From a medical privacy newletter that I subscribe to. The irony is just too delicious:
“In a motion filed this week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida said the state’s violation of radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s medical privacy rights will impact the security of medical records and the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship of every person in Florida. The ACLU’s request to submit a “friend-of-the-court” brief on behalf of Limbaugh was filed with the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The ACLU said in its motion that the state infringed on Florida’s constitutional right to privacy when it failed to follow well-established protocol, mandated by law, when confiscating Limbaugh’s medical files in a criminal investigation.”
Oh yes, and the American Nazi Party’s too. Although members of those organizations obviously have no love lost for liberals, they haven’t been the public voice of scathing criticism of the ACLU’s activities that Rush has. That’s what I find ironic.
Although they sometimes make me cringe, I end up agreeing with the ACLU 95% of the time. That the Republicans went and tried to turn “card-carrying ACLU member” into an insult is damn near treasonous. Although protecting the rights of the unpopular may be distasteful, their dedication to the whole purpose of civil rights is impressive.
Agreed. It is easy to find cases where the ACLU is supporting something (or attacking something) that I personally find repugnant, this is a good case for those who attack them, saying "yeah, but you’d never see them supporting so-and-so (where so-and-so is a conservative cause.) )
This ACLU wouldn’t be much of a Liberties union if it only supported popular groups and people, now would it? The litmus test of freedom is always what happens to publicly reviled opinions, which today means racism and anti-semitism.
What is really a challenge for me is when they fight to allow folks like the AMBLA to operate freely. I understand intellectually their position wrt freedom of expression, etc. but emotively I have a real hard time with it.
As someone who gives money to the ACLU every year: I view their purpose as one of giving voice to unpopular positions and making sure that they get their day in court. That doesn’t mean I hope they win all those cases.
They didn’t fight for them to be able to “operate freely” in the sense of having sex with young boys. They fought for NAMBLA’s right to communicate ideas, which they are entitled too.
They didn’t fight for them to be able to “operate freely” in the sense of having sex with young boys. They fought for NAMBLA’s right to communicate ideas, which they are entitled too.[/quote]
Oh, I know. That’s why I’m conflicted: I understand and agree with the concept. I just emotively dislike a group such as that being helped, even when I understand precisely why it has to be done. If that makes any sense at all.
I think allowing people to communicate ideas about the benefits of man-boy love is a little beyond the scope of making sure unpopular positions can have their say. Was there a cry from all the little and forgotten people in the world because NAMBLA members were being mistreated?
I just do not understand the need in defending this group. Maybe there is a checklist where every group in the land must be represented during the ACLU’s existence in order for them to continue to operate.
I “get it”, too, but I guess I am just old-fashioned.
I think allowing people to communicate ideas about the benefits of man-boy love is a little beyond the scope of making sure unpopular positions can have their say. Was there a cry from all the little and forgotten people in the world because NAMBLA members were being mistreated?
I just do not understand the need in defending this group. Maybe there is a checklist where every group in the land must be represented during the ACLU’s existence in order for them to continue to operate.
I “get it”, too, but I guess I am just old-fashioned.[/quote]
Everyone has to be protected or nobody is. That’s how it works.
What strikes me as funny is that people seem to find the premise of the ACLU defending NAMBLA more repulsive than the premise of the ACLU defending the KKK.
It’s distasteful… until it’s you. If Limbaugh were half as principled as he thinks he is, then he’d tell the ACLU to get bent. But I’m guessing he won’t, in this instance.
their dedication to the whole purpose of civil rights is impressive.
Yeah, I agree.
I just do not understand the need in defending this group.
I think where I part company with the ACLU is where they break with principle, namely in such issues as racial preferences. But most of the time, having been in a similar place myself once upon a time, I have a great deal of empathy for those that defend people they despise on the basis of ideals that are higher than ideology.
Yep, agreed; I don’t want the ACLU to stop, even though I find their direct beneficiaries loathsome at time. It is the classic case of of protecting the rights of us all by demonstrating the old adage of “who among the 80% will speak for the 20%?”
My secret belief is that Limbaugh actually likes and respects the ACLU, but his attacks are, like 99% of the rest of his drivel, is simply done to make good radio.
My secret belief is that Limbaugh actually likes and respects the ACLU, but his attacks are, like 99% of the rest of his drivel, is simply done to make good radio.[/quote]
I can’t think of a more damning indictment of Limbaugh…
