Glancing over the winter news coverage in 1968, a few themes emerge. One is the constant discussion over what constitutes "civil disobedience." The national and NY ACLU were deeply divided over the lengths that people could go to protest what they considered to be unjust laws.
Much of the discussion centered around Dr. Benjamin Spock's trial. According to the New York Times article on Feb. 2, "ACLU Bars Help to Draft Resisters," by John Leo, branches of the ACLU had different interpretations of the draft.
"Freedom to say what one believes, not to do what one wishes, is what is protected by the First Amendment... The ACLU believes that the way to correct injustice in a free society is to change valid laws by persausion, not by violation." The National Board also voted not to involve itself in Spock's trial.
The New York CLU, on the other hand, stated that "Military conscription is always a severe deprivation of civil liberties... Consequently, it is our position that military conscription as a means of raising an army is unconstitutional in the absence of a showing by the government of a national emergency and a lack of alternative means."
Within a few days of this page one NY Times story, the two groups arrived at an understanding. Still, it highlights the struggle within the progressive/radical community to define effective methods of protests.
