Reply With Quote
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.
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.
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.
Tom Clancy wrote a book where a plane was flown into the capitol building. It wasn't illegal.
Well, then we have a loop hole huh?
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.
Because they werne't in the realm of literature. There is a difference between a technical manual, and a piece of literature
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.
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.
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 cons ution is upheld. I've never understood what is so controversial about that position.
Exactly.
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.
But can you yell "theater" in a crowded firehouse?
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.
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 Cons ution 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 Cons ution 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 Cons ution protects even perverted or absolutely sick thoughts.
too ing funny!
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 fic ional characters getting together to chat about how to molest kids, I would not be against them being put behind bars.
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 Cons ution generally protects. I still think they're sickos, but they haven't broken the law.
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.
G'night.
have you read "Ruminations" by KRS-ONE?
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.
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
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions