Why is the ACLU always portrayed as bad guys?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**AustonT**

Unlike a lot of organizations the ACLU covers a wide spectrum of issues. They tend to be seen as liberal but as thier primary goal is to conserve and preserve the rights of Americans one could semantically consider them conservatives, or libertarians as safeguarding liberty is right there in their name. As such they have support and criticism from every angle. Guess which one is louder.
To be sure the ACLU has taken up some slimy causes, but lets be real. Sometimes to safeguard the rights and freedom of the body politic you have to support some gakky people and causes.

**LordofHats**

I suppose its lost that employers screen for drugs because substance abuse is typically illegal? The average person does not want to employ, or even be around, felons, regardless of what they did. The debate over drug screening is a stupid one. If you're not doing drugs you have no reason to worry about it.

**Mannahnin**

LordofHats wrote:I suppose its lost that employers screen for drugs because substance abuse is typically illegal? The average person does not want to employ, or even be around, felons, regardless of what they did. The debate over drug screening is a stupid one. If you're not doing drugs you have no reason to worry about it.

A) Drug tests are private and commercially sold services, which have proven in some cases to be unreliable or absurdly oversensitive. The Mythbusters actually demonstrated that it was possible to get a positive for opiates just eating a couple of lemon poppyseed cakes.
B) It's not really my employer's business what I do on my own time if it doesn't affect my job performance.

I don't do drugs (except caffeine, alcohol, and ibuprofen), but some of the drug testing stuff is just crazy to me.

**Relapse**

Mannahnin wrote:
LordofHats wrote:I suppose its lost that employers screen for drugs because substance abuse is typically illegal? The average person does not want to employ, or even be around, felons, regardless of what they did. The debate over drug screening is a stupid one. If you're not doing drugs you have no reason to worry about it.

A) Drug tests are private and commercially sold services, which have proven in some cases to be unreliable or absurdly oversensitive. The Mythbusters actually demonstrated that it was possible to get a positive for opiates just eating a couple of lemon poppyseed cakes.
B) It's not really my employer's business what I do on my own time if it doesn't affect my job performance.

I don't do drugs (except caffeine, alcohol, and ibuprofen), but some of the drug testing stuff is just crazy to me.

It is your employer's business if you are doing something you could get arrested for, forcing them to have to go through the hire and training process all over again at a possibly inconvenient or sensitive time. or in some way compromise their business.

**azazel the cat**

The ACLU are often portrayed as the 'bad guys' because they defend a lot of morally reprehensible behaviours in order to preserve important rights. Unfortunately, many people are incapable of differentiating between matters of 'justice' and matters of 'taste'.

**deathholydeath**

Relapse wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
LordofHats wrote:I suppose its lost that employers screen for drugs because substance abuse is typically illegal? The average person does not want to employ, or even be around, felons, regardless of what they did. The debate over drug screening is a stupid one. If you're not doing drugs you have no reason to worry about it.

A) Drug tests are private and commercially sold services, which have proven in some cases to be unreliable or absurdly oversensitive. The Mythbusters actually demonstrated that it was possible to get a positive for opiates just eating a couple of lemon poppyseed cakes.
B) It's not really my employer's business what I do on my own time if it doesn't affect my job performance.

I don't do drugs (except caffeine, alcohol, and ibuprofen), but some of the drug testing stuff is just crazy to me.

It is your employer's business if you are doing something you could get arrested for, forcing them to have to go through the hire and training process all over again at a possibly inconvenient or sensitive time. or in some way compromise their business.

Then why stop at drug tests? Why not have random psychological analyses to see if you might do something illegal or crazy at some point in the future? Why not have random lie detector tests to see whether or not employees have committed illegal acts? Why not have random physicals to see whether employees might die at some point that would inconvenience the company? Why not require employees to set up cameras in their homes and vehicles so they can be monitored for potentially illegal or harmful activities to avoid the company having to " go through the hire and training process all over again at a possibly inconvenient or sensitive time. or in some way compromise their business."
These are all logical extensions of the same argument, and like drug tests, they are idiotic.

**LordofHats**

Surely you can do better than slippery slopes.

**Relapse**

deathholydeath wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
LordofHats wrote:I suppose its lost that employers screen for drugs because substance abuse is typically illegal? The average person does not want to employ, or even be around, felons, regardless of what they did. The debate over drug screening is a stupid one. If you're not doing drugs you have no reason to worry about it.

A) Drug tests are private and commercially sold services, which have proven in some cases to be unreliable or absurdly oversensitive. The Mythbusters actually demonstrated that it was possible to get a positive for opiates just eating a couple of lemon poppyseed cakes.
B) It's not really my employer's business what I do on my own time if it doesn't affect my job performance.

I don't do drugs (except caffeine, alcohol, and ibuprofen), but some of the drug testing stuff is just crazy to me.

It is your employer's business if you are doing something you could get arrested for, forcing them to have to go through the hire and training process all over again at a possibly inconvenient or sensitive time. or in some way compromise their business.

Then why stop at drug tests? Why not have random psychological analyses to see if you might do something illegal or crazy at some point in the future? Why not have random lie detector tests to see whether or not employees have committed illegal acts? Why not have random physicals to see whether employees might die at some point that would inconvenience the company? Why not require employees to set up cameras in their homes and vehicles so they can be monitored for potentially illegal or harmful activities to avoid the company having to " go through the hire and training process all over again at a possibly inconvenient or sensitive time. or in some way compromise their business."
These are all logical extensions of the same argument, and like drug tests, they are idiotic.

If an employee isn't willing to obey the law for whatever reason, what assurance does an employer have that he will be honest on the job or follow company policies? It's extremely inconvenient and potentialy harmful for a business to have someone with a lot of time and effort put into their training, perhaps be part of a key push or area to suddenly be thrown in jail.
companies have the right to protect their interests by using drug tests to find out if their interests would be endangered by an employee who is in the habit of breaking the law.
Some companies in fact do lie detector tests as a condition for employment, and I believe most employers ask potential employees if they have been guilty of felonies.
There are companies and organizations that do psycological tests also to screen potential employees because of the sensitive nature of the work involved.

**azazel the cat**

Relapse wrote:
deathholydeath wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
LordofHats wrote:I suppose its lost that employers screen for drugs because substance abuse is typically illegal? The average person does not want to employ, or even be around, felons, regardless of what they did. The debate over drug screening is a stupid one. If you're not doing drugs you have no reason to worry about it.

A) Drug tests are private and commercially sold services, which have proven in some cases to be unreliable or absurdly oversensitive. The Mythbusters actually demonstrated that it was possible to get a positive for opiates just eating a couple of lemon poppyseed cakes.
B) It's not really my employer's business what I do on my own time if it doesn't affect my job performance.

I don't do drugs (except caffeine, alcohol, and ibuprofen), but some of the drug testing stuff is just crazy to me.

It is your employer's business if you are doing something you could get arrested for, forcing them to have to go through the hire and training process all over again at a possibly inconvenient or sensitive time. or in some way compromise their business.

Then why stop at drug tests? Why not have random psychological analyses to see if you might do something illegal or crazy at some point in the future? Why not have random lie detector tests to see whether or not employees have committed illegal acts? Why not have random physicals to see whether employees might die at some point that would inconvenience the company? Why not require employees to set up cameras in their homes and vehicles so they can be monitored for potentially illegal or harmful activities to avoid the company having to " go through the hire and training process all over again at a possibly inconvenient or sensitive time. or in some way compromise their business."
These are all logical extensions of the same argument, and like drug tests, they are idiotic.

If an employee isn't willing to obey the law for whatever reason, what assurance does an employer have that he will be honest on the job or follow company policies? It's extremely inconvenient and potentialy harmful for a business to have someone with a lot of time and effort put into their training, perhaps be part of a key push or area to suddenly be thrown in jail.
companies have the right to protect their interests by using drug tests to find out if their interests would be endangered by an employee who is in the habit of breaking the law.
Some companies in fact do lie detector tests as a condition for employment, and I believe most employers ask potential employees if they have been guilty of felonies.
There are companies and organizations that do psycological tests also to screen potential employees because of the sensitive nature of the work involved.

Soime companies also use handwriting analysis. However, this is generally just a facade for discriminatory hiring practices. Polygraph testing is somewhat close to the edge there, too, as it is very subjective and has something like a 19% false positive rate.

**Melissia**

Or a 100% false negative rate if you're good.

**Dreadwinter**

LordofHats wrote:Surely you can do better than slippery slopes.

Surely your argument can be better also, but this is the nature of these debates.

What a person does when they are off the clock is their issue. That is what we call freedom. When I get hired at a place, I do not want to change my entire lifestyle just so I can keep the job, thus changing who I am as a person.

If you are in to Rock Climbing and your job found out about it. Do you think it would be fair for them to ask you to stop or find new employment because you could miss work by hurting yourself?

This is not truly a "slippery slope" argument, because we are not saying this could be something that happens in the future. We are comparing two hobbies that could impair ones ability to work. One of these hobbies is frowned upon by employers and one is not.

**Palindrome**

Relapse wrote:
If an employee isn't willing to obey the law for whatever reason, what assurance does an employer have that he will be honest on the job or follow company policies?

By that logic everyone who breaks traffic laws (i.e. virtually everyone) is also likely to be a poor employee. For certain occupations drug screening may be appropriate, police etc, but for most people its needless. Aside from anything else screening is easy to avoid if you know what you are doing.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Dreadwinter wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Surely you can do better than slippery slopes.

Surely your argument can be better also, but this is the nature of these debates.

What a person does when they are off the clock is their issue. That is what we call freedom. When I get hired at a place, I do not want to change my entire lifestyle just so I can keep the job, thus changing who I am as a person.

If you are in to Rock Climbing and your job found out about it. Do you think it would be fair for them to ask you to stop or find new employment because you could miss work by hurting yourself?

This is not truly a "slippery slope" argument, because we are not saying this could be something that happens in the future. We are comparing two hobbies that could impair ones ability to work. One of these hobbies is frowned upon by employers and one is not.

A company that has interest in actually illegal activities, in their eyes, is an act of "protecting the company"... or some such excuse. I do know that there are some jobs out there that DO require its employees to change their lifestyles. My brother-in-law is a Firefighter/EMT, and if he was seen drinking an alcoholic beverage wearing a department shirt or any other uniform piece, then he'd be out a job. I have some friends who had to close their Facebook accounts because the job they started was in a field in which highly sensitive materials were handled by them daily. I also know of some jobs in the intelligence community that I cannot ever get because I have/had a FB, MySpace, Twitter, etc. account under my name

On the topic of the actual ACLU, I think they tend to get more of a bad rap because, at least when it comes to religious cases, the ones that get the most publicity are the ones in which they are defending against Christianity. And everyone knows that this is a Christian country and that everyone follows its rules

*that last bit was sarcasm, just fyi.

**Dreadwinter**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Surely you can do better than slippery slopes.

Surely your argument can be better also, but this is the nature of these debates.

What a person does when they are off the clock is their issue. That is what we call freedom. When I get hired at a place, I do not want to change my entire lifestyle just so I can keep the job, thus changing who I am as a person.

If you are in to Rock Climbing and your job found out about it. Do you think it would be fair for them to ask you to stop or find new employment because you could miss work by hurting yourself?

This is not truly a "slippery slope" argument, because we are not saying this could be something that happens in the future. We are comparing two hobbies that could impair ones ability to work. One of these hobbies is frowned upon by employers and one is not.

A company that has interest in actually illegal activities, in their eyes, is an act of "protecting the company"... or some such excuse. I do know that there are some jobs out there that DO require its employees to change their lifestyles. My brother-in-law is a Firefighter/EMT, and if he was seen drinking an alcoholic beverage wearing a department shirt or any other uniform piece, then he'd be out a job. I have some friends who had to close their Facebook accounts because the job they started was in a field in which highly sensitive materials were handled by them daily. I also know of some jobs in the intelligence community that I cannot ever get because I have/had a FB, MySpace, Twitter, etc. account under my name

On the topic of the actual ACLU, I think they tend to get more of a bad rap because, at least when it comes to religious cases, the ones that get the most publicity are the ones in which they are defending against Christianity. And everyone knows that this is a Christian country and that everyone follows its rules

*that last bit was sarcasm, just fyi.

I can understand if you were wearing a company shirt and you were out at a bar. That makes sense to me. You can make the organization look bad that way, especially if you do not compose yourself correctly. I have also had friends who have had to close their facebook accounts because of their jobs. All of them were for the military though.

**Relapse**

Dreadwinter wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Surely you can do better than slippery slopes.

Surely your argument can be better also, but this is the nature of these debates.

What a person does when they are off the clock is their issue. That is what we call freedom. When I get hired at a place, I do not want to change my entire lifestyle just so I can keep the job, thus changing who I am as a person.

If you are in to Rock Climbing and your job found out about it. Do you think it would be fair for them to ask you to stop or find new employment because you could miss work by hurting yourself?

This is not truly a "slippery slope" argument, because we are not saying this could be something that happens in the future. We are comparing two hobbies that could impair ones ability to work. One of these hobbies is frowned upon by employers and one is not.

Rock climbinging is not illegal. As far as not changing your lifestyle to work somewhere, the solution is simple, don't work for a place that does drug testing. Otherwise, you're expecting a company that has a vested interest in having employees act to a certain standard change it's culture so you can work there.
The company is the one putting the money on the table, guess who wins.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:
Relapse wrote:
If an employee isn't willing to obey the law for whatever reason, what assurance does an employer have that he will be honest on the job or follow company policies?

By that logic everyone who breaks traffic laws (i.e. virtually everyone) is also likely to be a poor employee. For certain occupations drug screening may be appropriate, police etc, but for most people its needless. Aside from anything else screening is easy to avoid if you know what you are doing.

Your comparing using drugs to driving a couple of miles over the speed limit?

**A Town Called Malus**

Relapse wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Surely you can do better than slippery slopes.

Surely your argument can be better also, but this is the nature of these debates.

What a person does when they are off the clock is their issue. That is what we call freedom. When I get hired at a place, I do not want to change my entire lifestyle just so I can keep the job, thus changing who I am as a person.

If you are in to Rock Climbing and your job found out about it. Do you think it would be fair for them to ask you to stop or find new employment because you could miss work by hurting yourself?

This is not truly a "slippery slope" argument, because we are not saying this could be something that happens in the future. We are comparing two hobbies that could impair ones ability to work. One of these hobbies is frowned upon by employers and one is not.

Rock climbinging is not illegal. As far as not changing your lifestyle to work somewhere, the solution is simple, don't work for a place that does drug testing. Otherwise, you're expecting a company that has a vested interest in having employees act to a certain standard change it's culture so you can work there.
The company is the one putting the money on the table, guess who wins.

Well I know the person who had a poppy seed bagel has just lost their job so they didn't win.

Just a thought but Relapse, how would you react to the news that the government was testing everyone in the country and anyone found positive would be immediately sent to jail?

**Relapse**

If your using realm of fantasy arguments, I'd say I like it fine because such a statement would no doubt be followed by the announcement that everyone who passes would be given 10 million dollars.

**Mannahnin**

Rock climbinging is not illegal. As far as not changing your lifestyle to work somewhere, the solution is simple, don't work for a place that does drug testing.

The trouble here is that an employer/employee relationship isn't an equal one. The employer is in the position of power, particularly in a tough economy, and the reason we have employment discrimination and protection rights is because employers often can and do abuse their position of power when they're able.

Otherwise, you're expecting a company that has a vested interest in having employees act to a certain standard change it's culture so you can work there.

Your employer doesn't have the right to control your life outside of work, as a rule. It's a question of fundamental rights and freedoms. If you drink, your employer shouldn't have the right to fire you for drinking if you're not impaired on the job. The exact same principle should apply to other drugs.

**AustonT**

Mannahnin wrote:
Your employer doesn't have the right to control your life outside of work, as a rule.

But apparently can DEMAND your facebook userID and password.

It's a question of fundamental rights and freedoms. If you drink, your employer shouldn't have the right to fire you for drinking if you're not impaired on the job. The exact same principle should apply to other drugs.

Again Facebook...I'm fairly certain people have been fired for drug and/alcohol use outside of the workplace.

It only proves Mark Zuckerberg(sp and who cares) hates the American working class.

**Howard A Treesong**

Certain people want all the power in the hands of the employer. The employee gets to ask little of the employer. They don't get to poke around in their full financial affairs and look into their private contracts. They just have to hope the company is being run properly and ethically and that everything regarding health and safety has been correctly adhered to. That the managers and senior staff are behaving in a legal and ethical manner that couldn't affect the wider company and their continued employment. You don't get to poke into your bosses' private lives so why should they poke into yours? It's not as though the private affairs of senior staff couldn't impact your job, is it?

Unfortunately, there are far to many examples of employees coming to work one day to find out the place has been run like a crock of gak, that it's being shut down or there are mass job losses and the pensions they have paid into are worth nothing.

**Melissia**

Relapse wrote:Your comparing using drugs to driving a couple of miles over the speed limit?

Both are crimes.

Driving fast, however, is more dangerous to others and shows more recklessness than doing drugs, which is mostly just dangerous to yourself. So yeah, you're right-- they aren't equal. From a utilitarian standpoint, speeding is WORSE than drug use.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
Your employer doesn't have the right to control your life outside of work, as a rule.

But apparently can DEMAND your facebook userID and password.

That's one of the things that the ACLU is fighting against.

http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/aclu-employer-demands-facebook-password-124939

As an aside:

The demand was a standard requirement perhaps, but also a violation of the Federal Stored Communications Act, which makes it illegal for an employer or anyone else to access stored electronic communications without valid authorization.

From ACLU.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/your-facebook-password-should-be-none-your-boss-business

Your Facebook Password Should Be None of Your Boss’ Business

Today, the Associated Press reports that some employers are asking applicants for their Facebook usernames and passwords. According to the article:

Since the rise of social networking, it has become common for managers to review publically available Facebook profiles, Twitter accounts and other sites to learn more about job candidates. But many users, especially on Facebook, have their profiles set to private, making them available only to selected people or certain networks.

Companies that don't ask for passwords have taken other steps — such as asking applicants to friend human resource managers or to log in to a company computer during an interview. Once employed, some workers have been required to sign non-disparagement agreements that ban them from talking negatively about an employer on social media.

Responding to the news, ACLU attorney Catherine Crump said:

It’s an invasion of privacy for private employers to insist on looking at people’s private Facebook pages as a condition of employment or consideration in an application process. People are entitled to their private lives. You’d be appalled if your employer insisted on opening up your postal mail to see if there was anything of interest inside. It’s equally out of bounds for an employer to go on a fishing expedition through a person’s private social media account.

As the AP reports, in 2010, Robert Collins was returning to a job at the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services after taking a leave of absence following a death in the family. During a reinstatement interview, he was asked to provide his Facebook username and password, which the agency said they needed to check for gang affiliations. Although he was shocked by the request, Collins felt he had no choice but to comply because “I needed my job to feed my family.”

After the ACLU of Maryland complained about the practice, the agency reconsidered its policy, and instead began asking applicants to “voluntarily” to provide access to their social media accounts during interviews (which still seems pretty invasive to us!) Thankfully, the ACLU of Maryland is fighting for a social media privacy bill in the state. You can read Collins’ testimony in support of that bill here.

After we read the article this morning, we went on Facebook (where else!) to ask our Demand Your dotRights followers to ask their opinions, and from the comments left on our wall, it seems like most of you agree, as well. Some of our favorite comments included:

“I consider it a violation of personal privacy. Will the next step be to request a key to my house?”

“Vile and outrageous, this should no more be legal than requiring you allow an employer into your home to go through your mail, closets and photos.”

Bottom line: we believe you shouldn’t have to choose between privacy and technology. The same standards of privacy that we expect offline in the real world should apply online in our digital lives as well. To learn more about our Demand Your dotRights campaign, follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

**Kovnik Obama**

Relapse, you realize that if your problem is with the fact that it might end up meaning a new hiring process, then women shouldn't be hired because they might fall pregnant? Or do we want to go back to the happy nice time when women were asked 'are you planning on becoming pregnant soon?' on the job applications?

**d-usa**

Some people will never deviate from their "you do something I think is bad, so you are a bad person" mindset.

The ACLU does not support people breaking the law. They support peoples rights. Big difference.

**LoneLictor**

I fething hate polygraph testing. All it really does is measure if you're freaked out. And, as a person with generalized anxiety disorder, it believes that almost everything I say is a lie! Even when I say gak like, "I am a male" or "I have two parents". fething polygraph tests.

**Melissia**

Meanwhile, I am able to fool them.

It's easier to lie to a polygraph machine than to lie to a person for me.

**Palindrome**

Relapse wrote:
Your comparing using drugs to driving a couple of miles over the speed limit?

Why not? Speeding is arguably more dangerous than non class A drugs. Either way both are illegal so if you exclude one you must exlude them both.

**SilverMK2**

You obligation to your employer ends when you clock off. Their right to know about your private goings on or your time and activities out of work is nil unless your work is impacted to such a degree that they need to bring you in and discuss it - in which case certain questions can be asked if they are thought relevant.

**dæl**

LoneLictor wrote:I fething hate polygraph testing. All it really does is measure if you're freaked out. And, as a person with generalized anxiety disorder, it believes that almost everything I say is a lie! Even when I say gak like, "I am a male" or "I have two parents". fething polygraph tests.

There's a reason we don't allow polygraphs to be used as evidence in court. They shouldn't really be allowed anywhere.

**deathholydeath**

Relapse wrote:If your using realm of fantasy arguments, I'd say I like it fine because such a statement would no doubt be followed by the announcement that everyone who passes would be given 10 million dollars.

Philosophical and political debates largely take place in the realm of fantasy arguments. It's the nature of these kinds of discussions.

**azazel the cat**

Melissia wrote:Or a 100% false negative rate if you're good.

It's actually somewhere around 20% as well. Overall, polygraph techniques are only about 60% accurate.