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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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"
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!
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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
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.
I deplore what you say and I'll fight to the death to stop you from saying it.
Yeah that's it.
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 ?
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.
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.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Highly debatable.
So debate! Don't leave us hanging here.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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'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.