200 ACLU Staffers Clearly Don’t Understand Their Job – IOTW Report

200 ACLU Staffers Clearly Don’t Understand Their Job

MILO:

The ACLU has had a spotty track record in recent years, but now 200 staffers have gone so far as to sign an open letter condemning the universal right to free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been around since 1920, with a commitment to protect people’s fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In the same decade, the ACLU began working alongside the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the organization has been actively defending the rights of civil rights, anti-war, pro-war, and all varieties of protesters ever since. The ACLU even went to bat to ensure the rights of the tiki-torchers in Charlottesville were not infringed upon, despite the near-universal derision towards Nazis. Of course, defending unpopular speech is the whole point, since popular speech doesn’t need protection. That critical fact is lost on a worrying number of ACLU staffers, however, as demonstrated by 200 signatures on an open letter condemning the universal right to free speech.  Read more

 

9 Comments on 200 ACLU Staffers Clearly Don’t Understand Their Job

  1. American Thinker has an article that says the ACLU is vowing to sue the Trump Administration over stopping the funding of birth control under the Obamacare mandates, stating the it’s “blatantly unconstiutional” to end this gov’t funding of the birth control. Hell, what’s unconstitutional is the taxpayer funding of birth control to begin with.

  2. Jarhead Cracka — Dinesh D’Souza has a great response to those who believe it’s unconstitutional for the gov’t to cut funding for contraceptives. The 1st A protects speech but the gov’t doesn’t buy someone a newspaper or cable network; religious expression, but doesn’t build churches. The 2A protects the right to keep and bear arms, but the gov’t doesn’t provide us with guns. Why are the pro-abortion/free birth control people expecting to have the right but no responsibility? Best darn argument there is.

Comments are closed.