When Rep. John Doolittle attacks Democratic rival Charlie Brown for his membership in the American Civil Liberties Union, the Roseville Republican describes it as an organization that defends pedophiles.
The Massachusetts case giving rise to the congressman's indignation -- and that of many others -- is serving as exhibit A as Doolittle seeks to make the argument that Brown is too liberal to represent his district.
The issue raised in the Massachusetts civil lawsuit is about the right to publish and read controversial material, regardless of how unpopular and despicable the content might be, the ACLU says.
These are the facts: In October 1997, 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley was lured into a car in Cambridge by Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari. He fought back for as long as 20 minutes before he was suffocated with a gas-soaked rag. His body was sexually molested before it was finally packed in a container and dumped into the Great Works River in Maine.
Sicari was later convicted of first-degree murder and Jaynes was convicted of second-degree murder and kidnapping. Both are in prison on life sentences, Sicari without chance of parole.
Sicari and Jaynes were members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), although Jaynes' membership check had apparently bounced.
Curley's family filed a federal wrongful death suit in 2000 against NAMBLA in Massachusetts, seeking $200 million on allegations that the organization had turned Jaynes from a timid and confused soul into an aggressive pervert.
NAMBLA has since been dismissed from the case, but several of its members who were responsible for its Web site and published materials remain as ACLU clients.
Among the allegations is that Jaynes read material he obtained on NAMBLA's
. . . The ACLU of Massachusetts is defending the case
In a response to this, someone wrote
:Funny how the ACLU is always ready to defend unpopular ideas, but just try and get them to help conservative college students whose positions are belittled in class. A few years ago at the University of Penna a conservative editorial was not allowed to be distributed by black students. Papers were confiscated by a black faternity, university administrators did nothing. When the conservatives went to the ACLU, they were told there was nothing they would do. Kinda depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it?
To which another replied:
Or maybe it depends on whether the institution is public or private. UPenn is a private university, and so the ACLU has nothing to do with it. From the ACLU’s position statement on “speech codes” on college campuses: “The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.”
This is a popular misconception held by many people, especially of Libertarian bent because it reinforces their own prejudices regarding the separation of the public and private sphere. It excuses the ACLU by claiming that the ACLU is bound by precedent from staying out of the private affairs of private institutions. However, it has long been established that by accepting federal funds via research grants and federal aid to students, even "private" institutions are required to adhere to legal and constitutional rules. This includeas all the amendments.
Hillsdale College is the only college that refuses to accept any federal aid, even indirectly for this very reason. So the ACLU is being disingenuous when it fails to support free speech on private universities.
But assuming for a moment that the Libertarians are correct, the ACLU is not an organization that simply follows precedent, it helps create precedent. Roe vs. Wade (for example) established a precedent based on premises that even most legal scholars consider ridiculous. The court position that a prayer by school students was an impermissible establishment of religion was precedent setting. The list of ACLU precedents is virtually endless. To suggest that the ACLU would not find a reason to defend free speech in an institution that had part of its budget paid for by the federal government simply because of precedent is ludicrous.
No comments:
Post a Comment