>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/05/00 09:26AM >>>
David Goldberger, who was the ACLU attorney in the Skokie-Nazi case, was my
First Amendment prof at Ohio State Law, also my legal writing instructor. He
was rather surprised to find that a National Lawyers Guild type like me was
also a rabid kneejerk old-fashioned defend-the-rights-of-Nazis-to-march civil
libertarian.
((((((((((((((((
CB: However, the NLG as an organization has long taken the position of not defending
Nazi/KKK rights to speak as attorneys.
)))))))))))))))))
He had the impression that a lot of Guildies are in favor of
allowing the suppression of hate speech, pornography, and other offensive
speech. I am not sure that is true. But the ACLU is no more monolithic than
the NLG: there are wide ranges of political opinions in both groups, neither
of which has much in the way of centralization.
If the ACLU declines to take a case, though, I am confident that it is not
because of the political views of the would-be plaintiff, but because (a) the
lawyers do not think the case is promising, or (b) its almost-entirely
volunteer staff is overburdened. If the case is marginal, it's possible that
the staff would decline to take a case (c) where the plaintiff was
insufferable or couldn't get on with the lawyers. Depending on the facts of
the case and my relation with the client, I would certainly defend even Neil
in a First Amendment case, whatever I thought about the content of his ideas,
and I would do that under either my Guild hat or my ACLU hat.
The ACLU did some less-than-honorable things during the high cold war. I am
certain it would not do them again.
Neil exaggerates some when he says that the law will not go after a big time
capitalist. The general point, that the criminal justice system
disproportionately weighs against the poor and minorities, is of course true.
It's also true that the rich have better chances because they can afford
better lawyers. But they are not immune.
Ask Dwayne Andreas, heir to the ADM fortune, who is going to prison for
criminal price-fixing. You can bet his lawyers were excellent. The Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals just turned down his appeal. In a smaller way, my
judge just presided over a tax fraud trial of a crooked investment advisor
who tried to avoid paying taxes on a $1.3 million commission he had received.
His lawyer was the best I've ever seen--it was like watching Barishnikov
dance to watch this cat work--but his client was just too guilty, and he was
convicted. He will appeal, but the crook is going to jail. From what I see,
the US Attorney's Office seems to me to split its time between prosecuting
poor black men for drug violations (many of whom are, however, bad guys,
violent and dangerous people), and prosecuting corrupt officials, sleazeball
fraudsters, sharpie rich guys. I think the proportion is about 2-1.
--jks
In a message dated 8/5/00 2:59:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Yeah-- the same ACLU "civil libertarians" that defended the 'rights' of
Nazis
to march thru a Jewish neighborhhod in Skokie, Ill. and secretly gave
privileged info on their clients to the FBI during the '50s purges 'of
lefts-radicals
from public life.
The same ACLU that laughed at me soliciting their advice when I had to
face a Fed magistrate
in 1984 for the 'crime' of distributing inform/flyers. attacking both
Mondale and
Reagan as tools/hirelings of big business at an election rally at the
Westwood fed. bldg
and calling for masses not to waste their time voting...
(I then went to the National Lawyers Guild and despite our wide
political differences, they
enlisted excellent arguments to get me off the hook) >>
