Ed Brayton’s doublespeak — When Glib writes it, he’s “ignorant,” when Wendy does, she’s right
Posted on June 1, 2007
Last week, I posted on a column by ACLU dissident Wendy Kaminer. A day later, Ed Brayton commented on it also. I agree with Wendy, Ed agrees with Wendy, I agree with Ed’s take on this column, Ed agreed with me. All rosy except for one disconnect — Ed Brayton doesn’t agree with himself!
Back in December, I wrote a post on one of the key topics hit by Kaminer’s piece — the ACLU’s virtual silence on university campus freedom issues: ACLU, where are you? Campus tyranny and the ACLU’s silence
I wrote, in part:
As “the foremost defender of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights,†you’d think that the ACLU would be laying waste to the fascistic regimes that have implemented and enforced the constitutional abominations known as speech codes and “non-discrimination policies†on university campuses all across the country. I don’t believe in criticizing a group when an individual case arises and that group happens to not have been involved in that singular incident. However, the university campus as whole feels it (yes, I speak of “it†as a monolith because this issue is a fixture at most public universities in the country, I’ll get to that) is exempt from the First Amendment…supposedly the ACLU’s bread and butter. No other government entity has so systematically and unapologetically violated, as a matter of published policy, the very basic freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment….
The ACLU allows the fascism (no, this is not hyperbole, it’s calling a spade a spade) to continue without comment because those strong-arm policies marginalize the very people, ideas and organizations the ACLU would gladly see just dry up and go away.
But where the ACLU has purposely failed, others have stepped in strong. It’s amazing that it takes “radical Right†organizations to draw the line in the sand and stand up for liberty on campus.
AND
Imagine the ultra-wealthy ACLU, with its half-billion dollar endowment and $150M annual operating budget, having done this (initiating a project like what the Alliance Defense Fund has with its Center for Academic Freedom ) ten years ago. With ADF’s CAF having won so many victories in such short order, the result of this “what if†would not be so hard to predict.
Ed Brayton responded: And More STACLU Ignorance
Bzzzt. Thank you for playing, Glib, but this one is utter nonsense. You cite FIRE as a group actively opposing such speech codes, and I applaud that; I’m a huge supporter of FIRE myself. But if you’d done just a tiny bit of research you would have found out, for example, that FIRE was founded by Harvey Silvergate and Alan Charles Kors, both staunch civil libertarians and ACLU supporters. In fact, Silvergate has been on the board of the ACLU of Massachusetts for over 30 years now…
You might have found out that the ACLU has often intervened along with FIRE in cases that they work on. For example, their suit against the University of Maryland; their intervention in a case at Occidental College; and in the Rhode Island case; in the various cases involving the Muhammed cartoons; and at Columbia University. You might have found out, also, that they’ve often issued joint open letters with FIRE in various cases. And you could have found out all of that, and much more, just from the FIRE website…
A little bit more research would have turned up even more information that might have prevented you from looking quite this ignorant. You might have found out that the ACLU has a strongly worded position against campus speech codes.
There’s more bellowing about the ACLU’s strong, strong presence in the fight for campus freedom, but this gives you an idea. Oooooooh — “strongly worded” position. I bolded the thing about the “Prophet” cartoons also because Kaminer absolutely savages Brayton’s mention of that sorry episode in the ACLU’s (Wendy says recent, I say long) history of hypocrisy.
I addressed this in a later post: John Leo’s great City Journal piece– the ACLU’s silence on campus speech
It was pointed out when I previously posted the ACLU’s relative silence on campus speech suppression that the ACLU itself has a “policy†on campus speech codes and that ACLUers are on the board of FIRE. My answer: so what? A single 13 year-old statement and few letters here and there to universities over the years hardly excuses the ACLU from its conspicuous non-involvement in fighting the most tyrannical institutions in America. It has representation on FIRE’s board? Again: so what? Syria, Sudan and Saudi Arabia were on the UN Commission on Human Rights.
Leo brings the real reason to the surface — the conflict between the ACLU’s support for boutique radical causes and the money that flows from this has forced this organization to sacrifice any pretense of being true defender of the First Amendment. These speech codes and other various freedom and thought-killing university policies that silence any opposition to the radical multi-culti, homosexual agenda are set up specifically to favor those same groups that the ACLU has aligned with — politically and financially.
I’ll again point out the enormous size of the ACLU’s budget and endowment and its proud claim of filing 6,000 cases a year as the “foremost defender…yak, yak, bull.” This makes the ACLU’s sideline position that much more conspicuous and completely inexcusable. Again…what if, just what if, the ACLU had a Center for Academic Freedom.
Now to last week’s column: American Liberal Liberties Union
Despite its professed commitment to religious liberty, for example, the ACLU tends to absent itself from cases on college campuses involving the associational rights of Christian student groups to discriminate against gay students, in accordance with their religious beliefs. But conservative students might be grateful for the ACLU’s absence. Consider its intervention in a successful federal court challenge to an unconstitutional speech code at Georgia Tech, brought by the Alliance Defense Fund in 2006 on behalf of two conservative religious students. The ACLU of Georgia filed an amicus brief proposing a substitute but still overbroad “anti-harassment†policy that included a prohibition on “injurious communications . . . directed toward an individual because of their characteristics or beliefs.†In other words: Students should be punished for sharply criticizing or satirizing each other’s beliefs if their remarks are deemed “injurious.†Occasionally an ACLU affiliate does intervene in defense of politically incorrect speech and vigorous debate on campus. But the Foundation for Individual Rights In Education (FIRE) has become a much more reliable advocate for the rights of all college students, regardless of ideology or religion. (I serve on both FIRE’s advisory board and the board of the Massachusetts ACLU affiliate.)
Gee, sounds like EXACTLY what I said about the ACLU’s spectatorship on campus tyranny…even down to pointing out the groups who actually ARE doing something about it in the ACLU’s stead. I’m not saying that Kaminer got the idea from this site, but the similarities in our arguments and examples (mine from December, hers from late May) are uncanny.
So, Wendy Kaminer must be an ignoramus and must be bludgeoned with the ACLU’s sparkling campus battle resume, right? To borrow our favorite former stand-up comic’s visual Batmanish noise effect: Bzzzt.
Heeeeeeeeeeere’s Eddie: Kaminer on the ACLU
I agree with this completely. Yes, the ACLU takes an official position against hate speech codes on campus; and yes, they have filed suits in the past against such cases and they still do intervene once in a while in such cases. But this is a serious issue that has not gotten near the attention from the ACLU that it deserves. Public university campuses are the only place in this country where government agencies can punish speech that is clearly protected by the first amendment. It is time for an all-out assault on such speech codes, as I called for months ago. And the ACLU should be leading the way; sadly, they are not.
Not only does Ed flip-flop his position, he nearly plagiarizes what I had written in expressing his newfound concern for the ACLU’s virtual silence on campus freedom issues!
Not literal plagiarism Ed, don’t freak out…let’s just drink in the similarities in these statements (admittedly, Ed is more succinct, but concentrate on the arguments):
Ed: Now, it’s certainly true that the ACLU’s non-involvement in any particular case does not necessarily indicate their position in that case. I’ve made that point myself in arguing with the STACLU crowd (Glib Note: I’m not sure if I’ve ever criticized the ACLU for not being involved in a particular case except in the comments section of a post some weeks ago, I did, prior to Kaminer’s piece, thrash its non-involvment in Harper and I did relate the details of a conversation I overheard between Mary Beth Tinker — she herself was baffled about the ACLU’s no-show — and ACLU staffers — who had NO good answers — after the Fredricks hearing at the SCOTUS in March)…Yes, the ACLU takes an official position against hate speech codes on campus; and yes, they have filed suits in the past against such cases and they still do intervene once in a while in such cases. But this is a serious issue that has not gotten near the attention from the ACLU that it deserves. Public university campuses are the only place in this country where government agencies can punish speech that is clearly protected by the first amendment.
Glib: It was pointed out when I previously posted the ACLU’s relative silence on campus speech suppression that the ACLU itself has a “policy†on campus speech codes and that ACLUers are on the board of FIRE. My answer: so what? A single 13 year-old statement and few letters here and there to universities over the years hardly excuses the ACLU from its conspicuous non-involvement in fighting the most tyrannical institutions in America. It has representation on FIRE’s board? Again: so what?
AND
…you’d think that the ACLU would be laying waste to the fascistic regimes that have implemented and enforced the constitutional abominations known as speech codes and “non-discrimination policies†on university campuses all across the country. I don’t believe in criticizing a group when an individual case arises and that group happens to not have been involved in that singular incident. However, the university campus as whole feels it…is exempt from the First Amendment…supposedly the ACLU’s bread and butter.
Ed, nearly identical statements aren’t true or false depending on the purveyor of the information.
So Ed, I’m wondering…was it shortly after you produced your post attacking me for saying exactly what Wendy Kaminer said last week that you reconsidered and decided to agree with me…or was it only acceptable to agree with an identical argument because Wendy Kaminer made it and you depend on your readers to just not notice the inconsistency?
OK, while we’re at it and having fun, we’ll hit Edpinata once more. Remember he used the Muhammed cartoon controversy and the ACLU’s vigorous defense of those wishing to print the cartoons?
Again, I agree completely. The ACLU should have been out front denouncing any and all attempts to censor or intimidate the publishing of those cartoons, whether on college campuses in the US or in our allies abroad.
But Ed…I thought the ACLU was leading the charge. It was one of your shining examples of ACLU campus leadership. So, the ACLU wasn’t “out front denouncing?” Hmm.
For someone who prides himself on consistency, Ed Brayton sure has shown his rear on this one. I don’t really even want to imagine a no-clothes, drawers-down Emperor Ed…so I’ll just go with Yertle the Turtle.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, History, News
Trackback URL
Comments
2 Responses to “Ed Brayton’s doublespeak — When Glib writes it, he’s “ignorant,” when Wendy does, she’s right”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Suggestions
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Glib,
I agree that Fatheaded Ed Brayton is a lousy two-faced hypocrite. For crying out loud (Fatheaded Ed’s trademark expression), he kicked me off his blog permanently just because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule — and BTW he did not even give me a single chance to respond to his objection to my interpretation. And since then this despicable BVD-clad blogger has not given me any chance to respond to personal attacks that he makes against me on his blog.
One of Ed’s specialties is nitpicking and hairsplitting pettifoggery. For example, he tries to make a distinction between “reasonable criticism” and “bat[edited] wingnuttery” — but the “bat[edited] wingnuttery” is often just truthful “zealous advocacy.”
And you are right about the ACLU. Even when the ACLU’s priorities prevent the ACLU from directly participating in lawsuits that the ACLU supposedly supports, the ACLU could just give moral support to those lawsuits but often fails to do so. I found that out when the ACLU of Southern California refused to even just make a public statement against California’s grossly unconstitutional $300 “smog impact fee” on out-of-state vehicles (this fee was collected for about 8-9 years and was struck down by the state courts and most victims then got refunds). In contrast, the ACLU was a plaintiff in a lawsuit against an unconstitutional Florida tax on out-of-state vehicles.
Of course, I would like to post this comment on Fatheaded Ed’s blog but cannot.
Larry–
Go check out Ed’s flailing attempt to answer this throttling and his bleating sycophants who have circled the wagons around him. Look at the comments section for my answer to his blubbering.