The ACLU

[MannyIsGod]

Just some of the stuff they do when they're not "helping terrorists"

http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17457&c=42
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Republican Candidates' Right to Political Speech

http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17297&c=83

DALLAS-The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas today announced that it has filed a lawsuit against the city of Pilot Point and its police department, charging that police officers violated an art gallery owner’s freedom of expression by coercing him to remove a mural depicting the biblical story of Eve.

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29

ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors

December 22, 2004

[Guru of Nothing]

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

[2centsworth]

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp


Wow. Leaves me speechless. :depressed

[Guru of Nothing]

Comments Manny?

[MannyIsGod]

Tomorrow, not tonight.

[exstatic]

They're also helping everyone's favorite conservative fatboy, Rash Lardball on his slamdunk drug/doctorshopping case, too. Some little detail about seizing records. Hey, guilty is guilty. What does he have to hide?

[travis2]

They're also helping everyone's favorite conservative fatboy, Rash Lardball on his slamdunk drug/doctorshopping case, too. Some little detail about seizing records. Hey, guilty is guilty. What does he have to hide?

As is usual with you...racism isn't racism or civil rights aren't civil rights if you don't personally agree with the politics of the person in question.

Nice.

[exstatic]

Take a valium, Travis.
1) tounge
2) in
3) cheek

The last little bit is usually what you reactionaries say about ACLU customers. Truth hurts when thrown back at you, doesn't it?

[Useruser666]

Who cares about Rush?

[exstatic]

He's the god of a lot of people here, and apparently I touched the nerve of one of them. ;)

[travis2]

Take a valium, Travis.
1) tounge
2) in
3) cheek

The last little bit is usually what you reactionaries say about ACLU customers. Truth hurts when thrown back at you, doesn't it?

No, because I don't say such things. I don't like most of the things the ACLU defends, but I've never said they couldn't do it. And I give them a pat on the back when they defend cases I agree with. The first and third cases above are two examples. (I'm not so sure about the second)

It's called consistency, Mark. You may complain about other conservatives consistency, but before you do so with me, find some examples.

Thank you.

[exstatic]

You may complain about other conservatives consistency, but before you do so with me, find some examples.
Perhaps you should stop taking everything I say as directed towards you, personally. The original Rash Lardball post certainly wasn't, but you jumped all over THAT with both feet.
It isn't all about you, Travis. :lol

[Clandestino]

get rid of the aclu...and the un

[MannyIsGod]

This is exactly why I support the ACLU. It views the law very clearly, and does not deviate from that view at all. They do not defend people or organizations based on values or appearences. They take on cases based on the legal stance of the case itself, not the actual parties to the case.

In the first example, the case against NAMBLA, it is very important to see what they are defending the organization from and why.

This is [b]not[b] a case against NAMBLA in regards to whether or not the information on their website is legal. It is a case arguing that they have criminal fault in the Curley's case. This is similar to:

Suing McDonalds for making people fat.
Suting Gun makers for murders commited with their guns.

Regardless of the outlandishness of NAMBLA, they are not responsible for the acts of the Curleys.

In the second case, with the Boy Scouts. It's much of the same. The ACLU has a view on seperation of church and state, and the situation with the Boy Scouts violated it. They aren't saying that the Boy Scouts were in anyway doing a diservice, but seperation of church and state does not come with a gray area.

I can see where people construct these situations into attacks they are not. Bill "Sexual Harrasment" O'reilly does people a disservice by mudding the waters instead of explaining the justification for these cases.

It's not about the organizations, it's about the law.

[Guru of Nothing]

I can see where people construct these situations into attacks they are not. Bill "Sexual Harrasment" O'reilly does people a disservice by mudding the waters instead of explaining the justification for these cases.

It's not about the organizations, it's about the law.

I'm certainly no BO supporter, but where exactly did he muddy the waters?

Was it the part where he said "[NAMBLA] actually posted techniques designed to lure boys into having sex with men and also supplied information on what an adult should do if caught."? Are you implying that BO misrepresented the content of NAMBLA's web site?

[MannyIsGod]

No, I'm implying that he used the information that we all find reprehensible to draw attention away from the actual point of the case. The case has to do with accountability standards, which the ACLU (and I) believe stands with the Curleys.

You know, I wonder what BO's stance on a lawsuit against a gun company in this context would be?

I certainly don't support NAMBLA by any means. But I do think they aren't legally responsible for what the Curleys did.

[spurster]

We should ban material on how to kill someone and get away with it.

We would get rid of half the fiction in your local library that way.

We can get rid of the other half by banning material on how to have sex with someone and get away with it.

Well, maybe some of the child fiction might survive, but not Green Eggs and Ham, which demonstrates how to harass someone into dangerous situations.

[exstatic]

In regards to the Boy Scouts of America, they are a private organization and have pretty much declared themselves a religious/political entity, and should have no jurisdiction or management of public facilities.

BTW, the ACLU sues no one on their own behalf. They sue on behalf of people who don't have the means to go after a large organzation or government entity. If they had their own agenda, they certainly wouldn't be representing such disparate entities as uber-conservative Rash Lardball and freako NAMBLA.

[MannyIsGod]

It's not only people without resources though. The ACLU simply defends civil liberties for EVERYONE. It doesn't decide who is worthy of that defense and who isn't.

[2centsworth]

We should ban material on how to kill someone and get away with it.

We would get rid of half the fiction in your local library that way.

We can get rid of the other half by banning material on how to have sex with someone and get away with it.

Well, maybe some of the child fiction might survive, but not Green Eggs and Ham, which demonstrates how to harass someone into dangerous situations.


Are you siding with the Pedophiles? Here's some precedent for you.


When Klan members lynched an African-American man in Mobile, Alabama, in 1981, civil rights lawyer Dees—and the Southern Poverty Law Center he founded—launched an historic lawsuit. They sued the Klan for inciting violence and won a $7 million precedent-setting judgment. In 1990, Dees won a $12.5 million verdict for the family of an Ethiopian murdered by Skinheads in Oregon. In 1998, he obtained a $37.8 million verdict against the Christian Knights of the KKK for the burning of the Macedonia Baptist Church in South Carolina. The $37.8 million award was the largest civil award ever won for damages in a verdict.

Victims were able to sue not only the perpetrators, but also the organizations that incited the crimes.

[Clandestino]

all members of nambla should be arrested

[spurster]

Are you siding with the Pedophiles?
Not just them, I am siding with all crimebreakers, liers, abusers, traitors, and adulterers. This is obviously implied from my desire to keep the fiction section of the library.

[Useruser666]

I think we need new "Love crime" penalties writtne up immediately!

[2centsworth]

Not just them, I am siding with all crimebreakers, liers, abusers, traitors, and adulterers. This is obviously implied from my desire to keep the fiction section of the library.

Maybe I misinterpeted your post, but it seems to imply that banning a book on how to lure children, rape them and get away with it is some how equivalent to banning the fiction section of the library. If that was not your line of reasoning then forgive me for not understanding your post.

[MannyIsGod]

That is what he was saying, and he's right.

What if the book were disguised as a work of fiction. How would you ban it then

[2centsworth]

That is what he was saying, and he's right.

What if the book were disguised as a work of fiction. How would you ban it then

I'm not into the banning of books. However, there is precedent for prosecuting namble in this case. Morris Dees did the same when taking down the KKK.


Consider this question, what if I disguised a conversation with a lunatic who interprets what I tell him as an order to rape your wife. Do I get freedom of speech protection? How about if I disguised my conversation as a work of fiction?


Again, I think maybe Spurster was trying to defend not banning books and I interpreted the comment as a defense for nambla. I apologize if I was wrong.

[MannyIsGod]

You get freedom of speech, it's plain and simple to me.

[2centsworth]

You get freedom of speech, it's plain and simple to me.


I think I go to jail as an accomplice.