What Causes ACLU Derangement Syndrome?

The positions that the ACLU takes.

About twenty years ago, I had a certain admiration for the ACLU. I didn't agree with everything that they did, but for the most part, they were still primarily a civil liberties union--defending individuals from governmental abuse of power. I was disappointed that they pretended the Second Amendment wasn't an individual right, but much of what they did, even on behalf of sleazy clients (such as the Skokie neo-Nazi march) represented clear examples of civil liberties being denied.

Now, there are people out there who make claims about the ACLU that turn out to be wrong. I've blogged in the past about claims that float around that don't seem credible--and that no one can provide evidence that shows the ACLU did these things.

But the ACLU has clearly lost its way--perhaps because they ran out of traditional civil liberties problems to pursue?

Like arguing that behavioral screening--looking for odd behavior, such as "heavy clothes on a hot day, loiterers without luggage, anyone observing security methods" is Constitutionally suspect. Let's see, they can't search based on race--that would be discriminatory. They can't search based on behavior--that might be racist.

They fight with every atom of breath to prevent the state from executing those convicted of murder--after a lengthy review of evidence, leaving no stone unturned to look for clear proof of guilt, has been completed--but they are prepared to sue to allow starving someone to death on the word of one person--her husband, who had a financial interest in seeing her die--while other relatives disputed his claim.

And complaining that students were boycotting classes to express disapproval.

And arguing in court that a provision of the Nebraska Constitution defining marriage is a "bill of attainder" and therefore unconstitutional. Even Professor Volokh, who described me as suffering from ACLU Derangement Syndrome, agreed that the ACLU's argument was wrong:

The court reasons that "Section 29 does not just withhold a benefit; it actually prohibits same-sex relationship couples from working to obtain governmental benefits" ("working" meaning "working effectively through the legislative process" -- obviously they can still work through proposing a constitutional amendment). But all constitutional constraints operate this way.

And a radio ad that they ran, attempting to rally opposition to an anti-terrorism data mining program by suggesting that this information would be provided to pizza delivery companies.

And the ACLU's concern about privacy? Whoops! It doesn't apply to their actions.

And the ACLU gets caught lying by Professor Orin Kerr (another member of the Volokh Conspiracy). And yet another example, again from Professor Kerr, where the ACLU puts out a deceptive press release--and the mainstream media just go ahead and run with it, not bothering to check for factual accuracy. (Gee, Professor Kerr calls the ACLU's statements deceptive at least twice--he must also be suffering from ACLU Derangement Syndrome.)

The ACLU believes in freedom of speech--unless you are a child who gives another child a pencil that says "Jesus loves little children." Here's the decision where a school district prohibited a child from handing out these pencils at a class party. And here's a case where the ACLU stepped in to protect a child from being disciplined for saying that he had two Mommies. Oh, and this kid wore a T-shirt to school calling Bush an international terrorist; the ACLU thinks that's protected free speech (which it is). Some forms of free speech are protected by the ACLU; others are not (and oddly enough, those are the Christians whose speech is not protected).

The ACLU used to argue privacy as a basis for striking down sodomy laws. I don't particularly buy the broad definition of "privacy," but that's at least plausible. But then, when the prosecution involves sex in a bookstore (hardly a place with an expectation of privacy), they argue that Lawrence strikes down the law:

The indictments issued July 21 followed a three-month investigation of public sodomy and solicitation to commit sodomy at an adult bookstore in Harrisonburg.

...

Kent Willis, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, told the Roanoke Times, "Our interpretation is that any charges under the sodomy law are invalid at this point." Other misdemeanor charges were available to the police, he said, including lewd and lascivious cohabitation, obscene exhibitions and indecent exposure.

Dyana Mason, executive director of Equality Virginia, a homosexual rights organization, suggested that the indictments reflect the underlying discriminatory nature of the statute. "My concern [is] that this law can still be used to harass and intimidate gay men," she told the paper.

Oh yeah, it is definitely harassment and intimidation to expect them to go home to have anonymous sex.

The ACLU seems to think that there are no limits to freedom of speech--including displaying your penis on television while telling jokes. Ditto for live sex shows in Oregon.

The ACLU, for all its concern about "establishment of religion" violations, simply never took any action on something that is more clearly a violation than handing out pencils with Jesus's name on them--but because it benefitted non-Christians--well, that's okay.

And here's an example of something that is both a cultural and a religious event in a public school--rather like a creche in front of city hall is both cultural and religious--but you won't find the ACLU pursuing it. It isn't Christian, so it must be okay.

Here's another case that the ACLU should have pursued--special tax treatment for members of one church--the Church of Scientology. But they aren't Christians, and they are important in Hollywood, so I guess both the "establishment of religion" and "equal protection" clauses just disappear.

Convicted child molesters, for example. The ACLU has fought Megan's Law all over America, arguing that it violates the privacy of registered sex offenders. Cathy Seipp--who Professor Volokh hasn't accused of suffering from ACLU Derangement Syndrome--points out that the ACLU and its homosexual legislative allies in California have created a Catch-22 for landords:

Not only are California landlords banned from using the state's Megan's Law database to decline renting their properties to sex offenders, they're not even allowed to warn other tenants that these paroled criminals are now their neighbors. If they do the first, they can be fined $25,000 for housing discrimination. But if they don't do the second, they can be sued for failing to protect tenants against a known danger.

Freedom of conscience? Sorry, but homosexuality is more important. The ACLU filed suit--and won--against a printing company because they declined to print same-sex wedding announcements. And Professor Volokh is how I found out about this outrageous interference in the right of conscience.

The ACLU promotes lying--unless, of course, they are representing vampires. The plaintiff alleges injury caused by the sight of a cross:

Buono is deeply offended by the cross display on public land in an area that is not open to others to put up whatever symbols they choose. A practicing Roman Catholic, Buono does not find a cross itself objectionable, but stated that the presence of the cross is objectionable to him as a religious symbol because it rests on federal land.

While not an ACLU case, it reminds me of the claim of "physical pain" caused by seeing the Ten Commandments in a public park--and the morons that sit on the bench accepted this obvious perjury, and ruled in her favor.

I could go on for many more pages. The ACLU's own actions cause "ACLU Derangement Syndrome." Arguing that minors have a "due process liberty interest" in sex with adults--when an adult (with previous convictions for this) was being prosecuted for pursuing sex with a 14 year old who said to stop. Defending NAMBLA in a civil suit by the parents of a little boy who NAMBLA members raped and murdered. These are the reminders of what an evil and hypocritical organization the ACLU--a group with a proud past--has become. Those who defend the ACLU must either be blind to ACLU's dishonesty and evil, or have decided that they can live with it, as long as they the age of consent laws abolished, freedom of association abolished (at least for the Boy Scouts), and detestable groups like NAMBLA free to give detailed instructions on the raping of children.

UPDATE: I've replaced a link to Orin Kerr castigating a Slate columnist with another case of the ACLU engaging in deceptive press releases. Just so that those with reading disabilities understand me: there are a number of cases above where the ACLU, if they were still in the civil liberties business, would have at least filed a brief--such as the pencil case. If you want to argue that they don't have the resources to be involved in every case, well, I can believe that. But they have the resources not just to file a brief in the Curley suit against NAMBLA--they are actively defending NAMBLA. The pencil case involved two different protections of the First Amendment: freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise. The NAMBLA case involves what is, at best, an extreme edge of legal free speech--and yet ACLU finds the resources for this.