By Carol Berry
The national ACLU, ACLU of Colorado, American Association of University Professors, and National Coalition Against Censorship filed a friend-of-the-court brief Feb. 18 with the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Churchill’s case has been pending in the appeals court since a jury’s verdict supporting his retaliatory firing lawsuit was thrown out in July by a District Court judge who said CU regents had immunity from lawsuit.
“The First Amendment prohibits government officials from suppressing lawful speech or retaliating against those who engage in such speech, no matter how unpopular or offensive the speech may be to some,” the organizations stated in a 53-page filing. “That is especially the case in the university setting, where the Supreme Court has made clear that First Amendment freedoms must be vigilantly protected.”
Below: "Ward Churchill’s opening brief and those of the American Civil Liberties Union and other supporters were filed Feb. 18 with the Colorado Court of Appeals, where the former University of Colorado ethnic studies professor hopes for reinstatement or compensation." (Photo by Carol Berry)
So what? The ACLU also supports NAMBLA.
ReplyDeleteSuch an interpretation prohibits, say, a President from sacking a cabinet member for using the N-word.
ReplyDelete(And Stephen, good point. The ACLU also fights against rights. As shown by its stand in the CRI fights, where the ACLU explicitly supports the idea of individuals being punished for being of the wrong race/skin color/etc.)
ReplyDeleteACLU for the most part is for Blacks, Hispanics and Gay folks as well as for disgruntled fakes like Ward Churchill and perhaps even David Yeagley. Personally, I don't like the ACLU.
ReplyDelete--GENO--
The ACLU is a mixed bag. They pick and choose which civil liberties they defend, and sometimes they do such things as defend racial discrimination, and take the side of intolerant folks who file frivolous lawsuits to censor something they'd rather not see or hear.
ReplyDelete"So what," Stephen? So it's an example of the intersection of Native America and pop culture, dim bulb. You know, the purpose of this blog you keep forgetting?
ReplyDeleteThe Bush administration supported the Saudi regime that financed the 9/11 attacks, but I don't recall your denouncing it for its terrorist ties. So much for your reprehensible guilt-by-association tactic--your favorite ploy when you don't have a legitimate argument.
The ACLU's support of Churchill has nothing to do with his ethnicity, Geno. Given that the ACLU is (in)famous for helping neo-Nazis march in a Jewish neighborhood, your belief that it helps only minorities is dead-wrong.
Here's some info on the ACLU's support of NAMBLA's right of free speech:
http://www.aclu.org/faqs#3_4
The ACLU of Massachusetts' represented members of NAMBLA because, while the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children, we do advocate robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit struck at the heart of the First Amendment. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something people find reasonable. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people reject.
I have never supported the bush administration; so that's a moronic argument. My argument isn't so much guilt by association; I'm just pointing that the ACLU has a long history of supporting scum. So a lying terrorist cheerleading racist (ward's exploitation of Indian cultures is definitely racist) like ward is their sorta guy.
ReplyDelete