response 55 of 116:

Sep 26 21:00 UTC 2003

re resp:52: Your respect for the rights of minorities appears to end 
when those minorities don't agree with you.  I, for example, am "wrong" 
in this case (in your opinion).  That being the case, I have no rights 
that need to be respected, and my opinion of the ACLU's agenda can be 
freely trampled upon with the misuse of Grex to promote that agenda.  
When you want it to be, it's not "our" Grex, it's yours.

I've discussed the ACLU's heavily biased political agenda before, and 
don't need to do it again here.

Whatever your personal view of the ACLU, it is clearly an organization 
which an individual should be free to support or not support.  There is 
no law in America forcing one to join the ACLU.  (Not yet, anyway.)  
When Grex supports the ACLU, it forces me to support it too, or stop 
supporting Grex.

A few years ago, I declined to support Grex because of it's support for 
the ACLU.  If we have another such occurrance, I'm more likely to send 
money to the ACLU's opposition to offset what Grex gives.

response 57 of 116:

Sep 26 21:27 UTC 2003

I've been trying to decide where to follow up on this, too, Walter.  On the
one hand, the question, as you put it, is not fodder for coop.  On the other
hand, the question of whether Cyberspace Communications should use the ACLU
to accomplish its own ends is fodder for coop.

I don't understand John's antipathy.  I don't always agree with the ACLU, thus
I don't always think they are doing the right thing.  Nonetheless, they have
resources we can use to preserve grex.  Why shouldn't we use those resources?

response 59 of 116:

Sep 27 02:00 UTC 2003

While I think it was a very good thing for Grex to have been involved in the
lawsuit it was involved in (both for Grex and for society), I think it's a
real copout to say we didn't have a choice.  We could have attempted to comply
with the law we challenged by reading lots of conference postings and censored
as appropriate.  I don't think we could have kept up with the volume of stuff
posted if we had wanted to, but we could have tried.  We could have started
preapproving postsings to the conferences and been in full compliance, if
running a rather different sort of system.  We could have declared that we
had no interest in breaking or challenging the law, and if the sort of system
Grex is was illegal, we could have shut Grex down.  We could have ignored the
law and assumed we weren't worth prosecuting.  Or, as would have been the
most likely scenario, we could have sat back and watched as somebody else
challenged it.

Did the ACLU use Grex to further its goals?  Yes.  The ACLU is in the business
of suing to challenge potentially unconstitutional laws, and for that it
needed plaintiffs and witnesses, both of which Grex provided.  Did Grex use
the ACLU to further its goals?  That depends on what Grex's goals are, but
if Grex's goals include keeping what Grex does legal, then yes.  Most things
Grex does further somebody's goals.  When Grex pays for phone lines, it
furthers the phone company's goal to collect money.  Same for when Grex pays
it's rent, and the landlord's goal to collect money.  In the free speech
lawsuit, Grex furthered the ACLU's goals in a somewhat different way, but it
seems to me to have been a "price" worth paying.

In the current case, if I understand things correctly, what's being discussed
is attempting to use the ACLU as a source of free legal advice.  Once again,
this strikes me as a case not of supporting the ACLU unconditionally, but of
accepting help from the ACLU when it's in Grex's interest to do so.

response 61 of 116:

Sep 27 13:00 UTC 2003

doesn't make his position wrong.

response 63 of 116:

Sep 27 15:54 UTC 2003

Really?  How do you conclude that?

I can see two ways you might support your position, Eric:

1. Grex should accept *any* help offered it, without any other 
consideration, as long as it benefits Grex.  Maybe PETA will want us 
to join their lawsuit next, or the election committee for Lyndon 
LaRouche.

I do not believe Grex would have accepted being used by a group with a 
different political agenda.  I don't think Grex's participation in the 
last lawsuit was agenda free by any means.

2. The ACLU is unassailable.  Anything it does is good for everyone, 
and individual opinions to the contrary don't matter.

Eric has argued this already, and I find it pretty chilling.  

response 65 of 116:

Sep 27 16:08 UTC 2003

Oh?  Including the "free expression of religion" clause of the first
amendment?  They have often gone to court to prevent people from expression
of religion, simply on the grounds of their doing it in a publicly-funded
forum, when there was no real question of their expressions being taken as
official acts that could fall under the establishment clause.  They have no
commitment whatever to the right to bear arms.  They in fact are quite
selective in their support of the bill of rights.

response 67 of 116:

Sep 27 16:41 UTC 2003

They pick their battles.  They don't have the resources to fight all 
Civil Liberties cases, so they fight the ones nobody else will take up.  
There are lots of people who will fight for freedom OF religion (most of 
whom don't even understand the rationale behind the establishment 
clause), and of course the NRA does a real bang-up job on the 2nd 
amendment.  To condemn the ACLU for not wasting its resources fighting 
fights other, much better equipped, people are already fighting is 
specious at best.

response 69 of 116:

Sep 27 18:30 UTC 2003

Since most of what the ACLU does is file lawsuits, I suppose it could be said
that what they're doing is giving the courts the opportunity to decide such
issues.  Given that they seem to generally win the religion battles, it seems
the courts think they're on the right side of the issue.

As far as jep's first possible pro-ACLU argument goes, I think it's mostly
right in its first sentence.  But then he delves into whether Grex would join
PETA or the Lyndon LaRouche campaign if it served Grex's interests, and it
seems to me that's where the argument becomes rather loopy.  In htis case,
there was a law that was seen as a threat to Grex.  The ACLU's agenda is to
challenge such laws, and they asked for help in challenging this one.  I have
trouble imagining such a scenario with either of the organizations jep
mentioned.  Then again, various people did used to claim years ago that Grex
was hamster powered.  I suppose if anybody ever argued that that claim was
fraudulant, and attempted to force us to actually implement such a power
generation model, PETA might be the right organization to join in opposing
it. ;)

response 71 of 116:

Sep 27 22:16 UTC 2003

I picked organizations that weren't the KKK or Nazi Party for 
variety.  I think it's undisputable that Grex wouldn't collaborate 
with just anyone.  That is largely the problem.

Grex took a blatantly political action.  I don't ever want to see that 
happen again.  I don't want Grex acting politically even when I agree 
with the politics.  I definitely don't want it opposing my political 
preferences again.

response 73 of 116:

Sep 27 22:31 UTC 2003

Eric, I didn't and don't believe you wanted me to leave Grex because 
of this issue.  

response 75 of 116:

Sep 28 00:29 UTC 2003

Basically the problem is that other people are using the law to try to force
their politics on Grex, or else shut it down.  We can't avoid getting involved
in politics, even if we don't like it.  I don't like it, but I don't see any
alternatives.