ACLU has gone too far again!

[Clandestino]

WINONA, Minn. - The off-Broadway hit "The Vagina Monologues" has gotten two high school students into trouble.



The students were admonished for wearing buttons inspired by the show that say "I (heart) My Vagina."


The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota has offered to help students fight any consequences from their actions.


The trouble started last month after student Carrie Rethlefsen saw Eve Ensler's play about female sexuality and sexual violence against women. Rethlefsen and fellow student Emily Nixon soon began wearing the buttons.


"We can't really find out what is inappropriate about it," Rethlefsen, 18, told the Star Tribune of Minneapolis. "I don't think banning things like that is appropriate."


As a show of support, more than 100 students have ordered T-shirts bearing "I (heart) My Vagina" for girls and "I Support Your Vagina" for boys.


Principal Nancy Wondrasch said some in school find the buttons offensive.


"We support free speech," she said. "But when it does infringe on other people's rights and our school policies, then we need to take a look at that."

[exstatic]

OMG. Western Civilization will fall if these girls are allowed to wear those buttons. Stop them!

[Spurminator]

Meh... Western Civilization wouldn't really be impacted one way or the other.

The shirts sound funny though.

[Clandestino]

funny, yes... and i would support their vaginas too... but should they be wearing this shit in school? i say no

[scott]

Is it so shocking they have vaginas? Sounds like nothing more than a bunch of uptight pricks in Minnesota who feel their skin melt when the hear a "naughty word" (which, is not at all naughty).

[ChumpDumper]

It would be fun to see if they would back a bunch of Beavis and Butthead types with "I love my penis" buttons too.

[Useruser666]

How come the ACLU isn't fighting for the kids that want to wear all red or blue to school?

[FromWayDowntown]

I guess the principal forbids the anatomy class from discussing vaginas, too. Wouldn't want anyone to be offended after all.

[ChumpDumper]

You can have them, you just can't love them.

[Guru of Nothing]

How about an "I Love Your Vagina" button.

[Shelly]

I think they should say 'I heart bearded clams'

Might go over some people's heads *coughmannycough* :lol

[mookie2001]

the reason they take these cases, is so they can take the bigger ones too
kind of like the reason a obviously guilty murderer has legal defense

i must admit i love the aclu, i love them
they are the greatest organization in america today
theyre the only ones who are gonna stand up for the constitution, since the president and out elected officials are not
and in a few years when youre getting tracked electronically and fingerprinted to travel, who do you turn to?
when you have to protest in "protest zones" 100% of the time, who am i going to turn to
when journalism critical of the president is censored for "security"
the motherfucking aclu
im down with them any day of the week
the fact that bill oreilly and sean hannity are always calling them crazy and off the deep end far left, makes me love them anymore
ohh im a liberal wacko............
can you imagine a group standing up for the BILL OF RIGHTS? the dam constitution in ALL matters
i cannot imagine a more nobel cause

[RobinsontoDuncan]

good post mookie, I agree 100%, I just wish you would choose to write your paragragphs a little diffrently. :)

[NameDropper]

The Bush Effect (http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf)

Rumor has it that the ACLU also has a sense of humor.

At least I think it's funny.

[MannyIsGod]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smiflipoff.gifhttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smiflipoff.gif

http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gifhttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gifhttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif


I think they should say 'I heart bearded clams'

Might go over some people's heads *coughmannycough* :lol

[Dre_7]

the reason they take these cases, is so they can take the bigger ones too
kind of like the reason a obviously guilty murderer has legal defense

i must admit i love the aclu, i love them
they are the greatest organization in america today


Im sorry, I just cant support any group that supports legalizing sex between adults and children. They may do alota good, but I dont like or support them.

[mookie2001]

Im sorry, I just cant support any group that supports legalizing sex between adults and children. They may do alota good, but I dont like or support them.







really...
i must have missed that
im sure youre wrong
unless you mean 18 yearolds with 17 yearolds

[Dre_7]

No, they defended the pedifile group NAMBLA. Ill look for the link.

[Dre_7]

Heres a few:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38540,00.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/01/08/nambla.suit.crim/

[mookie2001]

yeah thats a civil not a criminal case
and its free a speech case
nambla is horrible group, that doesnt mean they shouldnt be able to publish books and newsletters and stuff
the case comes down to free speech not the fact that people can have sex with little kids
if i have a newsletter that promotes killing oklahoma sooners and one of my readers kills one, i'm not responsible, its called free speech
for everyone.. no matter how f'ed p it may be, you have to have it unless you want people judging everycase on whether they agree with what you say

[Dre_7]

nambla is horrible group, that doesnt mean they shouldnt be able to publish books and newsletters and stuff

Yeah, Literature telling people how to have sex with kids, where to meet them, how to talk them into it, how to not get caught. Thats just wrong, its like someone putting info on the net, telling people how to make a bomb or something. Free speech is okay, unless it endangers someones (I forgot the case, but Ill look for it). Teaching pedofiles how and when to hurt kids isnt free speech.

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah, Literature telling people how to have sex with kids, where to meet them, how to talk them into it, how to not get caught. Thats just wrong, its like someone putting info on the net, telling people how to make a bomb or something. Free speech is okay, unless it endangers someones (I forgot the case, but Ill look for it). Teaching pedofiles how and when to hurt kids isnt free speech.
We've already discussed this. Use the search feature and look up threads about the ACLU.

I guess people will always want to burn book. Always.

[mookie2001]

Yeah, Literature telling people how to have sex with kids, where to meet them, how to talk them into it, how to not get caught. Thats just wrong, its like someone putting info on the net, telling people how to make a bomb or something. Free speech is okay, unless it endangers someones (I forgot the case, but Ill look for it). Teaching pedofiles how and when to hurt kids isnt free speech.


what?
thats mostly what the internet is about
making bombs, cheating on termpapers, how to roll a joint, how to pirate software
all that stuff is illegal
as much as you dont like it its free speech

[Dre_7]

We've already discussed this. Use the search feature and look up threads about the ACLU.

I guess people will always want to burn book. Always.

Burn books?
So you believe that they should be able to produce that lit?

So then why is child porn illegal? What about free speech? All those nazi anti child porn people!

[Dre_7]

what?
thats mostly what the internet is about
making bombs, cheating on termpapers, how to roll a joint, how to pirate software
all that stuff is illegal
as much as you dont like it its free speech

You cant yell fire in a crowded building because it will endanger peoples lives. Teaching people how to molest kids is the same thing.

Free speech doesnt mean you can say anything you want w/out repercussions.

[xcoriate]

Free speach is about exactly that, its for everyone.

Free speach isnt just for you opinions its for others and there diffferentiating points of view. Just because someone doesnt agree with you doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to express their point of view.

Thats what this is about not the fact that they defended the pedifile group NAMBLA.

[mookie2001]

You cant yell fire in a crowded building because it will endanger peoples lives.

i was just waiting for that one, the old reliable fire in a crowded theater

did you get that from the sean hannity constitutional arguement handbook?

that arguements lame

the fact is you cant sue people for saying shit this has happenned time and time again
marilyn manson and columbine
rappers with cop-killing lyrics
websites with bomb instructions

you cant pick and choose whats free speech because you dont like it
otherwise its not free speech

[Dre_7]

I have nothing against free speech. everyone is entitled to free speech, I just dont think the aclu should be defending nambla.

What about the rights of the innocent kids that should be protected. Im not against free speech, I just dont think a group like nambla should be defended by the aclu.

Anyone can say anything they want. But not everyone deserves to be defended by a "civil rights" (or whatever they consider themselves) group!

[Clandestino]

i was just waiting for that one, the old reliable fire in a crowded theater

did you get that from the sean hannity constitutional arguement handbook?

that arguements lame

the fact is you cant sue people for saying shit this has happenned time and time again
marilyn manson and columbine
rappers with cop-killing lyrics
websites with bomb instructions

you cant pick and choose whats free speech because you dont like it
otherwise its not free speech

do you support a pedophiles right to publish a how to book on it? why not let him keep pictures on his home computer about the subject if he didn't distribute them?

[mookie2001]

like i said, theyre not "defending" them for having sex with kids

and like i said they take these stupid cases so when an important one comes up people cant say (when newspapers are censored for scoffing bush) "oh well nambla cant publish books about molesting kids because thats dangerous"
"and journalist being critical of bush is dangerous to americas security"

[mookie2001]

do you support a pedophiles right to publish a how to book on it? why not let him keep pictures on his home computer about the subject if he didn't distribute them?

well the first is his constitutional right
the latter is illegal

[Clandestino]

well the first is his constitutional right
the latter is illegal

why is the second illegal if he didn't make the kids have sex.. he is just in possession of pictures?

why should pictures of making homemade bombs be legal.. blowing shit up is not legal unless you are part of a bomb squad

[Dre_7]

like i said, theyre not "defending" them for having sex with kids

Well, this is where I disagree. They may not be defending them for having sex with kids, but they are defending a group that believes it should be legal for adults and children to have sex!!!!

The aclu should not be trying protect the rights of a group that wants to have sex with young children!! Period!!

I believe the rights of innocent children should come before the rights of pedofiles!

[mookie2001]

well isnt possesion of child porn illegal nomatter where you got them

i dont really get your 2nd question
writing a book with drawings and bomb instructions is and should be legal

look im not gonna make anyfriends defending nambla, like i said theyre a f'ed up group
but i guess i'll say it one more time
ITS FREE SPPECH

[mookie2001]

The aclu should not be trying protect the rights of a group that wants to have sex with young children!! Period!!

sigh
i dont know what else to say

you must have free speech for everyone, about everything
otherwise its not free speech
get it?
the aclu doesnt like these guys but knows that protecting the right of free speech is all about cases like these, is where FREE SPEECH is going to be challenged, no ones gonna sue home and living magazine

[Clandestino]

sigh
i dont know what else to say

you must have free speech for everyone, about everything
otherwise its not free speech
get it?
the aclu doesnt like these guys but knows that protecting the right of free speech is all about cases like these, is where FREE SPEECH is going to be challenged, no ones gonna sue home and living magazine

you're a member of nambla...aren't you?

[Dre_7]

If there were to be some kind of lawsuit regarding the kkk and free speech, does anyone think the aclu should defend the kkk ???

[mookie2001]

good one

[Clandestino]

what if you had a son and some nambla members were checking him out reading their latest edition of their "how-to-get-into-mookie's-son's-drawers"? would you say, it is fine, free speech?

[Dre_7]

good one

I sense your sarcism, you talkin to me or Clandestino

[Clandestino]

I sense your sarcism, you talkin to me or Clandestino

probably both! haha

[mookie2001]

clandestino



what if you had a son and some nambla members were checking him out reading their latest edition of their "how-to-get-into-mookie's-son's-drawers"? would you say, it is fine, free speech?

naw but i wouldnt sue them


If there were to be some kind of lawsuit regarding the kkk and free speech, does anyone think the aclu should defend the kkk ???

yes, i mean shit namblas pretty much the worst group you can think of

[desflood]

first amendment: an overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion.

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message.

Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the based on an individuals current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups.

[mookie2001]

ok
that has nothing to do with them publishing a book or manual, then getting sued for it


besides too bad we cant go by the OVERVIEWS

[Dre_7]

yes, i mean shit namblas pretty much the worst group you can think of

Well, this is where I disagree with you. I doint think it is right for a group like the aclu to defend a group like nambla. Its not right morally IMO. Thats the main reason I dont support the aclu. That was why I orginally posted in this forum. So if you disagree with me, oh well. I still think it is wrong.


"And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."
-Matthew 18:5-6

[Dre_7]

ok
that has nothing to do with them publishing a book or manual, then getting sued for it

A book or manual teaching people how to get away w/ having sex w/ a child.

[IcemanCometh]

wait wait wait... are you saying killing sooners is wrong?

[Useruser666]

Mookie, what if a terrorist is caught with a detailed set of plans to blowup the SBC Center during a Spurs game? Should he be punished, or should those plans be protected under his freedom of speech rights?

[MannyIsGod]

Burn books?
So you believe that they should be able to produce that lit?

So then why is child porn illegal? What about free speech? All those nazi anti child porn people!
First, let me quote you my first response to this situation back when we discussed it the first time.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10945&highlight=ACLU



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 not 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. Child Porn is illegal because it is the direct exploitation of children. If you write a book (or film a movie, or put on a play) which contains an accurate depiction of a man building a bomb, are you then liable for someone going out and making a bomb?

The ACLU (and myself) think not.

[MannyIsGod]

Mookie, what if a terrorist is caught with a detailed set of plans to blowup the SBC Center during a Spurs game? Should he be punished, or should those plans be protected under his freedom of speech rights?
That is directly illegal. There are several laws being broken, but most noteably it is criminal intent. However, writing a book where someone blows up the SBC center, regardless of how accurate it is, would be completely legal.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, this is where I disagree with you. I doint think it is right for a group like the aclu to defend a group like nambla. Its not right morally IMO. Thats the main reason I dont support the aclu. That was why I orginally posted in this forum. So if you disagree with me, oh well. I still think it is wrong.


It is up to you to decide whom you want to support, and only you. You can use any rational you would like to justify your decision and you can't be told you're wrong. It's your decision to make.

However, I want to point this out about the ACLU as an organization. It is not interested in your, or anyone elses, morals. They will support ANYONE whom they feel is being delt with in an unjust or unconstutional manner.

The ACLU's morals are mearly to allow us all the same level of freedom.

[Useruser666]

That is directly illegal. There are several laws being broken, but most noteably it is criminal intent. However, writing a book where someone blows up the SBC center, regardless of how accurate it is, would be completely legal.

So, if a terrorist would write a book detailing a plan to blow up the SBC center at a specified date, that is not illegal? Or should nothing be done?

Remember, your rights end where they infringe on someone else's rights.

[MannyIsGod]

Tom Clancy wrote a book where a plane was flown into the capitol building. It wasn't illegal.

[Useruser666]

Well, then we have a loop hole huh? :lol

I'm not sure if you know this Manny, but there are lots of bomb making sites on the internet that have been shut down by our government.

[MannyIsGod]

Because they werne't in the realm of literature. There is a difference between a technical manual, and a piece of literature

[Useruser666]

The "tech manuals" were written as a perspective of events that happened to the author, not as a "how to" book. You can easily weave instructions on making a bomb into a story.

[MannyIsGod]

I know you can, but at some point it will go before a judge and the judge will decide what it falls under. It's much the same with the deceny standards.

I'm not really a fan of the way it's setup, but I'm not sure I can come up with a better system.

[Useruser666]

I know you can, but at some point it will go before a judge and the judge will decide what it falls under. It's much the same with the deceny standards.

I'm not really a fan of the way it's setup, but I'm not sure I can come up with a better system.

I think that is the real problem here.

[FromWayDowntown]

For what it's worth, the ACLU has stepped up to the plate to defend the individual rights of an amazing number and a diverse spectrum of people and groups, including Rush Limbaugh (who certainly didn't ask them to go away) and the Nazis who wanted to march through Skokie, Illinois.

If people would take a step back to examine what the ACLU does -- that they don't just defend oddball causes, but instead, seek to ensure that the civil liberties of all are protected -- there would be more appreciation for the hard work the organization has done. Instead, talking heads choose to use the ACLU as a political football, vitriolically chastizing the organization for defending unpopular causes or for being on the "wrong" side of political issues and whipping up the populace in a crusade against the ACLU as the reason things are wrong.

In my experience, the only side the ACLU is on is the side of ensuring the constitution is upheld. I've never understood what is so controversial about that position.

[MannyIsGod]

Exactly.

[cherylsteele]

You cant yell fire in a crowded building because it will endanger peoples lives. Teaching people how to molest kids is the same thing.

Free speech doesnt mean you can say anything you want w/out repercussions.

And yet one can purchase Rap CD's that advocate shooting people, abusing women, kill cops, etc.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[cherylsteele]

You cant yell fire in a crowded building because it will endanger peoples lives. .

But can you yell "theater" in a crowded firehouse?:D

[Dre_7]

In my experience, the only side the ACLU is on is the side of ensuring the constitution is upheld. I've never understood what is so controversial about that position.

Adults having sex with children!

I understand the whole free speech thing. I just think the rights of innocent children are more important the rights of pedofiles. Thats my belief. Thats all Im saying. Those sickos dont deserve to have the aclu defend them. Thats my personal belief.

I just think adults having sex with kids is morally wrong. And I believe that the moral issue is more important then the free speech issue in this situation. Thats how I feel. Thats why I dont support the aclu.

[FromWayDowntown]

But that's exactly the point.

The ACLU defends the people that nobody else will defend, because those are the people whose rights are most in need of protection.

Our Constitution is pretty hollow if the government can decide to silence the voices of those who espouse unpopular views. The ACLU, in my opinion, sees the big picture. They defend the most reprehensible among us because if the goverment can silence those people, it could just as easily choose to silence someone who is a little less reprehensible. . . .and then someone who is a little less reprehensible than that person . . . and then someone who is a little less reprehensible than that person. If that was the law, it would not be a very large step to reach a point where those holding a majoritarian viewpoint could, by force of law, silence those who hold an opposite (and controversial) position. It becomes a form of Orwellian action -- government prescribing what people can say and punishing those who do not take controversial or ghastly positions. This isn't 1984.

The NAMBLA point is an easy First Amendment question in my mind. You don't like what NAMBLA has to say, but the point is that the law doesn't punish the thought. If John Doe sits in his house and thinks about molesting children, he's a sicko, but he's broken no law. If John Doe invites his friends Jane and George and Wanda over and they sit around in his house and talk about molesting children, they're sickos, but they've broken no law. For that matter, if John Doe holds a weekly seminar in his house with Jane and George and Wanda and 5 friends of each of those people, and the seminar is about molesting children, they have a house full of perverts, but they've broken no law. We don't like it, but there's no law against it and the Constitution has to protect it.

Now, it's different if they bring a child in and take pornographic pictures, or if they engage in any form of molestation. It's beyond mere thought at that point, and into action -- action which the law makes illegal and for which those people should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But until they take action, there can be no legal violation because the Constitution protects even perverted or absolutely sick thoughts.

[Clandestino]

But that's exactly the point.

The ACLU defends the people that nobody else will defend, because those are the people whose rights are most in need of protection.

Our Constitution is pretty hollow if the government can decide to silence the voices of those who espouse unpopular views. The ACLU, in my opinion, sees the big picture. They defend the most reprehensible among us because if the goverment can silence those people, it could just as easily choose to silence someone who is a little less reprehensible. . . .and then someone who is a little less reprehensible than that person . . . and then someone who is a little less reprehensible than that person. If that was the law, it would not be a very large step to reach a point where those holding a majoritarian viewpoint could, by force of law, silence those who hold an opposite (and controversial) position. It becomes a form of Orwellian action -- government prescribing what people can say and punishing those who do not take controversial or ghastly positions. This isn't 1984.

The NAMBLA point is an easy First Amendment question in my mind. You don't like what NAMBLA has to say, but the point is that the law doesn't punish the thought. If John Doe sits in his house and thinks about molesting children, he's a sicko, but he's broken no law. If John Doe invites his friends Jane and George and Wanda over and they sit around in his house and talk about molesting children, they're sickos, but they've broken no law. For that matter, if John Doe holds a weekly seminar in his house with Jane and George and Wanda and 5 friends of each of those people, and the seminar is about molesting children, they have a house full of perverts, but they've broken no law. We don't like it, but there's no law against it and the Constitution has to protect it.

Now, it's different if they bring a child in and take pornographic pictures, or if they engage in any form of molestation. It's beyond mere thought at that point, and into action -- action which the law makes illegal and for which those people should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But until they take action, there can be no legal violation because the Constitution protects even perverted or absolutely sick thoughts.

too fucking funny! :lol

[smeagol]

The NAMBLA point is an easy First Amendment question in my mind. You don't like what NAMBLA has to say, but the point is that the law doesn't punish the thought. If John Doe sits in his house and thinks about molesting children, he's a sicko, but he's broken no law. If John Doe invites his friends Jane and George and Wanda over and they sit around in his house and talk about molesting children, they're sickos, but they've broken no law. For that matter, if John Doe holds a weekly seminar in his house with Jane and George and Wanda and 5 friends of each of those people, and the seminar is about molesting children, they have a house full of perverts, but they've broken no law. We don't like it, but there's no law against it and the Constitution has to protect it.
Aren't Joe Doe, Jane, George, Wanda and the rest conspiring to commit a crime?

If these characters were planning to blow up a building, my guess is that they could be arrested. Same thing if the were planning a murder.

In the case of your fictitional characters getting together to chat about how to molest kids, I would not be against them being put behind bars.

[FromWayDowntown]

They're not conspiring in any way that the State can sanction. Criminal conspiracy always requires an "act in furtherance," and in my hypothetical, there's nothing other than talk, which the Constitution generally protects. I still think they're sickos, but they haven't broken the law.

[Dre_7]

The ACLU defends the people that nobody else will defend, because those are the people whose rights are most in need of protection.

No, I disagree. I dont think pedofiles rights are most in need of protection. I think the safety of our children is in more need of protection then the rights of pedofiles, pedofiles that desire to do awfull things to innocent children.

But, thats just my opinion.

But I sound like Im repeating myself, so Ill just let it go. :lol :lol

G'night.

[mookie2001]

have you read "Ruminations" by KRS-ONE?

[Dre_7]

Not yet. My friend was gonna loan me a copy but he hasnt givin it to me. I was gonna get it the other day, but I choose to get a Manu jersey instead.

How is it? I heard it was good.

[mookie2001]

its really good
his knowledge does reign supreme

theres a couple things i disagreed with, but hes a smart dude

i didnt buy it, i just sat at barnes and nobles for a few hours and read it for free

[Dre_7]

Yeah, hes a very smart dude. I also disagree with him on a couple things as well. But then again, its imposible to agree with someone on everything. But he is very intelegent. I look forward to reading it.

[T Park]

Cant say as I would support defending a group of people that support adults having sex with kids.

That is a bit of a stretch.

I think the ACLU should use a little common sense on them.