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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
They should stay out of politics.
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.