ACLU Protects Gay Inmates From Name Calling
Posted on August 6, 2005
Rusty, over at The Jawa Report is reporting that the ACLU has devoted its resources to protecting sensitive gay inmates from discriminatory name calling.
About 20 gay inmates were forced to remove their clothes in a busy hallway July 19 at the Men’s Central Jail while being called names and taunted with vulgar sexual language by some deputies, the ACLU said in a letter to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, citing inmates’ claims.
“Such behavior by staff demonstrates a level of immaturity, lack of professionalism, and sadism, which tarnishes the reputation of the entire department,” wrote Ricardo Garcia and Jody Kent, who monitor jailhouse issues for the ACLU of Southern California.
The ACLU wanted anti-discrimination training for all deputies.
Didn’t I just have someone in the comment section saying that ALL speech should be protected no matter how much you dislike it? Something about a slippery slope, I think.
I just want to make it clear that I don’t condone what these guards are doing. The main reason I posted this was to prove a point. I hear the argument all the time about robust freedom of speech. I hear from the left that ALL speech must be protected or it all goes down the drain. I hear this in defending and sympathizing with our enemy, sex offenders, pedophiles, and burning the flag. But when it comes to gays, pro-lifers, and those of other races besides white people then it doesn’t apply.
It’s clearly agenda driven! And that IS what we are here for. Exposing The radical AGENDA of the most dangerous organization in America.
Thank you Mudville Gazette
» Filed Under 1st Amendment
Trackback URL
Comments
41 Responses to “ACLU Protects Gay Inmates From Name Calling”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
I really wish they would make up their minds, are they for our “rights” or are they for an “agenda”?
It seems they are always on the side of their Agenda, and rarely on the side of everyone’s rights.
Show me where in the bill of rights that there is a right not to be offended?
They really need to pick a side, Oh but that’s why we are here, huh?
1) I am amazed that the police were so unprofessional – that clearly is a HR issue that needs to be dealt with! It really is unacceptable!
2) BUT why is the ACLU involved at all? When will the ACLU make up their mind – either they are going to protect speech or not!
3) I agree with Zaphriel, there is no right to not be offended!
DKK
As immature and unprofessional as it is. Why does the ACLU have to have their hand in this cookie jar. Maybe some of these prisoners belonged to NAMBLA.
I just want to make it clear that I don’t condone what these guards are doing. The main reason I posted this was to prove a point. I hear the argument all the time about robust freedom of speech. I hear from the left that ALL speech must be protected or it all goes down the drain. I hear this in defending and sympathizing with our enemy, sex offenders, pedophiles, and burning the flag. But when it comes to gays, pro-lifers, and those of other races besides white people then it doesn’t apply.
It’s clearly agenda driven! And that IS what we are here for. Exposing The radical AGENDA of the most dangerous organization in America.
I’m putting this comment into the post.
“Didn’t I just have someone in the comment section saying that ALL speech should be protected no matter how much you dislike it?”
Did you miss the part about how they had to disrobe?
That isn’t the point. All prisoners are subject to strip searches. The point was that they were discrimated against. I don’t condone what happened to them. The ACLU is asking for tolerance training, and its main concern is over the “hate speech” that “discriminates” them. Prisoners have NO right to privacy and can be subjected to search at any time.
I don’t condone the homo sexual life style nor do I condone what the guards are doing. Yes strip searches are legal but verbal abuse is wrong if not illegal. The Sheriffs Dept. needs to deal with the guards and the ACLU needs to take a hike.
I’ve posted my Question Of The Week, I hope you will stop by to answer it.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic
I personally would like to know where the groups funds are coming from.
I understand alot of it is from frivolouslawsuits filed.
Is there a means to identify the source or sources of their life blood?
There definitely is a difference here. These guards weren’t acting as private citizens but as agents of the state. Unless the state condones “vulgar sexual language” when dealing with prisoners, then they’re obligated to intervene. What these gurads say on their own time is their business.
“I understand alot of it is from frivolouslawsuits filed. ”
Frivolous lawsuits lose and don’t get awards. You’re worried about the meritorious lawsuits.
Evidently fark Congress is worried about meritorious frivolous lawsuits too or they wouldn’t be contemplating legislation to curb it.
I appreciate the correction on my part. Now, do we have a page dedicated to these meritorious lawsuits and/or sources of money?
I agree that if you work for the state or the government, then you should be fired for saying and doing such things, and I wouldn’t mind the ACLU being a sort of watchdog on this stuff if they were consistent, BUT…
Had it been black cops making a bunch of white inmates strip naked in front of everyone, where they called them honkies(spell?), white bread, crackers or made crude sexual comments, the ACLU would’ve laughed at the complainant, or at the very least would’ve told them they had no case.
The problem I have with the ACLU and lawsuits like this is the double standard. Fair is fair.
Middle America, I’ve done a little research to try and find where much of their funds come from, but they are very good at keeping their sources secret. I’m still working on it. And when I’m done, I think devoting a page to it is a great idea. See this page for what I found out.
Here’s a few of the groups that finance the aclu. Notice that most all of these are leftist organizations.
.
Ford Foundation $925,000 2002 Rockefeller Foundation $275,000 2002 David &Lucile Packard Foundation $1,600,000 2001 Ford Foundation $900,000 2001 Ford Foundation $465,000 2001 Ford Foundation $300,000 2001 Ford Foundation $100,000 2001 Clark Foundation $70,000 2001 Clark Foundation $35,000 2001 George Gund Foundation $35,000 2001 W. K. Kellogg Foundation $25,000 2001 Peninsula Community Foundation $25,000 2001 Community Foundation of Greater Memphis $10,000 2001 Ford Foundation $1,500,000 2000 Ford Foundation $250,000 2000 Ford Foundation $187,500 2000 Ford Foundation $7,000,000 1999 Ford Foundation $800,000 1999 Ford Foundation $600,000 1999 Huber Foundation $400,000 1999 Ford Foundation $200,000 1999 Open Society Institute $200,000 1999 Open Society Institute $200,000 1999 Open Society Institute $125,000 1999 Open Society Institute $100,000 1999 Open Society Institute $100,000 1999 Ford Foundation $1,000,000 1998 David &Lucile Packard Foundation $600,000 1998 Carnegie Corporation of New York $500,000 1998 Open Society Institute $200,000 1998 Open Society Institute $200,000 1998 Ford Foundation $187,500 1998 Open Society Institute $150,000 1998 Open Society Institute $107,300 1998 Open Society Institute $100,000 1998 Open Society Institute $100,000 1998 Open Society Institute $100,000 1998 Open Society Institute $100,000 1998
I only included donations 6 figures or higher.
“Had it been black cops making a bunch of white inmates strip naked in front of everyone, where they called them honkies(spell?), white bread, crackers or made crude sexual comments, the ACLU would’ve laughed at the complainant, or at the very least would’ve told them they had no case.”
Has this happened before?
Anyway, I don’t think the ACLU should be a “watchdog” any more than the people should be. I think the ACLU steps in where “we the people” wouldn’t — to ensure that the government doesn’t abuse it’s power: even in cases that make you cringe and hate them for it.
The reason why they often win is because they’re right and the government is often wrong. That’s why we have courts — so citizens can file grievances with each other and the city/state/country and their interpretation of the law. Without it, we’d just be a police state.
We shouldn’t rely on our gov’t to police itself, ever. That’s our job as citizens. Governments left to govern themselves never do the right thing. That’s why democracy was created.
OSI is George Soros’ foundation. I know you may find this hard to believe, but George Soros isn’t exactly a democrat — he’s a free market republican. Even though he donated 27MM to moveon.org’s campaign to defeat Bush last year, that may say more about what he thinks of Bush than what he thinks of liberalism. Especially considering the man is a multi-billionaire, he must not really care that much about the cause because 27MM isn’t really much at all.
The Ford Foundation gives to SO many different causes (it looks like it gave our around $117MM last year), I think it’s disingenious to call it a “leftist organization.”
Much appreciate the quick replies on the funds.
I think it’s interesting the FORD Foundation supports it. I believe the AFA had a boycott on them for similar reasons. Oh well.
I also appreciate the link to the ACLU funds.
Hmm, I think this needs more publicity.
I’m not even going to address George Soros comment….I really don’t care what he calls himself. As for the Ford Foundation, they were turned down by the ACLU recently. Follow the link in comment #14. They had stipulations that their money not be knowingly used for anything that promoted terrorism, etc.
Furthermore I never said they were all leftist organizations, I said most.
“Has this happened before?”
As far as what I said about black cops and white inmates, we’ll never know will we? Something like that would get no media attention.
And, I’ve never heard of the ACLU defending a white person that was racially harassed (it does happen), so that tells me, the ACLU is only on one side of the racial issue.
“Evidently fark Congress is worried about meritorious frivolous lawsuits too or they wouldn’t be contemplating legislation to curb it.”
What are they curbing?
fark…
“meritorious frivolous lawsuits”
Just what is a ‘meritorious frivolous’ lawsuit?
“Just what is a ‘meritorious frivolous’ lawsuit? ”
I don’t know. That’s why I asked the person who wrote those workds.
I would think it would be a frivolous lawsuit that actually won, got through the cracks, and then was awarded the tax money for winning.
“I would think it would be a frivolous lawsuit that actually won, got through the cracks, and then was awarded the tax money for winning.”
I’d like to meet such a suit.
Members of the House of Representatives introduced legislation to limit monetary rewards to reimburse legal fees by those who would seek to sue over religious issues. It is called the `Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005′. This is an example by Congressional standards of what constitutes “frivolous and meritous”, basically it says unless a litigated case can prove damage beyond a perceived state of being offended, the case will fall into this Act’s jurisdiction and no monetary reimbursement for attorney fees by the party that sues can be awarded.
Meritous frivolous cases.
So unless the damages are greater than attorney’s fees, people would be kept out of court and have no rights? And this is a frivolity to you?
No, you misunderstand Mr. Fark. The legislation she speaks of would only affect “establishment clause” cases. It would have no affect on the “free exercize” clause. And people could still sue, they just wouldn’t get paid attorneys fees for it.
Nothing about not having rights…unless you feel like it is a right to have your attorney fee paid for when you find something offensive.
“And people could still sue, they just wouldn’t get paid attorneys fees for it.”
So the government gets to break the establishment clause, and it only will be held accountable by people rich enough to fund litigation against the government’s own law breaking? Sounds rather serious, and not frivolous at all.
Thank you kathy…now it makes sense.
fark…
“So the government gets to break the establishment clause, and it only will be held accountable by people rich enough to fund litigation against the government’s own law breaking?”
“unless a litigated case can prove damage beyond a perceived state of BEING OFFENDED, the case will fall into this Act’s jurisdiction and no monetary reimbursement for attorney fees by the party that sues can be awarded.”
Excuse me but George Soros is a ‘free market republican’???? WHAT? He invested $18 million to defeat Bush. Soros’ major anti-Bush donations went to MoveOn.org, the group infamous for its over the top, hate-laden ads (reference Bush Hitler); and to former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta’s “think tank”, the Center for American Progress (CAP); and to America Coming Together, a get-out-the-Democratic vote operation headed by former AFL-CIO political director Steve Rosenthal and Ellen Malcolm, president of the pro-abortion EMILY’s List.
He, in essence, “bought” the democratic party.
Honestly some people are devastatingly stupid in these comments, Jay.
George Soros has a history of taking down economies in other countries, he’s the guy who was dubbed “the man who broke the bank of England”.
Great post, btw.
Doesn’t sound like a free speech issue to me. Why are you criticizing the ACLU for not defending free speech? Speech has nothing to do with the harassment of these inmates. The ACLU isn’t any more racist than the stoptheaclu.com is a Christian Supremacist.
“unless a litigated case can prove damage beyond a perceived state of BEING OFFENDED, the case will fall into this Act’s jurisdiction and no monetary reimbursement for attorney fees by the party that sues can be awarded.”
Well Its hard to see what physical damages an establishement clause violation causes. Maybe the monetary damages of the amount of money the government is spending on the activity? But if I am right that there are few cases of physical damages, this means that the government is able to violate the establisment clause easily. And the only people able to ocmplain are the ones rich enough to fund litigation.
then again, proving psychological damages can’t be that much. And these are more than just being offended.
I hear the argument all the time about robust freedom of speech. I hear from the left that ALL speech must be protected or it all goes down the drain.
This isn’t about speech, however. It’s about selective punishment of some groups. For example, if a college prof were to order a black student to dance, all the while calling him offensive names, we’d agree that free speech isn’t at issue. What would be at issue is the profs abuse of his post and unfair punishment of the student.
Same thing with wardens unfairly punishing gay prisoners.
hey Fark ,
are you a lawyer ? you seem to oppose the ” stop the aclu …
“are you a lawyer ? you seem to oppose the ” stop the aclu …”
I seem to know a bad idea when I see one.
“Excuse me but George Soros is a ‘free market republican’???? WHAT?”
Read my post. GWB is a lot more than a traditional Republican.
As for the destruction of other enconmies: when central banks won’t raise interest rates or adjust their currency according to exchange market values, they deserve what they get. Don’t you believe in a free market economy?
Soros doesn’t neatly fit into the liberal or conservative mold: he’s staggeringly wealthy and has benefited from both parties in different ways. To cast him to one aisle or the other isn’t accurate.
“the group infamous for its over the top, hate-laden ads (reference Bush Hitler)”
The particular ad you’re referring to was never run as a part of any moveon.org campaign. It was submitted by someone in an open competition for an open, user moderated moveon.org “create an advert” contest. It didn’t win, and it was removed from competition as soon as the administrators realized it was there (thanks in part to Matt Drudge). To say George Soros funded such a poor idea is like saying that Bush was responsible for 9/11 because he’s very close with the Saudi Royal Family.
Death by affiliation is a dangerous game to play — especially in politics(”someone” accused John McCain of being crazy and having illigitmate children in ‘00 during the Republican primaries).
“He, in essence, ‘bought’ the democratic party.”
I think you want to stay away from talking about the “buying” of any party. He had an agenda: get rid of Bush.
If you look at the contributions made to the Republican party and the legislation that comes from that side of the aisle, it’s hard to say that George Soros had any more effect on the Democratic party (that were trying to get rid of Bush anyway) than, say, a manufacturer looking for environmental kick-backs. I’d contend that a manufacturer probably got more bang for their buck, but that’s just me.
You’re call, but I think when it comes to money and politics, it really gets to be pretty ugly for both parties: wouldn’t you agree?
The pull this crap and defend [edited] like Stephen Pearcy who gets is decrepid anti-American artwork protected by free speech.
You know, maybe it’s because the guards didn’t know what was the “correct” term to use. It used to be that “gay” was offensive. For a time “queer” was the correct word, but sometimes that’s offensive. Is “fag” OK today? There’s no way to know.
And we won’t even get into “nigger” — heck, I’m likely to be sent to prison just for typing that word — yet blacks use it all the time.
Offensive is your personal opinion and should not be protected. You have the right to be offended, but I have the right to ignore you.
“You have the right to be offended, but I have the right to ignore you.”
All things being equal, you’re absolutely right. As you’ll notice, this was prison guards and prisoners. This is hardly a situation where it’s appropriate or legal: these prisoners have reason to believe that they’ll be subject to different treatment by these guards because of this incident. I mean, sure prison sucks, but gurads are there to ensure that people don’t get out, not to administer punishment.
Thank you for the info. http://www.bignews.com