Talk:American Civil Liberties Union

message: Re recent edit to LGBTQ section adding Colorado web site case.  This appears to be Wikipedia:Recentism.  The case is not decided yet; and the single 2ndary source is not too significant.  This ACLU article is a very top-level history of ACLU.   If we want to add info about minor briefs as they are filed, perhaps a dedicated section on ACLU/LGBTQ should be created?   Noleander (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this fairly unimportant sentence from the article based on several factors:  Source was not great; Wikipedia:Recentism;  the brief was filed by a state affiliate, not the US HQ;  no court decision reached; etc. Noleander (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colorado web site brief - Wikipedia:Recentism 

message: Include in article?  
National Security Agency and  American Civil Liberties Union 
 
The ACLU and the NSA may soon square off in the Supreme Court — over Wikipedia - The NSA and the scope of state secrets privilege may be in front of the Supreme Court next term. Source: https://www.grid.news/story/technology/2022/09/27/the-aclu-and-the-nsa-may-soon-square-off-in-the-supreme-court-over-wikipedia/  September 27, 2022
"The Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that runs Wikipedia, last month asked the (Supreme Court) to hear arguments on its lawsuit over the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international phone and email communications. The organization, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, has been fighting the NSA in court over such “upstream surveillance” for the past seven years."
...
"Wikimedia contends that given this surveillance, it cannot ensure the confidentiality of the tens of millions of people who read, edit and communicate about Wikipedia, one of the largest repositories of human information to ever exist."
Aeryn Palmer, legal director of compliance at the Wikimedia Foundation, said...“When we think about what we might be collecting from anyone who visits the site, when we think about how we do research with our readers or with our contributors to better understand what sorts of features they might like to see and how they want the projects to evolve, we’re continually thinking about how we can best protect their privacy,”
May1787 (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ACLU and the NSA may soon square off in the Supreme Court — over Wikipedia 

message: In the Overview section, it is stated that, "In the 1970s and 1980s, the ACLU ventured into new legal areas involving the rights of homosexuals, students, prisoners, and the poor." However, in the "Victim groups" section, it is stated that, "During the 1960s and 1970s, the ACLU expanded its scope to include what it referred to as 'victim groups', namely women, the poor, and homosexuals."
Am I wrong in assuming there is a contradiction between the two sentences? If I am not wrong, is there a way to reconcile the two? Thanks, 2013creek (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there is a contradiction. The article mentions a few cases involving students and prisoners in the 1960s, so maybe 1960s and 1970s is the correct one? 23impartial (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make sense. 2013creek (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I just changed it. It was a nice catch.  23impartial (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. :) 2013creek (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  1960s and 1970s or 1970s and 1980s