ACLU-Would you donate?

[CalBoy]

So I've long thought about donating to the ACLU but never have for one reason or the other.

Would you be willing to be/are you a "card-carrying member?" If not, why not? What stops you? Hesitations?

Since I don't want to leave out anyone in this discussion, what are the European/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand versions of the ACLU?

[SMM]

I have been a life-time member since 1984. For my wife, she has been a member since 1976. The ACLU has one issue on their agenda; to preserve and protect the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. Why wouldn't every American support that?

[CalBoy]

I'm curious, are there different levels of membership?

Can one be a member "for life" by paying a flat amount one time?

[SMM]

I'm curious, are there different levels of membership?

Can one be a member "for life" by paying a flat amount one time?

Yes, that is what we did. However, we sometimes donate extra for specific issues (i.e. FISA).

[djellison]

If there's a UK equiv, I don't know of it. At a global human rights level, there's Amnesty International which I do support. But 'civil' rights in the UK? Can't think of any 'body' that tries to look after those.

Doug

[leekohler]

Yes- donate for sure. It's sad to me that we even need an ACLU, but these are the times we live in.

[CalBoy]

Yes, that is what we did. However, we sometimes donate extra for specific issues (i.e. FISA).

Well then, I guess it's time for me to donate.

I'll be sure to post a pic of my card when it gets here. :p:)

[ucfgrad93]

I would never donate to the ACLU.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029

[Gelfin]

I would never donate to the ACLU.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029

I admit I would find it extremely difficult to assist in any defense of NAMBLA, but even on WND's ever-slanted report, it sounds as if it is important someone does.

The plaintiff is claiming the organization is responsible for a death. Whatever else the organization might be responsible for, on the given description I'm not convinced they are responsible for that. You can't just throw any tenuous charge you can think of at a group and expect they don't deserve legal representation just because nobody likes them. The courts must not be available for use as a weapon of torch-wielding mobs. They must apply the same standards to everyone who appears on a case-by-case basis.

In taking up NAMBLA's defense in this case, I don't think anyone should infer that the ACLU thinks these are good people, or supports their aims and goals. Somebody has to keep the courts honest in the face of a defendant most people would like to just skip the trial and bury, because scrupulous courts benefit us all. Somebody has to draw the line between "are these good people" and "did they do what they are accused of doing," because the latter is the court's only job.

[CalBoy]

I would never donate to the ACLU.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029

Actually, that is the very reason one should contribute.

The ACLU will defend those whom we hate the most, and hence need the best defense. They make sure that a better balance is achieved.

I believe the old MLK line, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," applies here.

[ucfgrad93]

Actually, that is the very reason one should contribute.

The ACLU will defend those whom we hate the most, and hence need the best defense. They make sure that a better balance is achieved.

I believe the old MLK line, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," applies here.

That may be, but I don't think an organization like NAMBLA should even exist. So when the ACLU decides to defend them means that I am not going to support them financially. Pretty simple for me.

I prefer to support an organization like this. www.lc.org

[zap2]

That may be, but I don't think an organization like NAMBLA should even exist. l]

Agreed, but I strong believe that should be allowed to exist.

And its tricky difference. I disagree with what NAMBLA is trying to do, but I do agree they should have all the legal rights any other group does.

[Gelfin]

That may be, but I don't think an organization like NAMBLA should even exist. So when the ACLU decides to defend them means that I am not going to support them financially. Pretty simple for me.

I prefer to support an organization like this. www.lc.org

The difference between the ACLU and Liberty Counsel is that LC is dedicated to pushing a very narrow political agenda to support those holding certain popular majority beliefs and to actively harm the interests of anyone who does not share those beliefs. The ACLU is not the left-wing counterpart of LC; it is the mathematical inverse.

The ACLU does not choose cases based on politics, but on principles of civil liberties that should apply equally to us all. Liberty Counsel would never opt to defend a gay rights protestor outside a church, but the ACLU would defend an anti-gay Christian protestor (http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/28163prs20070129.html) if his rights were being infringed. If it looks like the ACLU is biased towards unpopular causes, perhaps that's because for some reason unpopular causes are the targets of more rights abuse.

No reason you can't support an organization dedicated to advancing a political agenda if that is what is most important to you. I want there to be an organization that supports the principles of a free nation even when they benefit people I don't personally like, because I consider the principles more important than my own narrow sensibilities.

[CalBoy]

That may be, but I don't think an organization like NAMBLA should even exist. So when the ACLU decides to defend them means that I am not going to support them financially. Pretty simple for me.

I prefer to support an organization like this. www.lc.org

The ACLU doesn't support NAMBLA because it agrees with NAMBLA's policies/positions; they defend NAMBLA because if NAMBLA is treated unfairly by the law, then that is an injustice.

The ACLU doesn't care what your message is, they simply want to protect your right to say it.

[leekohler]

The ACLU doesn't support NAMBLA because it agrees with NAMBLA's policies/positions; they defend NAMBLA because if NAMBLA is treated unfairly by the law, then that is an injustice.

The ACLU doesn't care what your message is, they simply want to protect your right to say it.

Bingo- Rush Limbaugh went running to them as well, which is ironic, given how much he likes to bash them.

[CalBoy]

Bingo- Rush Limbaugh went running to them as well, which is ironic, given how much he likes to bash them.

It's almost like a sanctuary! :p:D

Now, how much should I donate?

[aethelbert]

I would never donate to them... I have my reasons. One of them being that the ACLU is suing a local school district for charging for gym uniforms in the registration fee...

[CalBoy]

I would never donate to them... I have my reasons. One of them being that the ACLU is suing a local school district for charging for gym uniforms in the registration fee...

Why do I get the feeling that you're leaving something out of this story?

[leekohler]

Why do I get the feeling that you're leaving something out of this story?

Me too. Spit it out.

[solvs]

Why wouldn't every American support that?
Because it's easier to put on a flag pin, or at least talk about how the other guy isn't wearing one, than to actually believe in what America is supposed to stand for. Especially when they defend people we don't like. Because then we must not like them. More guilt by association. Yeah, I don't get it either.

I would never donate to the ACLU.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029
Either everyone gets rights or no one does. That's the very foundation of this country. Whether you like them or not. They've defended people I don't like too. Some pretty awful no matter how you slice it. Not the point.

That may be, but I don't think an organization like NAMBLA should even exist.
Who does, but as long as they aren't doing something illegal, such as acting on what they talk about, sadly it is perfectly legal. Same with the KKK. Same with lots of things. Just because it's awful doesn't give it the right not to exist.

So when the ACLU decides to defend them means that I am not going to support them financially. Pretty simple for me.
Not saying you have to, but there are probably a lot of things you do support that support pretty awful things. Just how it is. Considering all the good they do overall though, that's pretty specious reasoning.

I prefer to support an organization like this. www.lc.org
You're kidding right?

http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/06/03/liberty-counsels-aggressive-tactics.htm
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/groups/liberty_counsel/
http://mediamatters.org/items/200412170004

But you won't support the ACLU? :confused:

[Aranince]

ACLU? No way.

[CalBoy]

ACLU? No way.

Perhaps an explanation is in order?

[solvs]

ACLU? No way.
Why?

Ugh, Cal beat me to it.

[.Andy]

Perhaps an explanation is in order?
If I may be so bold as to preempt*. The ACLU supported X's rights. I don't like X (driven by my politico-religious views), therefore I don't like the ACLU.

*not only Ariance but every poster's reasoning against organisations such as the ACLU.

[Dont Hurt Me]

The whole idea is X rights meaning everyone. Our Constitution is suppose to give us Liberty & Freedom something all govts hate even our own. Lets face it Govt is ran by control & power freaks who want to tell everyone how to live and what to do. ACLU is helping to protect everyone's liberty including those who live a different life style. Who are you to tell me how to live my life meaning Mr Govt.

[obeygiant]

If I may be so bold as to preempt*. The ACLU supported X's rights. I don't like X (driven by my politico-religious views), therefore I don't like the ACLU.

*not only Ariance but every poster's reasoning against organisations such as the ACLU.

I see. So is there any reason to dislike or not donate the ACLU?

I believe they defended Oliver North, that might be enough for some around here withhold their donations.

Personally, I think a group that defends NAMBLA isn't worthy of any donation. But I guess my dislike of NAMBLA is just due to my "politico-religious views". :rolleyes:

[leekohler]

I see. So is there any reason to dislike or not donate the ACLU?

I believe they defended Oliver North, that might be enough for some around here withhold their donations.

Personally, I think a group that defends NAMBLA isn't worthy of any donation. But I guess my dislike of NAMBLA is just due to my "politico-religious views". :rolleyes:

Who here likes NAMBLA? Let's get serious for just a minute. Who likes the KKK? Hmm...nobody? OK, so do neither of these organizations have a right to free speech or the same rights as everyone else? If they don't, who else would you like to single out?

Hmm...I'd like to single out Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter for starters. :rolleyes:

The point is- everyone is entitled to the same rights and due process, no matter how repulsive.

[obeygiant]

The point is- everyone is entitled to the same rights and due process, no matter how repulsive.

Well this thread is about why or why not someone would donate to the ACLU. Their defense of NAMBLA is one reason why many wouldn't. However the ACLUs donations exceed 80 million.

Yes everyone is entitled to equal rights except when those rights impede on others, right? For instance an organization that prays on young boys with sick and twisted sex fantasies. I believe that the ACLU isn't seeing the forest for the trees in this situation. Repulsive is repulsive for a reason.

[Gelfin]

Personally, I think a group that defends NAMBLA isn't worthy of any donation. But I guess my dislike of NAMBLA is just due to my "politico-religious views". :rolleyes:

So what you are saying is, since no one likes NAMBLA, anyone in the country can bring suit against them for any cause -- say, accusing them of masterminding 9/11 -- and because no one likes them, they deserve no defense and therefore must be found guilty?

Your argument is that they are bad and therefore siding with them for any reason, on any issue, would make you bad too. Presumably a judge who threw such a case out, or a jury who found there was no evidence for such a ludicrous charge would also be subject to your scorn for exactly the same reason, since those would be findings in favor of the organization, and would allow them to continue practicing the unrelated things of which we disapprove.

Or perhaps you are simply arguing in favor of "letting the market decide" who deserves a fair trial and a vigorous defense.

Either way, is that really the sort of justice system you want your country to have?

[leekohler]

Well this thread is about why or why not someone would donate to the ACLU. Their defense of NAMBLA is one reason why many wouldn't. However the ACLUs donations exceed 80 million.

Yes everyone is entitled to equal rights except when those rights impede on others, right? For instance an organization that prays on young boys with sick and twisted sex fantasies. I believe that the ACLU isn't seeing the forest for the trees in this situation. Repulsive is repulsive for a reason.

I don't think the ACLU has defended NAMBLA's practices, only their rights within the law, which everyone deserves. There's a huge difference there. The KKK is repulsive- they've defended them too.

I actually wouldn't support a civil rights organization that only defends people they agree with.

[obeygiant]

So what you are saying is, since no one likes NAMBLA, anyone in the country can bring suit against them for any cause -- say, accusing them of masterminding 9/11 -- and because no one likes them, they deserve no defense and therefore must be found guilty?

I'm not saying that at all.

[Lord Blackadder]

I am constantly irritated that the ACLU supports people and organizations I totally dislike. Which means they are doing their job...so I support them.

Yes- donate for sure. It's sad to me that we even need an ACLU, but these are the times we live in.

I don't think their has been one moment in ten thousand years of human history where we have ever not needed something like the ACLU, and that probably goes for the next ten thousand years as well. I don't see it as sad so much as a demonstration that we'll never all "just get along" as a species.

[Gelfin]

I'm not saying that at all.

Then what are you saying? Explain to me why NAMBLA would deserve defense against a wrongful death suit stemming from 9/11, but should be railroaded in this case.

[rhett7660]

Please tell me a local child molesters need a voice that should be heard so they can continue what they are doing?

Sorry there is a difference for free speach IE KKK and molesting a child......

Sorry I don't think a child molester should have any freaking say. You have got to be kidding me. Oh I am sorry, lets protect someone who is violating our children. Yeah sounds good to me :rolleyes:

Free speach to me is different, they can support the KKK just like they can support the black panther/nation of islam movement and the hispanic movement of metcha (sp?) But I am sorry I don't think a child molester needs to have his group of "friends" protected. Just IMHO.

[ucfgrad93]

Then what are you saying? Explain to me why NAMBLA would deserve defense against a wrongful death suit stemming from 9/11, but should be railroaded in this case.

I hardly think that NAMBLA is being railroaded in this case. Seems to me that NAMBLA may have contributed to this child's death. Not saying they are solely responsible, but in my opinion should be held accountable.

From the article I cited earlier

Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes picked up fifth-grader Jeffrey Curley and took the boy to the Boston Public Library where Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website. Later, the men attempted to sexually assault Curley, but the boy fought back. Attempting to restrain him, Jaynes gagged the 10-year-old with a gasoline-soaked rag, eventually killing him. The men put Jeffrey's body in a tub with concrete and threw it in a river.

According to Curley family attorney Larry Frisoli, Jaynes kept a diary in which he wrote that he turned to NAMBLA's website in order to gain psychological comfort for what he was about to do. The killer had been stalking Curley prior to the boy's murder and possessed various materials from the clandestine group.

[Lord Blackadder]

Free speach to me is different, they can support the KKK just like they can support the black panther/nation of islam movement and the hispanic movement of metcha (sp?) But I am sorry I don't think a child molester needs to have his group of "friends" protected. Just IMHO.

The ACLU exists to make sure the state "practices what it preaches" in going through due process (as mentioned before). Just because the vast majority of us all agree something is wrong doesn't make it OK to circumvent our own laws in order to expedite "justice".

In that sense, yes, child molesters should be able to make use of the services of the ACLU - because we owe it to ourselves to preserve the integrity of our institutions. The ACLU is ideally blind to the substance of an issue, and concentrates instead on ensuring that due process takes place. This means that it ends up representing a lot of people that, frankly, stand for or practice things I strongly oppose. The principle, however, is laudable and I support it.

[leekohler]

Please tell me a local child molesters need a voice that should be heard so they can continue what they are doing?

Sorry there is a difference for free speach IE KKK and molesting a child......

Sorry I don't think a child molester should have any freaking say. You have got to be kidding me. Oh I am sorry, lets protect someone who is violating our children. Yeah sounds good to me :rolleyes:

Free speach to me is different, they can support the KKK just like they can support the black panther/nation of islam movement and the hispanic movement of metcha (sp?) But I am sorry I don't think a child molester needs to have his group of "friends" protected. Just IMHO.

Please explain to me the difference between the KKK and NAMBLA. They're both equally disturbing to me, and both promote harm against and do harm others.

In other words what you're saying is- we just throw due process and rule of law out when it happens to be a group we find offensive?

[Gelfin]

Sorry there is a difference for free speach IE KKK and molesting a child......

But, and this is the important part, that is not what they are accused of doing in this lawsuit. If that's what they did, give them a trial for that, make the state prove its case and send them to jail.

You are making the claim that because you don't like something they advocate (and, it bears repeating, certainly neither do I) they do not deserve defense against an accusation of something else they do not advocate and in which they had no direct involvement.

You are expecting everyone to look the other way and let that happen simply because it results in harm to people you hate.

Once again, this is not about supporting monsters. It is about making sure our justice system focuses on what people did, not how we feel about them.

I hardly think that NAMBLA is being railroaded in this case. Seems to me that NAMBLA may have contributed to this child's death. Not saying they are solely responsible, but in my opinion should be held accountable.

Come on, repeat after me: That is what the trial is for. By saying no one should defend them, you are saying your opinion should carry the weight of law with no argument.

[rhett7660]

Once again, this is not about supporting monsters, it is about making sure our justice system focuses on what people did, not how we feel about them.

Point taken....

[SMM]

I do not recall who quoted this, and a search on Google did not return any hits as I have written it. But it goes something like, "A society is only as free as its most discriminated group". The meaning being that you cannot truly have free society, regardless of what you claim, if any group does not have the same rights as everyone else.

In America, we fall short of our ideal of being free. That is why the ACLU is so important. They do not focus on what an individual and/or group is actually engaged in. They simply defend their constitutional rights. That is it. It is also why they can seem to be a hero one day, and the villain the next. As individuals, we have (often strong) opinions about certain individuals, or groups. Some have been mentioned as examples here. There have been cases, which the ACLU defended and it made me cringe. Yet, when I actually studied what they were defending, it made sense. I cannot recall a single case where they argued for guilt, or innocence.

It is always important to remember that in the majority of cases, there is someone on the opposite side. They will often vilify the ACLU, and attempt to turn public sentiment against them, and the validity of what they are arguing. It goes with the territory.

[Lord Blackadder]

It's very hard to look at the NAMBLA case and feel good about the ACLU supporting anything involved in it, but if they don't make the argument who will be there to oppose a possible abuse of the system?

[solvs]

I see. So is there any reason to dislike or not donate the ACLU?
You don't have to donate, but to dislike them is to dislike what America is supposed to stand for. Rights for everyone, even the worst of us. Especially the worst of us. We don't have to like it, but actually the fact that we don't proves that they are doing what they're supposed to.

I believe they defended Oliver North, that might be enough for some around here withhold their donations.
Still missing the point. We've noted that they've defended Rush, as well as the KKK. We obvious don't like them. We don't like NAMBLA either, but they still deserve at least a defense, no matter how reprehensible.

Personally, I think a group that defends NAMBLA isn't worthy of any donation. But I guess my dislike of NAMBLA is just due to my "politico-religious views". :rolleyes:
Do you really think we like them? Of course we don't. No one does. But everyone deserves at least a defense. If not, then how do you choose who does and who doesn't? That's why the system is setup the way it's supposed to be, so that no one can make that distinction, again, no matter how horrible the perpetrators. Do you hate all defense attorneys too, because some of them defend pretty horrible people. Some even go free.

Please tell me a local child molesters need a voice that should be heard so they can continue what they are doing?
This isn't about them, because everyone does need one, even the worst of us, or no one does.

Sorry there is a difference for free speach IE KKK and molesting a child......
What about talking about being violent against another race vs talking about being with a child sexually? What if the person from the KKK wants to kill someone? Do they not get at least someone to defend them in court? What if NAMBLA just wants to have a public meeting and not actually commit any crimes? Do we tell them they can't because we don't like it? What if they do actually molest someone? Do we string them up right there, or do they at least get lawyers as the state attempts to prove them guilty?

Sorry I don't think a child molester should have any freaking say.
I don't like them any more than you do. I probably dislike them even more given my experiences. But that's just not the way this society works. Everyone has the same rights. Everyone.

You have got to be kidding me. Oh I am sorry, lets protect someone who is violating our children. Yeah sounds good to me :rolleyes:
No one is saying we should just let them free to get away with the crime again, but they at least deserve due process, as anyone else has.

Free speach to me is different, they can support the KKK just like they can support the black panther/nation of islam movement and the hispanic movement of metcha (sp?) But I am sorry I don't think a child molester needs to have his group of "friends" protected. Just IMHO.
Protected from injustice, of course they do. They shouldn't need it, but they do. 2 wrongs don't make a right, and taking away the rights of someone who disgusts you, how is that any better? Again, no one is saying they should all be let free. That's not the issue here. Just that everyone deserves their right to a fair trial. Everyone. No one gets to decide which group or person gets rights and which don't. No matter how many of us agree on how terrible they are.

They can, and most usually do, still are punished within the law, no one is arguing they shouldn't, it's just that that rule of law to get them there and rule on the punishment is guarded.

I hardly think that NAMBLA is being railroaded in this case. Seems to me that NAMBLA may have contributed to this child's death. Not saying they are solely responsible, but in my opinion should be held accountable.
And I'm sure those responsible will be. They should be. They still deserve a fair trial, due process, and a defense. Because everyone does. EVERYONE. This really isn't that hard, and I don't see how this has anything to do with accepting what these perpetrators, do any more than what a murder or rapist does before being defended by a defense attorney. :confused:

[obeygiant]

You don't have to donate, but to dislike them is to dislike what America is supposed to stand for. Rights for everyone, even the worst of us. Especially the worst of us. We don't have to like it, but actually the fact that we don't proves that they are doing what they're supposed to.


I'm sorry, solvs, America does not stand for child molestation or child pornography. That IS NOT free speech. NAMBLA now has a right to exist because the ACLU hung a "free speech" banner on it. Where are the priorities of this organization?

Yes, everyone deserves a fair trial with evidence. But to take a case where the organization could have been brought down and putting a free speech stamp on it to stop it is just deplorable.

Look, at what has happened. A tiny fraction of the population that is NAMBLA now has more power than the millions of innocent boys that could be hurt by them. What the hell, man?

[ucfgrad93]

I'm sorry, solvs, America does not stand for child molestation or child pornography. That IS NOT free speech. NAMBLA now has a right to exist because the ACLU hung a "free speech" banner on it. Where are the priorities of this organization?

Yes, everyone deserves a fair trial with evidence. But to take a case where the organization could have been brought down and putting a free speech stamp on it to stop it is just deplorable.

Look, at what has happened. A tiny fraction of the population that is NAMBLA now has more power than the millions of innocent boys that could be hurt by them. What the hell, man?

You said it way better than I ever could! Thanks.

[rhett7660]

Originally Posted by obeygiant
I'm sorry, solvs, America does not stand for child molestation or child pornography. That IS NOT free speech. NAMBLA now has a right to exist because the ACLU hung a "free speech" banner on it. Where are the priorities of this organization?

Yes, everyone deserves a fair trial with evidence. But to take a case where the organization could have been brought down and putting a free speech stamp on it to stop it is just deplorable.

You said it way better than I ever could! Thanks.


I agree.

[solvs]

I'm sorry, solvs, America does not stand for child molestation or child pornography.
Nor does the ACLU, despite you trying to say they do. America, and again the ACLU, shouldn't be about the KKK either, but sadly they have a right to exist too. THAT is what America is about, when we like it and when we don't. We don't get to pick and choose.

Where are the priorities of this organization?
Rights for everyone. Even the worst of us. Especially the worst of us, no one else will defend.

Yes, everyone deserves a fair trial with evidence.
Then what's the problem?

But to take a case where the organization could have been brought down
Brought down for what? Saying something you dislike? Doesn't work like that, no matter what they're saying. It's disgusting. A lot of things are disgusting. We don't get to choose what is allowed to be said and what isn't.

A tiny fraction of the population that is NAMBLA now has more power than the millions of innocent boys that could be hurt by them.
You can't possibly be arguing majority rules, so I'll address the rest. If they act, they can be brought to justice. Notice I said justice though. They commit a crime, they get put before a judge and jury, are defended by an attorney, and punished accordingly within the confines of the law. If they aren't breaking the law, and are just talking, even if just meeting, until they do break the law, act on what they do, they are protected.

Look, I know it's awful. Believe me, I know. But if we're going to be as free as we claim to be, we have to tolerate a lot of bad stuff. Doesn't mean we have to like it. We don't. We can protest it, we can say nasty things about them right back. But sadly, they have a right to exist, to say what they want, to meet, to be disgusting. Just as a fiction writer would writing about the subject. It sucks sometimes, but for the sake of all of us, everyone gets the same rights. Everyone. No matter what. Once they cross that line, sure, we can bust them. Or try to. But they do still get to have the same rights anyone else who's accused of a crime has too. I wouldn't want to live in a society where we tell anyone they otherwise can't have those things (due process, free speech) because what's to stop us from deciding we don't like something else? I don't like them protecting Rush or Ollie either, but I can't say I blame them for doing so. Would have been hypocritical if they didn't, and you know what, Rush had every right to want to protect himself. I'm glad he did. Ollie was guilty, but he has rights too.

Feel free to use your rights not to support them financially, but you can't say you don't like them because they're defending something you don't like when they're entire purpose is to hold up all of our freedoms by not choosing who they defend and who they don't.

[leekohler]

Nor does the ACLU, despite you trying to say they do. America, and again the ACLU, shouldn't be about the KKK either, but sadly they have a right to exist too. THAT is what America is about, when we like it and when we don't. We don't get to pick and choose.


Rights for everyone. Even the worst of us. Especially the worst of us, no one else will defend.


Then what's the problem?


Brought down for what? Saying something you dislike? Doesn't work like that, no matter what they're saying. It's disgusting. A lot of things are disgusting. We don't get to choose what is allowed to be said and what isn't.


You can't possibly be arguing majority rules, so I'll address the rest. If they act, they can be brought to justice. Notice I said justice though. They commit a crime, they get put before a judge and jury, are defended by an attorney, and punished accordingly within the confines of the law. If they aren't breaking the law, and are just talking, even if just meeting, until they do break the law, act on what they do, they are protected.

Look, I know it's awful. Believe me, I know. But if we're going to be as free as we claim to be, we have to tolerate a lot of bad stuff. Doesn't mean we have to like it. We don't. We can protest it, we can say nasty things about them right back. But sadly, they have a right to exist, to say what they want, to meet, to be disgusting. Just as a fiction writer would writing about the subject. It sucks sometimes, but for the sake of all of us, everyone gets the same rights. Everyone. No matter what. Once they cross that line, sure, we can bust them. Or try to. But they do still get to have the same rights anyone else who's accused of a crime has too. I wouldn't want to live in a society where we tell anyone they otherwise can't have those things (due process, free speech) because what's to stop us from deciding we don't like something else? I don't like them protecting Rush or Ollie either, but I can't say I blame them for doing so. Would have been hypocritical if they didn't, and you know what, Rush had every right to want to protect himself. I'm glad he did. Ollie was guilty, but he has rights too.

Feel free to use your rights not to support them financially, but you can't say you don't like them because they're defending something you don't like when they're entire purpose is to hold up all of our freedoms by not choosing who they defend and who they don't.

Exactly. I don't understand what no one gets about these very simple concepts.

[solvs]

Exactly. I don't understand what no one gets about these very simple concepts.

Because NAMBLA is awful.

[leekohler]

Because NAMBLA is awful.

Yes they are, but a lot of people are awful. Fred Phelps is awful. The KKK is awful. Ann Coulter is a hideous, hateful witch. They still get to speak. But when they actually break the law, then we've got them. Even then, they still deserve due process.

[solvs]

Yes they are, but a lot of people are awful. Fred Phelps is awful. The KKK is awful. Ann Coulter is a hideous, hateful witch. They still get to speak. But when they actually break the law, then we've got them. Even then, they still deserve due process.
I didn't say it was right. Just that it's understandable why people don't like it. There's a level of awful that's just too awful, and it's hard to see that it's about everyone, not just that awfulness. That there's a certain point where maybe, just maybe, we can be a little more strict to make us all better off. I've felt that way myself, but then I remember Niemöller:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

And that quote by Franklin or Jefferson about those who give up liberty for the perception of safety getting neither.

I argued with someone awhile ago seemingly taking the opposite position I am now about a violent video game that had whites killing blacks. Eventually I pointed out that I was more angry about the subject and venting than calling for gov intervention. Stores had a right not to sell it, parents shouldn't buy it. But just as some here criticizing the ACLU may feel when defending something like gun rights or the like, gov intervention isn't always a good thing. No matter how much you dislike something. The only way to deal with these people is within the law, which is what the ACLU is defending. Think of it that way, they're defending the law and due process and rights, not these people. You don't have to like them.

You can always just use your legal rights to fight against them if you so desire.

[rhett7660]

They still get to speak. But when they actually break the law, then we've got them. Even then, they still deserve due process.

I agree with this..........

[solvs]

I agree with this..........
I think everyone does, it's just hard to think of anyone who would want to defend such people. Lord knows I wouldn't. If it were up to me... well, let's just say I'd have a hard time not wanting to do what I was calling barbaric in that other thread. But *sigh* for the good of the system, for better or worse, I can suck it up and say I'm kinda glad someone does.

[SMM]

You said it way better than I ever could! Thanks.

Then change the friggin' law, but do not just ignore it. That is the breeding ground for anarchy. If the law is not upheld, and constitutional rights are being denied, the consequences for society are far greater than what these groups do. You could make freedom of speech a little more restrictive, so it does not allow for predatory abuse for example. Then everyone is happy. You just have to be careful in how you write such laws.

[rhett7660]

freedom of speech a little more restrictive

Don't know if I want to do that. Being more restrictive, then it isn't freedom of speech anymore is it?

[Gelfin]

I'm sorry, solvs, America does not stand for child molestation or child pornography. That IS NOT free speech. NAMBLA now has a right to exist because the ACLU hung a "free speech" banner on it. Where are the priorities of this organization?

Yes, everyone deserves a fair trial with evidence. But to take a case where the organization could have been brought down and putting a free speech stamp on it to stop it is just deplorable.

Look, at what has happened. A tiny fraction of the population that is NAMBLA now has more power than the millions of innocent boys that could be hurt by them. What the hell, man?

With apologies to the anonymous author of the old lawyer joke, you know how you can tell whether someone is engaged in Constitutionally protected speech? His lips are moving. If you think a legal liability is introduced by that speech, you must meet the burden of proof in court. You err in your presumption that free speech needs anyone's stamp.

Furthermore, although you are correct that child pornography and molestation are not protected under the Constitution, you are ignoring that this suit does not accuse NAMBLA of either of those, much less of murder. You are further incorrect that the illegality of any of those criminal acts, or the protection afforded to their victims, is affected by in any way, positively or negatively, by this action.

Modern American jurisprudence draws a strong distinction between mere advocacy of offense and incitement to offend. Advocacy is protected speech right up until it can be reasonably understood to solicit immediate compliance with the advocated behavior. This same protection allows people in another thread on these very boards to say things like, "I don't see what's so wrong about polygamy" without being arrested. It allows certain individuals to say, "I think women should be forcibly restrained from having abortions" legally, even though to actually do so would be criminal.

The plaintiffs do not even allege that NAMBLA advocated criminal acts, but merely that they "created an environment" that tended to encourage them. A ruling against them on this basis would represent a sea change in the American legal system, one with far-reaching repercussions on speech we would probably rather remain free.

What we must not do is allow such an important change to slip past us simply because in this specific case we hate the defendant. This would be SCOTUS material for sure, and the more I think about it, the more you're damned right I want the ACLU involved in it.

[CalBoy]

I'm sorry, solvs, America does not stand for child molestation or child pornography.
I don't think the ACLU is standing up for child porn or child molestation.

That IS NOT free speech.
Of course not. Molesting a child hardly involves speech.

Advocating that point of view, however, is indeed speech.

NAMBLA now has a right to exist because the ACLU hung a "free speech" banner on it. Where are the priorities of this organization?

So you'd shut down any organization which you found to have questionable opinions? Assuming the organization did nothing illegal, would it be appropriate to silence someone just because you find their opinion repulsive?

Yes, everyone deserves a fair trial with evidence. But to take a case where the organization could have been brought down and putting a free speech stamp on it to stop it is just deplorable.

I don't think anyone is going to defend the actions of a child molester, but we are going to protect others' rights to speak about whatever they want to. Nazi have to be able to parade as much as child molesters or firefighters or the army.

Look, at what has happened. A tiny fraction of the population that is NAMBLA now has more power than the millions of innocent boys that could be hurt by them. What the hell, man?

I don't believe the millions of innocent boys have been left entirely high and dry. They still have statutory rape laws on their side (which actually punish an act as opposed to an opinion), the protection of their parents/guardians, and other positive adults (teachers for example).



And as of 10:00 pm today (GMT-8) I am officially a card-carrying member of the ACLU (well more like when the card arrives in the mail, but you get the idea :p).

[SMM]

Don't know if I want to do that. Being more restrictive, then it isn't freedom of speech anymore is it?

Like I said, it would have to be done very carefully. However, I am not a supporter of doing this at all. I was just making the point that if society is unhappy with the law, then change the law, but do not ignore it for convenience sake. Otherwise, you must have someone to correct that injustice. We once had a Supreme Court which actually could be trusted to uphold the Constitution. Unfortunately, it was subverted by the right-wing and became their policy enforcement arm. The ACLU is now more than it has ever has been before.

[LethalWolfe]

I believe that the ACLU isn't seeing the forest for the trees in this situation.
That's a touch ironic, no?;)

Repulsive is repulsive for a reason.
If being viewed as repulsive was a crime we'd all be in jail.


Lethal