The Irony of STACLU

After noticing that there are two different StopTheACLUs (.org and .com), with different names attached to them, I sent an email to the guy behind the .org domain, Nedd Kareiva, and asked if they were connected to the .com folks. He wrote back today and said that yes, they are connected, that .org is their main page and .com is their blog. But he also said that, just because I wrote to him, he was putting me on the StopTheACLU newsletter mailing list. Okay, works for me, it should be good for some amusement. I got the first one tonight, and it includes this stunning bit of cognitive dissonance, in the guise of advice to their members on writing letters to the editor:

3. Please research your facts before submitting your pieces. The Internet is loaded with info on the ACLU and with a little patience and research, you can get the truth on an ACLU issue. Then once you have the facts, politely but firmly expose the ACLU. Do not lie or exaggerate the truth. If you are not sure of something on the ACLU, ask me before submitting. We can't afford to take steps back at this critical juncture. Be knowledgeable and be informed.

And yet another irony meter bites the dust. Dammit, that was a deluxe model, it was supposed to be able to withstand Hovind-level doses of irony. The manufacturer probably farms it out to some sweat shop in the Marianas Islands. Ah, and there is more irony yet to come:

4. Avoid discussing free speech issues. This is one area the left continues to hold onto and the one many of them write me on, attempting to persuade me how the ACLU would defend my right to free speech. The public still largely views the ACLU as a civil rights organization and not an immoral one undermining American values. If we can avoid this aspect of the ACLU and consistently expose them on their immorality and national security issues, this will turn the tables on them. This requires a patient but persistent effort.

Translation: in your attempt to demonize an organization, you want to intentionally omit any good things they might do so as not to interfere with the false picture you're painting.

Tags

More like this

Bartholemew sent the information about what is going on in Indian River Schools in Deleware, where a Jewish family has been so badly harrassed that they had to leave town, to Jesus' General, who naturally ran with it (for those who don't know, Jesus' General is sort of the Stephen Colbert of the…
The New York Times had an article yesterday about the ACLU board literally debating over their own right to disagree with the rest of the board. They are debating over two proposed rules for the board. The first one would say that "a director may publicly disagree with an A.C.L.U. policy position,…
Not that this will surprise anyone, but even when he's right, he can't seem to avoid misrepresenting what the ACLU says or does. In this post at STACLU, he cites a column by Nat Hentoff (one of my absolute favorite writers) where Hentoff takes the ACLU to task for inconsistency in a pair of cases,…
A few days ago I wrote about Volokh's use of the phrase "ACLU Derangement Syndrome" in relation to Clayton Cramer, who had claimed that the ACLU was likely to seek a law banning parents from teaching their children about religion. Volokh correctly called Cramer on the carpet for this, saying that…

I would have thought that the STACLU crowd views any freedom of speech divergent from their own (and that of the broader right wing) as immoral. Odd that they would want to brush that aspect of the supposedly "immoral" ACLU under the rug.

By Sexy Sadie (not verified) on 18 Jun 2006 #permalink

I would have thought that the STACLU crowd views any freedom of speech divergent from their own (and that of the broader right wing) as immoral. Odd that they would want to brush that aspect of the supposedly "immoral" ACLU under the rug.

That's exactly it. They can't object to free speech per se, because free speech is a civil right which the ACLU protects. So they have to object to the content of the speech, and pretend that the ACLU supports somebody's actual agenda simply because they support their right to espouse it.