Talk:American Civil Liberties Union/Archive 1

message: Once again, I have to ask: Why this obsession with slashes after URLs?  It works just as well.  -- Zoe
:This is pure geek pedantry, but technically "http://www.aclu.org" is not a valid URL without this final slash. What you're pulling up in your browser is a page, not a site per se. Putting the slash means "Show me the default file in the main web directory on the ACLU site." Without the slash, you're saying "I want the ACLU site, but I'm not telling you which file I want to see." It really doesn't matter, since all popular browsers put the slash in for you if you leave it out, just like they put in the "http://" in front if you leave that out. But it's more correct to leave it in. Quadell (talk) 13:28, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
* FYI, it does make an actual difference when the URL is not the root of the site. http://aclu.org/DrugPolicy will make a request of the web server which will cause it to redirect to http://aclu.org/DrugPolicy/ -- using the latter saves that extra indirection. For the root, it does exactly the same thing, because the empty string is not a legal GET request.  — brighterorange (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: URL

message: :Its single-minded defense of civil rights without regard to political philosophies or agendas has resulted in criticism from both sides of the political spectrum over the years.
This statement is obviously pro-ACLU and its critics would not agree with it.  —Casey J. Morris 17:53, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
:It's also the truth. Does that affect your opinion of this statement?
:!Atlant 23:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except...it's not true.  Libertarians and Objectivists such as myself realize that there is no such thing as a right to eat in a restaurant owned by someone else, yet the ACLU contends that it is.  A better phrasing would state tat it defends what it CONSIDERS to be civil rights. Kurt Weber 17:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Source is, among others, a statement from a former federal prosecutor for the state of New Jersey. Happens to be my own view that the prosecutor was agreeing with. I'm not and never have been a member of the ACLU.
obsolete
Like it or not mainstream America thinks of the ACLU the same way that they think of unions, obsolete and continually irrelevent in our times. Severl polls conducted by Rand , TimeLife and others have consistently shown that outside of the NE and the left coast the ACLU and unions both have public perception problems which cause the mainstream to view both as anacronisms.--68.42.11.91 11:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public defenders... 

message: *I would appreciate a citation for the recent additions; specifically, I don't believe the ACLU supports child pornography, and it seems odd that they would oppose both permit requirements for protests and pro-life demonstrations. I suspect that these statements are at the least misleading, if not completely inaccurate, and have reverted the changes until a citation is provided. All the best, Meelar (talk) 17:37, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
**Agreed. Neutrality (talk) 22:13, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
:::Like it or not, the ALCU does support the "right" to own and disseminate child pornography.  They don't support the creation of it, but the organization holds no qualms over possession and distribution.  And if I read your statement correctly, the ALCU supposedly opposes permits for protests and opposes pro-life demonstrations.  This is completely in-line with their philosophy.  They're the supreme hypocrites, they only appear to support freedom of speech/protest/gather/religion if it applies to their beliefs.  GreatGatsby 15:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions of Sept. 30

message: Article modifications come in waves. There will be a week of "Baldwin was a communist, dude read this quote" edits, and then it will disappear. This week, the edits seem to be all about "lenient sentences". Here's the most recent edit (a previous one stated that the ACLU was against punishing child molesters):
"...as well as its support for more lenient punishments for acts that libertarians and Objectivists hold are rightly illegal (such as murder, theft, rape, and battery"
The ACLU does not support "more lenient punishments" in general (obviously), although it does oppose the death penalty (already discussed in the article) and other sentencing practices that it believes violate "cruel and unusual." One thing the ACLU has gotten into is the "three strikes" law ; if "libertarians and Objectivists" object to the ACLU's opposition to a life sentence for the theft of $150 of video tapes, I guess we should include it, but there would need to be a credible source.
Sdedeo 17:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ACLU and punishment

message: Could someone find a citation for "Bill O'Reilly refers to the ACLU as "the most dangerous organization in America" on his various broadcasts, and frequently lambastes the group." and place it in the article?  I don't doubt the truth of the statement, but i think it would make the article better if there was a link so that people could better judge whether or not the statement is true.134.173.94.191 03:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's here  --Veronique 05:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation