Concerns Arise as ACLU shredding it's own Docs

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by stubeeef, Jun 6, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #1
    No, not the medical kind! :p
    Link (NYTimes, need to login)

    Seems they have found it necessary, against many of their own proponents, to shred documents that have not been archieved. Against their own policy, and possibly not within the protections provided by law for these things.

    The most interesting part of the article to me, that employees wanted to be nameless for fear of their jobs! working for the ACLU may not provide the benefits they seem to champion.

    Oh well, not the end of the world, and I doubt it really means much, other than a fundemental change in their philosophy. Interesting read though.
    To make it clear, I don't believe they are trying to hide illegal activity or any of the sort. Just some good irony.
     
  2. superbovine macrumors 68030

    superbovine

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    #2
    Well, there are several good reason for any organization to legal shred documents. considering identity theft as one of the biggest reason. although, it always good to probe into anything like this to make sure they aren't doing anything too shady.
     
  3. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #3
    the concern isn't that the ACLU is doing something shady (really, what can they do? invade contributer's privacy? oops) but for the fact that they're going against their own practices lately. And while some data (HIPAA related mostly) must be shredded, a lot needs to be kept for SOX, the DOJ doesn't like it when companies can't produce paperwork later... and too many companies are lax about allowing data to go in the shredders. ACLU should be ashamed, i'm not giving them any of my money until there's an investigation of their recent practices.
     
  4. wdlove macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #4
    The ACLU is a very scary organization. The shredding of documents is only a very minor thing.
     
  5. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #5
    Scary? I don't think so. Sure, protecting civil liberties leaves them open to supporting things that even us Liberals raise an eyebrow at. Someone has to protect us from politicians that don't even read the bills they are passing.
     
  6. GeeYouEye macrumors 68000

    GeeYouEye

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2001
    Location:
    State of Denial
    #6
    Yeah, but consider, do you really want the ACLU doing it? The other week, some columnist wrote a satire about a fictional school district in Arkansas which had banned The Iliad and The Oddessy on grounds of separation of church and state because they include Zeus and Apollo. The ACLU then publicly announced it's support for the school district and offered to defend them if sued. Bear in mind that said school district was entirely fictional. Do you really want people like that defending civil liberties?
     
  7. absolut_mac macrumors 6502a

    absolut_mac

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2003
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    #7
    I agree with wdlove that the direction that the ACLU is going in right now is very scary.

    I don't know about you, but I'm very nervous of large and powerful organizations in general (yes, the US government included) and the ACLU in particular due to their propensity to abuse their power.

    I'm especially wary of any organization that labels themselves defenders of civil liberties, but believes that the rights of pedophiles to molest their victims takes precedence over the rights of parents and guardians to protect their children from these sick evil people. Ergo, the ACLU sued on behalf of the web site informing pedophiles how to seduce children, where to pick them up etc, on the grounds that their freedom of speech was being impinged upon by banning such sites. Of course the ACLU had no qualms about the rights of children and parents to be protected from such evil.

    The bottom line for me is that if the ACLU had their way, everyone would have a right to shout *hijack* on a plane or *fire* in a crowded movie theater in order that that rights of the person doing such a stupid and insensitive thing should not be curtailed, even if it results in serious injury to innocent bystanders, as I have clearly pointed out in the case above.
     
  8. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #8
    now that the thread has been dumped into the political area, i shall remind everyone that the standards in here for assertions are high. please provide links for claims about what the ACLU does and does not do. thank you.
     
  9. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #9
    Spoilsport. Of course the ACLU is scary. You never know who's Constitutional rights they're going to defend next.
     
  10. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #10
    First they defended the disabled, and I did not speak out—
    because I was not disabled;
    Then they defended the immigrants, and I did not speak out—
    because I was not an immigrant;
    Then they defended the poor, and I did not speak out—
    because I was not poor;
    Then they defended the religious, and I did not speak out—
    because I was not religious;
    Then they called me— a straight, white male. And i made a donation.
     
  11. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
    Actually, I was thinking of drug-addicted right wing talk show hosts. ;)
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    Nice.
     
  13. absolut_mac macrumors 6502a

    absolut_mac

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2003
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    #13
    You want proof of the ACLU defending the rights of pedophiles and their *free speech privilege* to put up a site showing other pedophiles how it's done?

    In that case, here's a few....

    http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/01/08/nambla.suit.crim/

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029

    http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/departments/a0013409.cfm

    Seems to me that speech is not *free* when the rights of others are trampled upon, especially when those others are innocent bystanders as in the aforementioned cases - travelers, movie theater audience and children!
     
  14. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #14
    Not quite accurate of you saying "how it's done"; bit of working with words to incite strong emotion. To quote from the World Net Daily:

    I am not supporting NAMBLA's activities. But under our constitution, they have the right to express their views. Just as some ultra conservative web sites express their views on homosexuality or other minority groups.
     
  15. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #15
    Do you believe in the adversarial legal system? That people accused of crimes are entitled to a defense? Or do you just think that when someone does something that seems abhorent we should just string them up, no questions asked?
     
  16. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #16
    There's no proof or even any specific allegation of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

    I'm quite disappointed that the NYT found it such a slow news day that they feel compelled to run a nonstory like this.

    I am a member of the ACLU because it is an organisation scary enough to not give a **** what ignorant Americans (like wdlove, who's been known to uncharacteristically drop one-liner thread turds such as the one above) think of it. It forges ahead, undisturbed, with as pure an agenda as one will see in today's political climate. Their lawyers will file a brief supporting an African American group's discrimination lawsuit the same day they file one supporting the KKK's right to march.

    Funny enough that the other two right-wing trolls are on my ignore list. I can safely assume they have nothing substantial to add.
     
  17. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #17
    From the CNN link:

    Free speech obviously didn't protect the criminals; they're serving life sentences.

    NAMBLA didn't rape that child anymore than the NRA shot thousands of children last year.

    If the artistic depiction of naked children is a crime, then someone needs to take a paintbrush to the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Porn in the Vatican!
     
  18. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    What differentiates a troll from someone who holds opposing views to yours? Considering the topic, the distinction should be made pretty clear: can you elucidate? I'm genuinely puzzled.
     
  19. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #19
    Exactly, like NAMBLA.

    Glad they've got their priorities straight.

    Ooops, somebody beat me to it. Sorry. :p
     
  20. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #20
    I cannot recall the particulars of why these two are on my ignore list, but I can tell you how one goes about getting there: they frustrate me.

    They generally will post in a manner that seems to be picking a fight. They come in here with an attitude and an agenda. They stereotype. They stereotype this forum. I can live with these attributes, but this I cannot tolerate: They repeatedly drop unsubstantiated claims (often one-line little turd nuggets) on the board -- making a mess -- that many of us will waste time chasing down and refuting -- cleaning up.

    They're not worth my time or the aggravation they (deliberately) cause. They are trolling.
     
  21. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #21
    They don't have priorities. They will defend anyone whose Constitutional rights are being threatened.

    If they choose not to defend NAMBLA 'cause they've got an unpopular image, then anything they do to defend "nice" people is meaningless.

    "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
     
  22. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    OK, I understand. I guess the phrase "right-wing trolls" worries me. It's not really a very useful linkage, and probably rather off-putting to any non-trolling "right-wingers". We need as many of those as will contribute, or else we finish up as an echo chamber.
     
  23. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #23
    It was a poorly phrased aside.
     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    Or like Rush Limbaugh?

    Oops, someone beat me to it. Sorry. :p

    So is free speech only free when it's uncontroversial?
     
  25. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #25
    What does he have to do with the ACLU?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page