ACLU Sues to End Ban on Anti-Drug-Law Ads

[w4rma]

Wed Feb 18, 5:58 PM ET
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union sued the transit authority in the nation's capital Wednesday, saying its refusal to display paid advertisements that criticize anti-marijuana laws violated free speech rights.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, says the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority acted unconstitutionally when it declined last week to run the ads at subway and bus stops.

The ads were sponsored by the ACLU and three groups joining the lawsuit: Change the Climate, the Drug Policy Alliance and the Marijuana Policy Project, which support the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

"The government does not want the public to know how badly our drug policy has failed, so it is trying to silence Americans who oppose the war on drugs," said Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project. "Fortunately, the First Amendment clearly prohibits this kind of blatant viewpoint-based censorship."

The suit challenges a new law that cuts off up to $3.1 billion in federal funds to local transit authorities if they display ads promoting the legalization or medical use of marijuana or other drugs.
…
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...e=10&u=/ap/20040218/ap_on_re_us/marijuana_ads

 

[Delmar]

Gotta hand it to the ACLU-they will take on the Government on Pot Law advertizing, who the Boy Scouts may have as troop leaders, fight for the skinhead's right to march in Skokie, Illinois, but when it comes to guys like us-NOTHING.
They should change their name to MACLU-most of the American Civil Liberties Union. OUR MOTTO: Give us some really strange circumstance and we will fight. Basic rights supporters need not apply.

 

[w4rma]

Delmar, the ACLU handles thousands of cases each year. The ones that make the most news are the ones that stand out. Most (and indirectly, all) are in protection of guys like US.

 

[Delmar]

Then tell me why they will not take a 2A case if they are for our civil rights?

 

[w4rma]

Then tell me why they will not take a 2A case if they are for our civil rights?

They would lose donations and without those donations they cannot help protect the civil rights they are chartered to protect.

GOA and the NRA are specifically chartered to protect 2nd amendment rights. 2nd amendment rights are their priority and they let the ACLU handle the other rights, in most cases.

 

[HBK]

That's hardly the way it works. The ACLU is practically a communist or socialist organization, much like the current democratic party.

 

[Stand_Watie]

The ACLU's official position on gun control, from their website

*****

Gun Control


March 4, 2002




Gun Control

"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

 

[WonderNine]

They would lose donations and without those donations they cannot help protect the civil rights they are chartered to protect.

GOA and the NRA are specifically chartered to protect 2nd amendment rights. 2nd amendment rights are their priority and they let the ACLU handle the other rights, in most cases.

Why does this post make me feel incredibly slimey? I just got this slimey feeling all over me after I read it. Maybe it was that whole "covering my body in orange jello and reading THR" thing I spoke about a few months ago, but I don't think that's it.

 

[fallingblock]

UGH!

ACLU is an anti-gun organization.


************************************************************
"They would lose donations and without those donations they cannot help protect the civil rights they are chartered to protect."
************************************************************

Translation:

The anti-gun leftists at ACLU won't tolerate their money going to defend a RIGHT with which they do not agree.

Hypocritical scum.



w4rma:

You've changed your sig line......where's Howard?

 

[HunterGatherer]

The American Criminal Liberties Union was founded by a hardcore socialist by the name of Roger Baldwin. After years of anti-war agitation and communist sympathizing, and because people were beginning to really figure out what the A.C.L.U.'s agenda was, he found it necessary to punt a few of the hardcore commies on the A.C.L.U. e.g. Elizabeth Gurley Flynn.

Eventually Baldwin himself was out, and in 1950 - when the U.S.S.R. needed all the help it could get - the A.C.L.U. was taken over by a communist by the name of Patrick Murphy Malin. 1950-Present, they have never wavered from their hard-left course.

As to their "reasons*" for not supporting the 2nd Amendment? Are they *&$%#*%@ KIDDING? They want us to believe that they won't fight for the 2nd because the courts have spoken, and in the same breath they say they will support the rights of gay pedophiles to disseminate "how-to" manuals that tell fellow N.A.M.B.L.A. members how to succeed in luring, capturing, raping, and disposing of little boys. All in the name of free speech.

Some things are exactly what they seem to be. N.A.M.B.L.A. and the A.C.L.U. are two sides of the same coin.

* They even lie about the court's finding on U.S. v. Miller. The Miller case hinged around possesion of a sawed-off or "short barrelled" shotgun. The court didn't find that the people have only a collective right (militia/national guard) to arms, rather, they found that the shotgun in question did not fit the description of an arm that a militia would commonly use:

Therefore, ``In the absence
of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a `shotgun
having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-
regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not
within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary
military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common
defense.''

excerpt of SCOTUS decision U.S. v. Miller

Huh. Leftists lying in order to obscure their real agenda.

Go figure.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then tell me why they will not take a 2A case if they are for our civil rights?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They would lose donations and without those donations they cannot help protect the civil rights they are chartered to protect

By that reasonong they wouldn't have defended the American Nazi Party's right to march in Skokie Illinois.

The ACLU is a hard-left, anti-Christain pressure group pure and simple.

 

[dustind]

Sorry to go on topic, but this is good that they are ending the governments monopoly on opinion.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

They would lose donations and without those donations they cannot help protect the civil rights they are chartered to protect.

That's the rationalization Ira Glasser gave me about 20 years ago. However, given the comparative sizes of the ACLU and NRA, it seems obvious that the ACLU would far more than make up any losses, were it to start defending the 2nd. As well, it would be a stronger organization, for having finally renounced those of it's members who condition their defense of the rights they like on non-defense of the rights they DON'T like.

I'd go so far as to say that if the ACLU had originally been willing to defend the 2nd, the NRA would still be a relatively apolitical club for sportsmen, and the ACLU would be a multi-million member lobbying gorrilla.

Back on topic, I agree that this is a proper cause. Were the transit authority private, no, but the government is under restrictions private individuals and companies aren't.