The ACLU continues to pick and choose whose liberties it wants to defend

The American Civil Liberties Union (the ACLU) is taking aim at a Republican Morris County mayor, Save Jerseyans, and as is sadly typical of the ACLU’s crusading activities, their angle is anything but non-partisan. 

Chatham Township Mayor Curt Ritter is this particular story’s protagonist; he’s a former Giuliani deputy spox and a Trump supporter (he’s got a Trump flag as his Facebook cover photo). So yeah, with that resume, he’s basically Satan if you’re a NYC metro area leftist.

Moving on… Ritter, who was just recently on the losing side of a municipal debate over whether to permit bear hunting in his prosperous community (Murphy’s going to ban it anyway, state-wide), soon after found himself on the receiving end of letter from an ACLU staff attorney accusing him of flouting the First Amendment by blocking Facebook critics. That’s all according to NJ.com.

“While truly personal social media accounts that do not involve official activity would not raise the same speech concerns or requirements, as long as you use your personal social media site at least in part for official mayoral business, you should not block persons from access or commenting,” the staff attorney reportedly wrote.

Keep in mind that ALL of this stuff is transpiring at a time when there’s a federal lawsuit aimed at President Trump over Twitter blocks.

Here’s my question: does the ACLU ever go after Democrats for this sort of thing?

Back to the NJ.com piece: “The ACLU did not get involved in October, after more than a dozen accused Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop of blocking them on Facebook and Twitter. Fulop, a Democrat, responded that he barred only those barraging his page with off-topic comments or personal promotions, and was not singling out critics. “

So, per the ACLU, the U.S. Constitution affords deference to Democrats not accorded to Republicans? Which is amazing for reasons including the fact that there weren’t Democrats and Republicans when the Constitution was written and adopted!

Was the First Amendment really their beef? Or liberalism vis-à-vis the emotionally-charged bear hunt issue?

The examples are endless. Consider how yours truly (!) is blocked on Twitter by none other than Cory Booker (D-Twitter) from viewing his non-senatorial account (political or “personal” not unlike Mayor Ritter’s) but with which Booker frequently interacts with constituents concerning points of public concern…

 

I’m not only a constituent; I’m (begrudgingly) a member of the Fourth Estate! And you don’t see me crying about it! 

After all, owning the Yale Book of Quotations is just as good as following Cory on social media but without the downside of being obnoxious.

But if the ACLU sees this post and wants to complain to Booker about blocking yours truly? They’re welcome to do it. And this a separate discussion from whether the ACLU’s application of the 1A here is appropriate; either way, I’d like to be proven wrong concerning the apparent hyper-partisan motivations driving its selective defense of the First Amendment when doing so advances the cause of so-called “progressivism.” A little consistency would be refreshing! 

Comments

comments