NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: Has the ACLU copped out, or is this just a "temporary aberration?" Enquiring minds want to know! :)


Concerns at A.C.L.U. Over Document Shredding (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/national/05aclu.html?th&emc=th)

By STEPHANIE STROM
Published: June 5, 2005

The American Civil Liberties Union has been shredding some documents over the repeated objections of its records manager and in conflict with its longstanding policies on the preservation and disposal of records.

The matter has fueled a dispute at the organization over internal operations, one of several such debates over the last couple of years, and has reignited questions over whether the A.C.L.U.'s own practices are consistent with its public positions.

The organization has generally advocated for strong policies on record retention and benefited from them, most recently obtaining and publicizing documents from the government about prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The debate over the use of shredders is reminiscent of one late last year over the organization's efforts to collect a wide variety of data on its donors, even as it criticizes corporations and government agencies for accumulating personal data as a violation of privacy rights.

Janet Linde, who oversaw the A.C.L.U.'s archives for over a decade until she resigned last month, raised concerns in e-mail messages and memorandums for over two years that officials' use of shredders in their offices made a mockery of the organization's policy to supervise document destruction and created potential legal risks.

"It has been shown in many legal cases over the years, including the Enron case, that if a company has an established and documented shredding program they will not be liable if documents at issue in a lawsuit are found to have been destroyed," Ms. Linde wrote in a 2003 memo. "If, however, the means for unauthorized shredding is present in the office we cannot say that we have made a good faith effort to monitor and document our records disposal process."

Ms. Linde said she was disturbed that her correspondence had become public and declined to comment further. A spokeswoman for the organization, Emily Whitfield, declined to answer specific questions but made the following statement: "The A.C.L.U.'s records management policies have always been of the highest standards in keeping with, if not more stringent than, those of other nonprofits."

[ This article is two pages long. Read the entire article here (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/national/05aclu.html?th&emc=th). ]

What the Times?

Hmm this will be interesting for responses as the Times is usually dismissed as being a liberal rag.

Oh BTW; they want you to login.....

What is the aclu?

What is the aclu?
American Civil Liberties Union

What is the aclu?

American Civil Liberties Union.

They defend the Consititution and people whose rights are violated.

They are probably the most hated by the Republicans and or conservatives.....

They shredded some documents? Big deal. Jeez, if thats the worse thing you can say about them...

American Civil Liberties Union.

They defend the Consititution and people whose rights are violated.

They are probably the most hated by the Republicans and or conservatives.....

Why? Don't conservatives want to conserve the constituition too?

This is silly.

Every major corporation in the country uses shredders or shredding services.

As does every major law firm.

In fact, it can be malpractice to not adequately protect client documents through appropriate shredding.

It is a wide leap from "ACLU has shredders" to "ACLU is hypocrites" or "ACLU has done anything wrong."

Your own article explains that, consistent with the policies it has advocated for other organizations, the ACLU has a strict records management policy.

Apparently someone leaked old memos from the records manager that says that the availability of shredders may allow for unauthorized shredding. That is true of every workplace with shredders. The ACLU has not advocated that all shredders everywhere be banned.

NOTE: Once again, you've linked an article that requires a subscription.

I fogot to say.

That is interesting and disturbing as hypocracy is a bad label. It's hard to loose once applied.

My question would be what was shreaded. Is it harmless email? Stuff of no purpose? If the docs had meaning for issues, then by all means blast away.

Why? Don't conservatives want to conserve the constituition too?

Some but who is always crying Christian persecution?

NOTE: Once again, you've linked an article that requires a subscription.
It's free.

What is your problem with the ACLU? I would argue that they and fellow organizations have done as much as the oft glorified military to ensure that we KEEP the rights we were meant to have. Those that destroy democracies, history has shown, usually come from inside, so I thank god that we have an organization dedicated to defending our rights from the government and other internal forces.

And what documents were they shredding? That makes a world of difference. If it were simple, insignificant, non-incriminating records they didn't want/have space for/whatever, that's not something you can really call them on. Besides, from the article there seem to be factions within he ACLU, those shredding and those objecting to the shredding.

They may believe in stringent record keeping, but that doesn't mean that they are forbidden from touching a shredder. My family keeps all of it's important records, yet we own and use a shredder often, simply as a space saver.

NOTE: Once again, you've linked an article that requires a subscription.
http://www.bugmenot.com/

Some but who is always crying Christian persecution?

Oh. Well, does the ACLU do that?

Why can't we all just get along? :fluffle:

I've shredded some documents in the past too. Often because they weren't necessary and they posed an identity theft and privacy risk. So what? The ACLU handles legal cases. They may have shredded documents to preserve atourney/client privelage.

Oh. Well, does the ACLU do that?

Why can't we all just get along? :fluffle:

Sorry making assumptions to knowledge. ;)

The ACLU takes on many Chruch State seperation issues. Because the Christians can't force their views on people, they are being persecuted......

I agree. Conservatives might be happier if they :fluffle: more! :D

What is your problem with the ACLU?
What makes you think I have a "problem with the ACLU?" Where do I indicate that. You are leaping to inaccurate conclusions.

I have no more problem with the ACLU than I do with most political organizations these days:

* All of them are a bit arrogant and "holier than thou."

* Most of them are comprised of lawyers. ;)

so the ACLU is getting flack for getting rid of documents while Google is getting flack for not getting rid of documents...


seems you just can't win.

What is your problem with the ACLU?

I really don't have a problem with them shredding documents.

My problem is that they'd rather defend the rights of criminals than those of innocent, unborn children.

What makes you think I have a "problem with the ACLU?" Where do I indicate that. You are leaping to inaccurate conclusions.

I have no more problem with the ACLU than I do with most political organizations these days:

* All of them are a bit arrogant and "holier than thou."

* Most of them are comprised of lawyers. ;)

'NOTE: Has the ACLU copped out, or is this just a "temporary aberration?" Enquiring minds want to know! ' - Eutrusca

'The ACLU??? Nahhh! They would never, ever DO such a thing! Tsk!' - Eutrusca

Perhaps it was an assumption, but I maintain at the very least it was an educated assumption, based on the tone of these two quotes leading into the discussion.

Though I do apologize if I was putting words in your mouth.

I really don't have a problem with them shredding documents.

My problem is that they'd rather defend the rights of criminals than those of innocent, unborn children.

Criminals are people, fetuses are not. Just because you like one thing more than the other, it doesnt change that.

'NOTE: Has the ACLU copped out, or is this just a "temporary aberration?" Enquiring minds want to know! ' - Eutrusca

'The ACLU??? Nahhh! They would never, ever DO such a thing! Tsk!' - Eutrusca

Perhaps it was an assumption, but I maintain at the very least it was an educated assumption, based on the tone of these two quotes leading into the discussion.

Though I do apologize if I was putting words in your mouth.
LOL! Think nothing of it. The ACLU, like most "issues" organizations, serves a useful purpose. I was just being my usual, sarcastic self. :D

Criminals are people, fetuses are not. Just because you like one thing more than the other, it doesnt change that.

Criminals have violated the law; fetuses have not. JUst because you like one better than the other; it doesn't change that. We cvould sit here and argue until we're blue in the face, but it won't change anything.

Document shredding to abortion within two pages. Close, but not record-worthy...

Criminals have violated the law; fetuses have not. JUst because you like one better than the other; it doesn't change that. We cvould sit here and argue until we're blue in the face, but it won't change anything.

Just because you like one better than the other; it doesn't change anything.

Until the Consitution defines a fetus as having rights, they ACLU is doing the right thing.

Giving the fetus rights opens up an ugly situtation for definitions. If a woman has a miscarriage, can she be charged with manslaughter?

Get the country to have an amendment to outlaw RvW and then we can talk.

Criminals have violated the law; fetuses have not. JUst because you like one better than the other; it doesn't change that. We cvould sit here and argue until we're blue in the face, but it won't change anything.

Nor have trees, and we still kill them. They are also more complex lifeforms than an early-stage fetus.

Now Eutrusca, it certainly does seem that you have a problem with the ACLU. Don't be disingenous.
I come to this conclusion just by the comments you've made in the time I've known you. Including the comment "Eww!" when I mentioned being a member.

Considering the views you hold in other matters, I really don't understand your problem with an organization that is dedicated to preserving our rights to privacy and free speech.

Thank you for responsible reporting as always Eutrusca! :D

I personally think this is an abberation. It's really no big deal in today's world. Although it should be. However, every organization engages in some..."shady" practices.

Now Eutrusca, it certainly does seem that you have a problem with the ACLU. Don't be disingenous.
I come to this conclusion just by the comments you've made in the time I've known you. Including the comment "Eww!" when I mentioned being a member.

Considering the views you hold in other matters, I really don't understand your problem with an organization that is dedicated to preserving our rights to privacy and free speech.
Hon, just because I make fun of something doesn't mean I don't like it. After all, I make fun of YOU now and then! :D

Moi? "Disingenous???" Never! :D

I don't have a problem with this paper shredding stuff, unless it turns out they were destroying evidence they didn't like:

My opinion of them isn't very good though. they have nice words and pretend to like everyone equally, but really, the ACLU is a political organization, despite any other ridiculous claim to the contrary.

This sounds like a political position to me, how is it not?

The ACLU has been an outspoken critic of the War on Drugs since the Reagan administration renewed efforts to stamp out illicit drugs in the early 1980s. The ACLU Drug Law Reform Project (DLRP), founded in 1999, conducts the only national litigation program addressing civil rights and civil liberties violations arising from the War on Drugs. Based in Santa Cruz, California, the DLRP has litigated cases on many issues, including drug testing, racial justice, medical marijuana, needle exchange, religious freedom, electronic music culture, voting rights, students' rights and government programs such as welfare. The DLRP also provides support to ACLU drug reform efforts at the local, state, and national levels.
We believe there are better ways to address drug abuse, ways that will ultimately lead to a healthier, freer and less crime-ridden society. Use the resources on this site to learn more and take action to protect the rights guaranteed to all Americans by the Bill of Rights.

http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicyMain.cfm

Ah, Eutrusca.


Doesn't like Amnesty International, vilifies the American Civil Liberties Union...what's next? Ducks Unlimited? The Sierra Club? Meals on Wheels?

Busy week for being crabby.

Why? Don't conservatives want to conserve the constituition too?
You would think so. Conservatives usually take a more literalist view of the US Constitution. They think that because the right to an abortion, for example is not explicitly stated, that people should not have that right.

That is interesting and disturbing as hypocracy is a bad label.
It's hypocrisy hypocrisy hypocrisy!

I don't normally go spelling-Nazi, but everyone gets this wrong.

My problem is that they'd rather defend the rights of criminals than those of innocent, unborn children.
Criminals have rights, so they stand up for them. The right to an abortion is currently considered to fall under a constitutional right to privacy. They would be hypocritical to be against abortion while claiming to support constitutional rights.

Criminals have violated the law; fetuses have not. JUst because you like one better than the other.
Yeah, I'm sure he likes criminals. :rolleyes:

The ACLU have a requirement to defend the constitution. The current legal interpretation of it includes the right to an abortion. It's not as subjective as you make it out to be.

It's hypocrisy B]hypocrisy[/B] B]hypocrisy[/B]!

I don't normally go spelling-Nazi, but everyone gets this wrong.


No worries. I freely admit to being a rather horrid speller.....

Hon, just because I make fun of something doesn't mean I don't like it. After all, I make fun of YOU now and then! :D

Moi? "Disingenous???" Never! :D

LOL
I love you too, you old turd.

I don't have a problem with this paper shredding stuff, unless it turns out they were destroying evidence they didn't like:

My opinion of them isn't very good though. they have nice words and pretend to like everyone equally, but really, the ACLU is a political organization, despite any other ridiculous claim to the contrary.

This sounds like a political position to me, how is it not?


http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicyMain.cfm

Just because political parties have some of the same beliefs, it doesnt make them political.

I hate the ACLU because I think civil liberties suck.

I hate the ACLU because I think civil liberties suck.

/me claps

Why? Don't conservatives want to conserve the constituition too?
no, liberals want to liberate the Constitution from the Conservatives.
btw, was that a joke?

NOTE: Once again, you've linked an article that requires a subscription.
truth is, before computers, citing news paper articles was perfectly alright. why does it suddenly change now. As i recall, its a violation of copyright laws to copy and paste the whole thing onto his personal website, so i dont really see anything wrong with it.

truth is, before computers, citing news paper articles was perfectly alright. why does it suddenly change now. As i recall, its a violation of copyright laws to copy and paste the whole thing onto his personal website, so i dont really see anything wrong with it.

True, but you referenced the paper, edition, and date rather then "the Times reported this."

The fact you gave the info, gave creditibility to the quote....

truth is, before computers, citing news paper articles was perfectly alright. why does it suddenly change now. As i recall, its a violation of copyright laws to copy and paste the whole thing onto his personal website, so i dont really see anything wrong with it.
The point's more that you have to give up something in order to access this. Linking to sites that require a subscription is taboo because you're forced to either pay for the material (if I linked to the economist) or give up personal information (in this case).

The point's more that you have to give up something in order to access this. Linking to sites that require a subscription is taboo because you're forced to either pay for the material (if I linked to the economist) or give up personal information (in this case).
dont public libraries archive the times?

True, but you referenced the paper, edition, and date rather then "the Times reported this."
touche

I don't trust the ACLU any farther than I could chunk their collective ass. They've done a few good things and a vast majority of bad things. They also get government money, which I think no politically oriented organization should.

Besides, anybody that defends NAMBLA is complete and utter shit in my book.

What is the aclu?



American Civil Liberties Union. They oppose any trace of Christianity in public, and support the likes of NAMBLA. I know, I know, it's the most ironic name anyone could pick for such an organization.

I don't trust the ACLU any farther than I could chunk their collective ass. They've done a few good things and a vast majority of bad things. They also get government money, which I think no politically oriented organization should.

Besides, anybody that defends NAMBLA is complete and utter shit in my book.
they feel its their obligation to defend anyone who's Constitutional rights have been violated. This sounds good at first, but yeah i can see where your coming from with the whole NAMBLA thing. (only a puking emoticon could express my true feelings right now, but alas, none exist.)

American Civil Liberties Union. They oppose any trace of Christianity in public, and support the likes of NAMBLA. I know, I know, it's the most ironic name anyone could pick for such an organization.
civ·il adj.
Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens: civil duties.
Of or relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state: civil society; the civil branches of government.
Of ordinary citizens or ordinary community life as distinguished from the military or the ecclesiastical: civil authorities.
Of or in accordance with organized society; civilized.
Sufficiently observing or befitting accepted social usages; not rude: a civil reply. See Synonyms at polite.
Being in accordance with or denoting legally recognized divisions of time: a civil year.
Law. Relating to the rights of private individuals and legal proceedings concerning these rights as distinguished from criminal, military, or international regulations or proceedings

lib·er·ty n. pl. lib·er·ties

The condition of being free from restriction or control.
The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention. Often used in the plural.
A statement, attitude, or action not warranted by conditions or actualities: a historical novel that takes liberties with chronology.
An unwarranted risk; a chance: took foolish liberties on the ski slopes.
A period, usually short, during which a sailor is authorized to go ashore.
www.dictionary.com
it isn't really that ironic.

American Civil Liberties Union. They oppose any trace of Christianity in public, and support the likes of NAMBLA. I know, I know, it's the most ironic name anyone could pick for such an organization.
Why is that ironic?

Why is that ironic?
obviously it goes against God's will.

Why is that ironic?



Perhaps because they trample upon the civil liberties of Christians and small boys? ACLU is such a biased organization that it's not even funny.

Perhaps because they trample upon the civil liberties of Christians and small boys? ACLU is such a biased organization that it's not even funny.
The Civil Liberties of Christians include free speech, free practice, and the right to assemble. placing the ten commandments in front of a Court House where everyones tax dollars go to, is hardly a liberty guarenteed by the Constitution.
As for NAMBLA, i agree, its disgusting that those people exist, but its their right to support or say whatever they want under the First Ammendment as its currently interperated (sp?). So long as none of them actualy sexually assault or threaten to do so, its free speech. That being said, id still never defend the KKK or NAMBLA.

Perhaps because they trample upon the civil liberties of Christians and small boys? ACLU is such a biased organization that it's not even funny.

Thank you for proving my point.

What civil liberties of yours have been trampled. You can still worship, you can say prayers, you have the right to assemble.

Now forcing a class to have prayer time, censoring TV and books, going after homosexuals, being able to set up Religious systems an exclude others....yes your "rights" are rightfully trampled.

As to NAMBLA. Well as disgusting it is, they have a right to their message. Lowering the age of consent. It will never happen but unfortunatly they have a right to say it.

When you start defining what is proper speech, you no longer have free speech.

Ahhh... still wandering... :D

Many non-Leftists dislike the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment Debate, and its postion on the Tenth Amendment. Others (mostly folk who would be leftists were they not Chrisitians) dislike it over the ACLU's position on the Abortion Debate, while some who might otherwise agree with them get fixated on the Drug War, or on the "War on Terror".

The ACLU has done some good things, and it has done some things that people think are truly shitty. (Defending the right of Nazis to parade through mostly-Jewish areas in Skokie, for instance, or defending members of NAMBLA, as mentioned before.)

The problem is basically how you interpret the Constitution itself. People on both sides tend to ignore the bits they don't like when it suits their purposes.

The Document-shredding looks bad, which is what the lady who resigned from the Document Management position kept trying to tell her bosses. "LOOKS" bad-it can be used as grist by the ACLU's opponents to stir up shit, even if it's perfectly legit.

Why? because even a legit shredding programme can be abused to get rid of evidence of wrong doing, and accusations against the ACLU of wrongdoing and 'cherry-picking' their fights to serve an unpublished (illegitimate and Partisan political) agenda are pretty common in some circles.

Accusations don't become true merely by being levelled, but it often becomes difficult to maintain an image of nonpartisanship if you're facing accusations of destroying evidence of partisanship.

even false ones.

In today's highly polarized and hysterical political environment, this can be a major problem.

Ahhh... still wandering... :D

Many non-Leftists dislike the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment Debate, and its postion on the Tenth Amendment. Others (mostly folk who would be leftists were they not Chrisitians) dislike it over the ACLU's position on the Abortion Debate, while some who might otherwise agree with them get fixated on the Drug War, or on the "War on Terror".

The ACLU has done some good things, and it has done some things that people think are truly shitty. (Defending the right of Nazis to parade through mostly-Jewish areas in Skokie, for instance, or defending members of NAMBLA, as mentioned before.)

The problem is basically how you interpret the Constitution itself. People on both sides tend to ignore the bits they don't like when it suits their purposes.

The Document-shredding looks bad, which is what the lady who resigned from the Document Management position kept trying to tell her bosses. "LOOKS" bad-it can be used as grist by the ACLU's opponents to stir up shit, even if it's perfectly legit.

Why? because even a legit shredding programme can be abused to get rid of evidence of wrong doing, and accusations against the ACLU of wrongdoing and 'cherry-picking' their fights to serve an unpublished (illegitimate and Partisan political) agenda are pretty common in some circles.

Accusations don't become true merely by being levelled, but it often becomes difficult to maintain an image of nonpartisanship if you're facing accusations of destroying evidence of partisanship.

even false ones.

In today's highly polarized and hysterical political environment, this can be a major problem.

There is no second amendment debate...

I don't trust the ACLU any farther than I could chunk their collective ass. They've done a few good things and a vast majority of bad things.

I'd love to see your list of "bad things." My guess is they involve defending constitutional rights that you find inconvenient.

They also get government money, which I think no politically oriented organization should.

WTF?

Proof please.

Besides, anybody that defends NAMBLA is complete and utter shit in my book.

Why do hate American ideals so much?

Are you against:
Freedom of speech?
Freedom of association?
Innocence until proven guilty?
Right to counsel?

Do you really think that some people are without consitutional rights because of alleged thought crimes?

American Civil Liberties Union. They oppose any trace of Christianity in public, and support the likes of NAMBLA. I know, I know, it's the most ironic name anyone could pick for such an organization.

Utterly ridiculous.

The ACLU has defended the religious freedom of Christians on copious occasions. Including the rights of Christian students to publicly express their faith.

What they have fought against were violations of the First Amendment's Free Exercise or Establishment Clauses. Government favoring or endorsing a particular religion or sect, for example.

To say the ACLU "support[s]" NAMBLA is disingenuous. Here is the ACLU's official statement regarding the NAMBLA case:

In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

What the ACLU doesn't understand, where they lose it, is in not understanding that the, "you can't scream 'FIRE' in a crowded theater," stuff actually means more than just the word's 'Fire' in a 'Theater.'

NAMBLA, for example, is, IMO, screaming fire in a theater when they go around advocating harm and damage and encouraging a situation that could end up with an innocent getting hurt. Therefore, society does have a right to restrict the voice of NAMBLA, as a voice that directs others to commit crimes and/or hurt innocent citizens.

What the ACLU doesn't understand, where they lose it, is in not understanding that the, "you can't scream 'FIRE' in a crowded theater," stuff actually means more than just the word's 'Fire' in a 'Theater.'

NAMBLA, for example, is, IMO, screaming fire in a theater when they go around advocating harm and damage and encouraging a situation that could end up with an innocent getting hurt. Therefore, society does have a right to restrict the voice of NAMBLA, as a voice that directs others to commit crimes and/or hurt innocent citizens.
Sigh...no.

I don't quite remember what the test on harmful speech is, but I'm pretty sure that it is the clear and present danger test or some variation there of. Close enough. NAMBLA does not advocate breaking any laws. They are very careful about this. What they do advocate is the lowering of the age of consent, and that the age of consent as is is to high, and does not properly represent the ability of a person to consent. They can say this all they want to. What they can not say is something that would lead to those laws getting broken. The theorhetical is fine, saying "all members should go out and have sex with boys under the age of consent" is not.

what I dislike about the ACLU is that they defend only SOME people's rights, only SOME people's civil liberties.

When a college student at Oregon State University (go Beav's) was fired from the student newspaper for writing an op-ed piece about the black sub-culture and their choice of role-models, they (the aclu) refused to look at the case, saying in effect that he got what he deserved.

what I dislike about the ACLU is that they defend only SOME people's rights, only SOME people's civil liberties.

When a college student at Oregon State University (go Beav's) was fired from the student newspaper for writing an op-ed piece about the black sub-culture and their choice of role-models, they (the aclu) refused to look at the case, saying in effect that he got what he deserved.
On what grounds would the ACLU sue? Because he got fired? You do realize that they can do this? What they can't do is shut down a newspaper writen by that student becasue of such a thing like that (within reason).

Ahhh... still wandering... :D

Many non-Leftists dislike the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment Debate, and its postion on the Tenth Amendment. Others (mostly folk who would be leftists were they not Chrisitians) dislike it over the ACLU's position on the Abortion Debate, while some who might otherwise agree with them get fixated on the Drug War, or on the "War on Terror".

The ACLU has done some good things, and it has done some things that people think are truly shitty. (Defending the right of Nazis to parade through mostly-Jewish areas in Skokie, for instance, or defending members of NAMBLA, as mentioned before.)

The problem is basically how you interpret the Constitution itself. People on both sides tend to ignore the bits they don't like when it suits their purposes.

As you well know, the ACLU takes no position on the issue of gun control. They do not advocate any particular interpretation of the Second Amendment. It has chosen not advocate against the long-standing legal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It is ironic that many gun advocates are hostile to the ACLU, when the ACLU and the NRA cooperate on many issues.

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25

I'd be curious as to what you think the ACLU's position on the Tenth Amendment is. The ACLU has and is currently challenging federal laws and defending state actions on the grounds of the Tenth Amendment.

You must recognize, however, that the Tenth Amendment does not allow states to violate any other constitutional rights -- at the very least because of the Fourteenth Amendment.


The Document-shredding looks bad, which is what the lady who resigned from the Document Management position kept trying to tell her bosses. "LOOKS" bad-it can be used as grist by the ACLU's opponents to stir up shit, even if it's perfectly legit.

Why? because even a legit shredding programme can be abused to get rid of evidence of wrong doing, and accusations against the ACLU of wrongdoing and 'cherry-picking' their fights to serve an unpublished (illegitimate and Partisan political) agenda are pretty common in some circles.

Accusations don't become true merely by being levelled, but it often becomes difficult to maintain an image of nonpartisanship if you're facing accusations of destroying evidence of partisanship.

even false ones.

In today's highly polarized and hysterical political environment, this can be a major problem.

Pffft.

It is my understanding that you are a businessman, C-G. Do you save every scap of paper that comes through your business?

Here are some statements from the story about this alleged scandal:

A spokeswoman for the organization, Emily Whitfield, declined to answer specific questions but made the following statement: "The A.C.L.U.'s records management policies have always been of the highest standards in keeping with, if not more stringent than, those of other nonprofits."

...

The A.C.L.U. allows for document shredding but has policies for recording what is destroyed that predate recent changes in the law, and it has historically placed great emphasis on preserving records. Its policy lists specific types of documents - including duplicate records and outside publications - that can be destroyed without creating a record. For other materials, employees are instructed to contact the archives.
In a speech to the Society of American Archivists last year, Nadine Strossen, the president of the A.C.L.U., said that at its inception in 1920, the civil liberties group arranged for the New York Public Library to archive its records and those of its predecessor organization.

...

Under the A.C.L.U.'s policy, employees deposit documents, disks and other files slated for destruction in locked bins in their departments. They are required to complete and sign a form next to the box, describing what they have deposited.

A contractor collects the bins each month and shreds the contents under the watch of an A.C.L.U. records manager, who then countersigns the sheets to confirm the destruction.

...

That encounter came several months after the New York attorney general's office had begun an inquiry into security breaches on the A.C.L.U.'s Web site that had resulted in leaks of information about donors and members. The organization is sensitive to such leaks, given past government scrutiny of its membership.

"As an advocacy organization dedicated to protecting privacy," Ms. Whitfield said on Friday, "we take very seriously the confidentiality of our donor records and have policies in place to ensure proper document management procedures."

To end the attorney general's inquiry in December 2002, Mr. Romero signed an agreement that obliged the organization to strengthen its online and computer security and pay a $10,000 fine, a cost covered by the company that manages their Web site, where the problems originated.

The organization hired Richard M. Smith, an Internet and computer security expert, to examine its practices and offer suggestions for improvement. Among other things, he recommended that shredders be installed in every department to make document disposal more convenient.

In a July 2002 e-mail message to Barry Steinhardt, an A.C.L.U. lawyer who specializes in matters of privacy, Ms. Linde objected to that recommendation, saying that Mr. Smith seemed unaware of the organization's document retention policy. She noted that she had asked to sit in on his audit but had been excluded.

Employees began noticing shredders next to copiers throughout the organization in early 2003, according to e-mails.

Ms. Linde wrote a memorandum voicing her concerns, so the A.C.L.U. sought advice from the law firm that handles its real estate matters in Washington, D.C. The firm forwarded a report that echoed many of Ms. Linde's points, and several shredders were removed, according to memorandums.

Mr. Romero kept his shredder, as did Alma Montclair, the director of administration and finance, according to those memorandums. Later, records managers noted that the accounting and human resources departments had shredders, and, more recently, that Donna McKay, the A.C.L.U.'s director of development, had one, too.

To track what was being destroyed on those machines, the records managers attempted to impose a system similar to the one used for the locked bins, putting document destruction sheets next to all the shredders except Mr. Romero's about a year ago. Employees in the departments with the shredders signed the sheets, according to a memorandums, but rarely noted what they were shredding.

In January 2004, an employee found bags of shredded documents outside a freight elevator and alerted the archival staff. "We really need to get this shredding documented if there is that much of it going on," Ms. Linde then wrote to David Baird, who worked with Ms. Montclair.

Mr. Baird responded that he knew nothing about the bags and defended the shredding of documents with Social Security numbers, salary information and other information in Ms. Montclair's administration and finance department.

"It is not clear to either Alma or I the specific reasons why shredding these clearly confidential documents needs to be reported to you," Mr. Baird wrote in an e-mail message.

Ms. Linde wrote back, "This is the kind of thing that gets companies and organizations into lawsuits."

She was eventually told that the shredded documents in the bags were résumés from the human resources department, a memorandum said.

So, the ACLU has a very, very strict document retention policy.

Although my personal experience is worth nothing as an assertion here, I think you will find it is far more strict than that required by law or practiced by almost any major corporation.

Over the objections of this one employee, the ACLU adopted an increase use of shredders -- at the recommendation of a security expert after the ACLU had problems with protection of private information. Following a protest by the employee and an overview by an outside law firm, the ACLU reduced the number of shredders to a handful.

Comparing the details of the ACLU's strict document retention policy to document retention policies at major corporations and government agencies which I have been involved with in either seeking discovery or defending against discovery requests in lawsuits, I find this "scandal" ridiculous.

I truly dare any critic to show that this document retention policy is either (a) actually contradictory to the ACLU's positions re other organizations or (b) less strict than those of most corporations or non-profit organizations.

Further, I can dig up references if necessary, but there is ample precedent for lawyers being held liable for malpractice or violation of duties of confidentiality for not adequately arranging for the destruction of confidential litigation material. It is a common provision in protective orders, for example, that materials produced by the other side must be returned or destroyed when a lawsuit ends.

Again, this is silly. An attempt to smear an organization based on a handful of out-of-context leaked memos from an ex-employee -- who herself objects to their public airing -- regarding an internal debate about just how strict the ACLU's policy should be.

what I dislike about the ACLU is that they defend only SOME people's rights, only SOME people's civil liberties.

When a college student at Oregon State University (go Beav's) was fired from the student newspaper for writing an op-ed piece about the black sub-culture and their choice of role-models, they (the aclu) refused to look at the case, saying in effect that he got what he deserved.

Yes, the ACLU does not take on every possible case. So?

Do you have a link or more details? There is almost always more to these stories.

The last time we had a round of these "but the ACLU wouldn't take this case" arguments, it turned out it almost every case the ACLU had offered help but had been refused.

It sounds like this particular case may be that the student had no case. You can be fired from a newspaper because the editor doesn't like what you write. That is simply reality.

As you well know, the ACLU takes no position on the issue of gun control. They do not advocate any particular interpretation of the Second Amendment. It has chosen not advocate against the long-standing legal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It is ironic that many gun advocates are hostile to the ACLU, when the ACLU and the NRA cooperate on many issues. *snip*

You do know why they don't though right?

Here's why; Because IF the ACLU were to take the same opinion of the second amendment as they do the first amendment, with extremism as a point of view for separation of church and state, of NO infringement whatsoever, IF they were to defend the 2nd amendment like they do the 1st., et-al., in the same way, they would have to defend every nutcase in any brotherhood outback of nincompoops who calls itself a militia or anything similar, to not just have the right to as many guns ass they want, but fully automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets and howitzers and cruise missile launching capabilities ~ because they would, according to asinine strict adherence of the spirit of the constitution (the way they do the 1st amendment and religion reference), have the constitutional right to defend themselves from the US Army.

You do know why they don't though right?

Here's why; Because IF the ACLU were to take the same opinion of the second amendment as they do the first amendment, with extremism as a point of view for separation of church and state, of NO infringement whatsoever, IF they were to defend the 2nd amendment like they do the 1st., et-al., in the same way, they would have to defend every nutcase in any brotherhood outback of nincompoops who calls itself a militia or anything similar, to not just have the right to as many guns ass they want, but fully automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets and howitzers and cruise missile launching capabilities ~ because they would, according to asinine strict adherence of the spirit of the constitution (the way they do the 1st amendment and religion reference), have the constitutional right to defend themselves from the US Army.
There...is...no...debate...on...the...interpretation...of...the...second...amendment.


Factoid: No law in recent history has been struck down on second amendment grounds by any court.

There...is...no...debate...on...the...interpretation...of...the...second...amendment.


Factoid: No law in recent history has been struck down on second amendment grounds by any court.
And the ACLU hasn't been trying have they?

What the ACLU doesn't understand, where they lose it, is in not understanding that the, "you can't scream 'FIRE' in a crowded theater," stuff actually means more than just the word's 'Fire' in a 'Theater.'

NAMBLA, for example, is, IMO, screaming fire in a theater when they go around advocating harm and damage and encouraging a situation that could end up with an innocent getting hurt. Therefore, society does have a right to restrict the voice of NAMBLA, as a voice that directs others to commit crimes and/or hurt innocent citizens.

LOL.

I think the ACLU understands the Supreme Court's clear and present danger test a bit better than you do.

The "'fire' in a crowded theatre" item is merely an analogy. It is not to be taken literally.

I think you lack facts about in what circumstances the ACLU has defended NAMBLA and why.

Regardless, you mix the question of the outcome with the procedure. You may be right that NAMBLA can constitutionally be held liable for what they have said. Does that mean they automatically lose without a hearing? That they have no right to have their rights defended?

Aren't you wary of saying Group X is obviously bad, we should punish them, and -- because we say they are bad and should be punished -- they shouldn't be allowed to challenge the punishment?

LOL.

I think the ACLU understands the Supreme Court's clear and present danger test a bit better than you do.

The "'fire' in a crowded theatre" item is merely an analogy. It is not to be taken literally.
*snip*

Okay, it's not literal, when has the ACLU applied it's principle? Why do you think the ACLU isn't capable of error?

You do know why they don't though right?

Here's why; Because IF the ACLU were to take the same opinion of the second amendment as they do the first amendment, with extremism as a point of view for separation of church and state, of NO infringement whatsoever, IF they were to defend the 2nd amendment like they do the 1st., et-al., in the same way, they would have to defend every nutcase in any brotherhood outback of nincompoops who calls itself a militia or anything similar, to not just have the right to as many guns ass they want, but fully automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets and howitzers and cruise missile launching capabilities ~ because they would, according to asinine strict adherence of the spirit of the constitution (the way they do the 1st amendment and religion reference), have the constitutional right to defend themselves from the US Army.
Man... why are you bothering to argue this with Cat-"the ACLU can do NO wrong"-Tribe? He's a ubersuperfar left lawyer. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a card carrying ACLU lawyer.

This is you ---> :headbang: <--- this is CT.

You do know why they don't though right?

Here's why; Because IF the ACLU were to take the same opinion of the second amendment as they do the first amendment, with extremism as a point of view for separation of church and state, of NO infringement whatsoever, IF they were to defend the 2nd amendment like they do the 1st., et-al., in the same way, they would have to defend every nutcase in any brotherhood outback of nincompoops who calls itself a militia or anything similar, to not just have the right to as many guns ass they want, but fully automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets and howitzers and cruise missile launching capabilities ~ because they would, according to asinine strict adherence of the spirit of the constitution (the way they do the 1st amendment and religion reference), have the constitutional right to defend themselves from the US Army.

Bullshit.

If you want a separate debate about the Second Amendment, create a separate thread.

But I gave the link to the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment. You are merely making things up.

It is well settled law that it does not protect an individual right to own and possess firearms. This has been the nigh unanimous decision in scores upon scores of cases for decades and decades. (This has always been the law. There has never been a federal decision to the contrary that struck down a law as violating the Second Amendment in the history of the Republic).

The ACLU agrees with this state of the law and has chosen not to challenge it. It does not litigate on either side of the issue, however. The NRA and other organizations more than adequately litigate this single issue.

Okay, it's not literal, when has the ACLU applied it's principle? Why do you think the ACLU isn't capable of error?
By definition, the ACLU would not, as the Clear and Present danger test is a method of limiting speech. They defend people who are having their speech limited...

Okay, it's not literal, when has the ACLU applied it's principle? Why do you think the ACLU isn't capable of error?

Nice try.

When did I say the ACLU was not capable of error?

They, like all human organizations, make errors. I would assume they do so regularly.

Bullshit.

If you want a separate debate about the Second Amendment, create a separate thread.

But I gave the link to the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment. You are merely making things up.

It is well settled law that it does not protect an individual right to own and possess firearms. This has been the nigh unanimous decision in scores upon scores of cases for decades and decades. (This has always been the law. There has never been a federal decision to the contrary that struck down a law as violating the Second Amendment in the history of the Republic).

The ACLU agrees with this state of the law and has chosen not to challenge it. It does not litigate on either side of the issue, however. The NRA and other organizations more than adequately litigate this single issue.

What are you aguing with? I said any groups of nutcase nincompoops that called itself the militia of whatever. They would have the right to defend themselves from the federal government. But that wasn't my point, my point was that the way the ACLU takes everything to extreme, beyond rational thinking, except things they don't like.

And the ACLU hasn't been trying have they?

Nope. They are neutral on the issue.

But there are scores of decisions on it. The NRA, firearms manufacturers, and other members of the gun lobby are continuously bringing challenges and have for decades.

You can hardly say the Second Amendment is not adequately litigated.

Man... why are you bothering to argue this with Cat-"the ACLU can do NO wrong"-Tribe? He's a ubersuperfar left lawyer. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a card carrying ACLU lawyer.

This is you ---> :headbang: <--- this is CT.

LOL.

C'mon. If you are going to resort to pure ad hominem, at least show some wit.

But I think you answered my question about substance to your earlier allegations ....

Nope. They are neutral on the issue.

But there are scores of decisions on it. The NRA, firearms manufacturers, and other members of the gun lobby are continuously bringing challenges and have for decades.

You can hardly say the Second Amendment is not adequately litigated.

But I can, from their actions, defer that they are in fact opinionated and political, that they defend 'their' political point of view, not all constitutional rights regardless.

Thus, they are a political organization. (nothing inherently wrong with that, only that they don't admit it).

What are you aguing with? I said any groups of nutcase nincompoops that called itself the militia of whatever. They would have the right to defend themselves from the federal government. But that wasn't my point, my point was that the way the ACLU takes everything to extreme, beyond rational thinking, except things they don't like.

I'll try to make my response more clear:

1) The ACLU is neutral on the Second Amendment for reasons well explained already.

2) No, the Second Amendment does not protect the "right[s] to defend themselves from the federal government" of any group of nincompoops that call themselves a militia.

3) The ACLU defends the Constitution and civil liberties. It is not irrational. As to "extreme," you might wish to look up who said: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

4) Throwing around these gross generalizations is absurd. If you want to show the ACLU is irrational and overboard, give some solid examples of actual cases.

But I think you answered my question about substance to your earlier allegations ....
I'm sorry man...any organization that defends NAMBLA, whose ultimate goal is to lower the age of consent SO THAT MEN CAN FUCK LITTLE BOYS are a group of sick, demented bastards. Anyone that defends the ACLU for defending NAMBLA are no better than either, in my opinion.

I'm sorry man...any organization that defends NAMBLA, whose ultimate goal is to lower the age of consent SO THAT MEN CAN FUCK LITTLE BOYS are a group of sick, demented bastards. Anyone that defends the ACLU for defending NAMBLA are no better than either, in my opinion.

Funny, most of the time conservatives laugh at ridiculous lawsuits and assume they have no merit. Someone sues NAMBLA and the opposite is true.

I presume anyone that defends an accused murder is no better than a murderer?

Anyone that defends an accused rapist is no better than a rapist?

Anyone that defends a company against allegations of racial discrimination or sexual harassment is a racist or groper?

Anyone that defends the Catholic Church in the child molestation lawsuits is a child molester?

I hope you are never sued or accused of a crime.

And, sorry, but the freedom of speech applies to unpopular -- even fully repulsive -- views.

I share your disgust for NAMBLA's views. I wholly oppose their agenda. It makes me ill. I have every reason to believe I hate them as much or more as anyone else in these Forums.

But that does not mean they do not have rights.

I'll try to make my response more clear:

1) The ACLU is neutral on the Second Amendment for reasons well explained already.

2) No, the Second Amendment does not protect the "right[s] to defend themselves from the federal government" of any group of nincompoops that call themselves a militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Did you notice, there's not a word about guns. Maybe the state guard should be able to operate nukes? If the ACLU defended the 2nd amendment, they would support that idea, based on the way they defend the 1st amendment.


3) The ACLU defends the Constitution and civil liberties. It is not irrational. As to "extreme," you might wish to look up who said: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

4) Throwing around these gross generalizations is absurd. If you want to show the ACLU is irrational and overboard, give some solid examples of actual cases.

As I pointed out earlier, here’s an ACLU Political position:
The ACLU has been an outspoken critic of the War on Drugs since the Reagan administration renewed efforts to stamp out illicit drugs in the early 1980s. The ACLU Drug Law Reform Project (DLRP), founded in 1999, conducts the only national litigation program addressing civil rights and civil liberties violations arising from the War on Drugs. Based in Santa Cruz, California, the DLRP has litigated cases on many issues, including drug testing, racial justice, medical marijuana, needle exchange, religious freedom, electronic music culture, voting rights, students' rights and government programs such as welfare. The DLRP also provides support to ACLU drug reform efforts at the local, state, and national levels.
We believe there are better ways to address drug abuse, ways that will ultimately lead to a healthier, freer and less crime-ridden society. Use the resources on this site to learn more and take action to protect the rights guaranteed to all Americans by the Bill of Rights.
http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicyMain.cfm


their stand has nothing, nothing to do with existing constitutional protections, only on what they think ‘should’ be. Thus, they are political, and a published agenda.

Man... why are you bothering to argue this with Cat-"the ACLU can do NO wrong"-Tribe? He's a ubersuperfar left lawyer. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a card carrying ACLU lawyer.

This is you ---> :headbang: <--- this is CT.

Ewww there we go. The liberal/left is a dirty word analogy.

That kind of logic is usually from ubersuperfar right conservatives.

You one of them?

Ewww there we go. The liberal/left is a dirty word analogy.

That kind of logic is usually from ubersuperfar right conservatives.

You one of them?
Actually, no. I'm more of a "small L" libertarian with some conservative and green ideals.

Actually, no. I'm more of a "small L" libertarian with some conservative and green ideals.

There may be some green in there, but I sure as hell can't see it.

Why? Don't conservatives want to conserve the constituition too?
He is confusing conservatives with neo-cons.

There may be some green in there, but I sure as hell can't see it.
Actually, I'm very big on conservation, organics and sustainability. I'm NOT big on "Chicken Little" environmentalism.

What the ACLU doesn't understand, where they lose it, is in not understanding that the, "you can't scream 'FIRE' in a crowded theater," stuff actually means more than just the word's 'Fire' in a 'Theater.'

NAMBLA, for example, is, IMO, screaming fire in a theater when they go around advocating harm and damage and encouraging a situation that could end up with an innocent getting hurt. Therefore, society does have a right to restrict the voice of NAMBLA, as a voice that directs others to commit crimes and/or hurt innocent citizens.
incorrect. advocacy of illegal behavior is perfectly legal under the first ammendment as the courts see it now (not under communism :( ). these people are LAWYERS, there legal experience goes FAR beyond a little cliche example of what isn't free speech. in fact, they SPECIALIZE in constitutional law.

Conservative ideology and defending the Constitution generally conflict. The ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh. That sounds relatively unbiased to me. I'm not saying I agree with everything the ACLU does, but because the Constitution is a liberal document, following it pisses off conservatives.

Sigh...no.

I don't quite remember what the test on harmful speech is, but I'm pretty sure that it is the clear and present danger test or some variation there of. Close enough. NAMBLA does not advocate breaking any laws. They are very careful about this. What they do advocate is the lowering of the age of consent, and that the age of consent as is is to high, and does not properly represent the ability of a person to consent. They can say this all they want to. What they can not say is something that would lead to those laws getting broken. The theorhetical is fine, saying "all members should go out and have sex with boys under the age of consent" is not.
i think the name is different now but not sure. basically, you can't threaten anyone and if you wanted to you could advocate illegal behavior. For instance, if i wanted to say i think president Bush should be assasinated, and a Communist coup should overthrow the US government, i could. This would not be treason (despite popular belief). if i were to publish a newspaper and hand it out a few hundred feet away from a school, and it said, overthrow the school administration at x time, at y place, that would be protected. as long as i don't participate in the assasination, coup, protest of the school, etc. I'm a free man.

incorrect. advocacy of illegal behavior is perfectly legal under the first ammendment as the courts see it now (not under communism :( ). these people are LAWYERS, there legal experience goes FAR beyond a little cliche example of what isn't free speech. in fact, they SPECIALIZE in constitutional law.

Nah, they specialize in their interpretation of constitutional law, there's quite a few different supreme court judges that may or may not agree with them. Thus, they can't say that they are the sole determiner of what is or is not constitutional.

What I have pointed out is merely, that they are not impartial and that they do in fact have an agenda.

I don't propose that they should be stopped or that they are ‘bad’ etc., but I do think people should recognize them for what the are, a political group that focuses on changing societal law via the courts instead of the legislature and they use nice sounding diplomatic language so that they arouse less protest as they execute their political plan... End-of-story.

Actually, I'm very big on conservation, organics and sustainability. I'm NOT big on "Chicken Little" environmentalism.

I think I can agree on these things. I'm big on the environment, but I don't think we should change our power sources to wind turbines, for one thing.

Think about it: They "pollute" just as much as a modern coal-fired power plant. You have to fill a massive area with thousands of wind turbines to make as much power as one coal plant.

I think I can agree on these things. I'm big on the environment, but I don't think we should change our power sources to wind turbines, for one thing.

Think about it: They "pollute" just as much as a modern coal-fired power plant. You have to fill a massive area with thousands of wind turbines to make as much power as one coal plant.
Actually, I'm more about pebble bed reactors with wind, solar and hydroelectric (shore generators) as suppliments. I also don't agree with totally getting rid of oil and coal, just cutting back to sustainable levels.

I really like the idea of portable hydrogen cartridges that you could use to power your car/motorcycle/boat and recharge off house power when not in use.

But I can, from their actions, defer that they are in fact opinionated and political, that they defend 'their' political point of view, not all constitutional rights regardless.

Thus, they are a political organization. (nothing inherently wrong with that, only that they don't admit it).
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.

If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.
http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm
i didn't realise that the gun industry was poor.

Actually, I'm more about pebble bed reactors with wind, solar and hydroelectric (shore generators) as suppliments. I also don't agree with totally getting rid of oil and coal, just cutting back to sustainable levels.

I really like the idea of portable hydrogen cartridges that you could use to power your car/motorcycle/boat and recharge off house power when not in use.

Now that's more like it.

Originally posted by: Naspar Cosif
Why? Don't conservatives want to defend the Constitution too?
Yes, but by and large, conservatives today are not overly concerned about the First Amendment( except where it says people can have freedom of religion. They tend to ignore the part where it says there cannot be an established relgion. The radical conservatives anyway)

Basically the ACLU's prime objective is defending the First Amendment rights of groups the rest of the country despises. They have also been, in my opinion, a tad overzealous when it comes to keeping schools secular. They have opposed children being able to sing carols in school, being able to pray in schools etc. Which would explain why many conservatives, moderate and not-so-moderate alike, are not down with the ACLU

there's quite a few different supreme court judges that may or may not agree with them... End-of-story.
no, its not the "End-of-story." in fact, your reading the wrong damn book! the Supreme Court has upheld the position that advocation of illegal behavior is protected speech under the first ammendment. they dont leave too much room for interpretation. Check out Brandenburg if you dont believe me. theres SO many cases from previous judges to the current ones, that uphold this.

Actually, no. I'm more of a "small L" libertarian with some conservative and green ideals.

Ahh well as I said before when you start defining what can be said, you no longer have freedom of speech.

NAMBLA unfortunatly has the right to say their piece. As wrong as it is.....however, if they break the law they are punished.

I remember reading one Nambla leader getting caught with a minor and he was jailed for it.

The ACLU didn't defend him.

He is confusing conservatives with neo-cons.

Not at all.

The same complaints of today were being voiced before the NeoCons formally appeared.

For example, my hick relatives aren't neocons and they think the ACLU is evil.....

There may be some green in there, but I sure as hell can't see it.

He means green as in greenback. That's the ultimate conservative ideal. Unless you can make it by actually helping people. That's greed and hypocrisy.

Originally posted by: Naspar Cosif
Why? Don't conservatives want to defend the Constitution too?
Yes, but by and large, conservatives today are not overly concerned about the First Amendment( except where it says people can have freedom of religion. They tend to ignore the part where it says there cannot be an established relgion. The radical conservatives anyway)

Basically the ACLU's prime objective is defending the First Amendment rights of groups the rest of the country despises. They have also been, in my opinion, a tad overzealous when it comes to keeping schools secular. They have opposed children being able to sing carols in school, being able to pray in schools etc. Which would explain why many conservatives, moderate and not-so-moderate alike, are not down with the ACLU

I don't think it is fair to say conservatives do not defend the Constitution. "Conservatives" is a pretty broad label that encompasses a wide range of views. Different people interpret different parts of the Constitution differently. And people place different priorities on parts of the Constitution.

Some conservatives definitely lack respect for robust freedom of speech. And religious conservatives have never reconciled themselves with the Establishment Clause.

Government schools should be officially secular, but you will find the "sins" of the ACLU here greatly exaggerated. Yes, the oppose official school prayer. That is a rather obvious violation of the First Amendment. On the other hand, the ACLU has vigorously defended the rights of individuals to pray voluntarily and otherwise express their religion in schools.

Ahh well as I said before when you start defining what can be said, you no longer have freedom of speech.

NAMBLA unfortunatly has the right to say their piece. As wrong as it is.....however, if they break the law they are punished.

I remember reading one Nambla leader getting caught with a minor and he was jailed for it.

The ACLU didn't defend him.


Like they said, one 'civil right' they like to preserve is pedophilia. John Reinstein (AuCLU legal director) getting in bed with NAMBLA as their legal defense shows the organizations true colors.

Tell me that this quote, taken directly from a NAMBLA publication, is not out-right pedophilia, "Call it love, call it lust, call it whatever you want. We desire sex with boys, and byos, whether society is willing to admit it, desires sex with us."(1) NAMBLA also published a dangerous manual titled "Rape and Escape". (2)

Now you can see the AuCLU true colors.

(1) Moore, "Amazon sells 'deadly' pedophelia magazine"
(2) Same article

Ahh well as I said before when you start defining what can be said, you no longer have freedom of speech.

NAMBLA unfortunatly has the right to say their piece. As wrong as it is.....however, if they break the law they are punished.

I remember reading one Nambla leader getting caught with a minor and he was jailed for it.

The ACLU didn't defend him.

And when Rush Limbaugh, who never has a nice word to say about the ACLU was being investigated for drug offenses and the investigator subpoenad his medical records, the ACLU represented him in his efforts to keep them secret.

You just can't trust those liberal groups. They'll support any ideal they hold, no matter who gets helpped in the process. How can you trust any group that won't kick its enemies when they're down. That sort of altruism is just plain unAmerican.

He means green as in greenback. That's the ultimate conservative ideal. Unless you can make it by actually helping people. That's greed and hypocrisy.
You're a fucking asshole.

I mean "green" as in sustainability, not "greenbacks".

Like they said, one 'civil right' they like to preserve is pedophilia. John Reinstein (AuCLU legal director) getting in bed with NAMBLA as their legal defense shows the organizations true colors.

Tell me that this quote, taken directly from a NAMBLA publication, is not out-right pedophilia, "Call it love, call it lust, call it whatever you want. We desire sex with boys, and byos, whether society is willing to admit it, desires sex with us." NAMBLA also published a dangerous manual titled "Rape and Escape".

Now you can see the AuCLU true colors.

No, there you see NAMBLA's true colors. And because they have the protected right to free speech, you get to see NAMBLA's true colors. If their right to speak their minds wasn't protected then they'd keep quiet about it and work in secret, or pretend to be run-of-the-mill homosexuals so that it would not just be the most rabidly, ignorantly, hatefully, intolerant homophobes in the country who think that pedophelia and homosexuality are the same thing.

Like they said, one 'civil right' they like to preserve is pedophilia. John Reinstein (AuCLU legal director) getting in bed with NAMBLA as their legal defense shows the organizations true colors.

Tell me that this quote, taken directly from a NAMBLA publication, is not out-right pedophilia, "Call it love, call it lust, call it whatever you want. We desire sex with boys, and byos, whether society is willing to admit it, desires sex with us." NAMBLA also published a dangerous manual titled "Rape and Escape".

Now you can see the AuCLU true colors.

Yes. And you can get books on how to kill a person, making weapons and I even found one that explains how to make a bomb.

ACLU = Pedophillia preservation?

Well you really don't understand the issue being discussed now do you?

Oh BTW: What's with AuCLU? You did it twice so is it a typo?

Like they said, one 'civil right' they like to preserve is pedophilia. John Reinstein (AuCLU legal director) getting in bed with NAMBLA as their legal defense shows the organizations true colors.

Tell me that this quote, taken directly from a NAMBLA publication, is not out-right pedophilia, "Call it love, call it lust, call it whatever you want. We desire sex with boys, and byos, whether society is willing to admit it, desires sex with us." NAMBLA also published a dangerous manual titled "Rape and Escape".

Now you can see the AuCLU true colors.
yes, they protect freedom of speech. as repulsive as someones ideas may be, they defend them from being silenced.

Like they said, one 'civil right' they like to preserve is pedophilia. John Reinstein (AuCLU legal director) getting in bed with NAMBLA as their legal defense shows the organizations true colors.

Tell me that this quote, taken directly from a NAMBLA publication, is not out-right pedophilia, "Call it love, call it lust, call it whatever you want. We desire sex with boys, and byos, whether society is willing to admit it, desires sex with us." NAMBLA also published a dangerous manual titled "Rape and Escape".

Now you can see the AuCLU true colors.

Evidence (from a reliable source)?

Regardless, why do so many have trouble with the basic concept of legal representation?

Lawyer != client.

Protecting freedom of speech != endorsing the particular speech in question.

You're a fucking asshole.

I mean "green" as in sustainability, not "greenbacks".

The animosity of neo-con's is like sweet nectar to me. The everpresent proof that I must be on the right track. The Bible, the Koran, the I-Ching. They, and similar works, are all great sources of wisdom, but prone to misinterpretation. Anyone who wishes to know what's the truth on any moral question whatsoever need only look to those who support the Republican party platform and then sleep contentedly knowing that the opposite will earn them Gods affection. And if you've seen "Passion of the Christ," you know what God's affection looks like, so you'll keep your mouth shut about it.

Oh BTW: What's with AuCLU? You did it twice so is it a typo?

AUtomatic Conservative Lamentation Unit

The animosity of neo-con's is like sweet nectar to me. The everpresent proof that I must be on the right track. The Bible, the Koran, the I-Ching. They, and similar works, are all great sources of wisdom, but prone to misinterpretation. Anyone who wishes to know what's the truth on any moral question whatsoever need only look to those who support the Republican party platform and then sleep contentedly knowing that the opposite will earn them Gods affection. And if you've seen "Passion of the Christ," you know what God's affection looks like, so you'll keep your mouth shut about it.
I'll not even respond to that meandering, drug-addled diatribe other than to state that if you had ANY clue to what my beliefs were, you'd not call me a Neocon.

No...wait...you probably would. Just to be an asshole.

Again, you guys are missing the point. The immediate harm scenario, of freedom of speech, is not protected.

Thus, I will claim, for the sake of this argument, that the fire in a theater scenario was LESS of an example of harm speech than the protection of NAMBLA's free speech.

For example, if I scream fire, crowded theater, someone MIGHT get hurt, and it would be my fault, not protected.

NAMBLA says, it's okay to have sex with a child, if someone is convinced by that speech that they are speaking the truth ( like someone running from a fire that isn't there) someon (the child) WILL get hurt, and it's our fault for letting NAMBLA talk someone into it.

Allowing NAMBLA free speech causes damage every single time, screaming FIRE in a theater MIGHT cause damage, which is worse?

ACLU's problem is that they never, never understand the difference, even when 99% of the rest of society does. The ACLU is not perfect, sometimes they are blinded by their own ideology.

I know what you liberals mean, and I know that money does get the best of you guys, but its not like NAMBLA sent you a letter and asked for your help. You guys run and yell and put on the blindfold while your bailing these sickos out onto the streets. You guys whole-heartedly want these guys to go free and continue their pedophilia agendga.

As you well know, the ACLU takes no position on the issue of gun control. They do not advocate any particular interpretation of the Second Amendment. It has chosen not advocate against the long-standing legal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It is ironic that many gun advocates are hostile to the ACLU, when the ACLU and the NRA cooperate on many issues.

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25

I'd be curious as to what you think the ACLU's position on the Tenth Amendment is. The ACLU has and is currently challenging federal laws and defending state actions on the grounds of the Tenth Amendment.

You must recognize, however, that the Tenth Amendment does not allow states to violate any other constitutional rights -- at the very least because of the Fourteenth Amendment.




Pffft.

It is my understanding that you are a businessman, C-G. Do you save every scap of paper that comes through your business?

Here are some statements from the story about this alleged scandal:

A spokeswoman for the organization, Emily Whitfield, declined to answer specific questions but made the following statement: "The A.C.L.U.'s records management policies have always been of the highest standards in keeping with, if not more stringent than, those of other nonprofits."

...

The A.C.L.U. allows for document shredding but has policies for recording what is destroyed that predate recent changes in the law, and it has historically placed great emphasis on preserving records. Its policy lists specific types of documents - including duplicate records and outside publications - that can be destroyed without creating a record. For other materials, employees are instructed to contact the archives.
In a speech to the Society of American Archivists last year, Nadine Strossen, the president of the A.C.L.U., said that at its inception in 1920, the civil liberties group arranged for the New York Public Library to archive its records and those of its predecessor organization.

...

Under the A.C.L.U.'s policy, employees deposit documents, disks and other files slated for destruction in locked bins in their departments. They are required to complete and sign a form next to the box, describing what they have deposited.

A contractor collects the bins each month and shreds the contents under the watch of an A.C.L.U. records manager, who then countersigns the sheets to confirm the destruction.

...

That encounter came several months after the New York attorney general's office had begun an inquiry into security breaches on the A.C.L.U.'s Web site that had resulted in leaks of information about donors and members. The organization is sensitive to such leaks, given past government scrutiny of its membership.

"As an advocacy organization dedicated to protecting privacy," Ms. Whitfield said on Friday, "we take very seriously the confidentiality of our donor records and have policies in place to ensure proper document management procedures."

To end the attorney general's inquiry in December 2002, Mr. Romero signed an agreement that obliged the organization to strengthen its online and computer security and pay a $10,000 fine, a cost covered by the company that manages their Web site, where the problems originated.

The organization hired Richard M. Smith, an Internet and computer security expert, to examine its practices and offer suggestions for improvement. Among other things, he recommended that shredders be installed in every department to make document disposal more convenient.

In a July 2002 e-mail message to Barry Steinhardt, an A.C.L.U. lawyer who specializes in matters of privacy, Ms. Linde objected to that recommendation, saying that Mr. Smith seemed unaware of the organization's document retention policy. She noted that she had asked to sit in on his audit but had been excluded.

Employees began noticing shredders next to copiers throughout the organization in early 2003, according to e-mails.

Ms. Linde wrote a memorandum voicing her concerns, so the A.C.L.U. sought advice from the law firm that handles its real estate matters in Washington, D.C. The firm forwarded a report that echoed many of Ms. Linde's points, and several shredders were removed, according to memorandums.

Mr. Romero kept his shredder, as did Alma Montclair, the director of administration and finance, according to those memorandums. Later, records managers noted that the accounting and human resources departments had shredders, and, more recently, that Donna McKay, the A.C.L.U.'s director of development, had one, too.

To track what was being destroyed on those machines, the records managers attempted to impose a system similar to the one used for the locked bins, putting document destruction sheets next to all the shredders except Mr. Romero's about a year ago. Employees in the departments with the shredders signed the sheets, according to a memorandums, but rarely noted what they were shredding.

In January 2004, an employee found bags of shredded documents outside a freight elevator and alerted the archival staff. "We really need to get this shredding documented if there is that much of it going on," Ms. Linde then wrote to David Baird, who worked with Ms. Montclair.

Mr. Baird responded that he knew nothing about the bags and defended the shredding of documents with Social Security numbers, salary information and other information in Ms. Montclair's administration and finance department.

"It is not clear to either Alma or I the specific reasons why shredding these clearly confidential documents needs to be reported to you," Mr. Baird wrote in an e-mail message.

Ms. Linde wrote back, "This is the kind of thing that gets companies and organizations into lawsuits."

She was eventually told that the shredded documents in the bags were résumés from the human resources department, a memorandum said.

So, the ACLU has a very, very strict document retention policy.

Although my personal experience is worth nothing as an assertion here, I think you will find it is far more strict than that required by law or practiced by almost any major corporation.

Over the objections of this one employee, the ACLU adopted an increase use of shredders -- at the recommendation of a security expert after the ACLU had problems with protection of private information. Following a protest by the employee and an overview by an outside law firm, the ACLU reduced the number of shredders to a handful.

Comparing the details of the ACLU's strict document retention policy to document retention policies at major corporations and government agencies which I have been involved with in either seeking discovery or defending against discovery requests in lawsuits, I find this "scandal" ridiculous.

I truly dare any critic to show that this document retention policy is either (a) actually contradictory to the ACLU's positions re other organizations or (b) less strict than those of most corporations or non-profit organizations.

Further, I can dig up references if necessary, but there is ample precedent for lawyers being held liable for malpractice or violation of duties of confidentiality for not adequately arranging for the destruction of confidential litigation material. It is a common provision in protective orders, for example, that materials produced by the other side must be returned or destroyed when a lawsuit ends.

Again, this is silly. An attempt to smear an organization based on a handful of out-of-context leaked memos from an ex-employee -- who herself objects to their public airing -- regarding an internal debate about just how strict the ACLU's policy should be.


Um...Cat-Tribe, you're a lawyer, check my weasel-words, okay? with the climate as strident as it is, you know someone will make mountains of molehills over the shredding, even when it's legitimate and necessary.

When I was a Firearms Dealer (the last time I was in business) I did keep every single document relating to the business. Even post-it notes. When dealing with the Feds, you have to remember that they can subpoena documents in tonnage lots. Things go much more smoothly if you can provide said documentation in the quantities they require.

On the other hand, the whole 'shredding' thing looks like a typical red herring (maybe I wasn't clear about this before...) being used to set up the ACLU for some juicy political attacks.

IMHO, I think that's the real thrust of the E-mails and such that the former docs. manager was using-not that something was wrong, but that a false perception of wrongdoing could be generated if it were to become public knowledge.

Oh, and there are folks who are very opposed to the ACLU's defending those states on those issues. Neither "Liberal" nor "Conservative" equals "Intelligent" merely because of association. "Intelligent" is an individual thing independent of Political Affiliations.

I know what you liberals mean, and I know that money does get the best of you guys, but its not like NAMBLA sent you a letter and asked for your help. You guys run and yell and put on the blindfold while your bailing these sickos out onto the streets. You guys whole-heartedly want these guys to go free and continue their pedophilia agendga.

You've got it wrong. We don't want people being repressed just for voicing their opinions, however disgusting they may be.

AUtomatic Conservative Lamentation Unit
yes, because they never defended those KKK members, prayer in school, and Rush Limbaugh (sp?). until you provide a credible link of the ACLU attacking the rights to freedom of speech of a conservative, or some similar conduct, i have to resort to saying that your argument is complete and uter shit of bull.

AuCLU also means American unCivil Liberties Union

You're a fucking asshole.
Texpunditistan, Official Warning for flaming. You've been pushing the line for quite while now, but this goes over. Go read the rules thread before you post again.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Again, you guys are missing the point. The immediate harm scenario, of freedom of speech, is not protected.

Thus, I will claim, for the sake of this argument, that the fire in a theater scenario was LESS of an example of harm speech than the protection of NAMBLA's free speech.

For example, if I scream fire, crowded theater, someone MIGHT get hurt, and it would be my fault, not protected.

NAMBLA says, it's okay to have sex with a child, if someone is convinced by that speech that they are speaking the truth ( like someone running from a fire that isn't there) someon (the child) WILL get hurt, and it's our fault for letting NAMBLA talk someone into it.

Allowing NAMBLA free speech causes damage every single time, screaming FIRE in a theater MIGHT cause damage, which is worse?

ACLU's problem is that they never, never understand the difference, even when 99% of the rest of society does. The ACLU is not perfect, sometimes they are blinded by their own ideology.
instead of interpreting the Constitution as you feel like, perhaps you should actually do some research. maybe read some actual court cases from AFTER the Cold War. i would suggest using lexis, as it is fast and easy to use, but that costs money. so start here http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ or here www.google.com or just go to law school. do SOMETHING.

I know what you liberals mean, and I know that money does get the best of you guys, but its not like NAMBLA sent you a letter and asked for your help. You guys run and yell and put on the blindfold while your bailing these sickos out onto the streets. You guys whole-heartedly want these guys to go free and continue their pedophilia agendga.
no, they sent a letter to the ACLU. people are attacking the ACLU baselessly. we are pointing that out on a public forum. what's wrong?

instead of interpreting the Constitution as you feel like, perhaps you should actually do some research. maybe read some actual court cases from AFTER the Cold War. i would suggest using lexis, as it is fast and easy to use, but that costs money. so start here http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ or here www.google.com or just go to law school. do SOMETHING.

If interpretation from individuals wasn't important, as if we couldn't possibly disagree with each other, why then, do people object or endorse judicial nominees? Obviously there is more than one way to view different topics of law regardless if you are a member of the ACLU or not? Hmmm?

Perhaps, like I said, the ACLU goes too far sometimes. On the other hand, perhaps they constitute holy doctrine to you and the supreme court could be abolished if the ACLU was put in its place?

Again, you guys are missing the point. The immediate harm scenario, of freedom of speech, is not protected.

Thus, I will claim, for the sake of this argument, that the fire in a theater scenario was LESS of an example of harm speech than the protection of NAMBLA's free speech.

For example, if I scream fire, crowded theater, someone MIGHT get hurt, and it would be my fault, not protected.

NAMBLA says, it's okay to have sex with a child, if someone is convinced by that speech that they are speaking the truth ( like someone running from a fire that isn't there) someon (the child) WILL get hurt, and it's our fault for letting NAMBLA talk someone into it.

Allowing NAMBLA free speech causes damage every single time, screaming FIRE in a theater MIGHT cause damage, which is worse?

ACLU's problem is that they never, never understand the difference, even when 99% of the rest of society does. The ACLU is not perfect, sometimes they are blinded by their own ideology.

I get your point. I disagree.

First, what is at issue in the litigation is the extent to which NAMBLA's speech does cause harm.

You appear to simply assume that "NAMBLA free speech causes damage every single time." But that violates not only freedom of speech but also the presumption of innocence.

In defending NAMBLA in this particular case, the ACLU is testing the evidence of whether their is any actual danger posed by NAMBLA's speech.

Let's go back to your "'FIRE' in a crowded theatre" analogy.

You are accused of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Are you automatically guilty? Should be you be gagged immediately? Or do you have a right to hear the evidence against you and put on defense?

Is anyone that defends you an advocate of shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre? Or are they merely standing up for your rights?

I get your point. I disagree.

First, what is at issue in the litigation is the extent to which NAMBLA's speech does cause harm.

You appear to simply assume that "NAMBLA free speech causes damage every single time." But that violates not only freedom of speech but also the presumption of innocence.

In defending NAMBLA in this particular case, the ACLU is testing the evidence of whether their is any actual danger posed by NAMBLA's speech.

Let's go back to your "'FIRE' in a crowded theatre" analogy.

You are accused of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Are you automatically guilty? Should be you be gagged immediately? Or do you have a right to hear the evidence against you and put on defense?

Is anyone that defends you an advocate of shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre? Or are they merely standing up for your rights?

Of this, you and I can agree. Where we disagree, is that I say, sometime the ACLU has gone too far. They weren't wrong fro considering it, they were wrong to do an internal questionaire, "does this guy deserve our help" and they have come to the wrong conclussion. They don't help when you might be right, they help when they think you are right.

That's where I sometimes disagree. I think, sometimes, they, the ACLU, deserves to lose.

I know what you liberals mean, and I know that money does get the best of you guys, but its not like NAMBLA sent you a letter and asked for your help. You guys run and yell and put on the blindfold while your bailing these sickos out onto the streets. You guys whole-heartedly want these guys to go free and continue their pedophilia agendga.

What are you talking about?

You appear to have no idea in what way the ACLU has defended NAMBLA. The main issue involves an civil lawsuit.

Really, facts are your friend.

If interpretation from individuals wasn't important, as if we couldn't possibly disagree with each other, why then, do people object or endorse judicial nominees? Obviously there is more than one way to view different topics of law regardless if you are a member of the ACLU or not? Hmmm?

Perhaps, like I said, the ACLU goes too far sometimes. On the other hand, perhaps they constitute holy doctrine to you and the supreme court could be abolished if the ACLU was put in its place?
sentence for sentence:
1. when did i say that?
2. they were defending the Constitution and the way the Supreme Court has upheld it.
heres you talking "Again, you guys are missing the point. The immediate harm scenario, of freedom of speech, is not protected." apparently you have missed the point entirely. NAMBLA IS PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMMENDMENT WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. this is exactly what the Supreme Court of the United States of America has upheld. you made a blatently false statement and i attempted to correct you. PAY ATTENTION. at first, i understood your misconception of the First Ammendment. I was, in fact, taught by my honors high school social studies teacher that free speech didn't protect advocating the overthrow of the US government. i later found out this was false by going over actual Supreme Court cases. i went back to him and he admited he was probably wrong since he hasn't really kept up with this stuff since the Soviet era (when this was true). It's the same idea with NAMBLA. pay attention because heres the important bit, it's PROTECTED SPEECH whether you share their ideas or not.
3. hmmmmm... nothing, your sitting at a computer with access to the internet, use it.
4. name a case where they have "gone to far"
5. no, you see I, along with the ACLU as far as I have seen, believe in the Constitution and this would be clearly Unconstitutional. if you dont like it, tough shit.

Not to butt in, but just an aside on this track-isn't the 'Fire in crowded theater' analogy supposed to imply that there is not, in fact, an actual fire in the theater? Not, rather, to say that you can't warn people when there is indeed a fire in a crowded theater?

Given this important element of the analogy, I don't know that it applies to NAMBLA. The ultimate problem is if you do not protect the least of popular speech, and it would be hard to say there is less popular speech than NAMBLA, then you do not really have free speech.


The real analogy is, having sex with a child IS a fire. It IS and doesn't need to be proven, to be assumed by society as harmful. Thus, society can assume, that NAMBLA talk is always a scream of Fire when there is in fact, no fire but a false alarm, and thus, wrong.

The real analogy is, having sex with a child IS a fire. It IS and doesn't need to be proven, to be assumed by society as harmful. Thus, society can assume, that NAMBLA talk is always a scream of Fire when there is in fact, no fire.

Is it just me, or does this not make the least bit of sense?

Is it just me, or does this not make the least bit of sense?
he's just trying to hold on to a very simplistic analogy wich has no relevance. dont worry its him.

Is it just me, or does this not make the least bit of sense?
I was trying to unravel it but gave up. He caught my post before I deleted it deciding the issue was Chinatown...(haha, now I'm confusing...)

sentence for sentence:
1. when did i say that?
2. they were defending the Constitution and the way the Supreme Court has upheld it.
heres you talking "Again, you guys are missing the point. The immediate harm scenario, of freedom of speech, is not protected." apparently you have missed the point entirely. NAMBLA IS PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMMENDMENT WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. this is exactly what the Supreme Court of the United States of America has upheld. you made a blatently false statement and i attempted to correct you. PAY ATTENTION. at first, i understood your misconception of the First Ammendment. I was, in fact, taught by my honors high school social studies teacher that free speech didn't protect advocating the overthrow of the US government. i later found out this was false by going over actual Supreme Court cases. i went back to him and he admited he was probably wrong since he hasn't really kept up with this stuff since the Soviet era (when this was true). It's the same idea with NAMBLA. pay attention because heres the important bit, it's PROTECTED SPEECH whether you share their ideas or not.
3. hmmmmm... nothing, your sitting at a computer with access to the internet, use it.
4. name a case where they have "gone to far"
5. no, you see I, along with the ACLU as far as I have seen, believe in the Constitution and this would be clearly Unconstitutional. if you dont like it, tough shit.

No. Here's the improtant part, pay attention. The argument is made that the NAMBLA speech is ALWAYS harmful speech, thus, it's lost it's protection right. I say the ACLU is incapable of seeing that, ever, NAMBLA or worse, they say free speech no matter what, but that, is not the constitutional ruling, dispite what the ACLU would have you believe.

Well, the time has come once again...

*streaks thread*

Originally posted by: Cat-Tribe
School prayer is a rather obvious violation of First Amendment rights...

I beg to differ. Prayer led by teachers is a violation of First Amendment rights, but students CAN pray in schools, just so long as they don't disrupt class. I really wasn't trying to say conservatives in general don't support the First Amendment. I suppose it came out that way. Many people who are dear to me are conservatives. I meant that not-so-moderate conservatives( in other words, conservatives like Bill Frist who are in power today, have this misconception that theres nothing wrong with state-endorsed religion in this country.

Just wanted to get a few things straight ;)

NAMBLA speech is ALWAYS harmful speech, thus, it's lost it's protection right.
ok, i can't tell if you really believe what your saying or if your just trying to piss me off. it doesn't matter if they promote or advocate illegal activity. THIS IS FREE SPEECH AS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS RULED TIME AND AGAIN. if you dont believe me, check www. google.com or www.supremecourtus.gov/ the Supreme Court isn't exactly vague about this.

The real analogy is, having sex with a child IS a fire. It IS and doesn't need to be proven, to be assumed by society as harmful. Thus, society can assume, that NAMBLA talk is always a scream of Fire when there is in fact, no fire but a false alarm, and thus, wrong.

No, NAMBLA talk is always a scream of fire when there is in fact a fire. That fire is NAMBLA. When NAMBLA talks you know that NAMBLA is there. They're saying "hey we want to fuck your kids."

Do you want such a group to stop saying "hey, we want to fuck your kids," and start saying "nope, no kid fucking going on here, just a nice little camping trip. Afterall, I'm a nice heterosexual scoutmaster, and I'd never do anything wrong?"

If you have any head for practicality I think you'd rather that they keep on admiting that they'd like to fuck kids, and we can keep on keeping them from doing it.

Well, the time has come once again...

*streaks thread*
See what I'm sayin'?
http://img81.echo.cx/img81/3842/chinatownstill7no.jpg

ok, i can't tell if you really believe what your saying or if your just trying to piss me off. it doesn't matter if they promote or advocate illegal activity. THIS IS FREE SPEECH AS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS RULED TIME AND AGAIN. if you dont believe me, check www. google.com or www.supremecourtus.gov/ the Supreme Court isn't exactly vague about this.

See, you are just like the ACLU. Harmful speech is NOT protected. Never has been. Same as terroristic threats, for example, not all speech is protected, get over it.

See what I'm sayin'?
http://img81.echo.cx/img81/3842/chinatownstill7no.jpg

I know... I know... But, I've gotta do what I've gotta do...

*continues streaking thread*

No. Here's the improtant part, pay attention. The argument is made that the NAMBLA speech is ALWAYS harmful speech, thus, it's lost it's protection right. I say the ACLU is incapable of seeing that, ever, NAMBLA or worse, they say free speech no matter what, but that, is not the constitutional ruling, dispite what the ACLU would have you believe.

And you have what evidence that "NAMBLA speech is ALWAYS harmful speech"?

Again, you keep attributing views to the ACLU that simply are not accurate. The ACLU understands the law re the First Amendment.

At issue in the NAMBLA case is whether the speech in question went too far and is unprotected. You appear to know little about the case but appear to believe it is an automatically foregone conclusion. The ACLU believes that speech should be protected unless it is proven to cause harm -- not just because some assume it causes harm or because it is unpopular.

They are willing to defend close cases, because that is the battleline of liberty.

(And are you aware that a number of Supreme Court Justices over the years advocated an absolutist protection of all speech as protected? "'No law' means "no law'"?

Also, you righteously responded to Club House's suggestion that you learn more about constitutional law on the ground that people can disagree -- but you then scold the ACLU for disagreeing with you. :rolleyes: )

See, you are just like the ACLU. Harmful speech is NOT protected. Never has been. Same as terroristic threats, for example, not all speech is protected, get over it.
so your saying Brandenburg v. Ohio never happened? Virginia v. Black never happened? these are just myths. these documents sitting on my desk as i type are just myths? Theres some ultra-liberal conspiracy putting out false Supreme Court decisions on every known legal archive on the planet? fortunately, you, being a mental-patient, will be protected by the ACLU.

Originally posted by: Cat-Tribe
School prayer is a rather obvious violation of First Amendment rights...

I beg to differ. Prayer led by teachers is a violation of First Amendment rights, but students CAN pray in schools, just so long as they don't disrupt class. I really wasn't trying to say conservatives in general don't support the First Amendment. I suppose it came out that way. Many people who are dear to me are conservatives. I meant that not-so-moderate conservatives( in other words, conservatives like Bill Frist who are in power today, have this misconception that theres nothing wrong with state-endorsed religion in this country.

Just wanted to get a few things straight ;)

Um, that is not what I said. I said (emphasis added):

Government schools should be officially secular, but you will find the "sins" of the ACLU here greatly exaggerated. Yes, they oppose official school prayer. That is a rather obvious violation of the First Amendment. On the other hand, the ACLU has vigorously defended the rights of individuals to pray voluntarily and otherwise express their religion in schools.

We agree on this, but I don't appreciate being misquoted and corrected for something that is the opposite of what I said.

I hate the ACLU because I think civil liberties suck.

o/

See, you are just like the ACLU. Harmful speech is NOT protected. Never has been. Same as terroristic threats, for example, not all speech is protected, get over it.

LOL.

Fine. Please cite and quote the relevant caselaw.

Teach us where we have gone wrong.

*snip* -- but you then scold the ACLU for disagreeing with you. :rolleyes: )

Scold only because they go too far with the unrestrained endorsment, not because they exist. If someone wanted to outlaw the ACLU or said they had no purpose etc., I'd go the other way.

My complaint is that they are blinded sometimes and that they SOMETIMES pick and choose which cases to represent with an agenda, as in, which cases to take to help their ideology. But they never seem to take cases that go against their own proclaimed agenda. For example, a father's right to protect his son from being subjected to people that can confront him on the the street and say things like, "you would grow up to be a better person if you had sex with an adult male..."
... no. no, no.

The ACLU, sometimes goes too far, its as simple as that.

Behavior harmful to society does not need to be protected, individual criminals being defended with legitimate lawyers is not the topic. Society CAN decide, in my opinion, with constitutional rights intact, that some speech (and whatnot) is NOT protected.

American Civil Liberties Union.

They defend the Consititution and people whose rights are violated.

They are probably the most hated by the Republicans and or conservatives.....

and im one of them [hahahaha]
seriously though, screw 'em

I'll not even respond to that meandering, drug-addled diatribe other than to state that if you had ANY clue to what my beliefs were, you'd not call me a Neocon.

No...wait...you probably would. Just to be an asshole.

Well, you seem to think that market forces are some sort of benificent panacea.

Browsing through several pages worth of our posts turned up precious little other than one sentence comments about other people's threads, this is very similar to Bush's policy of putting forward only a vague hint of what he's planning to do and criticizing everyone else for their positions.

You joked about destroying colleges to get rid of liberals in an Ann Coulteresque fashion.

Just about all you seem to contribute to political discussions is a hatred of communism. While almost everyone disagrees with communism, it only seems to be Neo-Cons that boil all opposing politics down to Communism.

I don't have a great deal of affirmative evidence to judge your politics, but the only people I've seen you critcize are those who favor market regulation and civil rights. Until I see more I can only see how you agree with Neo-Cons.

No. Here's the improtant part, pay attention. The argument is made that the NAMBLA speech is ALWAYS harmful speech, thus, it's lost it's protection right. I say the ACLU is incapable of seeing that, ever, NAMBLA or worse, they say free speech no matter what, but that, is not the constitutional ruling, dispite what the ACLU would have you believe.

Well I've heard NAMBLA speech, and have never had sex with a child. NAMBLA's speech is apparantly not always harmful. If you're going to base your position on that assertion you're going to have to back it up, otherwise the rest of your position falls flat.

so your saying Brandenburg v. Ohio never happened? Virginia v. Black never happened? these are just myths. these documents sitting on my desk as i type are just myths? Theres some ultra-liberal conspiracy putting out false Supreme Court decisions on every known legal archive on the planet? fortunately, you, being a mental-patient, will be protected by the ACLU.


On your desk eh? Good for you. I could say something about it being too bad about not having your own cases in front of you but, whatever.

You know what though? I've often noticed that there are usually at least two lawyers at every court case, and usually, at least two of them, don't agree with each other’s version of the established law and the way it should be interpreted. Sometimes they need judges and juries to help them out deciphering their differences. It’s quite remarkable, you should check it out sometime.

The ACLU, sometimes goes too far, its as simple as that.

Behavior harmful to society does not need to be protected, individual criminals being defended with legitimate lawyers is not the topic. Society CAN decide, in my opinion, with constitutional rights intact, that some speech (and whatnot) is NOT protected.

But the ACLU is not protecting NAMBLA's behavior. They don't defend NAMBLA's supposed right to have sex with children, they defend their right to admit that that's what they want. That's not behavior, that's speech.

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't." If you don't let NAMBLA admit who they are then they'll hide it. THEN you'll see the harm that they can do when working in secret.

Well I've heard NAMBLA speech, and have never had sex with a child. NAMBLA's speech is apparantly not always harmful. If you're going to base your position on that assertion you're going to have to back it up, otherwise the rest of your position falls flat.

Just because you didn't freak out at the terroristic threat, doesn't mean the speech should be legal. Just because nobody in the theater hurt themselves doesn't mean it was 'okay' this time.

But the ACLU is not protecting NAMBLA's behavior. They don't defend NAMBLA's supposed right to have sex with children, they defend their right to admit that that's what they want. That's not behavior, that's speech.

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't." If you don't let NAMBLA admit who they are then they'll hide it. THEN you'll see the harm that they can do when working in secret.

Fine, if we're allowed to kick their asses afterwards, you know, as parents... except they might encourage someone else to join them, and or, encourage some young and impressionable, likely depressed child, into thinking they are his friends.

Nope, their propaganda can be, IMO, outlawed.

On your desk eh? Good for you. I could say something about it being too bad about not having your own cases in front of you but, whatever.

You know what though? I've often noticed that there are usually at least two lawyers at every court case, and usually, at least two of them, don't agree with each other’s version of the established law and the way it should be interpreted. Sometimes they need judges and juries to help them out deciphering their differences. It’s quite remarkable, you should check it out sometime.

So that will be a "no, I don't have any case citations or quotes."

You might note that, in court cases, lawyers will support their arguments with citations and evidence.

Nor will they generally disagree about caselaw that has been well established by the Supreme Court for decades.

Your understanding of the limits of free speech appears to begin and end with the "'fire' in a crowded theatre" analogy. Once again, I offer you a chance to prove you have a more informed understanding of constitutional law.

So that will be a "no, I don't have any case citations or quotes."

You might note that, in court cases, lawyers will support their arguments with citations and evidence.

Nor will they generally disagree about caselaw that has been well established by the Supreme Court for decades.

Your understanding of the limits of free speech appears to begin and end with the "'fire' in a crowded theatre" analogy. Once again, I offer you a chance to prove you have a more informed understanding of constitutional law.

I only have to prove that not all speech is protected. We all know that.

I then have to prove what speech 'outside' of community decency can on occasion be found to be unprotected speech.

Then, in the end, we can agree to disagree.

You guys can argue all you want, the truth is, some speech is not protected and the ACLU and I disagree on where to draw the line.

At what point do I stop because if any of you have been paying attention, you know what I'm going to say anyway, let the jury decide.

yes, because they never defended those KKK members, prayer in school, and Rush Limbaugh (sp?). until you provide a credible link of the ACLU attacking the rights to freedom of speech of a conservative, or some similar conduct, i have to resort to saying that your argument is complete and uter shit of bull.

I'm not exactly sure what you think my argument is. The "conservative lamentation" bit wasn't an argument, it was a sarcastic comment on why someone who opposes the ACLU would want to add the 'u' after the 'A.' It certainly wasn't anything even approaching an argument one way or another.

Also, I was the one who said that the ACLU did defend Rush Limbaugh to point out that that they have no political agenda in the bad sense of the word (out to promote one party at the expense of another) but only to defend the rights that they established themselves to protect, and that to criticize them for only defending certain rights makes about as much sense as saying that Yoplait is a lousy yougurt maker because they don't make any carbonated beverages.

When I was under the impression that you seriously thought that the ACLU didn't ever defend Rush Limbaugh and the others I started looking. When I realized you were being sarcastic (you were, right?) I stopped looking for links to the others.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/news/limbaugh/011304_limbaugh.html

I only have to prove that not all speech is protected. We all know that.

I then have to prove what speech 'outside' of community decency can on occasion be found to be unprotected speech.

Then, in the end, we can agree to disagree.

You guys can argue all you want, the truth is, some speech is not protected and the ACLU and I disagree on where to draw the line.

At what point do I stop because if any of you have been paying attention, you know what I'm going to say anyway, let the jury decide.

First, you are confusing legal arguments with philosophical ones. If you want to argue what the law is, then you are simply wrong.

What you fail to understand is that almost all speech is protected.

There are only very, very narrow categories of speech that are not protected.

Merely following outside "common decency" does not make speech unprotected.

I do believe you now admitting that "some speech isn't protected" and the "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy is the extent of your knowledge of First Amendment law. Thank you.

That does not mean you are necessarily wrong about what the law should be, but you should stop telling us we are ignorant about what the law is.

Second, if you want to argue what the law should be, we can go there. I think you are also wrong. Better that "dangerous" ideas be exposed and defeated in the marketplace of ideas than they be suppressed and fester. And much better to leave it to the marketplace of ideas than surrender more of all of our freedom.

Fine, if we're allowed to kick their asses afterwards, you know, as parents... except they might encourage someone else to join them, and or, encourage some young and impressionable, likely depressed child, into thinking they are his friends.

Nope, their propaganda can be, IMO, outlawed.

But as long as they come out and admit who they are we are in a position to say to our kids "those NAMBLA people... they're pedophiles." When you don't allow them to bring their arguments into the open then you increase the risk that lonely and depressed people will turn to them, because arguments opposing them aren't in the public discourse.

Just take a look at who joins groups like the National Socialists. Racist propoganda isn't part of the public discourse, so when the disaffected come across their propoganda it looks compelling because it seems to provide answers to their angst, and we haven't flooded the public conciousness with the arguments that show their intolerance and hatred for what it is.

The same deal with NAMBLA. I guarantee you if you outlaw NAMBLA's propoganda, there will soon arise the underground romantic notion that they represent some sort of Hellenic idealism of pederasty, not simply a society of pedopheliacs.

That does not mean you are necessarily wrong about what the law should be, but you should stop telling us we are ignorant about what the law is.

Second, if you want to argue what the law should be, we can go there. I think you are also wrong. Better that "dangerous" ideas be exposed and defeated in the marketplace of ideas than they be suppressed and fester. And much better to leave it to the marketplace of ideas than surrender more of all of our freedom.

When did this discussion become about what law IS, the discussion is about what the ACLU thinks and acts like it is. When did I start quoting Law? I didn't act like you guys didn't know what it was, I said simply and straight the IMO the ACLU doens't know where to draw the line and that they go too far.

I say we can take child protection and decency laws that outlaw child pornography and have it include the propagation of Child indeceny. You could start here. But you know, if I did, say start a legislative law that advocated this, the ACLU would be the first to try and challenge it as unconstitutional.

Child Pornography Has No Free Speech Protection

New York v. Ferber
458 U.S. 747 (1982)

In Ferber, the Supreme Court held that child pornography was not entitled to First Amendment protection.

The case involved New York's child pornography law, which criminalized the production or sale of any visual depiction of children under 16 engaging in sexual acts, whether or not the depiction would be deemed obscene. The Court upheld the conviction of a man who sold two films of young boys masturbating to undercover agents.

The Court ruled that states are entitled to greater leeway in regulating pornographic depictions of children than images of adults, emphasizing the state's compelling interest in protecting children who may be exploited or abused in the production of child pornography. This interest is so compelling that states may enact regulation of child pornography that might be found unconstitutional under the Miller standard if applied to pornography involving adults. In cases involving children, a jury "need not find that the material appeals to the prurient interest of the average person; it is not required that sexual conduct portrayed be done so in a patently offensive manner; and the material at issue need not be considered as a whole." The Court noted, however, that material that did not include live performance of sexual acts by children was still entitled to First Amendment protection.

This ruling was extended in a later case to grant states the right to prohibit the possession or viewing of child pornography, as well as its production and distribution. [Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990)]



But more, again, this topic is really about the ACLU, they advocate certain ideas over all others, and they have a political agenda, and I think they go too far and the aren't always correct just because they are the esteemed ACLU... That was my point.

AUtomatic Conservative Lamentation Unit

Oh. I thought it would be something creative :rolleyes:

Thanks.

I know what you liberals mean, and I know that money does get the best of you guys, but its not like NAMBLA sent you a letter and asked for your help. You guys run and yell and put on the blindfold while your bailing these sickos out onto the streets. You guys whole-heartedly want these guys to go free and continue their pedophilia agendga.

:rolleyes:

On your desk eh? Good for you. I could say something about it being too bad about not having your own cases in front of you but, whatever.

You know what though? I've often noticed that there are usually at least two lawyers at every court case, and usually, at least two of them, don't agree with each other’s version of the established law and the way it should be interpreted. Sometimes they need judges and juries to help them out deciphering their differences. It’s quite remarkable, you should check it out sometime.
what are you talking about? you said something was NOT protected. it clearly is. you made a blatently false statement, and I'm correcting you. you may not WANT it to be protected, because YOU have interperated the Constitution that way, but it is, nevertheless, protected. This has been shown in MANY Supreme Court Cases.

I then have to prove what speech 'outside' of community decency can on occasion be found to be unprotected speech.
sorry. your thinking of broadcast television. anyone can say anything they want, and promote any political agenda they want. THAT IS PROTECTED SPEECH. If you dont like it, too bad. TOUGH SHIT.

I ally posted something while under a different screen-name. Omnipotent Nerds and Nidimor are one in the same.

American Civil Liberties Union.

They defend the Consititution and people whose rights are violated.

They are probably the most hated by the Republicans and or conservatives.....

The defend the parts of the Constitution they care about--nothing more. They do NOT protect the 2nd amendment.

They are also hated by some Libertarians because the ACLU doesn't protect all civil liberties.

Whoa! Did I get in late on this one! Dang...

The defend the parts of the Constitution they care about--nothing more. They do NOT protect the 2nd amendment.

They are also hated by some Libertarians because the ACLU doesn't protect all civil liberties.

Whoa! Did I get in late on this one! Dang...
Yes, you did. You're quite wrong about the second amendment, no one, not even the NRA (that's why they lobby, not sue) reads it as you are.

If the ACLU defended the 2nd amendment, like they do the 1st Amendment, they would sue all the "coat and tie" restaurants in America for not allowing reservists from being able to eat there wearing nothing but a sleeveless shirt... :D



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Yes, you did. You're quite wrong about the second amendment, no one, not even the NRA (that's why they lobby, not sue) reads it as you are.

No one eh? Heh. Funny, then a great many people must be rolling around in my head.

There are actually several Constitutional scholars that do agree with the "way I read it".

Militia is a just a qualifying statement as an example, not the basis for the amendment.

When did this discussion become about what law IS, the discussion is about what the ACLU thinks and acts like it is. When did I start quoting Law? I didn't act like you guys didn't know what it was, I said simply and straight the IMO the ACLU doens't know where to draw the line and that they go too far. snip
.
Oh, please, the ACLU was defending NAMBLA's right to speak freely, not commit child sexual abuse. In this country, people are allowed to speak about offensive things.

No one eh? Heh. Funny, then a great many people must be rolling around in my head.

There are actually several Constitutional scholars that do agree with the "way I read it".

Militia is a just a qualifying statement as an example, not the basis for the amendment.
Mind showing one court opinion that agrees with your interpretation?

Oh, please, the ACLU was defending NAMBLA's right to speak freely, not commit child sexual abuse. In this country, people are allowed to speak about offensive things.

What are you talking about? You are not allowed to have, own or make child pornography. NAMBLA advocates the acceptance of child molestation and thus, the propagation of child molestation. NAMBLA's form of speech does not have to be accepted as freedom of speech just because the ACLU says so.

Oh, please, the ACLU was defending NAMBLA's right to speak freely, not commit child sexual abuse. In this country, people are allowed to speak about offensive things.

Unless it's labeled as a hate crime.

But, yes, all people should have the freedom of speech--good, bad, or indifferent.

Unless it's labeled as a hate crime.

But, yes, all people should have the freedom of speech--good, bad, or indifferent.
Speech isn't labeled as a hate crime. Actions are.

Mind showing one court opinion that agrees with your interpretation?

I'll do one better--check the Federalist Papers, and see what the framers meant.

Speech isn't labeled as a hate crime. Actions are.

True--my bad. But language is tied to hate crimes

But there are so many turns of phrase that can't be said on TV, in the paper, and other mass media forms, due to legislation (FCC is a huge 1st amendment opponent).

True--my bad. But language is tied to hate crimes

But there are so many turns of phrase that can't be said on TV, in the paper, and other mass media forms, due to legislation (FCC is a huge 1st amendment opponent).
The FCC sucks!

The FCC sucks!

Yes, indeed. I am of the same opinion. Actually, check that, I think they're dangerous. They want to be thought/expression police.

What are you talking about? You are not allowed to have, own or make child pornography. NAMBLA advocates the acceptance of child molestation and thus, the propagation of child molestation. NAMBLA's form of speech does not have to be accepted as freedom of speech just because the ACLU says so.

<sigh>

You are grasping at straws (and strawmen).

All speech is presumptively free under the First Amendment. There are a few very narrow exceptions as a matter of law. And that is how it should be.

If NAMBLA as an organization or an individual NAMBLA member makes, owns, or possesses child pornography, they/he may be prosecuted for that.

No one has said NAMBLA's speech is protected merely because the ACLU says so. Several have pointed out decades upon decades of Supreme Court caselaw has defined the legal question of what is and is not protected speech. Your hasty generalizations and broad smears simply do not comport with the state of law.

Arguably NAMBLA's speech pushes the boundaries of what can and should be protected speech. Whether they have crossed the line is exactly what is at issue in the cases that you object to even being litigated.

Freedom of speech would be a hollow promise if speech that was unpopular was simply censored without a defense. All the ACLU is doing is siding with NAMBLA in the defense of one civil case -- about which you have never shown the slightest knowledge.

The implications of that case go well beyond NAMBLA, which is why the ACLU has gotten involved.

Your venom is misplaced. Argue against NAMBLA. Challenge their despicable views. Counter their attempts to spread their message with a counter message. That I will fully support.

But simple censorship -- without due process. No. That endangers the liberty of us all.

I'll do one better--check the Federalist Papers, and see what the framers meant.

You've tried this point before.

The Federalist Papers were written long before even a proposal for the Second Amendment existed. So, no, they are not evidence of what the Framers meant by the Second Amendment.

As for the accusation that ACLU doesn't stand for civil liberties because it doesn't "fight for the Second Amendment," this is ridiculous.

As you well know the ACLU & the NRA cooperate routinely on a variety of issues, but the ACLU is neutral on the issue of firearms regulations, gun control, etc.

The reason is simple. The ACLU accepts the interpretation of the Second Amendment adopted by the Supreme Court and about 70 years of precedent from every US Court of Appeals. The ACLU does not advocate for this interpretation. They merely stay out of the issue.

Could the ACLU nonetheless challenge the well-established legal precedents regarding the Second Amendment? Yes. But why should they? The NRA, firearms manufacturers, and the rest of the gun lobby form one of the best funded lobbying and litigation bodies in the US -- all devoted almost exclusively to this single issue.

Is the ACLU's help really needed? Or is that just an excuse for bashing them?

<sigh>

You are grasping at straws (and strawmen).

All speech is presumptively free under the First Amendment. There are a few very narrow exceptions as a matter of law. And that is how it should be.

If NAMBLA as an organization or an individual NAMBLA member makes, owns, or possesses child pornography, they/he may be prosecuted for that.

No one has said NAMBLA's speech is protected merely because the ACLU says so. Several have pointed out decades upon decades of Supreme Court caselaw has defined the legal question of what is and is not protected speech. Your hasty generalizations and broad smears simply do not comport with the state of law.

Arguably NAMBLA's speech pushes the boundaries of what can and should be protected speech. Whether they have crossed the line is exactly what is at issue in the cases that you object to even being litigated.

Freedom of speech would be a hollow promise if speech that was unpopular was simply censored without a defense. All the ACLU is doing is siding with NAMBLA in the defense of one civil case -- about which you have never shown the slightest knowledge.

The implications of that case go well beyond NAMBLA, which is why the ACLU has gotten involved.

Your venom is misplaced. Argue against NAMBLA. Challenge their despicable views. Counter their attempts to spread their message with a counter message. That I will fully support.

But simple censorship -- without due process. No. That endangers the liberty of us all.

You are the one with the straw man here, it doesn't even address the issue outside of saying that this topic may push the boundaries of it. You built up an entire case around thinking that I don’t endorse free speech. I do. Only I recognize it’s borders and where there is a line, the ACLU hasn’t shown that they have a line at all.

I said, simple as possible, that child pornography laws over-rule freedom of speech laws, and as such, freedom of speech regarding sexual actively with a minor, either as entertainment or political propaganda or the attempt to solicit members for their organization, is in itself child pornography because it advocates and incites, illegal activity and directly endangers children. The purpose of NAMBLA speech is not educational, it is for the purpose of furthering sex between minors and adults, a crime and a form of child pornography.

It's quite simple really. ACLU says that NAMBLA hasn't crossed the line, and I say that the ACLU has gone too far. NAMBLA can hire their own lawyers, fair trial is not the issue here, never was. The ACLU goes too far, they have an agenda, they are a political organization.

Actually, I'm more about pebble bed reactors with wind, solar and hydroelectric (shore generators) as suppliments. I also don't agree with totally getting rid of oil and coal, just cutting back to sustainable levels.

I really like the idea of portable hydrogen cartridges that you could use to power your car/motorcycle/boat and recharge off house power when not in use.

Actually, according to the Feburary 26, 2005 issue of New Scientist, hydroelectric power is as dangerous if not moreso than coal/oil.

There is also some damage done by windmills, as they can actually alter the air currents of the surrounding area. The truth is, there is no 100% safe source of energy.

What are you talking about? You are not allowed to have, own or make child pornography. NAMBLA advocates the acceptance of child molestation and thus, the propagation of child molestation. NAMBLA's form of speech does not have to be accepted as freedom of speech just because the ACLU says so.
fortunately, for them, neither do you. The Supreme Court already has decided that it's protected speech. this is about the 20th time you've said something in direct contradiction to multiple Supreme Court rulings. you state these contradictions as fact, but provide no citations. if you THINK they SHOULDN'T have their speech protected, this is a completely different issue. stop trying to present you're personal feelings as law. it just doesn't work like that.

You are the one with the straw man here, it doesn't even address the issue outside of saying that this topic may push the boundaries of it. You built up an entire case around thinking that I don’t endorse free speech. I do. Only I recognize it’s borders and where there is a line, the ACLU hasn’t shown that they have a line at all.

I said, simple as possible, that child pornography laws over-rule freedom of speech laws, and as such, freedom of speech regarding sexual actively with a minor, either as entertainment or political propaganda or the attempt to solicit members for their organization, is in itself child pornography because it advocates and incites, illegal activity and directly endangers children. The purpose of NAMBLA speech is not educational, it is for the purpose of furthering sex between minors and adults, a crime and a form of child pornography.

It's quite simple really. ACLU says that NAMBLA hasn't crossed the line, and I say that the ACLU has gone too far. NAMBLA can hire their own lawyers, fair trial is not the issue here, never was. The ACLU goes too far, they have an agenda, they are a political organization.
again, Brandenburg v. Ohio. Virgina v. Black. read them, know them, love them, they are your friend. you keep presenting your argument as if there were any caselaw behind it. there simply isn't. if you think that's how the law SHOULD be, then say it. what you WANT it to be and what it IS are completely different.

Actually, according to the Feburary 26, 2005 issue of New Scientist, hydroelectric power is as dangerous if not moreso than coal/oil.

There is also some damage done by windmills, as they can actually alter the air currents of the surrounding area. The truth is, there is no 100% safe source of energy.
Choccobo power?

Not everything we find shockingly immoral is illegal.

And, similarly, the Supreme Court has upheld that even the explicit advocacy of violence is protected ~ except in the small set of cases in which the speech is capable of inspiring immediate action against a victim (like the online abortion doctor list that was declared unprotected speech).

With this in mind, I propose that NAMBLA speech is both child pornography AND capable of immediate action against any child within the vicinity of anyone that is convinced by the proposition and suggestion of the NAMBLA speech. Thus, making it too unprotected speech on at least two accounts.


Again though, the topic is that the ACLU is a bunch of self-righteous prigs, who are primarily, politically motivated.


Three Possible Approaches to
First Amendment Analysis
1. The Absolutist Approach
The Absolutist Approach is most often associated with Justice Black, who held that the First Amendment meant exactly what it says: that Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech. Under this approach, the only question is whether the action in conduct is truly "speech" (and therefore protected) or "conduct" (and therefore subject to reasonable governmental regulation. Even absolutists such as Justice Black recognized that words might be so closely connected with producing a specific action (such as entering into a contract with a hitman or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater) as to be unprotected.
2. The Categorical Approach
The Categorical Approach would protect or not protect speech based on the label that is attached to the speech in question. Certain categories of speech are seen (such as, for example, obscenity or "fighting words" or--at one time--commercial speech) as falling entirely outside of First Amendment protection, whereas most other categories of speech are either highly protected or protected absolutely.
3. The Balancing Approach
The Balancing Approach sees the Absolutist Approach as impracticable and the Categorical Approach as artificial. Balancers believe that in every case courts should weigh the individual's interest in free expression against the government's interest in restricting the speech in question. Most balancers hold that the presumption should be in favor of free expression--that there is a thumb on that side of the scale--which can only be overcome with a showing of an especially strong governmental interest. (Some commentators have distinguished between "definitional" and "categorical" balancers. The definitional balancers favor the sort of ad hoc balancing in which every individual factual difference of a particular defendant could affect the balancing, whereas the categorical balancers look at the interests of speakers in the category that the includes the defendant.)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/firstaminto.htm


The fact is, there is more than just the ACLU’s version of it.

I propose that NAMBLA speech is both child pornography.
1. child pornography

n : the illegal use of children in pornographic pictures or films
www.dictionary.com

One entry found for pornography.


Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy
Pronunciation: -fE
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornE prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey -- more at FARE, CARVE
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>
- por·no·graph·ic /"por-n&-'gra-fik/ adjective
- por·no·graph·i·cal·ly /-fi-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: 'chI(&)ld
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren /'chil-dr&n, -d&rn/
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jathara belly
1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
3 usually childe /'chI(&)ld/ archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : DESCENDANT
5 : one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
6 : PRODUCT, RESULT <barbed wire... is truly a child of the plains -- W. P. Webb>
- child·less /'chI(&)l(d)-l&s/ adjective
- child·less·ness noun
- with child : PREGNANT
www.m-w.com
i just thought i'd bring these up since they were the fastest available resources. I would like to see any court legaly define NAMBLA's political agenda of lowering age of consent as child pornography. i really dont know where you came up with that idea.

2. AND capable of immediate action against any child within the vicinity of anyone that is convinced by the proposition and suggestion of the NAMBLA speech
motion to dismiss. Brandenburg v. Ohio and Virginia v. Black as precedent.

care to try again?

Not everything we find shockingly immoral is illegal.
agreed.

We had to shred all the papers at the end of the election last year. We registered electors and the like so there was personal information up for grabs and it had to be destroyed.

You've tried this point before.
The Federalist Papers were written long before even a proposal for the Second Amendment existed. So, no, they are not evidence of what the Framers meant by the Second Amendment.


So, the stuff about freedom of speech in the Federalist Papers is bunk, too? Last I checked, the first amendment said Congress shall establish no law--but that means the states can limit free speech. That seems to be how people are working that militia statement in the 2nd, so it should apply to all the amendments. Look, Constitutional scholars look at the Federalist Papers for the meaning behind the Constitution itself--the spirit hadn't changed by the time they drafted the Constitution--they agree on that one. The militia is just one of the many reasons why the people cannot have their right to bear arms infringed. A bad precedent was set last century, and everyone has stuck to it. The precedent flies in the face of the intent of the amendment--many Constitutional scholars agree on that point as well. Just because a lawyer (judge) decided that it wasn't in the best interests of society, doesn't mean they can actually overrule the Constitution itself. They can overrule the laws outside the Constitution, if those laws go against the Constitution.

The reason we have an illegal law on the books banning concealed carry in Wisconsin is due to repression of african-americans--we know the spirit and intent of that law (it was never enforced on caucasians--until late last century), which is why we enacted a personal protection amendment to our state constitution. However, that illegal law has not been struck down, even though our own state supreme court ruled a man innocent of having a concealed weapon, and using it in self-defense.

This is one of the many reasons why I have a dislike of lawyers and judges--they will not do their jobs by protecting the actual amendments to constitutions. Instead, they tend to like to drag things out and get each other more money.

I'm not going to argue this point with you any further, Cat, you and I have already hit our wall with this topic, so stop trying--you side with the judges and lawyers, and I side with the actual intent of the amendment--I side with the people that study it for a living--yes, there are Constitutional lawyers, but they still lose time studying and interpreting it by being in court, earning their dough. The scholars have more knowledge on the topic, so I take their word over a lawyer's any day of the week.


As for the accusation that ACLU doesn't stand for civil liberties because it doesn't "fight for the Second Amendment," this is ridiculous.


I said they only stand for the ones they like.


As you well know the ACLU & the NRA cooperate routinely on a variety of issues, but the ACLU is neutral on the issue of firearms regulations, gun control, etc.


Yup, no support for ALL liberties. Isn't there some legal latin saying about silence and agreement? They agree that it's okay to disarm the citizenry. I never said that the NRA supported anything other than the 2nd, either. But then again, they don't have the term "liberties" in their name (I rather wish they had firearms, as opposed to rifle in their title, though--then again, they go beyond their name, not just support only lever actions as opposed to all rifles). It's like saying that the 70% beef of the burger is 100% beef. Yes, they defend civil liberties, but they sure don't defend them all, like their name would imply.


The reason is simple. The ACLU accepts the interpretation of the Second Amendment adopted by the Supreme Court and about 70 years of precedent from every US Court of Appeals. The ACLU does not advocate for this interpretation. They merely stay out of the issue.


Yes, because they don't support the amendment. Just like the good socialists that they are. Before you go trying to refute that one, several founding members were socialists--that was the agenda. They do not stand for freedom--they stand for their selected freedoms.


Could the ACLU nonetheless challenge the well-established legal precedents regarding the Second Amendment? Yes. But why should they? The NRA, firearms manufacturers, and the rest of the gun lobby form one of the best funded lobbying and litigation bodies in the US -- all devoted almost exclusively to this single issue.
Is the ACLU's help really needed? Or is that just an excuse for bashing them?

If they are going to imply that they stand for all liberties--which their name does imply--then they need to stand for all of them. I like what they do for the first amendment, but I'm worried about all of the amendments, not just the ones that support (American) liberal standards. I'm a classic liberal, remember? I want freedom over security--because I'm not scared of what my neighbor might do. I'm only concerned with what they actually do.

Why? Don't conservatives want to conserve the constituition too?

Yes...

only, most of us don't want to expand it...

So, the stuff about freedom of speech in the Federalist Papers is bunk, too?

....

Look, Constitutional scholars look at the Federalist Papers for the meaning behind the Constitution itself--the spirit hadn't changed by the time they drafted the Constitution--they agree on that one. The militia is just one of the many reasons why the people cannot have their right to bear arms infringed. A bad precedent was set last century, and everyone has stuck to it. The precedent flies in the face of the intent of the amendment--many Constitutional scholars agree on that point as well. Just because a lawyer (judge) decided that it wasn't in the best interests of society, doesn't mean they can actually overrule the Constitution itself. They can overrule the laws outside the Constitution, if those laws go against the Constitution.

Um, neither the First nor the Second Amendment is dicussed in the Federalist Papers. They didn't exist when the the Federalist Papers were written.

I don't believe there is anything about freedom of speech in the Federalist Papers.

So, the premise of your argument is flawed.

Last I checked, the first amendment said Congress shall establish no law--but that means the states can limit free speech. That seems to be how people are working that militia statement in the 2nd, so it should apply to all the amendments.

<sigh>

Again, we've been over this. Yes, the First Amendment didn't apply to the states. Nor did any of the rest of the Bill of Rights. Until the 14th Amendment amended and changed the Constitution. Through incorporation, almost all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights have been applied to the states. The Second Amendment has never been incorporated.

I've explained this before. I've even cited articles from the NRA explaining this.

You just keep ignoring it.

I'm not going to argue this point with you any further, Cat, you and I have already hit our wall with this topic, so stop trying--you side with the judges and lawyers, and I side with the actual intent of the amendment--I side with the people that study it for a living--yes, there are Constitutional lawyers, but they still lose time studying and interpreting it by being in court, earning their dough. The scholars have more knowledge on the topic, so I take their word over a lawyer's any day of the week.

You brought up the issue, not I. I don't think the Second Amendment is particularly relevant to this thread. You seemed to think it was.

Some Constitutional scholars agree with you. (Some of them also work for gun lobby-funded organizations.). Some Constitutional scholars do
not. There is no consensus among such scholars. Fallacious appeal to authority.

Set lawyers aside.

Judges are the ones designated by the Constitution to interpret it. They have nigh unanimously disagreed with you in scores upon scores of decisions for at least 70 years.

You are free to disagree. But to criticize the ACLU as not really supporting civil liberties because they fail to take your side in this Quixotic quest is rather absurd.

I said they only stand for the ones they like.

Yup, no support for ALL liberties. Isn't there some legal latin saying about silence and agreement? They agree that it's okay to disarm the citizenry. I never said that the NRA supported anything other than the 2nd, either. But then again, they don't have the term "liberties" in their name (I rather wish they had firearms, as opposed to rifle in their title, though--then again, they go beyond their name, not just support only lever actions as opposed to all rifles). It's like saying that the 70% beef of the burger is 100% beef. Yes, they defend civil liberties, but they sure don't defend them all, like their name would imply.

Yes, because they don't support the amendment. Just like the good socialists that they are. Before you go trying to refute that one, several founding members were socialists--that was the agenda. They do not stand for freedom--they stand for their selected freedoms.

If they are going to imply that they stand for all liberties--which their name does imply--then they need to stand for all of them. I like what they do for the first amendment, but I'm worried about all of the amendments, not just the ones that support (American) liberal standards. I'm a classic liberal, remember? I want freedom over security--because I'm not scared of what my neighbor might do. I'm only concerned with what they actually do.

In other words, because the ACLU doesn't fight for your particular interpretation of one Amendment/liberty, they shouldn't have "civil liberties" in their name?

They don't fight against your single-issue. They are neutral -- in face of decades of uniform caselaw saying your interpretation is wrong, they have left the fight to the NRA and many other gun organizations.

"They don't agree with me one one interpretation of one liberty, so they should change their name." What a silly thing to get so worked up about.

In other words, because the ACLU doesn't fight for your particular interpretation of one Amendment/liberty, they shouldn't have "civil liberties" in their name?

They don't fight against your single-issue. They are neutral -- in face of decades of uniform caselaw saying your interpretation is wrong, they have left the fight to the NRA and many other gun organizations.



They've fought for all but the 2nd? I wasn't aware of that--and I'm pretty sure they haven't.

Hmm this will be interesting for responses as the Times is usually dismissed as being a liberal rag.

Who would trust a newspaper that covered up Stalin's massacres in the Ukraine in the early 1930s?

Who would trust a newspaper that covered up Stalin's massacres in the Ukraine in the early 1930s?

Meh. Those people are all gone.

Besides everybody does it. After all we invaded Iraq because of WMD production right?

They've fought for all but the 2nd? I wasn't aware of that--and I'm pretty sure they haven't.

<sigh>

The 2nd was the only one you complained about.

You really know very little about the ACLU, though, don't you?

The ACLU fights cases on a wide range of issues. Here a list of just some of the current categories of its major campaigns:
Criminal Justice
Death Penalty
Disability Rights
Drug Policy
Free Speech
FreedomWire/Youth
HIV/AIDS
Immigrant Rights
Int'l Human Rights
Lesbian & Gay Rights
National Security
Police Practices
Prisons
Privacy & Technology
Racial Justice
Religious Liberty
Reproductive Freedom
Rights of the Poor
Safe and Free
Voting Rights
Women's Rights

But, let us see re the Bill of Rights:
1st - yep, big time
2nd - we've discussed
3rd - don't know, doesn't come up much
4th - yep
5th - yep
6th - yep
7th - yep
8th - yep
9th - yep
10th - yep

I guess the real question is not what they fight for, but why would they be shredding documents.

I mean, nothing they do is a secret. Or so it would seem. Do they have some secrets we should all know about?

I guess the real question is not what they fight for, but why would they be shredding documents.

I mean, nothing they do is a secret. Or so it would seem. Do they have some secrets we should all know about?

C'mon, WL.

In your practice, you don't shred documents? Ever?

Did you read the extent of their document retention and tracking policy? How many companies do you know with a policy that strict?

You are aware of caselaw holding lawyers liable for malpractice for inadequate destruction of confidential documents, right? And other organziations liable when private information is not adequately protected?

Did you read about the cases where the "whistleblower" here raised concerns and the shredded documents were old resumes from the Human Resources department?

C'mon, WL.

In your practice, you don't shred documents? Ever?

Did you read the extent of their document retention and tracking policy? How many companies do you know with a policy that strict?

You are aware of caselaw holding lawyers liable for malpractice for inadequate destruction of confidential documents, right? And other organziations liable when private information is not adequately protected?

Did you read about the cases where the "whistleblower" here raised concerns and the shredded documents were old resumes from the Human Resources department?

Only by a document retention policy - and I've never worked at any one place long enough to reach the seven year mark, which is common out here.

Yes, you protect confidentiality. But in the past 10 years or so, I've never shredded a single document.

The one that I'm thinking about was the recent one where Andersen won their appeal - much too late. Apparently, even though they were "complying" with their own document retention policy "at the last minute" in an orgy of shredding, they weren't convicted of witness tampering (much less obstruction of justice).

That said, I do find it odd that an organization suddenly engages in a large amount of shredding - anything outside the normal pace with no obvious explanation makes me suspicious.

As an example of a place with a document retention policy far more strict, you could always look at the Public Corporation Accounting Oversight Board.

Um, neither the First nor the Second Amendment is dicussed in the Federalist Papers. They didn't exist when the the Federalist Papers were written.

I don't believe there is anything about freedom of speech in the Federalist Papers.

yeah, it seems unlikely; that whole bill of rights thing was a compromise with the anti-federalists. but then again, maybe there is something in one of the various federalist papers. i'd be interested to know where.

*snip*

That said, I do find it odd that an organization suddenly engages in a large amount of shredding - anything outside the normal pace with no obvious explanation makes me suspicious.

As an example of a place with a document retention policy far more strict, you could always look at the Public Corporation Accounting Oversight Board

You didn't read the article at all, did you?

There is no allegation of mass shredding.

The "scandal" is that the ACLU owns shredders at all! *gasp* :eek:

And, no, the Oversight Board's retention policy is not more strict. It only applies to certain audit documents and only requires they be retained for at least 7 years.

You didn't read the article at all, did you?

There is no allegation of mass shredding.

The "scandal" is that the ACLU owns shredders at all! *gasp* :eek:

There is serious talk in some circles that the only safe document retention policy is one where ALL documents of ANY type are retained FOREVER.

It does get rid of suspicion.

There is serious talk in some circles that the only safe document retention policy is one where ALL documents of ANY type are retained FOREVER.

It does get rid of suspicion.

You cannot be serious.

Non-originals? Every scrap of paper?

That is absurd.

You cannot be serious.

Non-originals? Every scrap of paper?

That is absurd.

There's one organization that I know of that is doing it - every version of every document of any type. Drafts, everything. Forever.

<sigh>

The 2nd was the only one you complained about.

You really know very little about the ACLU, though, don't you?


I know enough about their origins--and like I said, I like what they've done with the 1st amendment defense, but when an organization has the agenda of turing the government socialist--I have problems with that.

That does go against the precepts of the Constitution.

when an organization has the agenda of turing the government socialist--I have problems with that.
when did they attempt to do that?

I know enough about their origins--and like I said, I like what they've done with the 1st amendment defense, but when an organization has the agenda of turing the government socialist--I have problems with that.

That does go against the precepts of the Constitution.
Skipping the part about the where you read an agenda to the ACLU, I want to ask you to tell me which part of the Constitution does socialism goes against?

Skipping the part about the where you read an agenda to the ACLU, I want to ask you to tell me which part of the Constitution does socialism goes against?

There seem to be plenty of Socialists who believe that the US Constitution is anathema to Socialism:
http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/may_2000_3.html

NEW YORK CITY- A few blocks from Wall Street at the Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC), around 1,000 people, including academics and students, gathered for the 2000 Socialist Scholars Conference to discuss "Rockin' the Boat: Building Coalitions for the New Century."

At the top of their agenda was the building of a movement that would scrap the United States Constitution, replacing it with a hodgepodge of Leftist social programs designed to reorganize American society.

"My God, there is no better way [to reach our goals] than to go through that Constitution and show its roots in racism, sexism, classism, genocide, and slavery," pronounced George Caffentzis of the University of Southern Maine. "One way in which to grasp another alternative is to begin to call a new Constitutional Convention. To begin to pose it forcefully, we have to change things from the bottom. What the bottom means in this country here is the Constitution."

There seem to be plenty of Socialists who believe that the US Constitution is anathema to Socialism:
http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/may_2000_3.html

NEW YORK CITY- A few blocks from Wall Street at the Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC), around 1,000 people, including academics and students, gathered for the 2000 Socialist Scholars Conference to discuss "Rockin' the Boat: Building Coalitions for the New Century."
*snip*

Hmmm a conservative site? Sorry you have to do better then that......

There seem to be plenty of Socialists who believe that the US Constitution is anathema to Socialism:
http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/may_2000_3.html

NEW YORK CITY- A few blocks from Wall Street at the Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC), around 1,000 people, including academics and students, gathered for the 2000 Socialist Scholars Conference to discuss "Rockin' the Boat: Building Coalitions for the New Century."

At the top of their agenda was the building of a movement that would scrap the United States Constitution, replacing it with a hodgepodge of Leftist social programs designed to reorganize American society.

"My God, there is no better way [to reach our goals] than to go through that Constitution and show its roots in racism, sexism, classism, genocide, and slavery," pronounced George Caffentzis of the University of Southern Maine. "One way in which to grasp another alternative is to begin to call a new Constitutional Convention. To begin to pose it forcefully, we have to change things from the bottom. What the bottom means in this country here is the Constitution."
So I should take at face value the view of a group that call himself radical to be a proof that Socialism is anticonstitutionnal?

Please, you'll have to do better than that. You could argue that social security goes against "the pursuit of happiness" by taking money for the citizens. But linking to a group that is linked to communists?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Skipping the part about the where you read an agenda to the ACLU, I want to ask you to tell me which part of the Constitution does socialism goes against?

"Article. IV.
Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

Socialism is against a weak central government--a welfare state needs a strong central government to operate.

"Article. IV.
Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

Socialism is against a weak central government--a welfare state needs a strong central government to operate.
I'm sorry, I don't follow.

How do you equate a clause that say that Maryland has to recognize the marriage license that was given by the state of Texas to being against a weak central government, let alone against socialism.

Can you go through the details?

So I should take at face value the view of a group that call himself radical to be a proof that Socialism is anticonstitutionnal?

Please, you'll have to do better than that. You could argue that social security goes against "the pursuit of happiness" by taking money for the citizens. But linking to a group that is linked to communists?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Googling seems to show a fairly consistent view across websites for American Socialists. I'm not saying that Socialism is anti-constitutional - they are saying that the Constitution is anti-Socialist.

It would be hard to have a Socialist government at the national level since there's no provision for the Federal government to seize control of business, and its power to tax is also limited. Note that if it's not an enumerated power for the Feds, they can't do it.

You could have an individual State with a Socialist government - but I bet that the individual State constitutions probably have something in there to preclude that.

So, no Federal-level socialist state. Couldn't control the means of production or control the individual states to the level required.

Why? Don't conservatives want to conserve the constituition too?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!
oh, man...that's...thats some funnny...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!

I hate the ACLU because I think civil liberties suck.

I wish we could have slavery back.

Ahh.. the good old days, crack of the whip, fine cotton... :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

How do you equate a clause that say that Maryland has to recognize the marriage license that was given by the state of Texas to being against a weak central government, let alone against socialism.

Can you go through the details?

Because the central government (the one needed for the welfare state) can't make the rules. It's okay to get married at age 17 in one state, but not another. The states are free to determine what's best for each state, as opposed to the central federal government making those decisions. You have a weaker central government--welfare states need strong central governments.

Googling seems to show a fairly consistent view across websites for American Socialists. I'm not saying that Socialism is anti-constitutional - they are saying that the Constitution is anti-Socialist.

It would be hard to have a Socialist government at the national level since there's no provision for the Federal government to seize control of business, and its power to tax is also limited. Note that if it's not an enumerated power for the Feds, they can't do it.

You could have an individual State with a Socialist government - but I bet that the individual State constitutions probably have something in there to preclude that.

So, no Federal-level socialist state. Couldn't control the means of production or control the individual states to the level required.
Well, if you go by that antiquated definition of socialism we argued over way back when... You might have a point. But then, it is not the only definition of socialism as I, and many other posters, have pointed out.

That being said, I do believe the Federal Governmnet has the power to nationalize an industry. I'm not that versed in the legal ramications, so I'll pick this up tomorrow. Now, I'm off.

Because the central government (the one needed for the welfare state) can't make the rules. It's okay to get married at age 17 in one state, but not another. The states are free to determine what's best for each state, as opposed to the central federal government making those decisions. You have a weaker central government--welfare states need strong central governments.
It seems to me that the federal law trumps the state law as has been decided by the SCOTUS yesterday when they ruled that medical marijuana was illegal.

Nice try, though.

It seems to me that the federal law trumps the state law as has been decided by the SCOTUS yesterday when they ruled that medical marijuana was illegal.

Nice try, though.

Depends on the law. Regulation of marijuana is done under the idea that the Feds are regulating "interstate commerce".

They would have a more difficult time with other laws.

It seems to me that the federal law trumps the state law as has been decided by the SCOTUS yesterday when they ruled that medical marijuana was illegal.

Nice try, though.

Yeah, the SCOTUS seems to have forgotten what freedom and liberty are about. The war on drugs is one of the biggest wastes of money ever.

There are only supposed to be a very few laws that trump state laws--the amendments and such. But not the rest of the crap they continue to push down from the federal level.

He is confusing conservatives with neo-cons.

No, he is confusing the United States with a sensible nation.

The Bible, the Koran, the I-Ching. They, and similar works, are all great sources of wisdom, but prone to misinterpretation. .

Mine said, "A Suffusion of Yellow."

If the ACLU defended the 2nd amendment, like they do the 1st Amendment, they would sue all the "coat and tie" restaurants in America for not allowing reservists from being able to eat there wearing nothing but a sleeveless shirt... :D
[/i]

Good ONe, Internet high Five!!!

I think I just about wrapped up this thread. :cool:

Yeah, the SCOTUS seems to have forgotten what freedom and liberty are about. The war on drugs is one of the biggest wastes of money ever.

There are only supposed to be a very few laws that trump state laws--the amendments and such. But not the rest of the crap they continue to push down from the federal level.
Don't take it personnaly but I'll take the SCOTUS interpretation of the constitution over yours any day of the week.

What this means is that the US can very much have a strong federal government and can have any socialist leaning it wants. Nothing in the constitution stops that.

Don't take it personnaly but I'll take the SCOTUS interpretation of the constitution over yours any day of the week.

What this means is that the US can very much have a strong federal government and can have any socialist leaning it wants. Nothing in the constitution stops that.

'Tis your right to have your opinion. It's one of the things that makes this country grand--and it's not exercised nearly enough.

Don't take it personnaly but I'll take the SCOTUS interpretation of the constitution over yours any day of the week.

What this means is that the US can very much have a strong federal government and can have any socialist leaning it wants. Nothing in the constitution stops that.

Nothing like a Canadian to not know the basis of the SCOTUS ruling...

Nothing like a Canadian to not know the basis of the SCOTUS ruling...

Well considering how much the average American knows about their rights, the Constitution, and general history; he probably does know more.

Yeah, the SCOTUS seems to have forgotten what freedom and liberty are about. The war on drugs is one of the biggest wastes of money ever.

There are only supposed to be a very few laws that trump state laws--the amendments and such. But not the rest of the crap they continue to push down from the federal level.
"Interstate Commerce Clause".

Well considering how much the average American knows about their rights, the Constitution, and general history; he probably does know more.

The most recent ruling was about whether or not the Feds can regulate illegal drugs - which an individual state might want to declare legal.

Well, most laws are passed under the idea of regulating "interstate commerce", and that's what most drug laws are covered by.

Keep in mind that if the power is not enumerated in the Constitution, the Congress is not empowered to do that. I see nothing here about seizing and controlling private business.

So perhaps our Canadian needs to read our Constitution.

Let's read, shall we?

Article I, Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


----


I didn't see any other powers there, did you?

The most recent ruling was about whether or not the Feds can regulate illegal drugs - which an individual state might want to declare legal.

Well, most laws are passed under the idea of regulating "interstate commerce", and that's what most drug laws are covered by.

Keep in mind that if the power is not enumerated in the Constitution, the Congress is not empowered to do that. I see nothing here about seizing and controlling private business.

So perhaps our Canadian needs to read our Constitution.

Let's read, shall we?

Article I, Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


----


I didn't see any other powers there, did you?
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Sigh...

Other drug laws fall under "hard to get permit" laws, which used to be the old standard until someone sued claiming that they violated the right to not incriminate one's self, as you had to go with drugs in hand to get a permit, which they would arrest you for having the drugs without a permit.

Keep in mind that if the power is not enumerated in the Constitution, the Congress is not empowered to do that. I see nothing here about seizing and controlling private business.

I'm comming in a little late but... Eminent(yeah I can't spell) Domain?

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Sigh...

Other drug laws fall under "hard to get permit" laws, which used to be the old standard until someone sued claiming that they violated the right to not incriminate one's self, as you had to go with drugs in hand to get a permit, which they would arrest you for having the drugs without a permit.

I'm not saying they can't regulate drugs.

There was a crazy Canadian who said that there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent having a Socialist government.

So I asked them to look at Section 8.

I'm not saying they can't regulate drugs.

There was a crazy Canadian who said that there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent having a Socialist government.

So I asked them to look at Section 8.
Define socialist.

Define socialist.
For starters, centralized state control of the socialized sectors of the economy (e.g. Leninism), or control of those sectors by workers' councils (e.g. syndicalism, left and council communism, Anarcho-communism).

In essence, control of the means of production, either through direct state control, or through worker's councils (unions, say).

Not through private ownership of shares or through private ownership.

I don't see anything like that enumerated as a power in Section 8.

For starters, centralized state control of the socialized sectors of the economy (e.g. Leninism), or control of those sectors by workers' councils (e.g. syndicalism, left and council communism, Anarcho-communism).

In essence, control of the means of production, either through direct state control, or through worker's councils (unions, say).

Not through private ownership of shares or through private ownership.

I don't see anything like that enumerated as a power in Section 8.
Oh, that socialism. Not the watered down sort we general refer to as socalism. Agreed. Federal government can't mandate it, but the point of socialism is not to have it mandated by the federal goverment. If anything it would happen at the local/states first.

Oh, that socialism. Not the watered down sort we general refer to as socalism. Agreed. Federal government can't mandate it, but the point of socialism is not to have it mandated by the federal goverment. If anything it would happen at the local/states first.

Unless there's some limitation in a state constitution, by all means, individual states can do that.

The watered-down versions such as mixed-market socialism would still be very hard to accomplish at the federal level. But states could do it.

Unless there's some limitation in a state constitution, by all means, individual states can do that.

The watered-down versions such as mixed-market socialism would still be very hard to accomplish at the federal level. But states could do it.
Not too difficult. I'd imagine that they'd do it much in the way that they control education and the roads, creative use of withholding funds to get the state's to bend to their will.

And when Rush Limbaugh, who never has a nice word to say about the ACLU was being investigated for drug offenses and the investigator subpoenad his medical records, the ACLU represented him in his efforts to keep them secret.

You just can't trust those liberal groups. They'll support any ideal they hold, no matter who gets helpped in the process. How can you trust any group that won't kick its enemies when they're down. That sort of altruism is just plain unAmerican.

Your Sarcasm is showing dude.

But Rush was guilty. You can't be clean in a few weeks like he went away for. I bet he still uses drugs.