ACLU seless Thursday
March 9, 2006
If you have children, know children or were a child at one point…you have no sympathy for sex offenders, unless you are a sex offender or are with the ACLU. I guess when we discuss civil liberties, the ACLU thinks their efforts should used to help sex offenders who are charged with crimes against children. Now don’t get me wrong – there are registered sex offenders who I feel dshould not be lumped into this class – like the 18 year old who had sex with the 17v year old, but any normal human being knows what I am talking about when I say that I have no sympathy or willingness to forgive or turn a blind-eye to someone who has violated a child. I just wanted to highlight a couple of links where the ACLU doesn’t look out for our children: here,here
and here (the last one will really make your stomach turn)!
Posted in Greta, Stop the ACLUseless
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
content rss
March 9th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
I don’t claim to be any expert. Indeed, I didn’t know what the ACLU was until yesterday. I read Indian Chris’ comments, and went to the ACLU web page to find out more.
They state that “in representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech.” Furthermore, their August 2000 press release is quite clear in setting out their position: “In representing NAMBLA today, [the ACLU] does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.”
Perhaps I misunderstand what all the fuss is about. The right to representation, yes? As expressed on the ACLU web page, it seems quite straight forward. Unfortunately the vast outpourings from blogs has made Google-ing for hard facts virtually impossible. Rumour begets rumour; an infinite cycle of unsupported allegations and opinions.
March 9th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Awesome job Al! Don’t understimate the power of actaully listening to what the ACLU has to say on an issue.
I support the ACLU, and I think child molesters are bad. The two are not mutally exclusive.
March 9th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Meg and Al – in theory the ACLU is good – but it is BROKEN! Their agenda (and they claim to be non-partisan) is screwing up the country. I could back it up with a whole bunh of stuff – but it appears you have both made up your mind & you are entitled to your opinion. I, however (& I know Chris) jumped aboard the http://stoptheaclu.com because it represents things we disagree with – no, we are not against civil liberites – just changing the Constitution. I am not a pro-life, Christian & still feel they hurt America!
March 9th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
People with absolutely no legal understanding whatsoever run stoptheaclu.com. They seriously need to get some legal training to help them out. They are always making wild accusations about what a law, judicial opinion, clause of the constitution, or case briefs says or means. They are wrong (I mean wrong on the law not politically wrong) about eighty percent of the time. If you don’t like the ACLU, that’s fine, but listen to better conservative legal arguments. http://Www.scotusblog.com is a good one.
March 9th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
The ACLU are the ones that are wrong 80% of the time, morally wrong.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:45 am
I support robust freedom of speech too but even speech has its limits. As I understand it the Supreme Court has ruled that yelling “fire†in a crowded movie theater is not protected speech. Similarly, I would think that speech which clearly advocates something illegal and highly immoral (i.e. the sexual relationship between adults and children) would fall in the same category. I understand that this could become a “slippery slope†(i.e. where do you draw the line?), but I also think that if a line should be drawn, this is the place. The ACLU’s stated mission of protecting our freedom of speech is a noble one but it is ill served in this particular case. The end result is not a free and open society, but rather one that tolerates the exploitation of children.
March 10th, 2006 at 1:00 am
Judges, Lawyers, and the ACLU – Enemies of the People…
This week’s Stop the ACLU blogburst comes from Gribbit. I hope you enjoy his rant as much as I do. I could not have said it better. When the time comes, those of us who believe in upholding all of the Amendments, especially the Second, will be…
March 10th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Greta writes that “I could back [the allegations against the ACLU] up with a whole bunh of stuff – but it appears you have both made up your mind”. I haven’t. My opinions are constantly being formed and adjusted. On the ACLU I have virtually no opinion. I do, however, like to see justifications of opinions before I’m prepared to give them much consideration. This is partly in self-preservation — if somebody challenges my view, I owe it to myself to be able to point at the original hard facts.
I visited the Big Dog’s blog and read the article. It seemed to be making very few accusations against the ACLU which can be investigated. Seven specific objections are raised against the ACLU. These are:
* The ACLU filed the amicus brief in Roe vs Wade.
* The ACLU has represented clients whose goals has been to remove religion from public life.
* The ACLU has represented convicted murderers appealing against the death penalty.
* The ACLU is representing alleged terrorists who have allegedly engaged US forces.
* The ACLU is suing to release classified material via the Freedom of Information Act which, if successful, could potentially endanger national security.
* The ACLU has represented pornographers looking for a relaxation of obscenity laws.
* The ACLU has advocated the elimination of laws against possession of child pornography.
I therefore issue a challenge (in the spirit of friendly banter). Can somebody provide me with non-partisan evidence backing up these claims? A link to a couple of newspaper articles will probably satisfy my curiosity. Other blogs or activist web pages will not. As I said before, I’m not having much luck with Google.
Please note that I’m not drawing any conclusions as to the morality in any of these cases.
March 10th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
Al,
I don’t have sources for these accusations, but I can try to interpret them for you:
* The ACLU filed the amicus brief in Roe vs Wade.
–Good. Women have the right to choose.
* The ACLU has represented clients whose goals has been to remove religion from public life.
–The state should have no position on faith, and this objection is by someone who wants faith to run the state, and the state to impose faith on the public.
* The ACLU has represented convicted murderers appealing against the death penalty.
–Good. There are serious problems with the death penalty. And the way we get our system to work properly, even against bad people, is to give them representation.
* The ACLU is representing alleged terrorists who have allegedly engaged US forces.
The way we get our system to work properly, even against bad people, is to give them representation.
* The ACLU is suing to release classified material via the Freedom of Information Act which, if successful, could potentially endanger national security.
–Harming national security is bad, but the FOIA law contains provisions to protect against that. It’s good that the ACLU is trying to let the sunshine in.
* The ACLU has represented pornographers looking for a relaxation of obscenity laws.
–We don’t have obscenity laws. We have laws against child pornography, but no obscenity laws.
* The ACLU has advocated the elimination of laws against possession of child pornography.
–I rather doubt ‘elimination’ is the right word. They may have opposed unconstitutional provisions.
…All in all, vast clouds of rhetoric surround a useful organization. The law stands in the way of theocracy, and so theocratic forces are trying to do away with law and those who defend the rule of law, successfully sweeping onto their bandwagon otherwise goodly citizens like Greta.
March 10th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Al Kasprzyk, other than the last one, the issues you listed seem reasonable to me. I cannot support the ACLU’s defense of NAMBLA’s free speech, though.
Brainhell, good work.
Greta and Chris, I know you feel strongly about the ACLU so I’m open to any other criticisms you have.
March 10th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Silke,
Just to be clear, they are not my objections. I’m simply summarising the objections raised by Mad Dog in his article.
March 13th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Jay,
Interesting that your only defense to the inaccuracies on your website is that the ACLU is “wrong morally.” Is it “morally wrong†lie to people about what a law says, group advocates, brief argues? If so, maybe you should stick to arguing morals and keep away from arguing the law?