ACLJ = the Antithesis of the ACLU

[OzmO]

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.

[militarymuscle69]

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

[Colossus_500]

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!

[Decker]

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.

[OzmO]

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.

[militarymuscle69]

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?

[Decker]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[Decker]

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.

[Decker]

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.

[OzmO]

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?

[ieffinhatecardio]

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.

[Camel Jockey]

The ALCU is all for legalizing marijuana. 

[Dos Equis]

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.       

[Dos Equis]

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?     

[militarymuscle69]

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.

[Decker]

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.

[Decker]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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).   

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[Hedgehog]

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

[Dos Equis]

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.)

[Hedgehog]

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

[Dos Equis]

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.