ACLU backs Prop. 8 (anti-marriage equality) forces in disclosure case

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

The American Civil Liberties Union, which supports marital rights for gays and lesbians, is siding with opponents of same-sex marriage who are challenging a judge's order to turn over campaign documents from last year's effort to pass Proposition 8.

Foes of the voter-approved initiative hope the documents help them prove that the ballot measure was rooted in bigotry and was therefore unconstitutional. The ACLU's Northern California chapter, which supports the lawsuit, nevertheless filed arguments with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying the court-ordered disclosure could endanger people's freedom to speak freely while planning political campaigns.

"Political advocacy and strategizing is inherently rough and tumble," the ACLU told the court, which accepted the filing Tuesday shortly before hearing arguments in Pasadena on the disclosure issue.

... The ACLU said a political campaign should be allowed to keep its internal communications confidential unless its opponents prove a compelling need for the information.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/01/BAFR1ATE4S.DTL

[bluestateguy]

1. What a bunch of suckers

And they defend the Illinois Nazis and Rush Limblob. Again the fools at the ACLU defend a bunch of people who would have them thrown in jail as subversives if they had their druthers.

[alp227]

2. The right-wing noise machine characterizes ACLU as far-left all the time.

Thus, to compromise with the Stop the ACLU crowd, the organization must've done this out of a PR move consistent with its mission for civil liberties for all. Besides, didn't the ACLU also want the federal government to disclose photos of detainee abuse/torture at Gitmo too? I think both these cases consistently show a stance of full disclosure.

[paulsby]

3. i'll gladly side with those "suckers"

because they support the rule of law, and equal treatment for all, even those they disagree with.

i can respect that.

[tomg]

5. Same here. I support them

most when they defend the rights of people I despise.

edited to add "rights of"

[Ian David]

8. Agreed.

ACLU Tells High School to Allow Students to Protest Against ACLU at Football Game


October 1, 2009



Gate City High School students organized the protest after the ACLU warned school against sectarian prayers being delivered over the public address system

Gate City, VA – The ACLU of Virginia today asked the principal at Gate City High School to honor the free speech rights of students who plan to protest the ACLU at the school's football game tomorrow night.

The students are reacting to a September 15 letter from the ACLU of Virginia telling school officials that a sectarian prayer delivered over the public address system at a football game was unconstitutional. According to news reports, the students have now produced more than 1,000 t-shirts, which they plan to wear to this Friday's game. The front of the t-shirts shows the school's initials, a cross, and the words, "I still pray…" On the back is, "In Jesus' name."

"Religious liberty demands that the government not impose religious views on anyone," said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis, "and free speech demands that the government allow individuals to express their views. This means that Gate City High School officials may not permit sectarian prayers over the public address system at football games, but that they must allow students to protest the ACLU's effort to stop those prayers."

"This is not nearly as ironic as it seems, and it is certainly a wonderful opportunity for the school and the students to think about how fundamental constitutional principles are applied to real life," added Willis.

In the September 15 letter, ACLU of Virginia Legal Director Rebecca Glenberg warned Principal Greg Ervin that a sectarian prayer delivered over the public address system before a football game earlier that month violated a U.S. Supreme Court ruling holding that such prayers carry the impermissible endorsement of the school and coerce participation in a religious exercise by persons attending the game. Glenberg's letter was written after the ACLU received a complaint from the parent of a student.

In today's letter, Willis writes that students are guaranteed the right of free speech, so long as the speech does not materially disrupt the educational process. Willis points out that a football game takes place during non-instructional time and doubts that a thousand students wearing t-shirts with religious messages will be disruptive.

Glenberg's letter can be found online at: www.acluva.org/newsreleases2009/GateCityHighSchoolprayerletter.pdf.

More:
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-tells-high-school-allow-students-protest-aclu-football-game

[defendandprotect]

4. Whaaaat -- ?????????

[jeff47]

6. Their argument doesn't make much sense

"saying the court-ordered disclosure could endanger people's freedom to speak freely while planning political campaigns."

Um.....huh?

If you believe strongly in something, then you should be willing to announce it publicly. If you're not willing to say it in public, then why are you campaigning for it?

[Confusious]

7. That makes sense

It is public, and the public has a right to know who is behind things. If your not willing to put your rep on the line, then it doesn't really seem right.

Don't PACs and campaigns have to report all donors? Why not a prop? It's so damn close to the same thing. Like the difference between a red toad and green toad. They are both toads, just different colors.

[melm00se]

11. it appears that it's not donor information

that they are going after but rather internal communication documents and forcing that disclosure, without a compelling reason, is a truly dangerous action.

[jeff47]

15. What, specifically, needs to be protected?

The only danger that I see is that some people might become embarrassed because their private communications do not match their public persona.

I fail to see how this is a bad thing in relation to a political campaign: We should know what they really believe, not what they want us to think they believe.

[Ian David]

9. The ACLU probably hopes that they lose.

Notice the key wiggle-words they use in their argument: unless its opponents prove a compelling need for the information.

IMHO, The ACLU wants to lose, but they want to make sure they lose in a very narrowly-defined way.

Otherwise, a very bad precedent could be set, with campaigns routinely being forced to surrender campaign material for trivial reasons.

Although this is really redundant, isn't it?

Aren't ALL subpoenas supposed to require a "compelling need?"

[zelta gaisma]

10. ummmm ...

Why are the records sealed in the 1st place? And doesn't the possibility of wrong doing out weigh this argument? I mean couldn't the JUDGE look at the records to decide if the ballot measure was rooted in bigotry ?


The ACLU's Northern California chapter, nevertheless filed arguments saying the court-ordered disclosure could endanger people's freedom to speak freely while planning political campaigns.

[beyond cynical]

12. I may not always see it their way,

but they always err on the side of freedom.

[huskerlaw]

13. The ACLU's reason for existing

is to defend the Bill of Rights. That OFTEN means that they write amicus briefs or represent people and ideologies that Democrats find reprehensible.

They don't select their clients or their issues based on politics, it's based solely on upholding and defending the Bill of Rights. The freedom of speech and the right of privacy OFTEN is at odds with the rights of minority groups. Hell, they've defended the KKK's right to speak.

Anyone attacking them for this because they're "losing lefty cred" doesn't understand what the ACLU does.

[Hekate]

16. That's their mission all right. I don't always agree with their cases, but the Bill of Rights...

... gets applied to all, and that's a good thing.

Hekate

[newtothegame]

14. If want the ACLU to look like a true civil liberties union and not some political hack...

you should have no problem with this.