Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Colossus_500 on April 10, 2007, 12:42:22 PM
-
ACLJ Urges Senate to Protect Life & Reject Embryonic Stem Cell Bill
April 9, 2007
(Washington, DC) – The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which specializes in constitutional law, said today the U.S. Senate must reject S. 5 – a measure to be debated and voted on this week – a measure that clears the way for the federal government – using tax dollars – to conduct research on stem cells taken from human embryos. The Senate begins debate on the issue tomorrow.
“This measure represents a frontal assault on human life,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which is opposing the legislation. “To give a green light to this kind of experimentation is not only wrong, but morally and ethically unacceptable. This measure clearly devalues human life. We support S. 30 – a measure that prohibits the creation of embryos for the purpose of research. We remain dedicated to protecting the sanctity of human life and that’s exactly what we’re determined to do. That is why we are urging lawmakers to defeat S. 5 and approve S. 30.”
The Senate is debating both measures this week and a vote is expected at the conclusion of those debates.
The American Center for Law and Justice has launched a national petition campaign to oppose legislative efforts to create human embryos for the purpose of research. Using radio, email, mail, and its website, thousands already have signed on to the ACLJ Petition to Protect Human Life. The ACLJ is communicating with members of the Senate urging them to reject S. 5 and pass S. 30.
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice specializes in constitutional law and focuses on pro-life issues.
-
The ACLJ is not even comparable to the ACLU.
The ACLJ is a religious/political interest group beholden to Pat Robertson of the 700 Club infamy.
The ACLU defends the constitutional civil liberties of anyone (Rush Limbaugh did not refuse the amicus brief filed on his behalf in his Dr. shopping/heroin case).
It amazes me how disenfranchised people have become. The ACLU is the bad guy and the ACLJ is the good guy.
This is inline with the current narrative out there for middle america:
the worker's union in this country hurt the workers it represents,
tax cuts for the wealthy help the middle class and poor,
Corporations/privatization is in the best interest of middle america,
etc.
I wish it were different.
-
ACLU is the bad guy, it was created with great intentions but has turned into a slimy defense lawyer.
-
ACLU is the bad guy, it was created with great intentions but has turned into a slimy defense lawyer.
I disagree.
ACLU always fight a good fight.
Even when I disagree with a particular case, I think as a whole, the idea of ACLU is brilliant. They are genuinely working to protects the freedoms in the USA.
-Hedge
-
ACLU is the bad guy, it was created with great intentions but has turned into a slimy defense lawyer.
I don't think so. Constitutional rights are the foundation of our great society. In an adversarial arrangement, the kind that we have in our legal courts, innocence is presumed and everyone is entitled to his/her day in court.
It's not perfect, but it's the best system we have.
I would think that anyone unfairly deprived of life, liberty or property would welcome with open arms the defense of the ACLU.
Like I said, Rush rails against the ACLU, but when the rubber met the road and his own freedom was on the line, he did not turn away the help offered by the ACLU.
-
I disagree.
ACLU always fight a good fight.
Even when I disagree with a particular case, I think as a whole, the idea of ACLU is brilliant. They are genuinely working to protects the freedoms in the USA.
-Hedge
Especially freedom from Christianity. ::) They don't argue against any other religion.
-
The ACLJ is not even comparable to the ACLU.
The ACLJ is a religious/political interest group beholden to Pat Robertson of the 700 Club infamy.
Wrong, ACLJ has a VERY STRONG presence in Washington. Most of the briefs you see regarding the big issues are drawn up by the ACLJ. Check it out for yourself. Don't get them confused with Pat Robertson. Dude. you gotta dig a little deeper than you are with regard to where you get your information.
www.aclj.org (http://www.aclj.org)
-
Especially freedom from Christianity. ::) They don't argue against any other religion.
These people would disagree with you:
The ACLU Is Not Evil
And neither are many people with whom we disagree.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/may/22.64.html
"It might surprise some critics that the ACLU defends the free speech and free exercise rights of, well, Christians."
The ACLU does challenge the gov. establishment of Christian religion in the form of governmental sponsoring of religious idols or any proselytizing/recruiting in the name of Christianity...or Judaism or any other religion.
-
Wrong, ACLJ has a VERY STRONG presence in Washington. Most of the briefs you see regarding the big issues are drawn up by the ACLJ. Check it out for yourself. Don't get them confused with Pat Robertson. Dude. you gotta dig a little deeper than you are with regard to where you get your information.
www.aclj.org (http://www.aclj.org)
I'm not wrong.
"The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) is a legal advocacy group founded to aggressively promote the Christian Right agenda through the courts. The ACLJ is Pat Robertson's response to the ACLU."
"Someone has got to stop the ACLU in court," Robertson said. "And that's exactly what we are going to do at the American Center for Law and Justice. Our attorneys are defending Christians in courtrooms all across America.""
"Sekulow boasts of having SWAT teams, which he defines as "spiritual warfare assault teams," to defend religious liberty and fight anti-Christian bigotry." http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9503/empire.html
I've followed Jay Sekulow's career somewhat. He's a good lawyer. How many cases has he defended on behalf of Muslims, Jews or Buddhists?
If the ACLU defends the constitutional rights of anyone, why the hell does the ACLJ seem bent on stopping the ACLU?
There seems to be some cognitive dissonance over what is defense of a constitutional right and wholesale Christian advocacy.
-
Especially freedom from Christianity. ::) They don't argue against any other religion.
That's not true, plus, Christianity is the main stream majority religion in the US.
They sold me on their intentions, purity of purpose and integrity when they defended the KKK's right to hold a peace full march.
They are simply a tool to help protect our rights a citizens.
-
That's not true, plus, Christianity is the main stream majority religion in the US.
They sold me on their intentions, purity of purpose and integrity when they defended the KKK's right to hold a peace full march.
They are simply a tool to help protect our rights a citizens.
That is a terrific point. Thanks.
-
The ACLU has lost it's way IMO. Haven't they been fighting every attempt by the feds to combat child porn?
-
The ACLU has lost it's way IMO. Haven't they been fighting every attempt by the feds to combat child porn?
Child pornography is illegal in every state in the Union. There is no constitutional right to own illegal subject matter. I sincerely doubt your assertion.
Nadine Strossen is the Current president of the ACLU and a top flight attorney. I've read some of her books. She may question the efficacy of the Miller Test for obscenity but she certainly does not support/advocate child porn in any way.
What you are likely thinking of is that a former local ACLU chapter executive was pinched for child porn. I would not indict the organization on the basis of the illegal activity of one former member.
-
The ACLU has lost it's way IMO. Haven't they been fighting every attempt by the feds to combat child porn?
As they should, along with every attempt by the feds to illegally search a size property, illegal wire taps etc...
We have to be able to serve justice without violating our constitutional rights.
Should not allow defense attorneys who defend these sex offenders also?
That's why i say they are a non-bias tool who's purpose is to protect our constitutional rights. good or bad.
-
As they should, along with every attempt by the feds to illegally search a size property, illegal wire taps etc...
We have to be able to serve justice without violating our constitutional rights.
Should not allow defense attorneys who defend these sex offenders also?
That's why i say they are a non-bias tool who's purpose is to protect our constitutional rights. good or bad.
Yours is a better answer.
-
I don't think so. Constitutional rights are the foundation of our great society. In an adversarial arrangement, the kind that we have in our legal courts, innocence is presumed and everyone is entitled to his/her day in court.
It's not perfect, but it's the best system we have.
I would think that anyone unfairly deprived of life, liberty or property would welcome with open arms the defense of the ACLU.
Like I said, Rush rails against the ACLU, but when the rubber met the road and his own freedom was on the line, he did not turn away the help offered by the ACLU.
that is my thing, people use the vague wording of freedom of speach (for example) for anything that suits their needs and the ACLU supports them in that. Freedom of speach is abused often and you can't deny that. I do like when ACLU aids people in things like eminent domain, but they go overboard on many other issues
-
That's not true, plus, Christianity is the main stream majority religion in the US.
They sold me on their intentions, purity of purpose and integrity when they defended the KKK's right to hold a peace full march.
They are simply a tool to help protect our rights a citizens.
if they show up for Imus and say his free speach rights are violated....I will relook at their position
-
if they show up for Imus and say his free speach rights are violated....I will relook at their position
I don't think it will come to that because Imus isn't on trial.
But they did go to bat for the KKK.
-
I don't think it will come to that because Imus isn't on trial.
But they did go to bat for the KKK.
not on trial? maybe not in court but they are calling for his job, if he loses it then they should defend his freedom of speach.
-
not on trial? maybe not in court but they are calling for his job, if he loses it then they should defend his freedom of speach.
He wasn't fired. And the ACLU usually doesn't get involved unless the courts are involved. Also, the station he works for is a business. they have a right to protect their business. If he was working in a factory or on an assembly line then it would be different.
-
Child pornography is illegal in every state in the Union. There is no constitutional right to own illegal subject matter. I sincerely doubt your assertion.
Nadine Strossen is the Current president of the ACLU and a top flight attorney. I've read some of her books. She may question the efficacy of the Miller Test for obscenity but she certainly does not support/advocate child porn in any way.
What you are likely thinking of is that a former local ACLU chapter executive was pinched for child porn. I would not indict the organization on the basis of the illegal activity of one former member.
No, I'm not thinking of Charles Rust-Tierney. I started a thread about him: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=133811.0
I wonder why the media didn't jump all over that story? I bet if Charles Rust-Tierney was conservative pastor instead a former ACLU head CNN would have been all over this story.
-
He wasn't fired. And the ACLU usually doesn't get involved unless the courts are involved. Also, the station he works for is a business. they have a right to protect their business. If he was working in a factory or on an assembly line then it would be different.
lol, OzmO, they won't jump in because it doesn't fit their agenda. A factory isn't a buisness?
-
As they should, along with every attempt by the feds to illegally search a size property, illegal wire taps etc...
We have to be able to serve justice without violating our constitutional rights.
Should not allow defense attorneys who defend these sex offenders also?
That's why i say they are a non-bias tool who's purpose is to protect our constitutional rights. good or bad.
The ACLU shouldn't be fighting the feds attempt to combat child porn?
Here is what I find despicable about the ACLU:
1. They fight pretty much every attempt to combat child porn. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24167-2003Oct14?language=printer
2. They defended NAMBLA, a criminal organization that advocates the rape of boys by men. http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html
Indefensible IMO. It is one thing to try and protect the legitimate exercise of religion, free speech, etc., but child porn is a crime and the rape of boys is a crime. There is NO legitimate reason for either of those to exist in our society.
-
lol, OzmO, they won't jump in because it doesn't fit their agenda. A factory isn't a buisness?
A factory doesn't have a person who's opinions are broadcast to millions of people and a factory doesn't receive income solely from advertising revenue that indicate support for what the broadcaster says.
Remember Kobe? Pepsi dropped him like a STD.
MM, that's the difference here. It's not an agenda thing.
-
that is my thing, people use the vague wording of freedom of speach (for example) for anything that suits their needs and the ACLU supports them in that. Freedom of speach is abused often and you can't deny that. I do like when ACLU aids people in things like eminent domain, but they go overboard on many other issues
No, no. freedom of speech/the first amendment has a long case history and many different tests for different types of free speech. If an attorney was to file a lawsuit that was frivolous on its face--for anything that suits their needs--the court would dismiss the case and penalize the attorney.
Free speech is a popular and unpopular concept. People say they love it but when, as Ozmo pointed out, someone like the KKK exercises its right to free speech people go ape shit and try to shut them down. Free speech includes unpoplular and sometimes disgusting viewpoints.
-
The ACLU shouldn't be fighting the feds attempt to combat child porn?
Here is what I find despicable about the ACLU:
1. They fight pretty much every attempt to combat child porn. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24167-2003Oct14?language=printer
2. They defended NAMBLA, a criminal organization that advocates the rape of boys by men. http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html
Indefensible IMO. It is one thing to try and protect the legitimate exercise of religion, free speech, etc., but child porn is a crime and the rape of boys is a crime. There is NO legitimate reason for either of those to exist in our society.
again, I don't disagree with your assertion about child porn.
But the ACLU is fighting the feds over how they doing it, because their methods may be be violating constitutional rights.
There is NO legitimate reason for either of those to exist in our society.
I agree with you. But based on our constitution they have a right to exist as long as they don't act on it.
-
A factory doesn't have a person who's opinions are broadcast to millions of people and a factory doesn't receive income solely from advertising revenue that indicate support for what the broadcaster says.
Remember Kobe? Pepsi dropped him like a STD.
MM, that's the difference here. It's not an agenda thing.
so you are comparing a rapist to a guy that called someone a nappy haired ho? come on OzmO. I don't care who Imus broadcasts to or where he gets his advertising from. It is his right to say what he wants...this just shows that libs only cry freedom of speach when it fits their agenda
-
No, I'm not thinking of Charles Rust-Tierney. I started a thread about him: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=133811.0
I wonder why the media didn't jump all over that story? I bet if Charles Rust-Tierney was conservative pastor instead a former ACLU head CNN would have been all over this story.
You got it, bro!
-
No, I'm not thinking of Charles Rust-Tierney. I started a thread about him: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=133811.0
I wonder why the media didn't jump all over that story? I bet if Charles Rust-Tierney was conservative pastor instead a former ACLU head CNN would have been all over this story.
My guess is that he's no longer affiliated with the ACLU. He didn't misuse his office to further the ends of child pornography. He committed a crime and he'll have his day in court.
It's an awful story but not much different than other such crimes as far as newsworthiness is concerned. To parade this story around as some indictment of the ACLU would not be appropriate.
I bet if a conservative pastor was a child pornographer the shit would hit the fan newswise. But the distinction is that in your example, the guy is still affiliated with the church while tierney is disassociated from the ACLU.
-
so you are comparing a rapist to a guy that called someone a nappy haired ho? come on OzmO. I don't care who Imus broadcasts to or where he gets his advertising from. It is his right to say what he wants...this just shows that libs only cry freedom of speach when it fits their agenda
He does have a right to say what he wants.
But the business has a right to protect their interests.
I wasn't comparing the "crimes" although Imus's wasn't a crime. I was comparing the actions of Pepsi with the potential actions of the broadcasting company.
-
He does have a right to say what he wants.
But the business has a right to protect their interests.
I wasn't comparing the "crimes" although Imus's wasn't a crime. I was comparing the actions of Pepsi with the potential actions of the broadcasting company.
if he was being suspended for being gay what would you say?
-
There are rights to free speech.
There are (or used to be) rights to privacy,
There are rights for protection from unreasonable searches and seizures,
When these rights are threatened, in whatever circumstance, the ACLU has an interest.
If the police violate a person's right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure, then irrespective of the predicate crime, that violation of rights must be addressed. I.e., the police should do a better job.
-
My guess is that he's no longer affiliated with the ACLU. He didn't misuse his office to further the ends of child pornography. He committed a crime and he'll have his day in court.
It's an awful story but not much different than other such crimes as far as newsworthiness is concerned. To parade this story around as some indictment of the ACLU would not be appropriate.
I bet if a conservative pastor was a child pornographer the shit would hit the fan newswise. But the distinction is that in your example, the guy is still affiliated with the church while tierney is disassociated from the ACLU.
I'm a tad more cynical than you. :) I think if a retired conservative pastor was arrested for child porn CNN would be all over it. Personally, I think it's definitely newsworthy that a guy who fought the federal government's attempt to regulate child porn was actually into child porn himself. I doubt his fascination started when he stopped working for the ACLU.
-
There are rights to free speech.
There are (or used to be) rights to privacy,
There are rights for protection from unreasonable searches and seizures,
When these rights are threatened, in whatever circumstance, the ACLU has an interest.
If the police violate a person's right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure, then irrespective of the predicate crime, that violation of rights must be addressed. I.e., the police should do a better job.
This is all good.
What isn't good is when a person wants to engage in criminal behavior, the ACLU is there too. :-\
-
I'm a tad more cynical than you. :) I think if a retired conservative pastor was arrested for child porn CNN would be all over it. Personally, I think it's definitely newsworthy that a guy who fought the federal government's attempt to regulate child porn was actually into child porn himself. I doubt his fascination started when he stopped working for the ACLU.
I don't think you can equate the arbiter of divine morality with a pencil pusher at an ACLU branch. The comparison is not apt.
-
This is all good.
What isn't good is when a person wants to engage in criminal behavior, the ACLU is there too. :-\
Yes. When a crime is committed and the alleged perpetrator is caught, there are legal mechanisms in place to ensure fair treatment.
I think I understand your joke though.
Rights are for everyone...even alleged criminals.
-
if he was being suspended for being gay what would you say?
Why are we comparing what someone said to what someone's sexuality is?
-
My guess is that he's no longer affiliated with the ACLU. He didn't misuse his office to further the ends of child pornography. He committed a crime and he'll have his day in court.
It's an awful story but not much different than other such crimes as far as newsworthiness is concerned. To parade this story around as some indictment of the ACLU would not be appropriate.
I bet if a conservative pastor was a child pornographer the shit would hit the fan newswise. But the distinction is that in your example, the guy is still affiliated with the church while tierney is disassociated from the ACLU.
Fantastic thread, very interesting.
Child pornography is one of those hot button issues that get people's blood boiling, similar to abortion in that respect. Many many people see the ACLU defending NAMBLA and can't understand the reasoning for it. I too fall into that category. The fact that they will defend anyone no matter how despicable the cause shows their focus and intent but most people won't agree or understand.
Ultimately the ACLU is and was an excellent idea and a much needed entity but like anything it has it's flaws. Those flaws in certain instances are more than many people can stand.
-
The ALCU is all for legalizing marijuana. 8)
-
I don't think you can equate the arbiter of divine morality with a pencil pusher at an ACLU branch. The comparison is not apt.
Sure you can. I think a pastor is just a messenger, not an arbiter. He talks from a pulpit about things like morality, so when he falls down, whether he is active or retired, some people jump all over it. Same with a person who uses the legal process to fight attempts to regulate child porn. If one of those persons was actually into child porn while he was fighting attempts to regulate it (which is what I suspect), that is news.
-
Yes. When a crime is committed and the alleged perpetrator is caught, there are legal mechanisms in place to ensure fair treatment.
I think I understand your joke though.
Rights are for everyone...even alleged criminals.
Criminals have rights. I wasn't suggesting they shouldn't defend the due process rights of criminals. I have a problem with their attempts to ensure criminals have the right to engage in criminal behavior. I understand they try and make First Amendment arguments regarding attempts to fight child porn, but NAMBLA? How in the world do they justify defending an organization that advocates the rape of boys?
-
Why are we comparing what someone said to what someone's sexuality is?
because if Imus was being suspended for being gay, the ACLU would jump at it. Your claim is they won't because of buisness, I am just proving a point that they won't because of agenda. If hey were a flamer they would be there today in an uproar.
-
Sure you can. I think a pastor is just a messenger, not an arbiter. He talks from a pulpit about things like morality, so when he falls down, whether he is active or retired, some people jump all over it. Same with a person who uses the legal process to fight attempts to regulate child porn. If one of those persons was actually into child porn while he was fighting attempts to regulate it (which is what I suspect), that is news.
For the sake of argument, ok.
The ACLU deals in secular rights. The holy guy deals in divinely revealed truths.
How are those things the same?
He is an arbiter if he's a priest or the like.
These allegations occurred after the fact that he worked at an ACLU branch.
-
Criminals have rights. I wasn't suggesting they shouldn't defend the due process rights of criminals. I have a problem with their attempts to ensure criminals have the right to engage in criminal behavior. I understand they try and make First Amendment arguments regarding attempts to fight child porn, but NAMBLA? How in the world do they justify defending an organization that advocates the rape of boys?
Looks like you are confusing the crimes with the rights. Here's what the ACLU had to say:
Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.
Some free speech is bad and disgusting.
-
For the sake of argument, ok.
The ACLU deals in secular rights. The holy guy deals in divinely revealed truths.
How are those things the same?
He is an arbiter if he's a priest or the like.
These allegations occurred after the fact that he worked at an ACLU branch.
I'm not saying what the ACLU and pastors do are similar. I'm talking about hypocrisy and media coverage. The Tierney and active/retired pastor who are into child porn are both hypocrites. One will likely be paraded around CNN, the other likely will not.
And I guess you could consider a priest an arbiter (because he can supposedly forgive sins).
-
Looks like you are confusing the crimes with the rights. Here's what the ACLU had to say:
Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.
Some free speech is bad and disgusting.
C'mon Decker. This isn't about free speech. I understand the difference between crimes and "rights." I also understand that things like the First Amendment were designed to protect unpopular or "bad" expression.
But the rape of a child is a crime. No one has a right to advocate this crime. This is indefensible. NAMBLA has no "right" to exist and/or talk about their criminal organization. Shame on the ACLU for failing to draw the line with this criminal organization.
-
C'mon Decker. This isn't about free speech. I understand the difference between crimes and "rights." I also understand that things like the First Amendment were designed to protect unpopular or "bad" expression.
But the rape of a child is a crime. No one has a right to advocate this crime. This is indefensible. NAMBLA has no "right" to exist and/or talk about their criminal organization. Shame on the ACLU for failing to draw the line with this criminal organization.
Have ACLU ever defended a rape of a minor?
-Hedge
-
Have ACLU ever defended a rape of a minor?
-Hedge
Yes. They defend NAMBLA, which advocates the rape of minors. (Minors cannot consent to sex.)
-
Yes. They defend NAMBLA, which advocates the rape of minors. (Minors cannot consent to sex.)
I know they defend the Boy Lovers.
But they don't defend rape from what I understand. They defend certain constitutional rights that may or may not have been violated.
And child porn or rape will obviously never be a constitutional right, so it's my understanding that ACLU isn't defending the acts that NAMBLA discusses.
-Hedge
-
I know they defend the Boy Lovers.
But they don't defend rape from what I understand. They defend certain constitutional rights that may or may not have been violated.
And child porn or rape will obviously never be a constitutional right, so it's my understanding that ACLU isn't defending the acts that NAMBLA discusses.
-Hedge
Hedge a minor boy cannot legally consent to sex. Sex between a man and a minor boy is rape, even if the boy allegedly consents.
-
Hedge a minor boy cannot legally consent to sex. Sex between a man and a minor boy is rape, even if the boy allegedly consents.
Sorry, you misinterpreted me, I was a bit unclear.
I think NAMBLA is horrible. Sex with a minor is never ok.
NAMBLA is a sick, sick, sick organisation, I believe I told y'all when I visited their website, and how it looked very normal (no nude pics or shit like that). But very disturbing nevertheless, because they had pamfletts argueing for how their sick ideas are somehow normal.
But I was referring to that ACLU doesn't defend kid rape or whatever actions that NAMBLA subscribes to.
ACLU simply defends the constitutional rights of everyone, including NAMBLA.
-Hedge
-
Sorry, you misinterpreted me, I was a bit unclear.
I think NAMBLA is horrible. Sex with a minor is never ok.
NAMBLA is a sick, sick, sick organisation, I believe I told y'all when I visited their website, and how it looked very normal (no nude pics or shit like that). But very disturbing nevertheless, because they had pamfletts argueing for how their sick ideas are somehow normal.
But I was referring to that ACLU doesn't defend kid rape or whatever actions that NAMBLA subscribes to.
ACLU simply defends the constitutional rights of everyone, including NAMBLA.
-Hedge
Understood. And I wasn't clear either. I wasn't saying you support NAMBLA at all.
My point is that NAMBLA doesn't have a constitutional right to exist and the ACLU shouldn't do anything to support a criminal organization like NAMBLA. This isn't the same as protecting the due process rights of criminals. They shouldn't be doing anything that will permit a group like NAMBLA to continue advocating the rape of little boys. I just don't see this as a constitutional issue.
-
because if Imus was being suspended for being gay, the ACLU would jump at it. Your claim is they won't because of buisness, I am just proving a point that they won't because of agenda. If hey were a flamer they would be there today in an uproar.
I'm not sure they would fire him for being gay, however if his listeners decreased they would. suspending him for being gay is a little far fetched and unlikely also. Imus made an attacking off color statement. If I mus revealed he was gay the business would lose money because they would face serious public criticism for suspending him aqnd lose advertising revenue because of their actions. Suspending Imus for his comments makes sense. He's lucky he didn't get fired. Frankly, if saw any indication of losing money from his comments i'd fire him. But you know what? i think his audience increased as a result of this.
basically what i'm saying MM, is that it's a bad comparison. Admitting gayness vs. racially attacking a group of people.
-
C'mon Decker. This isn't about free speech. I understand the difference between crimes and "rights." I also understand that things like the First Amendment were designed to protect unpopular or "bad" expression.
But the rape of a child is a crime. No one has a right to advocate this crime. This is indefensible. NAMBLA has no "right" to exist and/or talk about their criminal organization. Shame on the ACLU for failing to draw the line with this criminal organization.
This is about free speech. The act of child enticement/molestation is a crime. Talking about such crimes is not the same thing: it is a type of speech/expression.
The content of the speech may be offensive and disgusting and the speakers perverts, but a wrongful act is an act and ruminations and utterances on that act are a type of speech/expression protected by the 1st amendment.
All this doesn't mean that ACLU agrees with the content of the speech; it's concerned with the freedom to speak granted by the 1st Amendment.
-
I'm not sure they would fire him for being gay, however if his listeners decreased they would. suspending him for being gay is a little far fetched and unlikely also. Imus made an attacking off color statement. If I mus revealed he was gay the business would lose money because they would face serious public criticism for suspending him aqnd lose advertising revenue because of their actions. Suspending Imus for his comments makes sense. He's lucky he didn't get fired. Frankly, if saw any indication of losing money from his comments i'd fire him. But you know what? i think his audience increased as a result of this.
basically what i'm saying MM, is that it's a bad comparison. Admitting gayness vs. racially attacking a group of people.
Oz, I've grown to respect you and am really suprised you are so blind on this issue.
-
Oz, I've grown to respect you and am really suprised you are so blind on this issue.
Well, I've give you the benefit of the doubt here. Here's why:
- I don't know too much about the ACLU as i probably should to definitively comment on there potential actions
- I don't know enough about homosexual discrimination laws and racial slander laws
I'm assuming firing someone for being gay is against the law and the ACLU would step in.
I'm assuming that firing someone for racial slander isn't against the law and the ACLU wouldn't step in.
So that's why i see it as i do.
I don't agree with some of the things the ACLU has done thyat i've read about in the past, but I've seen a few things i do agree with. And the issue with the KKK indicated to me they are at least in some regard unbiased about who they defend and really are about defending our rights.
-
This is about free speech. The act of child enticement/molestation is a crime. Talking about such crimes is not the same thing: it is a type of speech/expression.
The content of the speech may be offensive and disgusting and the speakers perverts, but a wrongful act is an act and ruminations and utterances on that act are a type of speech/expression protected by the 1st amendment.
All this doesn't mean that ACLU agrees with the content of the speech; it's concerned with the freedom to speak granted by the 1st Amendment.
You're assuming all speech is protected. It isn't. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You cannot disrespect your superior in the military (or any job for that matter) and keep your job. In fact, it can land you in jail in the military. You cannot threaten the president and remain a free man. "Fighting words" are not protected speech. I don't view "speech" by NAMBLA any differently.
And even if there is some valid argument that NAMBLA has a First Amendment right to advocate the rape of little boys, who the heck should be defending that "right"? The ACLU should draw the line here already.
Imagine a group of men formed to advocate the rape of women. That group would have a First Amendment "right" to exist and speak too?
-
You're assuming all speech is protected. It isn't. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You cannot disrespect your superior in the military (or any job for that matter) and keep your job. In fact, it can land you in jail in the military. You cannot threaten the president and remain a free man. "Fighting words" are not protected speech. I don't view "speech" by NAMBLA any differently.
You don't but our judicial system does draw such distinctions.
And even if there is some valid argument that NAMBLA has a First Amendment right to advocate the rape of little boys, who the heck should be defending that "right"? The ACLU should draw the line here already.
Imagine a group of men formed to advocate the rape of women. That group would have a First Amendment "right" to exist and speak too?
The ACLU remains "content neutral" in defending the constitutional rights of others in first amendment cases. You are confusing the content of the speech with the right to speak.
A long time ago I wrote a paper on the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and its effect on free speech on the Internet. Let me tell you, there are plenty of authors out there that write 'rape fantasies'. I don't agree with that. But writing about rape is not the same thing as committing rape.
-
You're assuming all speech is protected. It isn't. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You cannot disrespect your superior in the military (or any job for that matter) and keep your job. In fact, it can land you in jail in the military. You cannot threaten the president and remain a free man. "Fighting words" are not protected speech. I don't view "speech" by NAMBLA any differently.
And even if there is some valid argument that NAMBLA has a First Amendment right to advocate the rape of little boys, who the heck should be defending that "right"? The ACLU should draw the line here already.
Imagine a group of men formed to advocate the rape of women. That group would have a First Amendment "right" to exist and speak too?
Great post, Beach! Great points!
-
You don't but our judicial system does draw such distinctions.
The ACLU remains "content neutral" in defending the constitutional rights of others in first amendment cases. You are confusing the content of the speech with the right to speak.
A long time ago I wrote a paper on the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and its effect on free speech on the Internet. Let me tell you, there are plenty of authors out there that write 'rape fantasies'. I don't agree with that. But writing about rape is not the same thing as committing rape.
Decker I understand the difference between "content" and the right itself. We regulate content all the time. I just gave several examples. For instance, laws/rules prohibiting "fighting words" are not content neutral at all. They target specific words (like the "N" word).
I'm talking about two issues here: (1) the right of a criminal organization to freely advocate the rape of little boys and (2) the ACLU not having the moral courage to draw the line with representing an organization like NAMBLA. They shouldn't walk around with blinders on. What they're doing at the end of the day is helping a criminal organization prey on little boys. That's outrageous.
-
Great post, Beach! Great points!
Thanks Colossus. :)
-
Well, I've give you the benefit of the doubt here. Here's why:
- I don't know too much about the ACLU as i probably should to definitively comment on there potential actions
- I don't know enough about homosexual discrimination laws and racial slander laws
I'm assuming firing someone for being gay is against the law and the ACLU would step in.
I'm assuming that firing someone for racial slander isn't against the law and the ACLU wouldn't step in.
So that's why i see it as i do.
I don't agree with some of the things the ACLU has done thyat i've read about in the past, but I've seen a few things i do agree with. And the issue with the KKK indicated to me they are at least in some regard unbiased about who they defend and really are about defending our rights.
I know what you are saying and I'm not just blaming the ACLU...freedom of speach should be freedom of speac period....I don't like what he said, but hey we live in America right?
-
Decker I understand the difference between "content" and the right itself. We regulate content all the time. I just gave several examples. For instance, laws/rules prohibiting "fighting words" are not content neutral at all. They target specific words (like the "N" word).
I'm talking about two issues here: (1) the right of a criminal organization to freely advocate the rape of little boys and (2) the ACLU not having the moral courage to draw the line with representing an organization like NAMBLA. They shouldn't walk around with blinders on. What they're doing at the end of the day is helping a criminal organization prey on little boys. That's outrageous.
We do agree on the contemptibility of NAMBLA. The examples you provide of prohibited content are context sensitive (note how the prohibitions deal with imminent public safety situations) and well established law. NAMBLA's free speech is not tied to imminent harm of children, it's tied to discussions of the shared child perversion.
The ACLU has the moral courage to represent these monsters while upholding the seminal principles upon which this country was founded. For the ACLU not to represent these people would be cowardly.
NAMBLA can discuss the propriety of consent laws all it wants. It can oppose them. But it cannot act on that impulse with an underage person. That is against the law.
The ACLU is in no way enabling NAMBLA to score with kids. That's really a low blow against the ACLU.
-
We do agree on the contemptibility of NAMBLA. The examples you provide of prohibited content are context sensitive (note how the prohibitions deal with imminent public safety situations) and well established law. NAMBLA's free speech is not tied to imminent harm of children, it's tied to discussions of the shared child perversion.
The ACLU has the moral courage to represent these monsters while upholding the seminal principles upon which this country was founded. For the ACLU not to represent these people would be cowardly.
NAMBLA can discuss the propriety of consent laws all it wants. It can oppose them. But it cannot act on that impulse with an underage person. That is against the law.
The ACLU is in no way enabling NAMBLA to score with kids. That's really a low blow against the ACLU.
They don't all deal with public safety. Disrespecting your subordinate in the military has nothing to do with public safety. But the point is these are all content-based exceptions to the First Amendment.
Decker we have to agree to disagree on whether the ACLU's representation of an organization that advocates the rape of little boys is "morally courageous" or "morally contemptible." I don't have a problem at all with defending unpopular speech. But I draw the law here. The ACLU doesn't.
And I've said before that the ACLU has done some great things. I just think on a few issues (religion, child porn, and child rape) they have lost their way.
-
They don't all deal with public safety. Disrespecting your subordinate in the military has nothing to do with public safety. But the point is these are all content-based exceptions to the First Amendment.
Decker we have to agree to disagree on whether the ACLU's representation of an organization that advocates the rape of little boys is "morally courageous" or "morally contemptible." I don't have a problem at all with defending unpopular speech. But I draw the law here. The ACLU doesn't.
And I've said before that the ACLU has done some great things. I just think on a few issues (religion, child porn, and child rape) they have lost their way.
Isn't disrespecting a superior military officer governed by Military law?
I think we spoke our piece here.
If I were to add anything it would be on the grounds of longterm policy implications where this effort to curb the right to free speech could turn down a slippery slope. "I'm not too keen about X, so we will have to abridge their rights to free speech just like NAMBLA's and so on.
Once we start to pick and choose what we want to censor based on only moral grounds....well, there's nothing more prone to relativity than morality.
-
Isn't disrespecting a superior military officer governed by Military law?
I think we spoke our piece here.
If I were to add anything it would be on the grounds of longterm policy implications where this effort to curb the right to free speech could turn down a slippery slope. "I'm not too keen about X, so we will have to abridge their rights to free speech just like NAMBLA's and so on.
Once we start to pick and choose what we want to censor based on only moral grounds....well, there's nothing more prone to relativity than morality.
The military = federal government, which = "state actor," which would trigger First Amendment protection. They are an exception.
I share the same concern about the "slippery slope." But I also don't have a problem with drawing lines on fairly black and white issues. This isn't a gray area IMO.