or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Aclu?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Aclu?

post #1 of 159
Thread Starter 
Why is the ACLU attacking the Boy Scouts and at the same time supporting NAMBLA?
post #2 of 159
Apparently, the NAMBA case involved free-speech issues. (link)

Quote:
ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations

August 31, 2000

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
post #3 of 159
I would say it's because the ACLU is full of Jesus-hating child molestors.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #4 of 159
To be honest, I don't know much about the situation scott is talking about, but...why does the ACLU do anything? I wish they would shut their collective yappers.

Edit: Since groverat posted a few seconds before me, I missed his accurate portrayal of the ACLU. Nice work. It's not funny, because it's true.
Come waste your time with me

In a world without doors or walls, there is no need for Gates or Windows
Reply
Come waste your time with me

In a world without doors or walls, there is no need for Gates or Windows
Reply
post #5 of 159
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Apparently, the NAMBA case involved free-speech issues. (link)


I have to admit you're right. Freedom to publish instruction manuals on how to get boys into a beds so they can rip their sphincters with their cocks.

go ACLU
post #6 of 159
Moral is a global concept.
In order to be moral you have to see the whole image and not only support one part of it. Because there is things which are in contradictions in morale.
It's a perfect example here, in the name of an important part of morale, defending the right of free-speech, the ACLU is ready to defend one of the most immoral things in society : pedophilia.

Hell is paved of good intentions.
post #7 of 159
What's that old saying?

I deplore what you say and I'll fight to the death to stop you from saying it.

Yeah that's it.
post #8 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
What's that old saying?

I deplore what you say and I'll fight to the death to stop you from saying it.

Yeah that's it.

Is it a joke ?
post #9 of 159
The ACLU embodies the "blind" in Blind Justice. It's a machine without reason, foresight or farsight. It cares not for the ramifications of its acts, only for the perpetuation of Civil Liberties.

An interesting result of the actions of the ACLU is the detachment of religion from government, which in turn has seemingly seen a decline in the standards of morality. It's impossible not to recognize this as a downward trend when the machine that defends personal freedoms provides a means for the endangerment of other individuals.

When a machine runs out of control who is there to intervene? Entropy happens to any system, of which this is a perfect example.
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
post #10 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by drewprops
An interesting result of the actions of the ACLU is the detachment of religion from government, which in turn has seemingly seen a decline in the standards of morality. It's impossible not to recognize this as a downward trend when the machine that defends personal freedoms provides a means for the endangerment of other individuals.

Highly debatable.
post #11 of 159
Especially by ShawnJ?
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
post #12 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Highly debatable.

So debate! Don't leave us hanging here.
Come waste your time with me

In a world without doors or walls, there is no need for Gates or Windows
Reply
Come waste your time with me

In a world without doors or walls, there is no need for Gates or Windows
Reply
post #13 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
I would say it's because the ACLU is full of Jesus-hating child molestors.

"In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church..."

Ignorance is bliss.

So why do people think the ACLU is doing something wrong? There was no evidence in the first post to support the claims here.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #14 of 159
I've never understood why the right makes such a boogyman out of the ACLU. I saw last night where O'Reilly declared it "the most dangerous organization in America" (in re the boy scout thing and likely where Scott got his indignation).

The problem seems to be they defend speech and constitutional process the right doesn't care for. Never mind they also defend speech and constitutional process that should give the right comfort.

I guess "civil liberties" are fine in theory but must be abolished if they yield results contrary to your ideology.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #15 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by drewprops
The ACLU embodies the "blind" in Blind Justice. It's a machine without reason, foresight or farsight. It cares not for the ramifications of its acts, only for the perpetuation of Civil Liberties.
[snip]

This is why the right makes a boogyman out of the ACLU. They deserve it. They carry out their actions without thought of what might happen as a result down the road. I said it before, and I'll say it again, the ACLU needs to shut their collective yappers.
Come waste your time with me

In a world without doors or walls, there is no need for Gates or Windows
Reply
Come waste your time with me

In a world without doors or walls, there is no need for Gates or Windows
Reply
post #16 of 159
drewprops:

Since we are in a moral decline, when, would you say, is the pinnacle of American morality?

Was it when slavery was de rigueur? Or when you could legally beat your wife senseless? Or perhaps when you could lynch blacks for looking at your white daughter?

"Well, groverat, that may be true, but at least people weren't so damned open about sex!"
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #17 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by DMBand0026
This is why the right makes a boogyman out of the ACLU. They deserve it. They carry out their actions without thought of what might happen as a result down the road. I said it before, and I'll say it again, the ACLU needs to shut their collective yappers.

The ACLU doesn't make social policy, they defend the constitution. If defending the constitution leads to outcomes you find undesirable, you'd best take it up with the founding fathers.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #18 of 159
conservatives really have nothing to complain about. the aclu sits in the middle.
post #19 of 159
Its simple really:

if you back free speech, then you back the right for everybodies free speech

if you take free speech seriously then you will be forced to back the free speech of apparently deplorable people

I think the road to hell is paved not with the intention to maintain free speech but with moral pick-and-choose ideologies . . . . these sorts of ideologies have in the past become ever more constricting and exclusionary . . . . until in the end; voila! on the way to cultural "hell"
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #20 of 159
Hey Groverat, go back and read what I said again...I never said that we were in a moral decline. Read my adjectives and adverbs again, I put those in there and didn't even charge more for you to read my post!

Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
post #21 of 159
Slightly OT, but O'Reilly's reasoning on why it would be impossible for the Boy Scouts to admit gays is priceless: once you have boys making "sexual contact" it would lead to ruinous lawsuits.

I'm not sure what he's envisioning, possibly that once straight boys get the idea that gay is OK they'll start taking it up the ass, much to mom and dad's litigious horror? Or that gay 16 year olds are predatory monsters that will sweep through the ranks of Christian boys like Brad Pitt through a convent? Or maybe just that a gay boy can be kept "intact" if you just make damn sure he never meets any other gay kids.

Whatever, I just wonder how the Boy Scouts differ from, oh, say, the public school system, who seems to manage the threat of sexual contact without undue litigation.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #22 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Its simple really:

if you back free speech, then you back the right for everybodies free speech

if you take free speech seriously then you will be forced to back the free speech of apparently deplorable people

I think the road to hell is paved not with the intention to maintain free speech but with moral pick-and-choose ideologies . . . . these sorts of ideologies have in the past become ever more constricting and exclusionary . . . . until in the end; voila! on the way to cultural "hell"

I get your point, but the liberty of the ones stop when the liberty of others are involved. In case of child, i think it's important to protect them. You have to struggle against pedophilia. Of course in the name of struggling against pedophilia you canno't destroy all the civil rights.

You have to find a balance. Absolute liberty have only their place in a perfect world. When you see the current situation of the world, it's far from perfect, even if as pointed out Groverat, in many countries there progress.
This balance is important. and the balance change. I expect that the humanity will progress, and will permit us more liberty. But for the moment we can only have Conditionnal liberty.
post #23 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by drewprops
The ACLU embodies the "blind" in Blind Justice. It's a machine without reason, foresight or farsight. It cares not for the ramifications of its acts, only for the perpetuation of Civil Liberties.

Are you criticizing the ACLU here? Because your statement is, I think, accurate, and is exactly why the ACLU is so good for society. Free speech is free speech is free speech, and someone has to defend all free speech, not just politically acceptable or convenient free speech. Otherwise, there would be no free speech for anyone.

Similarly (you'll love this analogy), someone has to defend the most heinous, guilty-as-sin criminals and ensure they still get a fair trial, or there will be no fair trials for anyone.
post #24 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Towel


Similarly (you'll love this analogy), someone has to defend the most heinous, guilty-as-sin criminals and ensure they still get a fair trial, or there will be no fair trials for anyone.

The system is different in a trial there is the defense and the other side. The two try to do at best their job. If it's well done, the truth has a chance to get out of the tribunal, and a fair decision can be taken by the court.
IN short , every trial is A versus B judged by C. A and B have to be good, to allow C to judge.

Free speech is important, but defending really lame org like Mamba discredit them at the eye of a part of the population. In their disclamair they defend the libertie of free speech, and they made a reference to Hitler, but they will be struggle for anti-semit org to have the right of free speech ?
post #25 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
In their disclamair they defend the libertie of free speech, and they made a reference to Hitler, but they will be struggle for anti-semit org to have the right of free speech ?

Not only will they, they have already -- Skokie, Illinois being the most famous case, with the ACLU defending the right of Nazis to march in a town with a large Jewish population, many of them survivors of WWII.

If the ACLU were to avoid cases that made it look bad, that would amount to the same end result as saying that only popular free speech should be protected, because who else is going to fight the unpopular causes if they don't? If the ACLU tried to keep a spotless reputation by never defending those who could make them look bad by association, they'd have no purpose left for using that reputation.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #26 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Not only will they, they have already -- Skokie, Illinois being the most famous case, with the ACLU defending the right of Nazis to march in a town with a large Jewish population, many of them survivors of WWII.

If the ACLU were to avoid cases that made it look bad, that would amount to the same end result as saying that only popular free speech should be protected, because who else is going to fight the unpopular causes if they don't? If the ACLU tried to keep a spotless reputation by never defending those who could make them look bad by association, they'd have no purpose left for using that reputation.

You are right for this one. But it's a little bit paradoxal. Absolute free speech is one of the most representative thing of the USA.

It do not exist in France, because of WW2 and the involvement of a part of the french population in the holocaust. Therefore the liberty of free speech was limited ( i don't think it was full before). Racist, antisemit or incitation to violence public (not private) speech are forbidden. French elite and intellectual are upset by the fear of fascism, and will prefer restriction of the free speech in order to struggle against universally accepted bad ideas (violence, antisemitism, racism). That's also can seem weird and paradoxal, but different histories lead to differents laws.
post #27 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
The system is different in a trial there is the defense and the other side. The two try to do at best their job. If it's well done, the truth has a chance to get out of the tribunal, and a fair decision can be taken by the court.
IN short , every trial is A versus B judged by C. A and B have to be good, to allow C to judge.

It's not different, because that's exactly what the ACLU does: represents defendants. They are A, the government is B, and the judge is C.
post #28 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
It's not different, because that's exactly what the ACLU does: represents defendants. They are A, the government is B, and the judge is C.

Well but i have expected that Namba pay for their lawyers, rather than receiving a free help, coming from ACLU.
post #29 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Towel
Similarly (you'll love this analogy), someone has to defend the most heinous, guilty-as-sin criminals and ensure they still get a fair trial, or there will be no fair trials for anyone.

this is precisely how i was thinking of it. you have a some scum ridden douchbag who rapes women like its 1999. police don't catch him in the act and can't catch any hard and strong evidence, but have strong suspicions about him. finally they decide to arrest him, and bring him in to the station. they beat him until he confesses. in truth, the dood is guilty, and the beating helped him confess, but also true is an innocent man may have just as easily confessed under such duress. in this instance, it would be incumbant on the dood's lawyer to have the confession suppressed, as it was illegally gotten, even if he knew beyond all doubt that the dood was guilty and all that shit. this is how i think of the aclu. they are the lawyers who defend the sometimes (or maybe often) unkempt fellows, because if they don't, then we can't really be secure that the police/authorities/government/whomever won't use the same dirty tactics against anyone else. if i was a lawyer, i would join the aclu. luckily i'm not a lawyer, and have no strong intent to become one, so i won't have to deal with those lowly people.
post #30 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Well but i have expected that Namba pay for their lawyers, rather than receiving a free help, coming from ACLU.

Support for those lawyers or lawyers themselves can come from the ACLU. It defrays some of the cost.
post #31 of 159
Thread Starter 
I'm just not sure why the ACLU has to chase the Boy Scouts out of every public place while at the same time defending NAMBLA's "how to" guide for raping children?
post #32 of 159
Why do you think they do it, Scott?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #33 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
I'm just not sure why the ACLU has to chase the Boy Scouts out of every public place while at the same time defending NAMBLA's "how to" guide for raping children?

Since you're asking I'll tell you. Yes you do know why.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #34 of 159
Towel asked if my description (scroll back up to my first post) of the ACLU was a criticism. Here's my answer:

The ACLU has fashioned itself as a "force of nature" in the universe of Law...can you criticize lightning or condemn the ocean's tide? No. You can lament the results of their actions when their results are for ill, but you cannot eliminate them or attribute personality to them. At best, you might be able to protect yourself from their effects.


A better question might have been:



Do I have a negative feeling about the ACLU?

I certainly do.
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
post #35 of 159
drewprops:

Quote:
Hey Groverat, go back and read what I said again...I never said that we were in a moral decline. Read my adjectives and adverbs again, I put those in there and didn't even charge more for you to read my post!

I used your exact language, let's re-visit...

Sentence 1:
An interesting result of the actions of the ACLU is the detachment of religion from government, which in turn has seemingly seen a decline in the standards of morality.

You claim a "seeming" decline in the standards of morality. I ask you where the pinnacle is, the zenith from which the decline started. Perhaps you do not understand your own metaphor?

Sentence 2:
It's impossible not to recognize this as a downward trend when the machine that defends personal freedoms provides a means for the endangerment of other individuals.

How does the ACLU provide a means for the endangerment of other individuals?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #36 of 159
Why would anyone care if the ACLU is helping to defend NAMBLA?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #37 of 159
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Why would anyone care if the ACLU is helping to defend NAMBLA?

Because NAMBLA is helping child rapists rape more children.

Don't you have a problem with that?


You know if NAMBLA were say "We like to do this to kids" that might be one thing but rather they say "This is how you do this to kids." That's criminal.
post #38 of 159
Thread Starter 
The ACLUs has gotten way too political to claim to be simply for civil rights. They came out against the California recall. Not because it was a civil rights issue but because they didn't want a democrat voted out.

They should stay out of politics.
post #39 of 159
Wow, I rate somebody (groverat no less!) giving me a quote-in-yer-face post! Rock on!

Groverat:
I included the word "seemingly" on purpose... because older generations always believe that subsequent generations represent a decline in moral standards; a never-ending judgment that is passed on from age to age.

Groverat then asks me how the ACLU provides a means of endangerment for other individuals. Here's my answer to that one:

If the ACLU is successful in its defense of the NAMBLA phamplet then young boys may become victims of pedophiles who use those same phamplets. You'll be hard-pressed to prove to me that the one does not follow from the other. This is a case where the machine acts to ensure that evil is protected.


No where have I advocated the disassembly of the ACLU. I've simply pointed out that it acts as a force of legal nature, a Force Majeure if you will. It has no conscience, it only has the sole directive to make sure that all individuals (good or evil or neutral) have freedom of speech. It has no ultimate concern over the betterment of mankind.

That's all.
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
post #40 of 159
It actually isnt criminal to say how to rape a child. Criminal use of language is limited to calling for action that may cause harm, say Neo-Nazi's calling for a fire bombing of a synagogue. Unless the manual said lets go rape some kids, there is nothing legally wrong with it. It may fall under the appropriate descriptor of sick, but it isnt illegal.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Aclu?