My Right To Swing My Fist…
Irradiated by LabRat
I am no huge fan of the ACLU. I don’t think they’re the agent of creeping evil that many conservatives do, and I DO think they sometimes do what needs to be done and stand up for the rights of the obnoxious to protect the rights of all (it takes institutional balls to defend the right of Klansmen to wear their hoods), they are most definitely marching in step to their biggest donors- which tend to the left-liberal end of the spectrum, and thus they have decided that they’re not going to touch some “rights”. Note the double fudge irony in that their position is that second amendment rights are a “collective” right- even though basically their entire existence as an institution rests on defending violations of the rights of individuals, under the principle that that’s a violation of a right, period. Suffice it to say they are mostly only interested in defending the “rights” of those that play well with their donors, although they occasionally manage to take a stand on principle rather than politics*.
That said, an organization that apparently exists as its counter-point, if it exists at all beyond the minds of a few people and their lawyers, is getting it wrong on an epic scale. The basics of this story: a couple of older folks who were especially blue in the nose lobbied their local library to get a Young Adult book banned, which they alleged to be sexually explicit and traumatizing. (If it IS explicit, that somehow managed not to come up in the reviews.) The local library, taking the traditional library position on censorship, voted 9-0 to tell the bluenoses to bugger off. The bluenoses lawyered up, and a Robert C. Braun of the “Christian Civil Liberties Union” filed for a couple hundred kilobucks’ worth of damages for the supposed mental suffering the exposure to a book with gay people in it caused to his clients.
I haven’t gotten to the civil rights part yet and how, one presumes, this came to be a case for a civil liberties union of any stripe.
He’s also suing for the “right” of his clients to take all copies of this book from this library and burn them in public. Quoth one of the bluenoses:
Ginny Maziarka declared, “We vehemently reject their standards and their principles,” and characterized the debate as “a propaganda battle to maintain access to inappropriate material.”
Well… she certainly made the flat out propaganda battle angle clear, though I’m not sure she knows entirely what she’s saying.
In a final not-really-an-irony, here’s what else the bluenoses want:
Citing “Wisconsin’s sexual morality law,” the plaintiffs also request West Bend City Attorney Mary Schanning to impanel a grand jury to examine whether the book should be declared obscene and making it available a hate crime.
Restrict free speech for the Nazi across the street, and don’t be surprised when someone else comes along and stamps it out against any minority they don’t like, even if you do. Nothing could make the reason for defense of individual liberties regardless of individual any clearer.
*I would like to note that I think the accusations that they’re institutionally anti-Christian are misguided- they’re quite interested in being a pain in the asses of the overly PC on the subject as well as the god-squadders.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
What. The. Fuck.
I think this is one of the reasons that I have a huge issue with institutionalizing political correctness-because, as you said, if we make illegal something that offends one person, we’re opening the door to criminalizing anything that offends anyone, which…doesn’t really leave much, you know?
It’s interesting to read this here, because I just had to walk away from a debate about warnings in fanfic, the gist of which was that failing to warn for violence and/or rape in a fanfic is the ethical equivalent of beating and raping your readers. Or something. It’s really kind of creepy, because it seems more and more like there are people who simply cannot accept that something that offends them could exist somewhere. It’s not enough that they just avoid it; it must be wiped from the face of the planet.
The size of some entitlement complexes is astonishing.
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:13 pm
I don’t think ACLU is anti-Christian as much as, like you said, focused on things that tend to attract donors. That being said: They do tend to focus A LOT on the establishment clause and ignore the free expression clause. For the life of me, I have never understood how a framed copy of the ten commandments, hanging on the wall in a backwoods county courthouse, becomes a federal offense.
On the flip side, anything short of outright porn is fine by me in a public library (Even Ursala le Guin). I trust my kids to come to me if they have questions. Hell, they were dancing to the “Timewarp” when they were five because it was fun.
My son, who is now 15 and “get’s it” asked me “How could you let us watch that?”
LOL!
June 24th, 2009 at 9:56 am
I have a keen interest in this story since A) I grew up near West Bend, WI, and B) my wife is a public librarian (and despite being awfully liberal, she believes in her profession and follows the rule that at least 25% of a libraries collection should offend you in some way).
As for the blue noses, it’s funny how they have an issue with the book dealing with teen homosexuality, but Harlequin Romance novels (or, in the words of Joey Tribbiani when he found one of Rachel’s romance novels, “this is PORN!”) are just fine.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
By their standards a lot of the stuff in the Old Testament is porn.
If they win, I will show up at that West Bend Library, and demand my right to burn all of their copies.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Umm.. WTF? I don’t even know where to start… think my brain needs a reboot.
A hate crime for a book?
*boom*
brain is now broken.
Nuke ‘em from orbit, only way to be sure.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:14 am
Gee, I run in belief-centered circles, and I’ve never heard of the CCLU.
Of course, I figured that FIRE was the closest thing to an ACLU alternative, and they tend to focus on Universities and High Schools.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:15 am
Hate crimes will quite simply be the death of personal freedom in this country. We’ve already made it so the weenie “I don’t Like that” crowd has an appalling amount of sway in getting things legislated and banned. Now bring on the “it’s a hate crime” thugs and it’s all freakin’ over.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Dano:
Much as I agree with the sentiment, much of my family lives in the Milwaukee area. In any case, .308 hollowpoints are much cheaper than enriched uranium, and it’s easier to get a Remington 700 in WI than it is an LGM-30.
I don’t know how to work a spotting scope yet, but I’m a quick learner.