Institute for Justice: Totally Worth Your Donations

As I've mentioned before, it's one of the public interest law firms that I admire most.

I just gave some money to the Institute for Justice, a first-rate libertarian public interest law firm (and also the provider of the weekly Short Circuit posts on this blog, which are written by IJ's John Ross). I've long much admired IJ: I've litigated some First Amendment cases, but it's not that hard to win them, given how strong First Amendment protections generally are—IJ, on the other hand, has figured out ways of winning even economic liberties cases, where the degree of difficulty is much higher.

Here's IJ's little pitch, which I'm delighted to pass along, with my full endorsement:

Friends, please give us money. We will use it to sue the government, whether it is arresting a grandmother for criticizing the government; flooding a fourth-generation family farm without paying; secretly declaring that a perfectly pleasant neighborhood is a slum (so it can be seized via eminent domain); robbing innocent people's safe-deposit boxes (and then losing what they took); trespassing on rural property without a warrant, stealing a trail camera, and using it to spy on the owner's family; barring a nonprofit from providing free legal advice; and many, many other things. Help IJ protect the constitutional rights of all Americans with a secure online donation today at ij.org/donate.

By the way, if you do donate (or have donated in the past), please leave a comment below saying you did, so your fellow readers can see. (No obligation, of course, but I think it might be nice.)

Comments

[Gorbag]

I've been donating for years, ever since the ACLU lost their hardcore support for the 1st and decided to "just go woke".

[Randal]

I lost interest in the ACLU for the same reason and switched to SPLC, but they've been pissing me off too lately. Maybe IJ would be a good rebound.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Did they fight against DeSantis and Perry when they ordered Americans to leave their homes over inclement weather?? And DeSanctus shut down the schools and now the white trash kids are even dumber than before.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The IJ came to prominence by using a racial smear against one of Bill Clinton’s nominees. For which they haven’t apologized. I think I’ll pass.

[Randal]

Hm yeah that's pretty gross... the search continues.

[Mr. Bumble]

Care to provide some more info on that claim?

[Randal]

I assume he's talking about Clint Bolick's WSJ op-ed "Clinton's Quota Queens," a play on welfare queens.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes

It wasn’t said only in the WSJ

I suppose you had to be around then to appreciate how toxic it was

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like Clinton threw her under the bus.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Did he rawdog her in his Senate office like Republican senator Domenici did to fellow Republican senator Laxalt’s daughter while she was an intern??

[David Nieporent]

Even if that were a "racial smear," the IJ didn't do this, and it was 30 years ago, and the guy who did do it hasn't been involved with them for 20 years.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

So he’s like their Lizard Cheney?? Wait, we didn’t want to invade Iraq, that’s why we helped defeat Cheney after she was in line to be Speaker of the House. 😉

[Dan Schiavetta]

The IJ certainly did do it. “Clint Bolick, Institute for Justice” was all over the TV. It’s how the IJ made its name (though I admit that in recent years they’ve done some good work).

It was a false accusation against Guinier but illustrated how hostile the media was to Clinton from the beginning (and don’t get me started on how they treated his wife). They kept repeating the smear, asking how he could nominate such a “reverse racist” extremist, and when it was clear she wouldn’t get approved and Clinton withdrew her nomination, the media turned right around and accused him of abandoning her.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Obama was right, he didn’t think it was fair that Hillary’s unfavorables were so high but that was the reality and so it made more sense to make him the nominee in 2008…and then her unfavorables got even higher and he endorsed her in 2016….oops. 😉

[Bwaaah]

In looking at Guinier's writing, it looks like she was opposed to quotas just like Harvard is opposed to quotas. She wrote ardently in favor of what she called "confirmative action," wherein she dexterously modeled the progressive art of semantic obfuscation, in this case trying to obscure mechanisms for implementing identity-based preferencing/depreferencing.

That which you call "false" was actually an opinion on a matter of significant political controversy and differences of opinions. That you guys get hung up your hot words doesn't negate the very different opinions about Ms. Guinier, nor does it negate Ms. Guinier's opinions. You need to dust away some of those old cobwebs, or your bigotry will discolor even more goodness than it already does.

[Randal]

He was definitelt speaking on behalf of IJ.

They could apologize for it if it's an incident they regret.

[DWB]

She did support racial discrimination and was a racist so ....

[AmosArch]

Welfare queen is a racial slur or did you just connect black->welfare queen in your own mind and project that back on your opponent?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Isn’t Santos some kind of queen??

[Randal]

"Welfare queen" in the '90s was definitely racially charged.

[Mr. Bumble]

First time donation in hopes that their work will help to make changes so that "the law is a ass – a idiot" will be less common.

[Stephen Lathrop]

No thanks, not my donations. They are too often tone deaf on the 1A, and invariably a menace to the natural world.

[David Nieporent]

"Tone deaf" meaning they support it, while Lathrop opposes it.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Do they defend the Satanists?? I only donate to organizations that defend the right of Satanists to pray in front of elementary schools.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, it is as if you do not notice that folks here can read what I say about expressive freedom and the 1A, and judge for themselves. Anyone can see that you are not forthright when you describe my advocacy.

I favor a free market for publishing, without government censorship, encompassing at least tens of thousands of private publishers who compete to give outlet to every shade of opinion. I want low barriers to entry, to encourage anyone to become a publisher if they want to. I have said that repeatedly. Do you oppose it?

Apparently private editing enrages you, at least if there is law to hold publishers accountable for defaming third parties. I think otherwise.

It remains unclear to me whether you think license to commit defamation ought to get legal protection. Because I think defamation should not get protection, and say so, I am left to wonder if that is the chief point of difference between us. Is that what motivates your repeated attacks?

[Noscitur a sociis]

What’s a good example of this tone-deafness?

Or, if you’d rather give a more convincing rebuttal to David Nieporent, what’s an example of a free speech controversy where you come down on the pro-speech side?

[Stephen Lathrop]

. . . what’s an example of a free speech controversy where you come down on the pro-speech side?

NYT v Sullivan; Skokie; Hurley, pretty much all the pre-internet classics. Even Citizens United, until SCOTUS rewrote the case to make it more pro-plutocrat.

You and I will part company if you number yourself among internet utopians, because I think repeal of Section 230 would protect expressive freedom better than leaving Section 230 in place. I do not advocate repeal of Section 230 because I want speech restrictions; I want it repealed because I think it is already stifling expressive freedom, and is destined shortly to make that stifling effect much worse. Internet utopians think otherwise.

Between me and the utopians lies a broad swath of contested factual ground. I don't think they understand publishing well enough to anticipate accurately proposed policy outcomes. And the utopians themselves tend to be anti-expressive-freedom when the subject is freedom for institutional publishers. I think otherwise about that.

I think even the utopians benefit far more than they notice from legal protections afforded institutional publishers—which generally comprise the only independent and effectual news-gathering agency available to both the general public, and to policy makers. I think internet utopians suppose mistakenly that the massed contributions of Joe and Jane keyboard can supply that need for news gathering, and do it better.

Only people who do not understand how the news gathering process works could think that. The utopians do not realize that absent institutional support even the best professional news gatherers become helpless to get the stories which most need to be published. By definition, Joe and Jane Keyboard do not enjoy institutional support, so to rely on them to bring those stories to light is a fool's errand. The utopians don't even suspect that.

They also don't know the damage some of them do to the expressive freedom of all of them, when the bad apples publish private calumny, hoaxes, political lies, public health frauds, goads to treason, and, of course, defamations galore. Look around. Because of that publishing recklessness, competing private pressures to censor published expressions keep coming in from all directions. Congress is already very much into the game—and no wiser than anyone else at playing it. That opens a path toward free speech catastrophe. I worry about that. Internet utopians seem to worry only to the extent that perceived opponents might seize control of censorship levers that other utopians think they should control instead.

In general, my salient speech freedom concerns do cherish publishing freedom, and join the founders' advocacy in supporting policy to keep that part of the expressive domain healthy and free from government censorship. I am a fiercer, and more diligent critic of government censorship than most internet utopians are, including Nieporent, by the way. Most of those guys would be at least fine with seeing expressive freedom for institutional publishers stifled somewhat. The others would take it farther.

I think protecting expressive freedom for publishers is every bit as important as protecting it for private speakers, internet contributors, government employees, and even employees of private enterprises. To make that clear, I mean I support the maximum possible expressive freedom for everyone. If that leaves you thinking you want to dispute with me what is practical, or possible, we could talk about that. I am willing to engage on any topic. But it will not work if, like Nieporent, you repeatedly misrepresent my advocacy on purpose.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It is perhaps worth noting that, thus far, IJ has lost every single one of the cases they called out in the excerpted paragraph.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That just demonstrates how badly they need the money.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Speaker Mike Johnson lost every case…and America is now a steaming pile of manure because gay dudes can get married but at least he’s Speaker and is second in line for president.

[David Nieporent]

I used to donate to the ACLU, but they completely shifted focus from civil liberties to progressive policy preferences. They still do good work on free speech much of the time, but they have too many 'social justice' positions I don't like. Most of the conservative "public interest" organizations take odious positions on many issues. So, I now pretty much stick to libertarian organizations for the political portion of my charitable donations, and IJ has been at the top of my list for years. They are very libertarian — not conservatives who take occasional libertarian-friendly positions — and they are effective, actually litigating successfully rather than just fundraising and putting out press releases.

[Bwaaah]

I can't speak for what they did 30 years ago. But the content of Friday's Short Circuit posts, as well as the IJ initiatives described there, look like well-targeted efforts to protect civil liberties. I gave, because they look pretty darn good to me.

Those of you looking to play the Democrat/Republican position may have a hard time relating IJ to your interests. IJ seems to be about rights, not whose rights.

[Krayt]

The guy should apologize, then people can "look into his soul" and know he is "truly repentant".

[Bwaaah]

eewwwwww.

[PMBug]

IJ does great work fighting civil asset forfeiture - a complete bastardization/perversion of the principles that birthed this nation.

[Jokibif0]

I've been donating to IJ every year for a while now, and did so earlier this evening. As with another poster above, I started giving to IJ when the ACLU started seemingly departing from their earlier focus on negative rights (though I was happy to see the NRA case). The ACLU was never as focused on property rights as the IJ anyway, and I'm glad to support the economic rights that so many people seem to regard as second-class rights.

[Gorbag]

Hear, hear!

[JEP41]

I've contributed to the Institute for Justice virtually every year since 1996.
And to Pacific Legal Foundation for the same years.

[NellieBly]

IJ does great work. IJ takes cases that the "big headline" non-profits may avoid for unknown reasons. Perhaps liberty to work is not a big headline - grabber, and so the big names stay away.

If it were you, however, who could not work because of some long ago criminal act, or if it were you who could not work because the state's entry barriers to employment made getting underway impossible, you would want IJ on your side.

[janejohn]

I've supported IJ for several years now, also Pacific Legal Foundation out here in Calif. Both are worth supporting IMO. I first heard of IJ when they successfully defended a class action lawsuit against IRS, which had imposed on paid tax preparers a testing requirement for which there was no statutory basis. IRS appealed their loss, IJ once more prevailed on appeal, and the IRS testing requirement headed for the dustbin of history. Congress has never acted on IRS's request for a testing requirement. IJ's defense was another of those to benefit the "little people", since the plaintiffs were small-time tax shops and the big guys were firms like H&R Block.

[salamander]

IJ supports many worthy causes, but there's one cause that I can't abide. I'm a taxpayer in Maine, and I don't want my tax dollars going to support religious education. Indeed, the Maine constitution forbids such support. But IJ was counsel for the parents in the SCOTUS case of Carson v. Makin, in which the Court bought the IJ's argument that not allowing public money for religious schools violated the free exercise of those families. But what about my liberty to not support, with my tax dollars, religious education. I paid for my kids' religious education outside the public school system. That's the American way.

[Bwaaah]

All states do maintain specific standards and requirements for what must be covered, minimally, in a publicly funded education. To my knowledge, those standards apply to private schools receiving public funding, just like public schools.

But I'm not sure what you are avoiding in your "liberty to not support [...] religious education." If its just teaching dogmas about gods, I get the point. But what about all kinds of other non-specified dogmas that are taught in public schools, like theories of race essentialism?

My point is that keeping the education funding flowing only to the state's schools does not protect us from funding the teaching of ideas with which we disagree. (And in my mind, there are elements of woke ideology taught in many of our schools, such as race essentialism, enforced multiculturalism and environmental catastrophism, whose faith-based presumptions are indistinguishable from religious orthodoxies.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That’s the American way.

This is the American way.

It is not the Republican way.

It is not the conservative way.,

It is not the Institute for Justice way.

It is not the superstitious gape-jaw way.

It is not the Federalist Society way.

Fortunately, the modern American culture war will resolve this and has been settled, although it is not quite over.

Clingers hardest hit.

[Knocka]

Done.