ACLU always controversial

August 5, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
In an obituary for Indianapolis attorney Alan Nolan, I learned that he was one of the founders of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, now the ACLU of Indiana. According to law firm Ice Miller’s Web site, Nolan and attorney Merle Miller, another founder, created a stir by starting a branch of the national organization here. Some believe the ACLU was linked to communism, a hot issue in the 1950s McCarthy era. Following its formation, the organization was immediately banned from meeting at the Indiana World War Memorial because of allegations the ICLU lacked patriotism, according the ACLU of Indiana’s Web site.

From Day 1 the organization founded to defend people’s rights has been controversial.

When it first started, it tackled cases involving the building of a large cross on public property, reinstating college students who were expelled after leaving the Indiana State University campus o attend a peace march in Washington, D.C., and prisoners’ rights at Indiana jails.

More recently, the ACLU has taken cases involving what type of prayer is acceptable before sessions of the Indiana House of Representatives, voters challenging Indiana’s voter ID law, and a law requiring all sellers of sexually explicit material to register with the Indiana Secretary of State’s office and pay a fee.

Some feel the ACLU of Indiana is needed in today’s world as a champion for every citizen’s rights under our constitutions, regardless of who the person is or to what group they belong.

Others don’t have as favorable a view of the ACLU of Indiana, believing the organization is simply anti-prayer, pro-immigrant, pro-gay, pro-choice, and supportive of controversial groups like prisoners, the Ku Klux Klan, and other extremists because it represents those groups in court.

Is it possible that the ACLU of Indiana is even more controversial now than it was when it was founded in the early 1950s? I guess that depends on which side you take on the issues the ACLU gets involved in.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT