Stop The ACLU Interviews Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit)
Posted on November 15, 2005
Many of you may remember our reaction to Glenn Reynold’s sympathy for the ACLU. We received a lot of flak for this reaction, and suprisingly a lot of praise. However, many commented on my close mindedness of other views. While his views were differing, one of the main reasons I reacted the way I did was because he provided no means to debate him. I have thought about my reaction, and realizing the volume of emails he must recieve, I thought that perhaps my emails were lost in the shuffle, not ignored. So, after contacting Glenn, he has kindly provided a way for me to discuss the ACLU with him. While we still disagree on much about the ACLU, I can now respectfully disagree. I have added his link back in my sidebar, and I want to thank Mr. Reynolds for the opportunity to interview him.
So here it is, our interview with the one and only instapundit.
1. What inspired you to start blogging? When did you start?
I started in August of 2001. I teach Internet Law, so I thought it would be a fun and useful hands-on activity. I was righter than I knew.
2. How long did it take to become successful at it, and build up your loyal readership?
I don’t know, exactly. I hoped for a couple of hundred readers, but wound up with that many within a week.
3. What advice would you give to us smaller blogs in our efforts to become more successful and gain more readership?
Post regularly, post in your own voice, and build up a following of your own. Links from bigger blogs are nice in exposing more people to your site, but most of those readers won’t stick around. You build up a regular readership by attracting people who want to come back.
4. How many other blogs do you read each day? Which ones are your favorites?
A lot. My favorites tend to rotate, sometimes without me knowing exactly why. The Volokh Conspiracy and Ann Althouse are favorites, not surprisingly as they’re run by law professors who have a similar take on the world. (Althouse also shares my interest in photography). Scrappleface is always amusing. I’m very into the “reporting” blogs like Michael Yon’s. I think that’s the next big thing.
5. In one of your post in which we had some disagreements, you stated:
BOOKS LIKE THIS ONE ON THE ACLU, which I just got in the mail, are probably no worse than the myriad of hatchet jobs done in the past on, say, the NRA or (more recently) the Federalist Society. But I think that demonizing the ACLU is a bit silly. I do feel that they’ve become overly partisan in recent years, but they still do good work (I’ve worked with them in the past, on the New Orleans rave case for example, and will probably do so again.)
Did you ever take the time to read this book? Did you conclude that it was a hatchet job? Do you think it was fair to assume such a conclusion on this book without reading it?
I don’t think there’s much doubt that the book demonizes the ACLU — indeed, the book’s jacket copy and Amazon page made that quite clear.
6. How would you define demonizing the ACLU? Do you think they should be criticized?
Of course they should be criticized. I think portraying them as the root of all evil is a bit much. That book — and the questions in this interview — suggest that we disagree.
7. I’m not sure what faith you are, but you mention that demonizing the ACLU is a bit silly. Many, many people out there feel that the ACLU are overly zealous in its crusade of “separation of Church and State”, especially towards Christianity. Are these people silly for thinking this?
I actually agree that the ACLU is overly zealous in that department. I believe in separation of church and state, but there is a saying “the law cares not for trifles.” The ACLU, on the other hand, seems to litigate a lot of trifles.
8. In October of 2004, the ACLU turned down $1.15 million in funding from two of its most generous and loyal contributors, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, saying new anti-terrorism restrictions demanded by the institutions make it unable to accept their funds.
The Rockefeller Foundation’s provisions state that recipients of its funds may not “directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity.”
Do you find this disturbing?
I believe that they were trying to make a statement. Or perhaps they felt this would prohibit them from representing people charged with terrorism in court.
9. In 1982, the ACLU, in an amicus role, lost in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court to legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography.”
The case is New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747
As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn, then head of the ACLU, told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be. A few years later (1988), Lynn told the Senate Judiciary Committee that even requiring porn producers to maintain records of their performers’ ages was impermissible.
“If there is no federal record-keeping requirement for the people portrayed in Road and Track or Star Wars,” he said, “there can be no such requirement for Hustler or Debbie Does Dallas.”
Do you think the ACLU are overboard on this position?
I would argue — and the Supreme Court has since held — that the justification for treating child porn differently has to do with the potential harm to children used in making child porn. That would support a record-keeping requirement — though it’s hard for me to see porn featuring 17-year-olds as “child” porn.
10. One would think that an organization that claims its purpose is to protect our Constitutional rights would readily defend our second amendment. However, the ACLU believe that the second amendment does not apply to individuals, only militias.
Do you agree with the ACLU on this position? Why or why not?
No, I disagree rather strongly with the ACLU on this, and I’ve written a number of scholarly articles on this subject. Here’s one, and here’s another.
11. When I de-linked you, I got a lot of criticism, and surprisingly, a lot of praise. Many, even some of the more successful blogs, feel that some of the bigger blogs have become what they promised to save us from, MSM. Hoping to get mentioned by the MSM, etc. Some think that the bigger blogs swap links back and forth, and feel lost in the shuffle. Many included you in this list. How would you respond to this? What would you suggest to smaller blogs to get noticed?
I try hard to mention smaller blogs, but there are so many that it only scratches the surface. That’s why I link to so many blog carnivals. I think that’s a good way to start.
12. . I have to ask, many want to know. Will you ever consider adding a trackback feature on your blog?
I’ve always worried about trackback spam, which (like comments) I don’t really have time to police, but I’ve got a big site upgrade in the works, and I may add some new features like that.
13. Do you really put puppies in blenders?
I like puppies.
In conclusion, Glenn and I still disagree on a lot about the ACLU, but like I said, his willingness to take time out of his busy schedule to answer a few of my questions says alot about the guy. We have our differing views, but we disagree respectfully. Glenn still believes that the ACLU has potential to change on many issues, and that they do “some” good. I hope he is correct, but I am not as optimistic.
I am also happy to have found that Glenn agrees with me on several issues, especially dealing with the second amendment. I will admit the ACLU do “some” good, but I think the damage they do to our national history, and religious heritage outweighs the little bit of good they do. I think they are blindly idealistic, ruthless and relentless in the pursuit of their political agenda. I think that their bottom line is money, and that this corrupts them to the point of comprimising their principles on issues such as the second amendment, or protecting the free speech of pro-life protesters. I hope that Glenn is correct, and that this organization can clean up its act, and become a shining example of protecting civil liberties. We need a civil liberty union, but in my opinion it isn’t the ACLU.
Again, I want to thank Mr. Reynolds for taking the time for this interview. I found his views on the second amendment inspiring, and his optimism for liberty uplifting. We appreciate him taking the time to do this interview with us, and we are very happy that he likes puppies, but still wonder if he likes them better blended or not.
Laurence Simon of This Blog is Full of Crap thinks Glenn is full of crap in his statement about linking to carnivals. Perhaps his fondness of puppies causes bias, and that could be the reason he doesn’t link to the carnival of cats?
One of the main issues about the ACLU that bother a lot of folks, is that they are awarded attorney’s fees when they win, which come from the taxpayer’s pocket. Currently there is legislation in the House to limit these attorney’s fees to injunctive relief only in Establishment Clause cases. If you would like to see this legislation pass:
PLEASE SIGN OUR PETITION ASKING CONGRESS TO DO SO.
Linked at Bright and Early
The Political Teen
Jo’s Cafe
Don Surber
Conservative Cat
Point Five
Simply Kimberly
Choose Life
» Filed Under ACLU, Interview, News
Trackback URL
Comments
14 Responses to “Stop The ACLU Interviews Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit)”
-
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
Glenn may be a great guy in person – but he’s fair superior to the lowly human in the main stream. Great interview, but what small amount of good the ACLU may do doesn’t make up for the bad they do day by day to destroy america.
it’s hard for me to see p-rn featuring 17-year-olds as “child” p-rn
I think he would have less of a problem seeing it as “child” p-rn when he can imagine having a daughter (or son, for that matter) of that age.
(This is where I say “bull” to Glenn’s carnival statement based on experience with his feline discrimination.)
Nice interview. Well done.
Glenn said the ACLU does some good things. Quite true, however they do more bad things. We have other organizations that do good things and leave the bad things to the ACLU and Americans for the seperation of Church and State. So lets do away with these two athiest organizations and put all of our efforts in the demonizing them and support the ACLJ and ADF and so forth.
Glenn Reynolds supports the ACLU because he has to. If one is belongs to the bar and happens to be in professor at a major university one should fear the ACLU. We have a lawyer in family, and there is no doubt the ACLU has tremendous power. No matter how renowned you are or how conservative you are you just don’t cross the ACLU. Until the major universities and the legal profession in general, swing toward the center, the ACLU will retain its power.
I saw in one comment someone who had a better drug plan than the one now. It is kind of funny I am 70 years old, my mother is 88 and neither one of us has ever heard of anyone trying to help the seniors with drug programs until bush or at least no one got one passed until bush. So lump it if you think you have a better program, you took little no action until it was too late.
So much rhetoric and so little fact.
So, Glenn Reynolds doesn’t think that porn with 17 year olds in it is child porn? Isn’t that the start of the slippery slope- soon 17 year olds would be featured pretty heavily if it was a-ok, and then: “well, sixteen/seventeen, not much difference, so what if they start doing it too?”
Pretty soon you have exactly what the ACLU want, child porn. There’s a reason that age limits have to be enforced, because otherwise the age just keeps creeping down as the “oh, it’s okay they’re nearly that age” becomes lower and lower and lower. Sometimes you just have to say, “Stop.”
I’ve never read his blog and on this showing I never will- they won’t take money that means they have to check terrorist watch lists- “they were trying to make a statement”? Yeah, the statement was, they aren’t opposed to the terrorists who mean to destroy our way of life. A lot of us got that message loud and clear. A shame that Reynolds doesn’t get it too- doesn’t he realise that we’re at war with these people? And the ACLU has picked sides.
I remain of the opinion that a Constitutional Law professor at a major university simply cannot come out on the record as being anti-ACLU. To do so would result in being ostracized by his peers.
What good does it do to debate pro-ACLU leftists in this forum? If we debate and defeat them in public and thus gain new members or supporters, fine.
If we “debate” the uneducated thug-left inside an anti-ACLU web site, we introduce their deranged outlook into the mix. Then more leftists in sheeps clothing show up accusing us of bigotry. So to “prove that we are open minded.” we incoporate their world view. Then some of them obtain a seat on the board of directors. Suddenly we are an ACLU mouthpiece.
Do you get it? Its called subversion.
This is an organization that is against the ACLU. People who come here should already be convinved or want to obtain convincing evodence of the evil that is the ACLU. It is not a debating organization or society. Unless the debaste is about how to eliminate the ACLU. (If you don’t want to eliminate the ACLU, then what? Do we pass out worry beads?)
While in graduate school I infiltrated a local ACLU chapter and, after awhile, argued for more “open minded-listen to the other side” attitudes. They wisely threw me out before I destroyed their gemeinshaft.
I know what subversion is. We should be subverting them.
If you don’t have the stomach for action, your gonads will follow.
I realize this hasn’t been posted to for over a year, but one particular comment struck me as completely insane and I couldn’t ignore it. From Jay.Mac in comment 37: “Pretty soon you have exactly what the ACLU want, child porn.”
Undoubtedly that is exactly what the ACLU and all of its members want. They are not people with children and are obviously incapable of understanding how a parent might feel about child p-rn. Any babies they don’t manage to kill before birth should at least be exploited in whatever media is available at the time, for that is their goal.
Idiot.
Glenn Reynolds is delusional and unfactual in his presentations, not even worthy of considerations.
I’m against arbitrary labels. Much harm is done by miss-naming. One should be objective and fair and especially careful not to hurt the feelings of others. You might turn those who are so attacked into victims and goodness knows that all liberals are searching for victims to defend. Yes, defend the victims no matter how dark and shady their past or no matter how vile their intent. Wouldn’t it be terrible to have a victimless society, then the mushy-headed people would self-implode for want of a purpose. We must be careful not to demonize something even if it comes from hell.