Charlie, the problem with NAMBLA is that they aren't in the open. In the lawsuit, it is being asked for a list of members and the ACLU wishes for that to be blocked and also have a gag order placed on all proceedings. Freedom of speech should not include the publishing and distribution of pamphlets such as "Rape and Escape." The title speaks for itself.
Another reason I hate the ACLU
by freedom96 46 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
blacksheep
Ah, the ACLU. Their latest efforts included getting the California recall postponed because some California voters would be disenfranchised due to punch-card ballots. Funny how they didn't have problems during the last CA gubanatorial campaign in which Davis narrowly defeated his opponets (this was *after* the Bush/Gore presidential election, btw).
What an obvious pro-liberal political move. And THAT'S one of the main reason for me to hate the ACLU. I was ambivalent before...but now...no way. I frankly was not aware of their socialist origins until it was posted here (thanks for the education). But now? All things considered...What a sickening racket.
-
Yerusalyim
Does the statement by their founder represent the views of the ACLU today? I don't know...look at the lawsuits they persue, and those they DON'T persue...and you tell me.
Yes, the ACLU has done SOME good...but not much
Their founder SHAPED the organization on radical leftist ideas...can you think of one conservative cause undertaken by the ACLU? Just one?
-
crownboy
can you think of one conservative cause undertaken by the ACLU? Just one?
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=8122&c=142
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=9470&c=20
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=9981
I myself am one of those dreaded "card carrying ACLU members", and I tend to agree with their stances most of the times (and I'm not even Communist ). I'm not happy with the fact that they are defending NAMBLA, however, they are not defending NAMBLA's "right to molest children", they are defending the right to free speech of people to talk about controversial, even noxious things:
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8100&c=86
http://www.aclu-mass.org/legal/namblareinstein.html
In other words they are defending priniciples here. It's like when a Libertarian defends free market principles to the point that it will bring very negative effects on poor people. I find those views to be noxious, but I don't think it should be illegal, nor do I think Libertarians want to see the poor suffer. ACLU does not support "man/boy love", just the right to talk about it, and for NAMBLA not to be held accountable for the acts of one person.
As I said before, I don't support the goals of NAMBLA, so I'm not happy with the ACLU defending the group on that ground, but admittedly, the principle in play here they are defending is very compelling (should NAMBLA really be held responsible for this man's act, especially if it's true the group doesn't advocate breaking the law, mearly modifying it?). I would have just chosen another less noxious group to make that argument for.
-
crownboy
The ACLU has recently defended the right of a College Republican group to issue "whites only" scholarships on free speech grounds. Even before knowing the ACLU was involved, my sentiments pretty much mirrored their's.
-
Pork Chop
The ACLU celebrates and supports every one of the bill of right except the 2nd. Try to get them to back you up on that one. The ACLU is just like Amnesty International, too selective in what they support and almost always leftist.
-
gitasatsangha
Holy Resurrected Threads, Batman!
Pork Chop,
I'm pretty liberal, I think, and have owned guns in the past. I'll probably buy another one someday, (I know a guy with a Browning Hi-Power and I'm just waiting for the day he is more broke then I am), but I don't have enough money right now. That said, I think that another amendment needs to be past to restrengthen the guaranteed right of gun ownership to individuals. Why? Because the 2nd amendment was badly written and its very difficult to to comprehend. It's working could, in the wrong hands, be used to actually strip gun ownership from individuals and given over entirely to the military under the clause of "Well odered militia." I'd hate to see that happen, because a democracy needs an educated populace, and a populace armed and capable of defeating tyrrany within their own nation state.
This is the official ACLU statement.