Talk:American Civil Liberties Union/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

non-profit and tax status

All I wanted to do was comment on an error in the ACLU entry. It now says "The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is an American organization consisting of two separate entities. The ACLU Foundation is a non-profit organization that focuses on litigation and communication efforts, whereas the American Civil Liberties Union focuses on legislative lobbying and does not have non-profit status.[2]" This is not correct. I am not a lawyer, but this would be much more correct:

"The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is an American organization consisting of two separate entities, both of which are non-profit, tax-exempt organizations. The ACLU Foundation is a 501(c)3 organization that focuses on litigation, education, and communication efforts, whereas the American Civil Liberties Union focuses on legislative lobbying and is a 501(c)4 organization.[2]"

Sorry for providing comments in this way but after an hour of looking for a simple way to comment, this was the best place I could find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wigwagwom (talk • contribs) 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

ACLUs Move From Communism

From what I've read, the ACLU has an early history with ties to communism. I understand that they eventually moved away from it, but it still is important to note the early development of the organization. I don't understand why the article feels it's OK to state that they moved away from communism, but not OK to state that they were close to it to begin with. What's the big deal?

From looking through the archives, I've noticed a lot of additions and deletions regarding their early communist ideology, with a lot of 'angry' words from both sides. I can't see what the problem is. It seems to me that the organization adopted ideologies that were common with early communism. Once the communist ideology was 'subverted' by totalitarian dictators, they distanced themselvs from the communist party, but keep a lot of the original, progressive ideology. Is that so hard to understand, or to accept? Angncon (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is always a matter of finding reliable sources that indicate that these things you are saying are true. If you can provide such a source, fine. But, what we neither want nor need is propaganda from one or another of the many groups who regularly denounce the ACLU as anti-American. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Coming from a family of mixed nationalities, and noting the long line of contention in American history, I find it difficult to believe that anyone protesting the government can be considered un-American (maybe anti-government, but that's not the same). If anything, those that passively accept the will, opinion, or influence of any entity are un-American. It is in our culture and history to be contentious; at both ends of the political spectrum.

Angncon, I believe you are mistaken as to the history of the ACLU. The ACLU never practiced "communist ideology" or advocated any such thing. Perhaps you are confusing the organization itself with one of its founders, Roger Nash Baldwin, but even that is a bit of a stretch. Baldwin was an early supporter of labor and war-resistance causes that were supported by communist and labor organizations and his sympathies were tied to many of these groups, most notably the IWW. However, he was first and foremost a civil libertarian and denounced communism (even going so far as to make it known that communists were not welcome in the ACLU) when it became apparent that communism and civil liberties were mutually exclusive. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that I am mistaken. I have studied the history of communism for more than a decade now. I specifically did not state that the ACLU was a communist organization, but I most certainly believe that they have practiced, and continue to practice the basic communist ideology. That is, a true communist ideology as espoused by Engels and Marx in the late 19th century, not the totalitarian perversion of the ideology demonstrated later by the Soviet Union and China. Even marxist.org (very neutral history of communism) has a section on the ACLU. As far a Baldwin, his ideology is apparent in his writings. Here are some quotes that demonstrate basic communist ideology:

"The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental."

"When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever."

"[I]f American champions of civil liberty could all think in terms of economic freedom as the goal of their labors, they too would accept "workers' democracy" as far superior to what the capitalist world offers to any but a small minority. Yes, and they would accept — regretfully, of course — the necessity of dictatorship while the job of reorganizing society on a socialist basis is being done."

        Freedom In the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.

"My "chief aversion" is the system of greed, private profit, privilege, and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. I am opposed to the new deal [sic] because it strives to strengthen and prolong production for private profit. At bottom I am for conserving the full powers of every person on earth by expanding them to their individual limits. Therefore, I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of the system dog-eat-dog under which we live, and the substitution by the most effective non-violence possible of a system of cooperative ownership and use of all wealth."

         Baldwin, 'From the Harvard Classbook,' June 1935, vol. 763, ACLU Papers. Robert C. Cottrell  and
         Roger Nash Baldwin and the American Civil Liberties Union [New York: Columbia University Press, 2000], pp. 228-229.)

To continue stating that neither the ACLU or Baldwin had early communist ties does nothing but fuel the fire of those who believe that the ACLU is hiding 'nefarious communist agenda'. Without acknowledging these early ties, the ACLU is doomed to maintain the 'communist fascist' tag given to it by the right since the 1940s. Baldwin denounced communism once he saw that the ideology was co-opted by fascist dictatorships. Why is this difficult to explain? And again I say, whats the big deal?85.31.69.82 (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what it is you're suggesting be included in the article. I think you would be hard-pressed to find any reliable sources which state that the ACLU "practiced, and continue to practice the basic communist ideology." I guessed (correctly, it seems) that you were referring to Baldwin and not the organization, but you still seem to be confusing the two. Baldwin's Wikipedia article goes into some detail about the subject of his early embrace and later denunciation of Communist ideology. But contrary to your claim, the ACLU as an organization did not espouse communist ideology. As for their being labeled 'communist fascist' by the right, I've never heard that one before but anyone who would use the phrase probably has a pretty poor understanding of what either of those terms mean.--Loonymonkey (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO the problem seems to be this: Baldwin was not a prolific writer, but he did write quite a bit. In these writings, he made it known that he was politically active in early communist ideology (this is from his writings, not my opinion). He founded a political group and led it for its first 30 years. Other original founders were Elizabeth Gurley Flynn who later became the national chairman (chairperson?) of the CPUSA, Crystal Eastman (ok, just an admitted socialist), William Z. Foster (another CPUSA chairman). Communist organizations (such as the CPUSA) wrote about his organization as an ally to their cause. All this information was not pulled from propaganda sites, mostly writings and textbooks. Refusing to acknowledge that even the slightest breach of Baldwin's ideology went into his organization forces naiveté on the part of the reader, thus fueling this backlash that I've read here in the archives and elsewhere.

I don't know exactly what or how to include it in the article. I'm not that knowledgeable with the ACLU. But I do have some extensive knowledge of the history of communism. BTW, 'fascist communism' was my term; misused here. It was common description used during the late 30s to 50s with Soviet communism (Stalin's era). My point is to show that the ACLU did have early communist influence (via its founder and chairman for 30 years) but was in no way associated with the totalitarian version. You can leave the article as it is (like I said, I don't think I know enough to be qualified to change it), but apparently, silence on the subject seems to only breed contempt.Angncon (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

New to the argument: Having read through the article myself, I was unaware there was a mention of Communism in the text. Also, I had no idea the founder was a Communist. I can't believe I read through the whole article and at no point was it mentioned there were links to Communism via one of its founders. Clearly, from the quotations above, at least one of the founders was deeply influenced by Communist thinking at a time when Communism was seen as being unpatriotic, and to give a balanced view of the creation of the organisation it you really must mention links to Communism in its foundation. It gives a critical insight. I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason it has not been included is because Communism is considered unpalatable. I have no particular view on the ACLU one way or another, but have to say that there is more than enough information to warrant a mention of the Communist founder. You can't rewrite history simply because its uncomfortable. I was fascinated to find that the founder was a Communist, and I believe that definitely impacts on my view of the modern organisation. The information should definitely be included. Well done that man for bringing it to my attention! Dpolwarth (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This Article is Unfair and Biased toward its Subject

Encyclopedias are supposed to at least pretend to be superpersonal and objective. This current article on the other hand is nothing but a gigantic defense and apologetic propaganda for the ACLU and its anarcho-nihilist (Emma Goldman as the inspiration) activities. There is no section on philosophical or ethical objections to the ACLU by prominent non-radical thinkers and leaders, and the fact that the organization's leadership is bursting with hypocritical snakelike criminals dressed up as reformers. Mention is barely made of the legally convicted pedophiles and child-rapists in this organization. Who decided that Wikipedia must at all costs be dogmatic ACLU-militants? The whole article is biassed fringe-left trash and should be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we get it. You hate the ACLU. Wikipedia has very strict policies concerning neutral point of view, so I doubt you're going to get a lot of support for your demand that the article be changed to reflect your opinion that the ACLU is made up of "hypocritical snakelike criminals." Also, please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Specific suggestions for improvement: allow for academic fairness by giving textual space for critical, NON-SYCHOPHANTIC scholarship on the ACLU (such as its origins in anarcho-collectivist currents and Emma Goldman's anarchist philosophy); do not try to dishonestly whitewash and hide under the rug the fact that many ACLU leaders have been successfully prosecuted by the American government for various serious felonies; etc.

The "criticism of the ACLU" section at the bottom of the page I see is DELIBERATELY left blank. What a typically modern farce!

The POV tag remains.

For instance, Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, published a collection of revolutionary pamphlets written by the anti-government revolutionary anarchist theorist Pyotr Alekseyevich Kropotkin, etc.; but no mention is made of these "inconvenient" facts. The ostensible goal of the organization is "defending American constitutional rights" but what does anarcho-collectivism have to do with the American Constitution?

In the criticism section, mention at least should be made of The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values (B&H Publishing Group, 2005) by Alan Sears and Craig Osten.

http://www.acluvsamerica.com/main/default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, remember to adhere to the rules of wikipedia when engaged in discussion. In particular, you should always remember to assume good faith. That said, you seem to be suggesting that we add a section where you can post anti-ACLU screeds from websites devoted to attacking the ACLU. This is counter to wikipedia style and policy. In general, criticism sections are avoided on wikipedia (as they tend to become POV dumping grounds) and there has been a great effort among the wikipolitics projects to dismantle these sections and weave relevant notable criticism into the body of the article (as is done here). This is not a left or right wing effort, it is being done across the board. As for your other points, this article is about the ACLU, not Baldwin. The article on him (which is linked from this article) does discuss the fact that he embraced certain communist ideas early on (but later disavowed communism when it became apparent that it was incompatible with civil libertarianism). I doubt that you will find a reliable source which states that the ACLU is an "anarcho-collectivist organization" whose leadership is "bursting with hypocritical snakelike criminals" but feel free to discuss it here if you do. Also, please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

--Greetings everyone. I am not a regular Wikipedia contributor, and I am also neither "anti-Aclu" nor "pro-Aclu", but it seems this individual has a very real point. The article is almost exclusively celebratory and offers virtually no critical discussion on the Aclu's origins in socialistic and anarchist-antigovernment ideologies. I think this article should be restructured to fit the goal of non-partisanship of any worthy encyclopedia. I find the coercive, suppressive behavior of the power-holding editors here (RepublicanJacobite, etc) quite unworthy of a free democratic civilization dedicated to open-ended debate. To sum up: This individual has a legitimate point, and Wikipedia's community owes it to their own democratic values to address the grievance instead of facilely dismissing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.62.151 (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the previous poster. Due to the wild excesses of injustice and denial of legitimate grievance of this individual by 'editorial gold old boys' on Wikipedia, I, a non-Wikipedian who could not be less interested in internet activities, have taken time out of my own life to rebalance the article by citing competent authorities to reflect nonpartisanship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.132.93 (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Fringe-left"? What is it with simpletons who are incapable of identifying just how irreconcilable socialist theory is with the motivations of a bunch of civil rights lawyers who opt to represent white, male and middle class hegemons? Pseudo-left! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.18.34.5 (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Cetainly there seems to be a few 'sins of omission' from this post. I have no particular axe to grind with the ACLU, but on reading some of the comments on this discussion page I noticed one that said the founder was a Communist. Clearly this is important information, as the ACLU was formed at a time when Communism was considered the pinnacle of anti-patriotism in America. It certainly coloured my view of the organisation, and I feel it would help to bring an insight into its formation. Yet this is not mentioned in the article. Surely this is pertinent, given the progressive, almost anarchic, political leanings of the organisation past and present? I have to say, from a neutral's point of view (I'm from the UK, so the ACLU does not affect me one way or the other), I'm beginning to feel that this is not a neutral article. It's leaving out facts that I would like to know about. Dpolwarth (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"Contentious Origins and Criticism"

The new section with the above title, created by the previous anonymous user, has now been removed. The entire section, as I stated in my edit summary, is highly problematic. Many of the sources it quotes, despite the claim that they are "iron clad," are highly POV and biased against the ACLU. Some examples of its questionable content:

Baldwin counted among his friends Margaret Sanger (1879-1966), leader of the birth-control movement and an ardent advocate of eugenics who was admired by Adolf Hitler (John Ray, "Eugenics and the Left," Frontpagemagazine.com, Sept. 25, 2003; [6]).

Of what significance is it that Sanger may or may not have been admired by Hitler? Yes, she was an admocate of eugenics, as were a great many Progressives of the time. But, what has that to do with the origins of the ACLU? Did the ACLU, or Baldwin, advocate eugenics? No, actually, the ACLU has fought against eugencs legislation.

In 1920, a joint committe of the New York State Legislature described the ACLU as "a supporter of all subversive movements; and its propaganda is detrimental to the interests of the state. It attempts not only to protect crime, but to encourage attacks upn our institutions in every form" (Daniel J. Popeo, "Not Our America ... The ACLU Exposed," Washington Legal Foundation, 10, 1989).

First of all, the conclusion reached by a New York legislative committee in 1920 might be an interesting source as to some governmental opinion in that time period, but I would like to see an original source for this. Still, it would only be of limited value. But, seeing that it is quoted in a paper issued by a known anti-ACLU organization makes it suspect.

We are then treated to lengthy quotes from "William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights" and "The esteemed lawyer and American federal judge Robert Bork," both of whom are well-known opponents of the ACLU.

The sum total of what we are presented with in this section is a mix of facts and opinion (leaning more toward the latter) which is unencyclopædic in its tone and presentation. A legitimate criticism section would not look like this. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite, you have displayed your autocratic tendencies on this issue quite clearly. According to you, there is no such thing as legitimate criticism of the ACLU; they are ideologically and morally untouchable. You would erase with fanatic desperation any mention of the possibility that not every single person on earth is in alignment with the ACLU's worldview, which I find tyrannous and immoral. This page is now, no question, POV and the POV label will remain until some non-biased person mediates it or some of the information in the 'contentious origins and criticism' section is restored.

True, the section in a few areas could be cleaned up (which i will try to amend), but that doesnt justify wholesale suppression.

Your way of thinking on this topic is absurd. You say that Robert Bork is a "well-known opponent of the ACLU". Well, that's the point. It's ideological conflict and critique. An objective encyclopedia can't have an entry that unilaterally celebrates an organization and touts its achievements and then not mention any legitimate philosophical opponents.

You are basically saying that *there is no such thing as legitimate criticism and philosophical critics of the ACLU*, which is an evil philosophy going back to the absolutist-autocratic days of divine right of kings.

The problem is not the info or the opponents posted, but you. If you do not cease your irrational vandalistic coercive tactics shortly, this problem will be refered to higher wikipedia authorities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Listen, you refer this to any authorities you like. I stand by my edits. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the conclusion by the American govt comittee that the ACLU is a pro-criminal org is wellknown outside 'true believer' circles; the reference can even be found on the internet:

http://books.google.com/books?id=HBwlIE4jo-MC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=%22a+supporter+of+all+subversive+movements%3B+and+its+propaganda+is+detrimental+to+the+interests+of+the+state%22&source=web&ots=H1TiLhwW9x&sig=AWLSQjOShCgRBZs_0aQh5nBh4uo#PPA136,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My response to that is exactly this: So what? I am well aware that various gov't. agencies and departments investigated and harassed the ACLU from its founding. I take this as an indication that the organization was effective. It was feared and despised precisely because it was successful in its attempts to prevent tyranny. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine, you asked for it. This matter will be refered to honest wikipedians and your autocracy will indeed be punished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your threats are absolutely meaningless to me as anyting other than a joke. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What the hell was that supposed to mean? Punished? Angncon (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That is why I said it was a joke. He has no ability to punish me nor to see me punished. My edits were correct and proper. I notice that he has ceased his campaign, so apparently he realized he would lose. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

While bunchofnumbers there did plainly try to the article into a hatchet job, there is probably a bit of legitimate criticism and controversy in what he added that could be included. Certainly the attempts to undermine the organization by attacking its founder don't belong (he has his own article, which is where the criticism of him should stay, while maintaining NPOV), but the statement by the NY legislature is interesting, and seems worthy of inclusion somewhere, given the proper context. Maybe some of what Bork said could be incorporated, without turning a section into a bunch of quotes about people hatin' on the ACLU. Based on bunchofnumbers' talk page contributions so far, I'm not expecting any overtures from that direction towards a mutual agreement on legitimate criticism, but we should try to exmaine any POV issues that may exist in the article. -R. fiend (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never once claimed or argued that the ACLU is above criticism. At the top of this talk page, I state very clearly that I believe otherwise. Certainly, some kind of legitimate criticisms can be made, but not in the manner that has been done up to this point. I would like to see a reasonable and polite discussion of this topic, rather than the accusations and threats that have been made up to this point. Your comments, R. fiend, are, I believe, a step in the right direction. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is criticism woven into the article, and if there are other specific notable criticisms that should be added, they should be discussed here and included. Of course, just because somebody criticized the ACLU (and there are a lot of such somebodies considering how vilified the organization is among those of a certain political slant) doesn't mean that their criticism is worthy of inclusion. That's not how wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The criticism itself has to have a reason for inclusion; that is, it has to be relevant to the article and it has to be notable. The "two" disruptive anons have no interest in following this normal process of wikipedia (and, totally coincidentally, are using the same Virginia-based AOL proxy server and write in a similar voice using bizarre phrases such as "arbitrary, autocratic, cliquish advocator-partisans") I have very little patience for a troll that insults or threatens experienced editors and disrupts wikipedia simply to make a point.--Loonymonkey (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section was reinserted on 29 February against the consensus on this talk page. Before deleting it in its entirety, I would like to see further discussion of the matter. For myself, I agree with what Loonymonkey has said above, i.e., that there is no reason to have a "criticism" section just for its own sake. The question is, are the criticisms valid, reasonable, well-founded, and notable? Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

After it was reinserted, I took out the hatchet job elements and tried to leave the more valid stuff. As the ACLU is the bugbear of the conservative movement in the US and the posterboy of what they hate about liberalism, the criticisms of it are widespread and certainly notable. They're not really covered terribly well in the article, from what could tell. There's the Controversial stances section, but those specific examples don't really get to the heart of what so many object to about the ACLU. When Republicans rant against it, it's not because of Oliver North, or Frank Snepp, or even Fred Phelps; those are basically separate issues. I'm not sure the criticisms section is all that great either, but there is an appearance of trying to whitewash some of it, which is not good. To probably about a quarter of this country, the ACLU is considered one step behind Al Qaeda, and that isn't brought across well.

So to answer your question, are the criticisms valid, reasonable, well-founded, and notable? Well, valid is subjective. To many they are valid, to others they are not. They are not invented by an editors here, however. Reasonable? Again subjective. I think what is currently included is reasonable, but the quote by Bork may not be necessary. Well-founded? There should certainly be no trouble finding widespread criticism of the organization, at least. Notable? Criticism of the organization is very notable. It probably belongs in the lead, in fact. These specific examples? Well, the New York Legislature is a very significant organization, and I would say an official condemnation by a committee is notable. Bork isn't some random pundit or blogger, so what he says carries some weight, anyway. If these two quotes sum up well the chief criticisms of the ACLU from the right, then it is fair to include them. They are sourced, so they can't be removed on those grounds. If tons of this sort of stuff gets added, turning much of the article into an attack piece, then it can certainly be trimmed. But what is there now does not strike me as unfair, and until something better is added covering the controversy, I don;t see any strong reason for its removal. -R. fiend (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing notability of the subject with notability of the quote. Yes, Robert Bork is notable. But that doesn't mean that his general criticism of the ACLU is automatically notable to this article. How is it any different than the generic criticism that flows from those of a certain political slant? It has to be about a specific subject, not just about the ACLU generally. Why couldn't any of his criticisms be woven into the "Controversial Stances" section? For reasons stated above, "Criticism" sections are a terrible idea and are being dismantled across wikipedia. Ask yourself, would you support the idea of a general "Praise for the ACLU" section with favorable quotes by notable people? No, of course not and neither would I. I didn't even notice until today that this one had been added a few days ago. I'm going to remove it, but if there are specific criticisms that need to be mentioned, let's discuss weaving them into the other sections (for instance, I thing the New York Legislature quote could be mentioned in the historical section, but we would need to include the context of what specifically they were referring to and it would need to be properly referenced).--Loonymonkey (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and I wasn't really thrilled with the section as it was, but the article basically glosses over the fact that the ACLU is a very controversial organization, demonized by a pretty large swath of the nation. The little "oh they've done a few things that have been unpopular" section doesn't really get this point across well. They are probably one of the most polarizing organizations in the country, which you would never know from reading the article. Ideally the "Controversial stances" would be redone to bring the point across that the entire organization is controversial, not merely some of the cases they've been involved with. The NY Legislature item, for instance, is pretty significant, but isn't properly a "controversial stance" (and I see it has not been moved into that section). The fact is, conservatives tend to revile the ACLU for reasons such as that they perceive them as having a hostility to religion, inclinations towards the rights of criminals and the accused over the rights of victims and law and order in general, favoritism towards homosexuality, and defense of indecency (to name a few of the major perceptions of the group). Spam, Nazis, Oliver North, and even NAMBLA are almost red herrings. The controversy around the ACLU is probably one of the most notable things about it, and really should be mentioned in the lead, and covered better in its own section. The Bork quote itself is unnecessary, sure, but it did serve the purpose of outlining the view of the ACLU by many. As it stands now, the article doesn't do that too well. -R. fiend (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Court-Awarded Damages

The section on court-awarded damages seems defensive and (thus) POV. I think the underlying issue is that such payments are not well understood, but form a major element of ACLU criticism. Can we create a seperate page? Ethan Mitchell (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ACLU internal conflict

wasn't there some big deal about how the aclu was trying to censor dissent from within, and had some crazy employee confidentialty policy a few years back? could somebody knowlegeble on the topic add that to the entry. it's a bit of a glaring omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.133.211 (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

never mind, i wrote something up. but please add more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.133.211 (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your additions because they were unreferenced. Unless and until you can find a notable source for that information, please do not add it to the article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I was in error when I deleted this information, as a notable source was provided. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Two elephants

I do not contribute to this article, as I have a COI. But I would like to suggest that the edit battles here have prevented the article from articulating two keys points. First, the ACLU has a policy and practice of being the legal-defense-of-last-resort for unpopular clients in civil liberties cases: "their client is the constitution," as the phrase goes. Whether or not we believe that the ACLU has toed that line, it seems important to explain that the ACLU has claimed this position, and does not just defend NAMBLA and neo-Nazis because they're bored.

At the same time, it seems important to explain that the ACLU is one of the most reviled organizations in the country, and that criticism of the ACLU is not simply a sporadic response to particular positions, but is virtually a movement unto itself, with web pages, etc. devoted to attacking the ACLU per se. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time to get a discussion going on any POV issues this article may or may not have. Ethan here makes some good points, and right now it seems most discussion is happening in the edit summaries of the revert wars that are raging, which is not the way to do it. Now, while my words are being used to support a POV tag on this article, I'm not entirely convinced it warrants one (mostly because I spitefully detest the overuse of tags that has become a plague upon Wikipedia in the past year or two). Though there is nothing that says a consensus is required for such a tag, only a rationale. My view (and I'm not alone) is that the exceedingly controversial nature of the ACLU is almost dismissed by this article, which don't seem right. Adequate coverage of the controversies is hardly POV, in fact, doesn't the ACLU wear them as a badge of honor? Anyway, can we try to figure out if or how we can address the controversial nature of the ACLU better? -R. fiend (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be more appropriate to say "another discussion" on POV issues, since this has actually been ongoing for two or three months, intermittently, with anonymous users adding POV tags, making threats and accusations here on the talkpage, and adding inappropriate "criticism" sections for so-called balance. The ACLU is a controversial organization, yes, and a great many people hold to untoward opinions about it, egged on by ultra-right commentators with an axe to grind. But, should the opinions of cranks be added to the article just for the sake of balance? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should throw in a bunch of inappropriate criticism and opinions of cranks, but it's not just far-right cranks who revile the ACLU, it's many conservatives, and fair proportion of the population. Ethan, above, points out that the ACLU is one of the most reviled organizations in the country (perhaps an exaggeration, but discounting fringe organizations like NAMBLA, the Nazis and even the KKK, it's up there). This article seems to ignore that. I'm not saying we need to add all sorts of quotes by Rush and O'Reilly and Coulter and other windbags, but the very widespread opposition should be covered. Right now, from reading the "controversy" section, you'd think the ACLU was no more controversial than the American Red Cross (read their controversy sections for comparison) which is hardly the case at all. The highly controversial nature of the organization should go in the lead, and there should be greater explanation further in about why so many find the ACLU abhorrent. Look at this article, for example; hardly a hatchet job, but it goes into the controversy around the ACLU in the second paragraph. Our entire lead only mentions the ACLU's criticism of others. To me, that seems amiss. -R. fiend (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I have been clear that a discussion of the controversy is necessary, and that a discussion of criticism can and should be included. The question is not whether, but now, this should be done. The manner in which the anonymous user(s) have been behaving is inappropriate, and that includes the addition of POV templates without any attempt at engaging in discussion as to the issues involved. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we're in basic agreement. I'm not fond of the methods some of the recent critics here have used, as they clearly have an agenda, but understanding that even a broken clock it right twice a day, the article, to me, seems a bit POV. That can easily be remedied with the expansion of its controversies. I can go ahead and add a paragraph to the lead, but if it's going to be reverted I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. I also don't feel like spending a lot of time looking for sources for facts that nobody really disputes, such as: they're very controversial by nature, most of their support comes from the left and their criticism from the right, and that their opponents view them as anti-religious and subverting anti-crime and terror initiatives. Just putting that much in the lead should be a pretty big improvement to the neutrality of the article. -R. fiend (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with all of that. Thanks for your efforts, they are appreciated. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I added those basic sentiments to the intro. It's hardly polished writing, so people should feel free to tidy it up a bit, or expand. Please don't remove it without discussion, anyone. -R. fiend (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this paragraph from the lede. My edit summary was perhaps a little more bitey than I intended it to be, I actually think the balance was almost there (although it really needs to be referenced or it just falls the weasel word trap and it has a little bit of an WP:OR problem right now which reads like an editorial). That said, it's really inappropriate for the lede. The ACLU does not draw its notability from that controversy and it is not defined by the fact that many on the right vilify them, any more than the NRA is defined by the fact that they are demonized on the left. I think something along the lines of what you wrote would be appropriate as an introduction to the Controversial stances section, though. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I added it back. I put in a few refs, and can do more, but let's face it, this is not the sort of information any sane person denies. Regardless of one's opinion of the ACLU, one cannot deny they are very controversial. To whitewash that fact, making it seem like the ACLU and the Red Cross are both viewed the same across the country, is ridiculous. Their controversy is one of the most notable thing about them. And I'd have a little more faith in your edits if you could spell "lead" correctly. -R. fiend (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, there is often controversy surrounding the organization, but that controversy does not define them (or account for their notability). I didn't say they were viewed the same as the Red Cross. Please don't resort to strawman arguments to make your point. The paragraph is completely inappropriate in the lede (and I invite you to look up the spelling of that before insulting others. It makes you look foolish). Please read the guidelines for such at wp:lede.--Loonymonkey (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the controversy defined the organization, just that it does account for a deal of their notability. If they didn't regularly take controversial stances on issues they would certainly not be as simultaneously popular and unpopular as they currently are, and they would not be as well known or as ubiquitously referenced. Nor did I accuse you of equating their controversy with that of the Red Cross; it's their respective articles that do that. Looking at the articles an otherwise uninformed reader would be left with the impression that the Red Cross was the more controversial of the two organizations, thanks to the whitewash of this article. And as for newfangled spellings, well, certain parties don't seem to agree. -R. fiend (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you agree that controversy does not define the organization, the the problem is simply that you don't understand how a lede section should be written. It is a summary of the article and describes why the subject is notable. The paragraph you wrote fails on both of those points. Again, the ACLU is not notable because of the opinion their critics have of them. A Lexis/Nexis search of the organization turns up hundreds of reliably sourced references to the organization in the past month alone, only a few of which have anything to do with criticism. Perhaps your perspective is skewed by the sources you are reading? If you spend a lot of time reading blogs of a certain political slant or listening to AM radio, it would be easy to form the opinion that they are notable simply for being criticized. There is no "whitewash" here, you are simply placing this in the wrong place. Your edit is a good start as a description of why they are criticized in the controversial positions section, but the lede is not the correct section for it (and it would need to be rewritten a bit as it relies too heavily on [[WP:AWW}weasel words]] and doesn't cite any of the specific claims you are making). As for spelling, there is nothing new-fangled about it. "Lede" is the correct spelling as used by journalists and writing professionals (a group that nobody would ever accuse you of belonging to). "Lead," while technically incorrect (it is a shorthand version of the adjective form "lead paragraph" and not the noun "lede") is also acceptable as it is in common use by laymen. Perhaps you should email the New York Times and let them know that their news blog The Lede is spelled incorrectly.--Loonymonkey (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

<---

You keep putting words in my mouth, while simultaneously shifting the criteria for inclusion in the lede. We both admit that the controversy does not define the ACLU (I never said it did), but the opening is more than just a definition. Wikipedia:Lead section says it also includes "the important aspects of the article's topic" that "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." So your argument seems to be that the controversy is not an important aspect, and should be left out of an overview of the topic. I disagree, and I don't think I'm alone. Furthermore, you keep accusing me of inserting my opinions into the article, despite the fact that, for one, you don't know what my opinions are, and additionally, the controversy surrounding the ACLU is not a matter of opinion. You seem to admit to that at least by moving the information elsewhere in the article. The opinion here is whether it belongs in the aentroduction to the article; that it does not is merely your opinion. If there is a concern about weasel words, I'm not sure exactly what to say. American conservatives frequently demonize the ACLU, but no one is going to list all of them, so I'm not sure how much more specific one can get without merely naming a few specific examples.

I admit it could use more sources. Sometimes the things everyone knows are the hardest to find reliable sources on (unfortunately "throw a rock..." is not a reliable source). It's easy enough to find isolated examples, but I'm not going to add 200 footnotes to a sentence just to show that a particular view is not isolated. One needn't listen to tons of AM radio to pick up on the controversy, either. George H.W. Bush used them to make a prominent attack on Dukakis; one that wasn't just aimed at the far right. We're not talking Michael Savage here.

That being said, at least the controversy section is more complete now. It previously gave the impression that most of the controversy comes from the defense of groups like NAMBLA and nazis, which isn't really the case; they were very controversial before the defended NAMBLA, and I'd wager there are ACLU-haters who are somewhat sympathetic to nazis. Much of the commonplace contemporary criticism comes from religious folk who view them as hostile to religion (mostly theirs). The main question is whether any of this belongs in the openninge sexion, and I, for one, would like to get other's thoughts on this before it is moved into the laeter paragraffes. -R. fiend (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Lock?

Would it be appropriate to lock editing on this article until some of the POV items can be taken care of? It seems to me like both sides are using the editing of the article (and the subsequent summaries) as a way to snipe at each other instead of organising an unbiased encylopedia article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes, I do believe a lock is in order. I believe the differences between the registered editors can be worked out here on the talk page. However, the problems with the anons willm I am afraid, remain. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This would indicate a semi-protect, not a "lock." I'd be against "locking" the page against all editing. --Paul (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection is probably a good idea. Not sure if full protection is necessary yet. The strongest partisans on both sides seem to be anons. -R. fiend (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The "strongest partisan," I would argue, is the anonymous user at IP 63.3.10.1 (and variations of same), who has just been reported to AiV. Semi-protection is warranted, though, after which, we need to sort this out. When we have come to a consensus here as to the "controversial" nature of the ACLU, and criticisms thereof, and how this fits in the article, we will be in a better position to deal with the anons who wish to push a POV. I would like very much to see the POV template gone before the end of the month. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the need for semi-protection has decreased for a little while. (keyword being maybe)

The long series of acts of vandalism today would seem to indicate semi-protection is still in order. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Find a better quote?

There is a pull-quote in the article now, by the ACLU president. I find it incoherent and out of place. I think it was transcribed from spoken English, because it's not even a sentence. I get that she's trying to say "People who attack us by distorting our positions shouldn't act surprised when people believe them." But you really have to work to extract that meaning from this quote. Besides, what is her point exactly? It's hard for people to tell what? How are the distorters harmed when politicians believe them? Bottom line: I think this is not a good choice as a pull quote. The current text of the quote appears below. Chester320 (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"It’s hard for people to tell, because those who want to say the ACLU is hostile to religion distort what we have done, distort what the Supreme Court has done, and then they are surprised that government officials believe them and say, 'Oh no, no religious display is allowed at all, or no student is allowed to make a religious statement,' which is not the case."

Opponents of the modern ACLU stances have a voice as strong as their supporters.

In May of 2006, I first challenged the monitors of the ACLU page and suggested that many contributions were entirely biased and I offered several well-researched suggestions for entry. I was attacked immediately and indeed shocked that such a one-sided discussion could silence any other point of view. We all understand the incredible power that Wikipedia has regarding nearly any issue or subject and it is a fact that many young Americans come to Wikipedia for a quick information fix and even rely on this page for research. I have come to the opinion that this page has evolved into a very balanced perspective. I particularly like that the "controversial issues" have been added to this page rather than relegated to a link at the bottom of the page. Every page on this site should be open to honest and thoughtful challenge. I thank everyone of you for working to make this a nicely balanced political forum. Butchpenton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butchpenton (talk • contribs) 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Added "liberal" to the title.

I felt that it would be a better balanced article if the words "liberal" were added to the title. This should solve many of the arguments surrounding this article. I justify this for several reasons:

1) The stances of the ACLU described in the "POSITIONS" section of this article indicate a general position of liberalism, such as promoting GLBT rights, abortion and contraception rights, Affirmative action, illegal immigration, and gun control. It is clearly a liberal organization.

2) Becuase of the fact that it is indeed a liberal organization, neglecting to reference it as such clearly shows a bias.

3) Its counterpart, the Thomas More Law Center, is listed as a "conservative Christian" organization. It is only fair to also identify ACLU as "liberal" and "secular." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjford (talk • contribs) 15:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Bjford. As you have not provided a reliable source to verify the claim that the ACLU is a "liberal" organization, your above analysis constitutes original research which Wikipedia does not tolerate in articles. Regards, Skomorokh 16:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sources are provided in the article itself, as I have shown. Sources are shown in the "Positions" section of the article. Is this not sufficient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.138.251 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That cannot be the case, because the word "liberal" does not occur in the Positions section, and I have not removed it. Skomorokh 17:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I have removed an unsourced statement claiming the ACLU to be "liberal". This is neither supported by reliable sources or by relative weight guidelines. Regards, Skomorokh 18:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have cited the materials from the article on modern liberalism. How have I broken NPOV? Do I need some sort of political scientist to confirm that they are liberal? Enough of this hogwash. The article clearly shows that they are sympathetic to many of the views held by social liberals (which I linked to), and that is exactly what I said. Read the articles yourself. --Bjford (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you violated NPOV, I said the material you added was not supported by any reliable source, which it wasn't. Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources; they are (at best) summations of what is presented in reliable sources. Skomorokh 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not even a WP:RS issue. Whether the organization is "liberal" or not is an opinion, not a fact. It cannot be stated as fact in the lede (even if a reliable source can be found which refers to them as such) without violating WP:NPOV. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, labeling an organization as liberal is not a matter of "opinion." If you hold positions that are defined as liberal, then you are to some degree liberal. Likewise, if you in general do not hold to conservative views, then you are not in general conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjford (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What is "liberal?" What is "conservative?" Those are subjective terms and matters of opinion. I'm not really sure which views you are referring to (regarding the organization) but labeling them as anything which is a matter of opinion would be improper. And why would you want to? Better to simply present the facts and let the reader decide. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, man. Are you seriously trying to argue that the ACLU isn't liberal? I mean, really? Listen to yourself. Everyone knows its liberal. Many people are liberal - its not a crime. Anyone would think you are ashamed of your own political leanings, or something. Dpolwarth (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The ACLU has defended many far-right organizations just as well as Liberal ones, such as the Westboro Baptist Church which pickets LGBT funerals. --67.240.87.16 (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Positions, etc.

I think it's appropriate that a "Positions" section on an article for an organization states that organization's positions as they themselves would. It should also be clear that that's what the section is doing. General critiques of the ACLU wouldn't belong in this section. Possibly responses to specific positions would belong there? The WSJ editorial was just one editorial, but if cited correctly (ref the author, not just link the article), it seems reasonable. Again, probably not for the "Positions" section.Cretog8 (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not clear that's what the section is doing. The section is entitled "Positions", implying fact, not opinion. Responses to specific positions do belong in this section as well. The ACLU statement as to posisions is just one editorial, just as the WSJ editorial is one editorial. C08040804 (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the section "Controversial Stances" is a better reflection of the ACLU's actual positions, since it goes into the specific cases reflecting the ACLU's positions, rather than blanket self-serving pronouncements on what the ACLU stands for. In addition, the ACLU's overall position per the organization is already stated in the introduction to this article. C08040804 (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the entire section as a retaliatory act is a violation of WP:POINT. You can make your case here without doing so. Gamaliel (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversial Stances

"The ACLU has for years been a controversial organization by nature,[52] with most of their support coming from the left and opposition from the right."

Reference? Do the ACLU publish a breakdown of the political leanings of their base? "Left" and "Right" are relative terms. Many libertarians would consider themselves to the right of the American pollitcal center, but would also agree with and support many ACLU positions.

"The reasons for opposition are varied, although conservatives often view the ACLU stance of separation of church and state as anti-religious,[53] and their defense of both accused and convicted criminals as undermining law and order. Furthermore, the nature of the ACLU is that they defend even the most unpopular forms of speech and expression, notably those with which most other organizations would not wish to associate themselves."

This reads like an advertisement. It is a defense or justification of the ACLU and their positions. Their stances stand on their own merits, they do not require an explanation as to the thinking of the ACLU, or the thought process behind preparing a justification for a position or action. It also makes a blanket statement about "conservatives". Who are conservatives? There are many definitions for the labels "liberal" and "conservative" and they are often contradictory. They are relative terms and have changed over time.

The opening paragraph to this section needs some clean up. Maybe even delete the whole thing? The only thing that I would agree with here is that the ACLU has taken some unpopular stances (from the standpoint of US public opinion polls) and has received a lot of criticism from various political groups. We deal in fact - What they support, not Why they support it, as the Why is either an opinion (one sided) or an advertisement for the ACLU. Endtothemeans (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

As a first step, I ask these questions in good faith...

1. Is the Intro section limited to a simple, short statement of what the ACLU claims it is or should the Intro section include all "significant" and sourced claims (in this case issues related to commuist origins, etc.)?

2. Does NPOV require balance in all sections of the article or just one section to encompas all relevant facts of a significant and sourced POV? Publiusohio (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution? What is the dispute exactly? You have to be more specific. You can't just give a general statement that an article doesn't criticize its subject as much as you want it to. If you are seeking to include commentary in the article that supports your POV that the ACLU is (as you said in your edit summary) "un-American" and "communist" I doubt you'll get much support from the community. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at your talk page, Publiuschio, shows that you are not interested in NPOV, but rather only in pushing your own POV. You have been more than once blocked for it, the last time less than a month ago, and very recent (yesterday) warnings for your activities on John Birch Society. Don't make this article the next battleground for your violation of policy. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Will anyone answer the questions? Publiusohio (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't feed trolls. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

An ad hominem attack? Very nice, well played. It does not compy with wiki standards. The "dispute" is valid as there is a clear double standard at play and must be resolved. If noone here will discuss in a civil way, we should contact the wiki administrators to see if the anti-american sourced opinions are edited out for good cause or if such edits violate NPOV.

So do we want to try and reach consensus in good faith like adults or simply name call? Publiusohio (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, nobody knows what you are specifically "disputing." You haven't proposed anything. It's already pretty clear from your comments that you're trying to push some kind of fringe theory about "communist anti-americanism" but you're speaking in generalities. The fact that you don't like an article isn't a "dispute." You can't unilaterally place a tag and complain about a "dispute" without having proposed a single edit. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Publiusohio, I've seen the tag back-and-forth, and almost put the tag back for you because I've been in a similar position. However, to have a dispute, you need to make the dispute explicit, here on the talk page. Above, you have asked questions, but not presented your points of dispute. Cretog8 (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The debate is to the fact that the strong communist fondations ofthe ACLU have been scrubbed. There are many well documented sources such as Roger Baldwin's sourced quote "Therefore, I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of the system dog-eat-dog under which we live, and the substitution by the most effective non-violence possible of a system of cooperative ownership and use of all wealth."

There are many, many well sourced links to communism above and in the archives. The dispute as to neutrality should stay util the "scrub job" is reversed. Publiusohio (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the dispute exactly? You can't just pose questions, you have to specifically identify the problem and what you would do to fix it. Calling the article POV or a "scrub job" is insufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an explanation, both in general (communist foundations should be there but they aren't), and in specific (a particular quote). I'm not saying Publiusohio's right, but the dispute's been explained, so the tag should go back for a while. Cretog8 (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That quote has nothing to do with the ACLU, and the ACLU does not have communist foundations, that's a false premise. No, the tag should not go back (for how long, to what end?). There has to be a real and specific dispute that requires the temporary attention of the larger Wikipedia community. If all it took to label an article as POV was one crank not liking the article, then every single article on Wikipedia would have that tag.--Loonymonkey (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Baldwin's early embrace of communist ideals (and later rejection of the totalitarian reality of communism which he called "the inhuman communist police state tyranny") are discussed in his biography article. This article is about the ACLU. Do you have any well-sourced and notable information that is specific to the ACLU? Placing tags without discussion of specific edits is just disruption to make a point.--Loonymonkey (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

One of MANY, MANY examples:

Thirty-Five Years ago, The Veritas Foundation (headed by President Theodore Roosevelt's son Archibald) published a staff study on The Great Deceit, Social Pseudo-Sciences, which carefully documented the Fabian Socialist assault upon the American Social Sciences and legal system during the first six decades of this Century. After dealing at length with the antics of former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter--whom Roosevelt's father once compared to Leon Trotsky (ib., p.295)--the study describes the birth of the ACLU:

Frankfurter organized the American Civil Liberties Union in 1920, in company with Morris Hillquit (head of the American Socialist Party), Laski, Roger N. Baldwin, Jane Addams, Harry F. Ward, A.J. Muste, Scott Nearing and Norman Thomas. This organization was a socialist front pure and simple. (ib., p. 327.) The study goes on to show that known Communists were also permitted high positions in the new organization. Publiusohio (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Another source is "ACLU v. America" Publiusohio (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Co-author Craig Osten talked with CitizenLink about the book and the ACLU's design for the nation.

"Q. Craig, most people think the ACLU may have started out good in wanting to defend civil liberties, but took a wrong turn somewhere. But your book seems to indicate that's just not the case.

A. Right from the start, the ACLU was about promoting a different agenda for America. We actually went back and found original quotes from Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, and quotes from interviews he did in the mid-1970s, where he readily acknowledged that the ACLU had Communist and socialist roots. For example, in 1935, in his 30th anniversary Harvard class book, Baldwin wrote: "I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for the abolishment of the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of all property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

Some of Baldwin's mentors were Emma Goldman, who was an anarchist who was actually deported to the then-Soviet Union, and Margaret Sanger, who was head (and founder) of Planned Parenthood. In fact, if you go to the Emma Goldman Archive on the Internet, you'll find that her radical thoughts and beliefs were instrumental in the founding of the American Civil Liberties Union." Publiusohio (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Both of those sources you cited are opinion pieces (and pretty fringe ones at that). That's not the sort of thing we include in encyclopedic articles. Please read WP:NPOV for a further explanation of this rule. If you looking for a place to air your opinions about the ACLU, then I suggest starting a blog. And again, you still haven't proposed a single edit. This is getting tedious. What is the dispute? --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you actually suggesting a book enitled ACLU v. America as an NPOV source for the article? You must be kidding! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that you understand NPOV: "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"

The point is not to limit the article to just one point of view but to state the whole "good, bad and ugly" of each subject (to the extent that there is sourced material).

As for suggested edits, there have many that have already been scrubbed from the article. Moreover, to be able to make specific suggetions, I started with simple questions:

1. Is the Intro section limited to a simple, short statement of what the ACLU claims it is or should the Intro section include all "significant" and sourced claims (in this case issues related to commuist origins, etc.)?

2. Does NPOV require balance in all sections of the article or just one section to encompas all relevant facts of a significant and sourced POV?

Instead of reasonable answers, I got an ad hominem attack instead.

Does anyone want to take a shot at answering the questions now? Publiusohio (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt anyone wants to limit the article to "one point of view". Representing different points of view, however, doesn't mean embracing fringe viewpoints. So there may be a perfectly acceptable policy reason for not introducing a source such as ACLU vs. America. As far as the introduction goes, there is simply not room for "all significant and sourced claims". For something to go in the introduction you need far more than a reliable source, you must demonstrate that it is important enough to be placed in the intro, and many of the things you've highlighted seem to be little more than minor aspects of the organizations history rather than intro material. Now for this particular dispute, I still have no idea what edits you want to make and why, so please let's get past the framed questions and the generalizations and get into specifics. Gamaliel (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The source is significant and the viewpoint of the ACLU as anti-american is thourughly minstream - from the academic like to ACLU v. America to the popular books and writings of Coulter, George Will, Buckley, Etc.

What exactly is your litmus test for inclusion in the INTRO? Publiusohio (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me interject a little. It seems a compromise might be useful. Something that says saying like Baldwin claimed the ACLU was so and so but later said such and such. The point being the view of the creation of the ACLU from the point of a creator, so it should be worded so it belongs here and not on the Roger Baldwin page.

As to the Craig/Olsen book, that should be used to mined for wikiworthy sources, if any, not necessarily used itself, except where the book itself becomes an issue.

And as to the NPOV tag, that clearly belongs as it is obvious to anyone watching from afar that there are NPOV problems so severe that the page has now been totally locked against anyone editing it. I have never seen that before. Obviously there are serious NPOV issues, at least in some editor's minds, but they need addressing, and the article should be so labeled until things are worked out one way or another. Banning people is a bad way to work it out, by the way. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not exaggerate here. Page locking is a pretty routine tool used to halt edit wars. Gamaliel (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Page locking has nothing to do with whether there actually are NPOV issues and does not in any way legitimize the claims of Publiusohio. The page is locked because that editor took it upon themselves to start an edit war using tags. As for the quote, you've misread it. Baldwin was not speaking of the ACLU at all in that quote and it has nothing to do with the organization or the circumstances of its creation (and Baldwin is one of many founders, as the article clearly states). Also, I think you have a misunderstanding of what the NPOV tag is for. It is to be placed on articles temporarily until a specific editing dispute is worked out. NPOV tags are not permanent labels placed on articles simply because someone doesn't like the article or feels it's insufficiently critical of its supbject. If that were the case, every article on Wikipedia would have one. As of yet, the editor who started this still has not proposed a single edit. There is no specific dispute.

As for banning editors, Publiusohio is well on his way to accomplishing that on his own. He has already been blocked repeatedly for edit-warring on the John Birch Society article, and announced on the talk page there that he was going to even the score by starting an edit war here. Interestingly, that's the only place that he has actually proposed a specific edit. He said that he was going to label the ACLU as "communist" in the first sentence of this article. Such an edit, of course, would display an ignorance of both the ACLU and of the policies of Wikipedia.

Far too much time has been wasted on this one crank editor's efforts to disrupt Wikipedia in order to make a point. S/he started edit-warring over the tag itself, not in response to any specific dispute. As the guidelines for the tag state, "repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag." Do you want to guess what Publiusohio's sole contribution to the article is? --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem with this article is that it is not really covering the whole gamut of views on the ACLU in full. I came to this page to learn something about the ACLU, and I have found out more by looking at the comments on the discussion page than I have by reading the main article. So much of interest has been omitted that it seems utterly worthless as an article at the moment.

Here is my suggestion: set out two paragraphs. One states the aim of the ACLU philosophcally and politically. The other states the political and philosophical criticisms and objections. I am from the UK, and even I know that the 'controversial' section on the main article page does not even begin to cover the controversy the ACLU generates. Most of the controversy comes from its philosophy, not its court cases. In other words, people don't object to a murdering paedophile being defended in court - that is the law. They dislike the ACLU because they wanted, on a philosophical level, to see a murdeing paedophile walk free. People should have a chance to express their objections on a philosophical level, not on a legal level. To summarize: everyone is entitled to a fair trial in the law. This is not controversial. The philosophy that leads people to want to defend peodophiles, terrorists and other low-life, on the other hand, many find objectionable. There should be room given for both the ACLU to explain their position, and have quotations from representative critics raising objections to this position.

You can't be absolutely neutral on the topic, so give both sides. That way, everyone is happy/unhappy equally. Dpolwarth (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Cover up on Kropotkin and Goldman

Why in the entire article is there no mention of the well-testified ideological origins of the ACLU in the anarchist-socialist philosophies of Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman? The article mentions the ACLU repudiated Soviet collectivism, as if Sovietism is the only kind of revolutionary collectivism. Where is the editorial integrity here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.136.239 (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The "source" you site when you add the ACLU to the List of criminal organizations page is slanted, and itself references an FBI document from the 1920s under Hoover, an administration well known for their right wing bias. The POV tag is innappropriate, and I am removing it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, in the view of anarchists and anarcho-socialists, the American government is right wing (any government is rightwing in the anarchist worldview). All I am asking is that anarchists, anarcho-socialists, anarcho-libertarians and ACLU activists put their cards openly on the table and not use wikipedia as a psychological-warfare tool, explaining their ideology in full, instead of whitewashing and glossing over what they believe for tactical reasons. Sources on the role of anarchist-socialist ideology on the ACLU:

http://sunsite3.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Exhibition/introduction.html

Goldman's role in securing the right to freedom of speech in America is especially significant. She herself was frequently harassed or arrested when lecturing--if her talks were not banned outright. She worked with the first Free Speech League, which insisted that all Americans have a basic right to express their ideas, no matter how radical or controversial those ideas might seem. Directly out of this work came the founding of the American Civil Liberties Union, setting in motion the beginnings of the modern free speech movement in the United States.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goldman/peopleevents/e_freespeech.html

"Such repeated violations of basic constitutional rights," wrote novelist Peter Glassgold, "helped galvanize a vigorous free speech movement that, in the course of time, led to the founding of the American Civil Liberties Union." Its founder, Roger Baldwin, always credited Goldman with inspiring him in his First Amendment work.

Books:

Emma Goldman's biographer Robert Drinnon wrote, "Baldwin made numerous acknowledgements of his great intellectual and moral debt to Emma Goldman. He wrote in one of his letters to her, for instance, 'you always remain one of the chief inspirations of my life, for you arouse in me a sense of what freedom really means'" (Drinnon, Rebel in Paradise (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 140).

Through Goldman, Baldwin learned of the Russian revolutionary anarchist Peter Kropotkin. Lamson wrote, "It was natural, therefore, that as Roger came under Emma's influence he tended to adopt the philosophy of her mentor Peter Kropotkin" (Peggy Lamson, Roger Baldwin: Founder of the American Civil Liberties Union: A Portrait, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1976, 63-64).

The POV tag is entirely appropriate until the article loses its promotional style, becomes more neutral, and explains the ACLU's ideological origins in anarchist-socialist radicalism with more forthrightness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.153.52 (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No one has even pretended to address the issue raised here. Why shouldn't the POV tag stay on the article? Legitimate sources are used to substantiate the valid claim of the ACLU's roots in anarchist-socialist ideology, yet if someone has the common sense to point out the obvious (namely, this article is promotionally-oriented, ideologically-driven and refuses to acknowledge the extremely controversial beliefs of the group), they are besieged, bullied and silenced by a united pack of militant ACLU enthusiasts. How can Wikipedia take itself seriously in these situations of corrupted scholarship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.91.35 (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have never used wikipedia before and generally stay out of Internet socialization, but I think the poster above has an unpopular but correct point here. Are the poster above's references to Goldman, etc. fraudulent? If the references aren't fake, why aren't they incorporated somehow in the article?

This is one of the most candy-coated, blatantly and hypocritically propagandistic articles I've ever seen on wikipedia. Shouldn't wikipedia at least try to adhere to normal scholarly standards of encyclopedic objectivity? The ACLU is one of the most controversial organizations in American history, but the article tries to minimize the controversy of the group as much as possible.

Articles like this one really illustrate the apparently unscholarly motivation of so many "scholars" (in reality: poitical militants) on wikipedia.

My recommendation: Someone with more Wikipedia expertise (I am an amateur) should incorporate some of the above information into the article if objectivity is not to be totally sacrificed.

Good day, Fred S.

His sources are slanted and biased. They are not reliable for the purposes of this encyclopedia. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Me again, Same poster as above. Well, I analyzed the internet web sites above on the link between Russian anarchist Goldman and the birth of the ACLU's ideology, and the sites are all legit. I don't know how PBS, etc. could be considered "unreliable". I also took a trip to the library and all the other key passages explaining the ideological origins and originators of the ACLU are indeed non-fabricated. Hardly any of these sources come from a "conservative-reactionary" motivation.

What does "unreliable for the purposes of this encyclopedia" mean in this context? "Not in accordance with my political goals?" Or has Wikipedia publicly declared itself for one worldview against another? A reasonable person has no other choice but to interpret the obstructionism displayed on Wikipedia here as extra-scholarly and vicious in nature. Articles like the current ACLU propaganda job lower the credibility of other good Wikipedia articles in the average person's eyes, which is quite a shame.

Sincerely, Fred S., a non-regular Wikipedia "outsider" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.154.86 (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Image of Susan Herman

On October 18, 2008, Susan Herman replaced Nadine Strossen as President of the ACLU. I've edited the article to indicate that Herman is now president of the organization. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a clearly free image of Herman. Thus I merely relabeled the current image of Strossen, noting that she's a past president. Preferable we will soon replace this image with an image of Herman.BenA (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What is their address?

Even in this day of email, etc, I was surprised to note the absence of an actual address. Surely they get mail at their national headquarters and I believe posting that address in this entry would improve it. I came to wikipedia to find their address...Timoleon (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think almost any of our articles here have precise street addresses listed for headquarters, usually just city and state. I'd go to the actual webpage of the subject in question for that. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

“Worst Instincts: Cowardice, Conformity, and the ACLU” by Wendy Kaminer

Here's a brief summary of what Kaminer's book is about. These events can certainly be cited from this book once it is officially published, but there is no reason to wait for the publication date of the book (as has been suggested later in this page). These events are already documented in other published articles. We need to include some of this information in the Wikipedia entry, especially how the ACLU worked methodically to silence their critics and even their own board members. There also needs to be an entry specifically about Wendy Kaminer as a board member of the organization, with a link to her Wikipedia entry, and there is no reason to wait for publication of the book for that section. The name of the book can then be added after publication if that is what regular editors of this page actually prefer. In the meantime how would these editors like to see this other information included? I can furnish citations of already published works just let me know what you have in mind. (Dang where is the ACLU when you really need them? ; ) )

"What happens when an organization with the express goal of defending individual rights and liberties starts silencing its own board? Lawyer and social critic Wendy Kaminer has intimate knowledge of such a conflict between individual conscience and group solidarity. In this concise and provocative book, she tells an inside story of the dramatic ethical decline of the American Civil Liberties Union, using it as a case history to detail the many vices of association.

"In Worst Instincts Kaminer calls on her experience as a dissident member of the ACLU national board to discuss the virtues of dissent itself as an essential tool for preserving the moral character of any group. If an organization committed to free speech can suffer from pressure to suppress differing opinions, and disregard for truth, this pressure must surely be rampant in other associations and corporations, as well as government. Kaminer clarifies the common thread linking a continuum of minor failures and major disasters, from NASA to Jonestown. She reveals the many vices endemic to groups and exemplified by the ACLU’s post-9/11 ethical decline, including: conformity and suppression of dissent in the interests of collegiality; self-censorship by members anxious to avoid ostracism; demands to close ranks and launch ad hominem attacks against critics; elevation of loyalty to the institution over loyalty to the institution’s ideals; substitution of the group’s idealized self-image for the reality of its behavior; and deference to cults of personality."Sennasay (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

On the 5th someone said they would add Wendy Kaminer's book. I do thank them for that offer. However if the book was added I can't locate it. I'm asking that this page be unlocked so that I can make my own edit, which is supposed to be the process on Wikipedia. It is preposterous, hilarious, inconsistent and hypocritical that this page is locked and also that I should have to ask some ACLU representative to make a change, nor should anyone else have to do that. I want it unlocked or I want to hear a plausible explanation why the American Civil Liberties Union Wikipedia page should remain locked. Who has the "authority" to remove this lock or am I free to do it? Sennasay (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't but I do and I have. It was only protected against anonymous and new editors due to vandalism & I apologise for leaving it as indef - I probably clicked the wrong time anyway. A few more article edits and you could have edited it, any established editor with an account has been able to edit it. Make sure you use the same format as the other books if you are going to add this one (and only add it if it isn't used as a reference). And please watch your language -- read WP:Civil. Dougweller (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That said, based on the tone of the above comments (and the title of the obscure hatchet-job book that the editor seeks to "add" to the article) we can probably brace ourselves for another round of edit-warring and partisan POV pushing. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The book is by a former ACLU board member. Sennasay, I've reprotected this article, a quick glance at the edit history will show yu why -- (don't take the edit summaries literally). There seems to be no other option. Just do a few more main article edits and you will be ok to edit here. But, make sure you follow our guidelines at WP:RS and read WP:NPOV carefully as people often misunderstand it. Oh, and WP:OR if you aren't aware of our policy on original research. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That didn't take very long. I just don't understand why the ACLU article is the target of so much vandalism. Do people really have that much against the organization? Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It is one obsessive editor who hops around a broad range of IP addresses and as there is no way we can block him and letting him add those edit summaries is just not on, we have to protect the article against anonymous users and (in most cases, Tor network users have more stringent criteria) don't meet the autoconfirmed criteria of being "more than 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits". I've added a template to the article to explain. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Thanks very much. Yes I will watch my language but I had thought since it was the ACLU it was okay to talk however I wanted to because they are defenders of pornography, free speech, and all that. Still, even tho they defend that type of speech I did add asterisks for the vowels so technically I wasn't really cursing due to my self censoring. Doug will you mind just going ahead and adding the book to the page since I am not exactly sure how to do it and I'm pretty sure they will take that opportunity to remove it? Whereas I feel if you do it it will be more secure. Also I don't want to get into any editing wars with anyone because I am new to Wikipedia and don't really know proper procedures yet. Also, there are also several other items that I feel need be added here to provide a more balanced page. First would be the ACLU's defense of Jake Baker, a sex harasser who threatened to kill some of his classmates @ college, and the ACLU defended him. It would be great to link to some of Jake Baker's writings which I know are currently stil on the internet so people can read first hand for themselves the ideas and speech the ACLU defends. And also those two men who killed that little boy by stuffing rags into his mouth befpre they raped him. The boy suffocated and because the killers had NAMBLA materials the ACLU defended them. I'll have to hunt up the exact citations on those cases. It's particularly ironic since the child was so silenced having been murdered, and then the additional symbolism of the rags in his mouth, then the ACLU defending the killers First Amendment rights. I don't understand why it's not listed here. If I hunt up those citations can you help me add this information in the appropriate way? Sennasay (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Most people know that the ACLU thinks that everyone is entitled to equal treatment by the US legal system even if they are accused of/have committed the most disgusting crimes imaginable. Personally I think that is part of what makes America great. Everyone should have the same Constitutional rights. But enough of my personal opinions. So far as this page goes, the fact that the article is about the ACLU doesn't affect how the page should be used. I think the book needs to wait until it is published, I see it isn't out yet. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, Sennasay, but language of that nature in talk pages can be abusive and we are all supposed to be civil to each other. We all have the same goal, after all- improving the encyclopedia. Additionally, your comments about the Baker case are very misleading. Baker did not actually threaten anyone, and he had no intention of carrying out the acts depicted in his stories. He was essentially prosecuted for writing fiction, which is a violation of his First Amendment rights. The ACLU was not a party to the defense; they did submit an Amicus Brief, though (I'm having trouble finding a copy of it online, though; since the issue is so old, most of the links are broken). The all charges were dismissed because there was no evidence Baker was planning to act on these stories. Personally, I don't think this one amicus brief is notable enough for inclusion in the article, but if everyone disagrees there's no reason it can't be added, assuming someone can find a decent citation. As far as your second suggested addition, Sennasay, you are completely wrong in your statements about the case; the ACLU did NOT defend Salvatore Sicari or Charles Jaynes (the murderers to which you refer). The case you are referring to is Curley v. NAMBLA, and it was not a criminal case- it was a lawsuit. You see, the parents of the victim sued NAMBLA because the killers had some NAMBLA publications and had visited the NAMBLA website prior to commiting the crime. They tried to hold NAMBLA accountable in a wrongful death suit. It was a gross violation of NAMBLA's rights, so the ACLU did step in and defend them directly (and successfully). However, this information is already in the article- it's in the very first paragraph of the controversial stances section. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Nutiketaiel, I was not aware of that distinction that the ACLU did not defend the murderers of the little boy, but that they had defended NAMBLA the publishers of the pedophile how-to manuals that the killers had in their car at the time of the killing. I will read more about this case before I comment further on it here. Thank you for the clarification.Sennasay (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nutiketaiel, Here is the information about Jake Baker. Please notice that I do not have any desire to put this on the page until we discuss how best it is entered there and I'm open to all suggestions. How should it best be entered on the article?

http://cu-digest.org/CUDS7/cud741

Computer Underground Digest Tues May 23, 1995 Vol. 7: Issue 41 ISSN 1004-042X

"Legal Briefs

Recent cybersmut incidents demonstrate that more law enforcement patrols are needed on the information speedway.

The University of Michigan expelled a sophomore who posted email messages - which he claims were pure fiction - that described the rape, torture and murder of a classmate. The student, 20-year-old Jake Baker, spent 29 days in jail after authorities charged him with interstate transmission of a threat.

'Torture is foreplay,' Baker wrote in the introduction to one of his pieces. 'Rape is romance, snuff is climax.' "

Here is Catharine A MacKinnon's brief in behalf of the victim. http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Porn/Baker/title.html

Here's the text the aclu wrote a "Friend of the Court" brief to defend Jake Baker's speech. The ACLU said this speech was not a threat. Here are Mr. Bakers emails.

Warning this is some really explicit speech the ACLU defended!! http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Porn/Baker/gonefishing.html http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Porn/Baker/goingforawalk.html http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Porn/Baker/adayatwork.html

I do know that Wikipedia does have pornography on it, and from my understanding does not censor content for children or anyone. These links provide an excellent example of the speech the American Civil Liberties Union has defended and we need to have a good example. How would they best be added to the main article? Sennasay (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not see this link when I made the previous entry: The article is called "Doe" at http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Porn/Baker/doe.html

By the way Nutiketaiel, when I used the earlier expletives I was not trying to abuse anyone, nor did I abuse anyone by expressing myself in that way. I was only commenting with great emphasis on the hilarity that people could not express themselves freely on the Wikipedia page for the American Civil Liberties Union and that the ACLU was being granted a protection that they will never grant to anyone else under any circumstance, not even will they grant the classmate of Jake Baker any safety from harassment and direct threat. The irony is just pathetically hypocritical is all. Sennasay (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am currently unable to access the "www.nostatusquo.com" website or anything connected to it, as it seems to be tripping the content filter on my computer (I am editing from work right now on my lunch break), so someone else will need to evaluate it to determine if it is an appropriate source for a Wikipedia article. If the consensus is to include a reference to the Baker case (which, again, I do not support at this time because it is too minor), I would suggest adding a line like the following to the listing in the controversial stances section:

• • • In 1995, the ACLU submitted an amicus brief supporting Jake Baker, the defendant in United States v. Baker. Baker submitted several pornographic stories depicting rape, torture and murder to the Usenet group alt.sex.stories, some including one of his classmates at the University of Michigan, and was charged with six counts of communicating via interstate or foreign commerce threats to kidnap or injure another person. The case was dismissed for lack of evidence that Baker intended to carry out the acts contained in his fiction.

Then add a reference at the end, PREFERABLY to the amicus brief itself, but failing that any credible news source referring to the ACLU's brief would work. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Baker case should be included. If Sennasay actually is trying to make the point that the accusations against some people are so heinous that those people should not be defended (and I guess that they should be assumed guilty, as no defense would do effectively do that), then he/she needs to find a reliable source making that argument, and not try to make it indirectly by adding references to horrible things that convicted defendants have done. Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not making any such case that Baker was not entitled to a defense. Just that on a Wikipedia page that purports to be balanced that that information, as well as the Friend of the court" brief that was written by a lawyer named MacKinnon, that argues well against the ACLU's position, be documented and included. Why when I was adding citations and wanting to provide more valuable information to Wikipedia readers am I now being wrongly characterized as believing that Baker didn't deserve to have a defense? What I am defending is open access to cited public information that others on this page are justifying not be presented here. (Again, dang where is the ACLU when ya really need them?) Such accusations are not accurate nor are they appropriate in this discussion. Ironically this is a diversionary tactic that Wendy Kaminer discusses in her book used systematically against critics of the ACLU. I am advocating factual information be accessible to Wikipedia reader. What's the hold up to use these citations? I don't understandSennasay (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Sorry, Sennasay, I didn't see your second entry right away. I can see that you weren't being abusive, it's just generally best to avoid the use of profanity unless it's actually necessary. Some people somewhere will feel that you're being abusive, then we all go off on this whole worthless tangent run-around about cursing when we should be talking about the article. I find that it's generally better to just head it off at the pass by not using the profanity unless you actually need to (and, if you DO need to, don't Bowdlerize it- it looks ridiculous and is an insult to everyone's intelligence). Additionally, it doesn't matter whether this is a page about the ACLU, the Nazi Party or Clam cakes- Wikipedia's policies like WP:CIVIL are the same for the entire encyclopedia. And, once again, Sennasay, you are grossly mis-characterizing the facts of the Baker case. He did not threaten anyone, nor did he harass anyone- he wrote a fantasy, a work of fiction, and was prosecuted for it. Additionally, to clarify for you, Dougweller, Jake Baker was not a convicted defendant- the case against him was dismissed. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nutiketaiel, I'm not grossly mis-characterizing the case. I'm only quoting from the brief written by Catharine MacKinnon when she argued that "threats of sexual violence can be true threats". We need the links to the actual Jake Baker text so that people can read the documents as they originally appeared on Usenet. So I agree with the proposed entry on the Jake Baker case, however for citation we add the links to the usenet posts and the link to Catharine MacKinnon's brief. It doesn't matter who won or lost this case, who was right or wrong, what matters is that this information needs to be provided for balance on the page and more importantly for information to the Wikipedia researcher and because it's the right thing to do. That this is not an important enough case does not at all fly. This was a landmark internet case historically and the ACLU laid the foundation for all that followed of similar threats against women and it should be documented on the ACLU's page. I personally agree that Jake Baker's speech was a direct threat to this young woman. However once Wikipedia provides these links (see below) as citations then each person can go to the link, read the stories themselves, and think about Jake Baker at a college near them, and substitute their wife, their daughter, or even themselves, and then they can decide if it might constitute a threat. But that is neither here nor there. What is important for us as wikipedia editors is that we provide the relevant information so that researchers on these topics, and interested parties, can decide for themselves if what Jake Baker published was actually a threat.

Warning this is some really explicit speech the ACLU defended!! http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Porn/Baker/doe.html http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Porn/Baker/gonefishing.html http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Porn/Baker/goingforawalk.html http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Porn/Baker/adayatwork.html

What is important is that we hopefully do not end up with a pathetic addendum to the book this Wikipedia entry is named after because there is a concerted effort to block dissenting information off the Wikipedia page. If I find that I am wasting my breath by presenting this information, and these arguments (I am not a lawyer, btw.) in good faith and that lock is being kept on this page to control the facts that get out about the ACLU then there is no reason to continue any discussion because it is a waste of time. If that is the case, and if I can't cause an edit to happen on the page pretty soon to reflect the three concerns that I have been expressing to the best of my ability as a lay editor here, then I would vote that we drop the whole discussion and that a bias notice (it's fine with me for you to pick whichever one that is appropriate) be placed at the top of the page and locked on there so that it cannot be removed. Sennasay (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I'm not sure where it got left about the Kaminer book, but can you please add it? It is my understanding that the page was relocked and that I am unable to make the change. Plus I don't know the section you administrators would like to add it. Where ever it is put is fine by me and thanks.Sennasay (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We wouldn't add a book until it is published, which Amazon says is May 1st. Remind me then and if no one objects it can be done then. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Doug, The book Worst Instincts: Cowardice, Conformity, and the ACLU http://www.amazon.com/Worst-Instincts-Cowardice-Conformity-ACLU/dp/080704430X is currently on sale at Amazon. Sennasay (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

From your own Amazon link: "Publisher: Beacon Press (May 1, 2009)." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sennasay, there doesn't need to be a bias notification on the article because it isn't biased. I am not saying the CASE isn't important- it has its own article, after all (United_States_v._Baker). What I'm saying is that the ACLU's involvement in the case isn't that notable- all they did was write an amicus brief. Linking to the material from this page is unnecessary. If it needs to be included in this article at all, a link to Wikipedia's article on the case itself (which, I just checked, includes a link to your NoStatusQuo.com page and archives of the original usenet posts already in the external links section at the bottom) and a reference to the ACLU's Amicus Brief (which, again, is their only involvement in the case) is proper. If people are interested, they can click on the link to the article about the case and read all the details they want, including links to the original material. That's all we would need here- giving it the same weight as the other controversial positions the ACLU has worked on. If you really feel that strongly that Wikipedia needs better coverage of this case, why not work on the United States v. Baker article directly? The article hasn't been a target of vandalism and thus isn't semi-protected, so you won't have any trouble editing it, and it has been tagged as needing improvement for a year and a half. As long as you maintain a Neutral Point of View, you can certainly clean up and expand the coverage at that article, where you can go into great detail on the subject. That detail doesn't belong in THIS article, though. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wendy Kaminer's books has been available for months now, so the argument that it is not published is no longer valid. (It makes one wonder how Loonymonkey could refer to the book as an "obscure hatchet-job book" when it had not been published.) As Wikipedia says, "Kaminer was a member of the board of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts from the early 1990s until June 2009. She was a national board member of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1999 until her term expired in June 2006." Kaminer's many books are by no means obscure. And though the ACLU article would lead one to believe otherwise, it's not just conservatives who have issues with the ACLU. Kaminer is just one of many liberals who have publicly disagreed with the ACLU. "Worst Instincts" gives an excellent view of the inner workings of the ACLU and valuable detailed background information on the gag rule that is cited in the article and the Ford Foundation grant that is also cited in the article. Kaminer's book should at the very least be cited as references for these two entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwk30043 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)