Communists as members. The citation leads to an unsourced 2005 blog entry, not a "reliable source." Is there a Wiki markup tag to say "Better citation needed"?

Also, somebody has added a characterization of the "no Communists" policy as McCarthyite, which strikes me as POV. The same blog cited for the 1960s rollback of that policy makes the case that not all efforts to exclude Communists from something are necessarily McCarthyism. Any discussion on this? Chester320 06:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd just fact tag both, wait at least 48 hr.s and then pull the material. Make note of doing so here. Scribner 13:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. I fact-tagged the McCarthyite characterization, the bit about "many leftist attorneys" identifying another group as "superior," and the 1960s "push" to change the policy. The first two aren't cited, and the last isn't cited adequately. In a couple of days I'll see what's developed. Chester320 04:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

July 8 edits

Today I performed some of the edits I mentioned a few sections back, and others. (See "Introduction of a new editor" above.)

I removed one of the two citations regarding banning Communist members in 1940, since the link doesn't have any information about the period 1939-1949 any more. The deleted link was to http://www.aclu-mass.org/about/about_history.html. I didn't alter the later items in the History section that I fact-tagged just yesterday.

I removed this text:

In April 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union was weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization's policies and internal administration. *[15]

This paragraph presents a fact without any context or conclusion. It may be true and interesting, but it belongs somewhere else in the article and should have more behind it. Perhaps it could go in a section called "ACLU policies deemed by critics to be hypocritical" or something.

I removed the internment text from the Structure section, because it is an argument in progress and doesn't illustrate national/local structure. Here is the deleted text:

The ACLU's involvement in the internment of Japanese in the United States during World War II, which bears on the question of the autonomy of local ACLU chapters, is often misunderstood or misrepresented. There are differing ideas on the role the ACLU took: some have argued that the ACLU remained silent on the issue, while others have claimed that the national branch of the ACLU threatened to revoke the chapter status of the ACLU of Northern California for defending Toyosaburo Korematsu in the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). These arguments are hard to square with the fact that the national branch of the ACLU actually filed a brief of amicus curiae with the court on behalf of Mr. Korematsu.

In fact, the ACLU argued that some internments may have been necessary for the security of the nation, but that by interning Americans without giving them a hearing, the military was violating their right to due process. The ACLU argued that the internments should have civilian oversight, instead of military, and that the Japanese in the camps had been interned on the basis of racial discrimination.

I removed the "public defender" paragraph because I think it's not an apt comparison: the ACLU defending unpopular speech does not compare with public defenders, who exist to defend those who can't afford lawyers. If I'm wrong, if somebody can show that a major (secondary) part of a public defender's job is defending those whom nobody else will defend for political reasons (not financial), I'll drop this objection. The text is still wishy-washy, thought ("Some have expressed..."?) Here is the deleted text:

Some have expressed the view that the ACLU sometimes plays a role comparable to that played by public defenders, helping to ensure that even unpopular defendants receive due process.

I added citations for the ACLU's rejection of Ford and Rockefeller Foundation grants, including the NYTimes characterization of the ACLU's reasoning. I didn't find a cite on aclu.org, which would be the best source for anything saying why the ACLU did something.

I removed this stub: "Another key donor is Peter B. Lewis (an insurance magnate) [16]." Why mention this guy?

I tweaked some other sections without deleting anything of substance (I hope). I refrained from adding fact tags to every statement that characterized the position either of the ACLU or of some type of critic, though such statements all should have citations.

I removed two links that might find another home in the article. The section is "Religious critics" and the text was "While the ACLU has defended the right of people to practice religion, including Christianity (see, e.g, Refs. [17], [18]), it still has religious critics." That's POV defensiveness talking. I changed the lead to "The ACLU also has religious critics."

I think the sections on critics, especially the ones on liberal and libertarian critics, go into the weeds in a few places, characterizing groups and their attitudes without citations and using too many weasel words like "some" and "many," but all I could bring myself to do tonight is remove the redundant paragraph about the Nazi march in Skokie. That event is covered earlier in the article.

Deleting content without discussion

Sdedeo and Atlant, Sdedeo, I feel certain that you've checked on membership by religion. You mentioned "self published book" which is good enough for me, that's the only reference I ran accross some time ago, also.

I don't what wiki policy is but I think it's good form to mention deleted content on the talk page. Unless, the edit summary will explain the deletion of material.--Scribner 23:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, don't believe that self-published books can be considered reputable research. After all, who verified that the content wasn't made up? Ladlergo 02:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I found WP's policy on self-published sources. Please read that first. Given that I can't find anything on whether his research for that book is solid (reviews, usenet posts), I'm hesitant to include it. Ladlergo 02:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

William Rubinstein is a noteable historian and author:

http://www.aber.ac.uk/history/Bill_Rubinstein.htm

I do not believe that it is a self published source and he is a greatly respected scholar. I dont see a reason for the source to be removed. 71.131.243.55 02:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's email him and request his sources and input. I'll do that now.--Scribner 03:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's the email to Professor Rubinstien:

Professor Rubinstein,

Sir, the American Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Civil_Liberties_Union#Deleting_content_without_discussion) regarding ACLU membership continues to cite you regarding Jewish membership. Your assistance, regarding your source of information or any other guidance regarding this topic would be greatly appreciated.--Scribner 04:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Professor Rubinstein has replied to the email. He promised to respond asap, likely next week.--Scribner 05:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

He may have published other respected works, but it doesn't change the fact that the book used as a reference is self-published. As there have been other people who have become sloppy once their reputation was established, I prefer to be cautious.

If his sources can be checked by someone here, then I have no problem with it. However, right now it's not verifiable. Ladlergo 13:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you get a response yet? Let us know and please post it when you do.

Civil Libertarian 23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

(PS: User:Civil Libertarian is a sock of banned user:Jerry Jones.) -Will Beback 23:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Professor Rubinstein's comment regarding Jewish membership was an estimate, if I'm correct. The Jewish community in the U.S. has been very active in church and state issues for a least a century, and understandably (I hope). I'm curious about ACLU membership stats, but for me it ends with curiosity.

Professor Rubinstein hasn't gotten back to me, I'm certain he's overwhelmed with work and the events in Israel.--Scribner 01:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If Rubinstein is a real person and a tenured professor, I see no problem with including his self-published work as a reference. The reason I deleted it before was that I noticed it only as a self-published source that had been added by someone later identified as a contributor to the neo-Nazi group Stormfront.org [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=272944] -- that was enough for me to delete the (re)insertion on sight. Sdedeo (tips) 00:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

ACLUprocon.org

Now, I have no problems with having this linked to in the article, but I would first like to see the page cited as a reference for specific issues, rather than a bald link to the site. http://www.acluprocon.org is a collection of other group's opinions on the ACLU and possesses very little original content. Ladlergo 23:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Activism section

Because of activism on the part of the ACLU I'm adding a activism section. About 10 - 20% of the ACLU activities fall under this category. Placement of the section will likely be just above the "critics of..." section.

Anyone suffering from WP:OWN speak up now. Also, any advice as to the title or placement of the section in the article would be appreciated.--Scribner 22:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll take this moment to suggest a rearrangement of sections: Positions -> Activism -> Controversial stances -> Notable cases -> Funding -> Critics. I believe that Positions, Activism and Controversial stances should be grouped together because they explain what the ACLU does and what its stances are. Notable cases should come next because it illustrates the above sections. Funding is the last section about the ACLU itself. Opinions? Ladlergo 22:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, the activism section will contain pro, con material. As an example, the ACLU attempted to block Judge Samuel Alito from the supreme court. The ACLU claimed that Judge Alito's history and conservative stances would likely infringe upon the civil rights of Americans. Clearly activism and clearly pro/con liberal/conservative issue.

Any thoughts on the format of such a section?--Scribner 00:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Try to stay away from "pro/con" opinions, and save them for the "Critics" section; i.e., I would try to keep things to a history of the stances alone. Also, try to bring in as much historical stuff as you can; much better to have a historically informed section than just a listing of current or recent positions (e.g., I would say that the ACLU's stance on Bork would be much more important than the Alito nom.) Sdedeo (tips) 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Leadership

Dorothy Ehrlich has been appointed Deputy Executive Director of the National ACLU.Sjrnyc 00:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Positions section

The first sentence in the positions section offers a misleading impression of the ACLU's mission. It says: "The ACLU's stated mission is to defend the rights of all citizens as enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution."

The very first sentence of the main article has a more accurate sentence (with a citation) describing the ACLU's mission. It says that the "stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."1"

The ACLU's work is not limited to the defense of the rights of citizens. There are certain rights guaranteed to non-citizens in this country (due process, etc.), and the ACLU defends those rights as well.Sjrnyc 00:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Be bold and fix it! Sdedeo (tips) 21:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I did. I do work for the ACLU and want to be cautious when I edit anything because I respect the NPOV policy. I'll limit any edits to what I believe to be clear factual errors (such as these); otherwise I'll post in the discussion forum for a more "neutral" party to verify. Thanks. Sjrnyc 15:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Religious critics section

This section lists a number of religious (Christian) critics, and also mentions that the ACLU has often defended the rights of minority religious groups. This is true, but (I believe) that it leaves the mistaken impression that the ACLU rarely or never defends the rights of Christians. However, the ACLU has often defended the rights of Christians. See this website which lists several such cases, and provides links to ACLU press releases or news accounts.

I'm not sure how this could be addressed, if others agree. Perhaps the mention that the ACLU often defends minority religious groups doesn't belong in the "religions critics" section, and could be moved to "notable cases" or "positions" section.Sjrnyc 15:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sjrnyc, you're onto something. The ACLU article doesn't have a "criticism section" per se but instead has "Critics of the ACLU" sections. In places the critics are even defamed and the ACLU is defended. A lot of editors don't like criticism sections. Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia that includes criticisms sections to my knowledge, poor format and too problematic.

I think I'd make reference to the fact that the ACLU defends all religions, with the inclusion of a couple of Christian cases, instead of moving the references you mention.--Scribner 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Scribner here: I think many of those cases mentioned are relevant only in the context of "anti-Christian" bias. Not sure though. Sdedeo (tips) 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The ACLU's most vocal critics

The most vocal critics of the ACLU are religious critics. Separation of church and state issues are and have been the primary function of the ACLU since it's inception, am I correct? To exclude religious Democrats and independents as critics of ACLU activities is POV and is factually incorrect.

The opening sentence of the conservative critics section needs to be proven in the context of all the critics listed.

Sdedeo you can respond here instead of my talk page.--Scribner 04:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider all demographics, many of which of which are not conservative. This is a large black church in Memphis: the Statue of Liberation Through Christ. I'll change it.--Scribner 05:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think that church and state issues are or have been the primary function. The article says "In the year of its birth, the ACLU was formed to protect aliens threatened with deportation, and U.S. nationals threatened with criminal charges by U.S. Attorney General Alexander Mitchell Palmer for their communist or socialist activities and agendas (see Palmer Raids). It also opposed attacks on the rights of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and other labor unions to meet and organize." As for today, I don't see a single article on religious issues on the front page of the ACLU today.--Prosfilaes 05:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your right, I'm clearly wrong about the, "'primary function' of the ACLU since it's inception." I do however believe the "most vocal critcs" to be religious. Here's about nineteen links to cases. What about the Westboro Baptists, as far as the news.

The only ACLU/Conservative news that I'm aware of if the attempted block of Samuel Alito.

We're talking about the most vocal critics. The days of communist or socialist activities and agendas are long past. The days of reproductive issues and gay rights issues and still church and state issues are here.

On the ACLU Action Center page:

• Help Stop Marriage Discrimination
• Reproductive Rights for Minors
• Urge Congress to Support Pregnancy Prevention Information for Rape Victims
• Safeguard Women's Access to Critical Reproductive Health Care: Repeal the Women's Health Care Refusal Provision
• Fight Discrimination Against Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual or Transgender Workers
• Stop Congress from Rolling Back Key Civil Rights Protections (ACLU website religious section)
• Tell Congress to Stop Playing Politics with Katrina Funding (ACLU website religious section)
• Stop Religious Discrimination in Head Start (ACLU website religious section)
• Defend Civil Rights and Health Services (ACLU website religious section)

===2006 alone===

• ACLU Urges House Panel To Reject "Public Expression of Religion Act," Calls Bill A Direct Attack on Individual Religious Freedom
• House Votes to Bar Federal Courts from Hearing Pledge of Allegiance Cases; ACLU Says Bill Compromises Independent Judiciary
• ACLU of West Virginia and Americans United Seek Removal of High School Portrait of Jesus
• ACLU of Virginia Defends Federal Law Guaranteeing Religious Rights of Prisoners
• ACLU of Alaska Says Tax Exemption Favors Religious Groups Over Other Charitable Organizations
• ACLU Wins Open Access for All Visitors to Martin’s Cove National Historic Site in Wyoming
• House Judiciary Panel Seeks to Bar Federal Courts from Hearing Pledge Cases; ACLU Urges Lawmakers to Keep Doors of Justice Open to All
• Federal Judge Rules Against School-Mandated Prayer at Kentucky High School Graduation Ceremony
• Maine High Court Upholds School Tuition Program
• Prominent Chicago Religious Leaders Ask Federal Appellate Court to Protect Government Neutrality in Religion and End Pentagon's Extraordinary Funding for Boy Scout Jamboree
• NYCLU Challenges Coast Guard Ban on Religious Head Coverings in License Photographs
• ACLU Announces Settlement in Challenge to Government-Funded Religion in the Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Program the “Silver Ring Thing”
• ACLU of Virginia Defends Fredericksburg’s Decision to Ban Sectarian Prayers at Open City Council Meetings
• ACLU of Ohio Demands Schools Stop Teaching Intelligent Design as Science

--END--

The frist nine constitute about a fouth of ongoing grassroots efforts on the ACLU Action Center website

The remaining are cases closed in 2006, a few (3) were pro-church and have been omitted.

Let me see what else I can come up with regarding religious v conservative criticism.--Scribner 10:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the debate is not totally useful -- figuring out who is the "most vocal" is pretty tough! So I've altered the sentence to something that I think needs no sourcing: "many critics are conservative." Sdedeo (tips) 18:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)