http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/31356prs20070817.html

This is a worthy case. Right now, we have ZERO sense of the scope of operations, and we are entitled to know that.

It's that pesky accountability thing these clowns avoid like the plague.

And that's fairly solid evidence of having over stepped their bounds.

Damn the ACLU for interferring with the gov't right to snoop on us. Down with the ACLU! More power to Big Brother!

"Government Must Respond by August 31"

And if the White House doesn't respond by the 31st? The judge can hold his (or her?) breath until he turns blue, which is about all the power he has under King George.

True.

IMHO, it's still good to have the case on record. The next President might see the merits of that.

Where is Herb on this??? He LOVES to throw out the ACLU on you Libs all the time.

Exactly!

Well, since you asked:

The ACLU has worked overtime to oppose traditional values, including the following:

*Blocking prayer and Bible reading in our public schools and city/village meetings

*Litigating to remove 10 Commandments plaques and all Christian symbols and emblems in our schools, cities and public places

*Ensuring that the grisly procedure of partial birth abortion be permitted as a recognized legal medical procedure

*Ensuring that abortion without restrictions be available at any time throughout a woman's pregnancy

*Ensuring that parents be denied the right to consent or even be notified of a teenager's decision to have an abortion

*Denying waiting periods before pregnant women have an abortion

*Denying "right to know" information to women considering the dangerous risks of having an abortion

*Removing "IN GOD WE TRUST" off our money

*Forcing religious organizations like Catholic Charities as well as insurance companies to provide contraceptive and/or abortion coverage against their will

*Removing God out of the Pledge of Allegiance

*Forcing homosexuality to be taught as an acceptable alternate lifestyle in public schools

*Forcing public schools to adopt Gay/Straight Alliances in communities that do not want them

*Forcing states to accept same sex marriage as equivalent to heterosexual marriage

*Preventing libraries from blocking pornography in their computers

Herb

And they win those cases all the time.

Ideally, they will win this one too.

Nice list.
Thanks.
I think I'll join up.

Thank God the ACLU stands up to selfish people like the troll so I don't have to.

ACLU: Anti Christian Litigation Unit

OR

Athiests Communists Liberals United

So what you are saying is that Christians oppose Civil Liberties for everybody?

I trust you all know why the ACLU was started?

It was started to protect the rights of Communists who lived in the United States. It was, and still is, an organization who's mission is to protect the rights of godless socialists.

When you know it's intent, it's easy to understand why so many on this forum bow at the alter of the ACLU.

here it goes!

(Passes popcorn bowl to Mrs M.)

Atheists Communists Liberals United

Touche', Skybill. That's the best description I've heard yet of this God-hating group.

Herb

There are many cases of the ACLU supporting religious freedom, here is one.
The ACLU of Nevada (2005) defended the free exercise rights and free speech rights of evangelical Christians to preach on the sidewalks of the Strip in Las Vegas. www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3379553&nav=15MVaB2T

As our esteemed 37th President used to say: "That's all very well and good."

However, if one looks at the percentage of times the ACLU puts their efforts and funds AGAINST the faithful, that decidedly God-hating organisation is skewed farther left than Dan Rather, Fidel Castro & Bill Moyers, COMBINED.

Herb

"It was, and still is, an organization who's mission is to protect the rights of godless socialists."

Deane,

I have a couple of honest and straightforward questions for you.

Should it be illegal to be Communist, Socialist, or Athiest in the United States of America?

Should it be fair game to persecute people based on those beliefs?

This is exactly the question.

A sub question then, is related to public funds being leveraged for purposes of faith.

That's where the majority of the conflict between the ACLU and faith is. If fewer attempts to do this were occurring, there would be fewer cases filed, period.

It's a free country. That is, unless the anti-faith ACLU had it's way.

And lest you forget, those who defend with their lives the left's ability to burn our flag and belittle our country are the brave men and women of our armed forces...which people like the ACLU and Mr. Clinton loathe.

We enjoy free speech, but the violent overthrow of our government is against the law. You wanna cry 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre, foment civil unrest through your political beliefs, or encourage our country's enemies, you have that right to stupidity, but you will be harshly judged for it.

For when it is determined that you've crossed the line into criminal behaviour, you then submit yourself to the government's right to protect the rest of us from your nuttiness.

Since treason is a criminal offense, the ACLU's outright support of subversives more than qualifies it as a candidate for criminality.

Herb

Herb said>>>>
It's a free country. That is, unless the anti-faith ACLU had it's way.

Or until we ALL have to think as you.

Herb also said>>>>>
For when it is determined that you've crossed the line into criminal behaviour, you then submit yourself to the government's right to protect the rest of us from your nuttiness.

Then who protects us from the Government's nuttiness?? You??? I thought you were against OUR Government's involvement? Don't you EXTREME RIGHTIES want smaller Government???

Herb continued to say>>>>>
Since treason is a criminal offense, the ACLU's outright support of subversives more than qualifies it as a candidate for criminality.

So what do we do about the Bush administration??? If it's true what you say then Bush and Cheney should be locked up forever.

Classic leftist tactic. Change the conversation and charge your opponent with smears. Right out of Lenin's playbook.

I thought you had more mental firepower than this, Trixter.

Show me what crimes Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are convicted of and I'll say lock them up.

Until then, you have nothing but fear and loathing on your side.

Prattle on.

Herb

ACLU offers to support Rev. Falwell

"Nov. 28, 2001 | LYNCHBURG, Va. (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union offered to support the Rev. Jerry Falwell in his challenge of Virginia laws that restrict how much property a church can own.

Though Falwell often chides the activist group, the offer was welcomed by Jerry Falwell Jr., who is representing his father in the case."

http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2001/11/28/falwell_aclu/index.html

In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate

"(4/17/2002)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

RICHMOND, VA--A federal judge has struck down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating, in a challenge filed by the Rev. Jerry Falwell and joined by the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, the group announced today.

"The judge applied well established constitutional principles to reach the conclusion that Virginia's archaic ban on church incorporation cannot pass constitutional muster," said Rebecca Glenberg, Legal Director of the ACLU of Virginia.

The ACLU joined the lawsuit as a "friend of the court" last fall, challenging the ban on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of free exercise of religion.

Judge Norman K. Moon agreed, and yesterday ordered the State Corporation Commission to grant Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church a corporate charter."

http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16040prs20020417.html

Limbaugh to get legal boost from group he's often ripped

"Politics makes strange bedfellows, and so does the nation's legal arena.

On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union asked a state appellate court if it could join in conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh's fight to keep prosecutors from unsealing his medical records.

With permission from the 4th District Court of Appeal, the ACLU, a liberal advocate of constitutional rights, will file an amicus curiae - or friend of the court - brief to help Limbaugh, who is under investigation in Palm Beach County for alleged drug prescription fraud.

"I can appreciate how a lot of people would see the oddity of the situation," said Howard Simon, the executive director for the ACLU's Florida chapter. "But you got to keep your eye on the ball and the ball is the legal principle, which is going to affect everybody, not just Rush Limbaugh."

The ACLU contends that unsealing Limbaugh's records would be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. So does Limbaugh, who is appealing Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Winikoff's decision to allow state prosecutors to review the records, seized Nov. 25 with court-approved search warrants.

The records could reveal whether Limbaugh informed four of his physicians he was receiving prescriptions from each of them or if he was "doctor shopping" in order to feed his addiction to pain pills."

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

ACLU Comes to Rush Limbaugh's Defense

"Monday, January 12, 2004

By Catherine Donaldson-Evans

FOX News

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh probably never expected the American Civil Liberties Union to become one of his staunch supporters.

But the privacy rights group was on his side Monday when its Florida branch filed a "friend-of-court" motion on behalf of Limbaugh arguing state officials were wrong in seizing his medical records for their drug probe.

"For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon said in a released statement.

"But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights, and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view," Simon said."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html

Civil Liberties Union Asks Court To Quash Iran-Contra Indictment

"By PHILIP SHENON, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES

LEAD: Oliver L. North and two others indicted for their roles in the Iran-contra affair today gained an ally in their efforts to overturn the indictment: the American Civil Liberties Union. July 21, 1988"

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0710FA385E0C728EDDAE0894D0484D 81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fA%2fAmerican%20Civil%20L iberties%20Union

Iran-Contra affair

"North was tried in 1988 in relation to his activities while at the National Security Council. He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall, on his instructions). He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service. However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the ACLU, North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony.

The Supreme Court declined to review the case, and Judge Gesell dismissed all charges against North on September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue, on the motion of the independent counsel. Essentially, North's convictions were overturned because he had been granted limited immunity for his Congressional testimony, and this testimony was deemed to have influenced witnesses at his trial."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North

The ACLU Defends Everybody

Its clients have ranged from Muhammad Ali to Oliver North, but its real allegiance is to the Bill of Rights

By Ken Chowder

"On paper, an organization that supports the Bill of Rights seems harmless enough, but for eight decades the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has enraged liberals and conservatives alike. Admirers say it is a Constitutional watchdog that defends persecuted minorities and preserves freedom of speech and dissent. Detractors insist it has a warped view of what the Constitution says. No matter what you think of the ACLU, it is probably the most potent legal organization in America, with 275,000 members, taking some 6,000 cases annually."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/1998/january/aclu.php

Herb said>>>
I thought you had more mental firepower than this, Trixter.

I myself thought you were smarter too. Over the last few days your posts have said otherwise.

Missing,

Do you want to share the "old maids" with me? Or shall I just make a new batch?

Wake up! Wake up! Sinister Cinema is over.
HerrABnormal has been run out of town by the villagers carrying big torches and led by 2 guys named Littlesongs and Trix.

Gotta dig for the really crunchy ones before giving it up for a new batch.

(dig dig dig, hmmmm stale, buttery, crunchy, slightly burnt! Perfect! Why can't I get these in a bag? We sent somebody to the moon, surely partially popped popcorn can be mass produced.


@littlesongs: Amen!

The ACLU is a necessary self-correcting thing. Makes sure under represented thoughts on what our rights mean get heard. It must be remembered also, they don't just take every case. They take those cases where rights are being infringed --without solid justification, such as harm, being in place.

That's the key right there.

There is no anti-any agenda, other than to help preserve our civil liberties. You know, those rights we are born with. Endowed with by our creator?

Yeah, those rights.

This thread shows how far the party of FDR has fallen.

Democrats defend the ACLU, an organisation which is vehemently opposed to the Boy Scouts exercising their freedoms, YET DEFENDS NAMBLA, a pedophile group.

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

You guys can side with the pedophile apologists and abortionist defenders. No thanks.

Herb

http://thecounterpoint.blogspot.com/2006/11/playing-nambla-card.html

That's the best you can do? Trying to make NAMBLA and the ACLU out as VICTIMS?

How about all the innocent KIDS who are victimized by pedophiles and DEFENDED by the ACLU?

No, it isn't in the leftist playbook to defend the innocent. Instead, you attempt to portray the guilty as victims.

Pathetic.

Herb

As is always the case, people like Herb and their narrow minds are incapable of seeing beneath the headlines, which basically makes them liars in their rants against the ACLU.

A reminder from this Board's Rules and Netiquette:

When writing your messages, please use the same courtesy that you would show when speaking face-to-face with someone. Flames, insults, and personal attacks will not be tolerated. It's fine to disagree strongly with opinions, ideas, and facts, but always with respect for the other person.

It's just a value judgement difference. That's it! We all make these. The difficulty lies in coming to terms with the ramifications!

The ACLU puts the rights themselves at the highest priority. This, by the way, does fall in line with our legal documents, and is the expected behavior at the current time. This is a non-partisan, non-issue, non-bias --other than that required for the idea of preserving rights in a permissive way, approach.

Any narrow label, so applied to the ACLU, is incorrect period.

From there, nibbling away at NATURAL rights (That may or may not have been bestowed by a CREATOR) with narrow exceptions is what the ACLU seeks to prevent, unless well justified. How we got the rights is not a subject of discussion. In the US, these rights just are there, period. Created, evolved, whatever. People are free, period --unless they harm one another, or squabble over property and value.

This too then, on the part of the ACLU, is in line with expected behavior. This is key, BTW. Miss these ideas, and one just won't grok the ACLU period.

We may mutually agree to limit the scope of said rights, but only to address matters of harm or property --and those matters of harm and property must be weighed in and of themselves, as part of the process necessary to establish a justification and from there rough consensus on what is and what is not an appropriate restriction.

This weighting then is a considerable point of conflict. From the ACLU perspective, these value judgments stand below the primary one; namely, freedom under the law to the maximum harm and property matters will allow.

Others, who have a problem with the ACLU, generally have a different core value judgement, placing specific issues, or perhaps just some elements of philosophy above the core rights. This value judgement difference directly impacts the weighting of matters of harm and property to a point where misalignment from the law and many of ones peers is frequent.

This is not to say said misalignment is not valid. Matters of harm and property do trump the natural right of freedom.

This does however require the same due process we've applied to other matters of this kind. And this is another ACLU key idea.

In this endeavor, the ACLU is a simple empowerment means for those so misaligned. They then are presented with an opportunity to put their views, however far in the minority they may be, before the court to be heard in the common interest for all.

In that case, the ACLU will regularly be seen as hostile as the two purposes then run into conflict, unless one sees their efforts to preserve innate rights as detailed above, as primary and therefore, non-partisan.

Of course there is a solution!

Simply work toward bringing those cases to bear that would impact our core rights in what one would see as a positive way. The ACLU is there for that, given there exists some justification for said cases in the first place. They do empower all in this manner.

If said justification does not exist, this may be an advocacy problem, or maybe a reasoning problem that manifests from the misaligned value judgement condition, also detailed above.

In that case, considerable thought must be applied to the problem to realize the difference between a flawed view, in conflict with established law and therefore also in conflict with ones fellow Americans, and failure to fully realize said justification through diligence in general.

Put simply, maybe one has just not really thought it all through.

The latter being again, both an advocacy and thought exercise. The former a simple matter of acceptance.

Said acceptance then is a matter of character --a personal struggle we all must deal with in our own fashion. The usual outlets apply!

Look Magic Eye, when I hear someone saying "the ACLU defends the act of pedophilia" that's an outright lie, and I have no problem calling anyone here or in person out on it.

Your right they dont defent the act, just the pedophils.

When I lived in california, the ACLU defended a NAMBLA groups right to meet in a public library.

Applying the above to the Boy Scouts:

On the matter of the Boy Scouts mentioned above, are they actually a religious organization?

I was a Boy Scout. Some elements of it were religious. Many elements of it were not. My Church recommended Boy Scouting actually. I'm not sure what was presented here, but there is enough to rule out them being non-religious. Part religious is religious, IMHO.

At least that was my experience. Anyone else differ?

On that basis then, we can set NAMBLA aside. That's an emotional appeal that really muddies the water. That's a completely different first amendment question that speaks both to known harm (male children) and ones liability for ones words.

I know how to pick locks. Can tell you all about it, have done so for others needing the information. Do I then go to jail for the bozo that picks a lock that is not theirs to pick?

That's the NAMBLA matter. It's different than the Boy Scout one and is being co-mingled here for emotional appeal only.

If the Boy Scouts are a religious organization, then their stewardship of the park then promotes religion on the public dime. The law is clear:

We don't do this.

Well, it used to be clear. Our current President has done a lot to muddy the waters on that matter. Frankly, the money going to faith based groups for various services is highly biased toward some faiths in particular, with others not represented at all.

In that, we've got serious inequality and that means promotion of one faith over others, which clearly is not the intent of the law here. Big rights violation.

Frankly, this crap is exactly why we don't do this. The founders knew these things would happen, they lived them! Nothing about people has changed, therefore all of that still applies. (A smarter President will address this.)

So, the question the ACLU empowered is fair. That's not hating on the Boy Scouts. It's not anti-faith. It's making sure a valid question is heard.

The core of the matter is about religious freedom, with the freedom part being the area of interest for the ACLU.

If some faiths are allowed to enroach on our public dollars, then others will follow.

At some point, we might actually see some services keyed to particular faiths, or worse, see those faiths moral judgments codified into the law that all must live with, despite it being likely their personal faith will differ!

Not having to live a lie is a core right we are all born with, period, end of story. We can choose to live said lies, and many of us do just that. But it's not something anybody can force onto another with legal teeth.

The Boy Scouts doing a good job is not at issue. In fact, it appears that troop worked hard to hold the line on that and make sure the public park was actually public!

Good on them for that, right?

Where law is concerned, the assumption must be made the next group may not do such a fine job, could leverage the public interest, etc....

Thus, the decision made.

Who knows? On appeal the religious element might get some different treatment? Maybe not. It is highly likely the ACLU may handle that case as well!

There is more here than, "The ACLU is BAD!".

A lot more.

BTW: Calling somebody a liar is only as annoying to them as they want it to be!

Ask Rove. He lies all the time! Does he care? No. Loves it.

Calling somebody a "fucking liar" would be a violation of the basic board rule right? The added insult is not required to have the discussion.

Saying, "that's a bald faced lie and you know it", is simply having the discussion! How else to proceed? I suppose the usual baby treatment of "less than honest" could work, but that's an optional thing.

If one gets called out on that, it's their issue if they have one; otherwise, the right thing to do is refute the call, come to acceptance on it, get help, and move on.

The problem with liberals on this issue is twofold: One problem is that they're wrong, and the second problem is that either due to pride, stupidity or financial support, they won't change.

Liberals have been right on issues before, including civil rights.

But link arms with defenders of pedophiles and you lose. Go ahead and think it's about principle, or perhaps a philosophical exercise. Instead, you're seen as unwise at best and evil at worst.

Supporters of the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA deserve to be ostracized for encouraging such nefarious activity.

It's bad enough not to defend innocent children who cannot defend themselves. But to actually defend the perpetrators only highlights your extremism.

Herb

So by your logic and principles, a person accused of murder has no right to defense, right? After all, the defense attorney would be encouraging murder, right?

One who pleads innocent has the right to a fair trial.

That is an entirely different issue from supporting and defending those who openly promote the molestation of children.

Freedom of speech is limited when you want to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre. You also can't incite a riot.

But sure, you have a right to free speech. So go ahead and support those who defend NAMBLA, or for that matter, the KKK, Nazis and satan worshipers, all you want. Just don't be indignant when many point out your folly, ostracize you, decide to support your opponent, while not trusting you near their kids. Be prepared for a breath-taking backlash.

Is that really a gamble democrats find worth taking, and a battle democrats want to fight?

Herb

I didn't support that defense. What I did do was frame the question that matter presents to us in a simple light.

The greater point was those two points not being related! The Boy Scout question is not the same as the NAMBLA question.

(I consider the NAMBLA stuff pretty sick actually)

To be clear, I am absolutely not a NAMBLA supporter. Yuck!

Now, in our legal system, the law applies to everyone or no one. So, when legal questions arise, everyone is entitled to a defense, however twisted they are.

Additionally, said defense is suppose to get after it and make a case.

That's what the ACLU did. (And it looks like Vitalogy beat me to it. Had the window open, writing between phone calls...)

Differentiating that from NAMBLA support in general is both rational and just. End of story on that matter.

Hinting that I should be ostracized for bringing that difference to the table is not warranted.

Back to their question:

There are a couple of them actually. One is liability of authors, which is the lock pick scenario I posted above. Another one is just cause for blanket censorship. (another way to address the problem)

Essentially is there known harm from their publications?

Maybe there is! It's pretty damn sick stuff. If that known harm is established in a non discriminatory way, then it's gonna end up in the law and censorship will result.

Barring that, the publications are permitted. That's just how it works, no matter how sick any one of us considers a given publication to be. That, by the way, invokes the author liability question, referenced in the article above. If it's decided based on emotional appeal (NAMBLA stuff being sicko), then the ramifications will extend over into other authors works, as this kind of thing is ALWAYS ABUSED.

That invokes the ACLU in those ramifications could potentially have a serious negative impact on our expression.

The known harm is the case with kiddie porn, by way of educated comparison. We have established that permitting kiddie porn in any form, produced at any time, means kids were harmed period. Their harm was required to produce said porn in the first place. There is no other way, until the recent invention of virtual kiddie porn!

(will we ever learn?)

So, the law is harsh. No kiddie porn for anybody period. Right now, that happens to include virtual kiddie porn, but the legal question is being asked...

If the NAMBLA stuff can be tied to this kind of known harm, then it too will see the same fate. If not, it is highly likely to be tolerated.

This summary of things can and should be differentiate from my own NAMBLA views, expressed above.

"That is an entirely different issue from supporting and defending those who openly promote the molestation of children."

Well, the ACLU does not endorse nor defend what these people stand for. What the ACLU does do is defend the rights of ALL Americans when it comes to civil liberties. Your position tells me that you feel all Americans are not entitled to the same rights under the law, which is more un-American than anyhting else I know of.

"Essentially is there known harm from their publications?"

To even ask that question is absurd.

Talk to any detective who has investigated these guys. They'll tell you pedophiles collect this stuff and it fuels their criminal acts.

Herb

Would you agree then that each member of the Catholic church be held financially responsible for all the rapes and molestation that has occured over the last 40 years? Or do members of the Catholic church have more American rights than those of other organizations?

Herb, let's put it another way.

Are their legit uses for these publications that do not, in and of themselves cause harm?

If even one such use exists, it brings the legal question posed here into valid status, and that's the crux of the matter right there.

Should we begin to limit publications on this basis, it would not take long to end up in a state where we just don't have all that many publications!

Vitalogy, in your last post, are you saying that each member of the Catholic church should be held financially responsible for the actions of the sick priests that committed those heinous acts against kids?

If so, then give me your take on these questions:

1 - You are riding in a taxi cab and the driver is stopped for speeding. Should you get a ticket too? Or at least have to pay the drivers ticket?

2 - You belong to the AAA and one of its staff members goes out and gets drunk, has an accident and kills or severely injures another motorist. Should you be held responsible for that?

3 - You own a pawn shop or a sporting goods store. A person comes in and buys a firearm. You being the legitimate dealer you are, follow every procedure to the letter. A month later this person gets in a domestic dispute with his/her spouse, looses his/her temper gets the firearm you sold them and shoots and kills the spouse. Should you be liable or responsible for this?

4 - You own a Chevrolet dealership. Joe Blow comes in and buys a car. He passes the credit check with flying colors and he finances it thru GMAC. Some period of time later Joe is driving high on crack and kills a pedestrian. Who is responsible for this? You because you sold him the car? GM because they built the car? Everyone on the assembly line that built the car? Or Joe the crack head?

You can see where this goes.

I hope that I misunderstood your post.

Vitology is heading into la-la land on this one.

Hat tip to SkyBill:

That's brutal man! Credit given where credit is due!

Easy Deane.

Skybill, you completely misunderstood me, but ironically, you proved my point for me better than I could.

See, I don't think individual Catholics should be held responsible for the beliefs or practices of the organization itself. That's why I think that no matter how vile NAMBLA is, the individual members of NAMBLA should not be held liable for what the organization believes in or practices unless THEY themselves have committed a crime. Then you can sock it to them.

Bottom line, I don't think the individuals should be held liable for a death they played no part in. I rule for the ACLU on this one. And just because I side with the ACLU doesn't mean I support NAMBLA. I support equal enforcement of our laws upon everyone regardless, and this was a desperate BS lawsuit.

The problem with EXTREME RIGHT BIBLE THUMPERS on ANY issue is twofold: One problem is that they're wrong, and the second problem is that either due to pride, stupidity or financial support, they won't change.

Vitalogy-I don't carry water for the pope.
The difference here is that NAMBLA actually condones pedophila, whilst Romanism does not.

Priest or not, I say lock 'em up and consider using the death penalty on repeat offenders.

Missing: Legitimate uses for child pornography? Are you serious? I gave you more credit than that. To you and your liberal friends, it may seem open-minded, even sophisticated. But actually, it is simply unwise and contrary to everything healthy and good.

For to even entertain that idea tells me how far you've drifted toward relativism, which is perhaps a few steps away from utter depravity, for that's how child molesters are likely able to convince themselves that what they do is no big deal.

I wish a police detective with experience in this area would weigh in here and pronto.

Herb

I would welcome the detective actually!

(Who knows? With our wiretapping laws, perhaps we are all on the NAMBLA / Kiddie Porn lists now!)

Herb, there are zero legit uses for kiddie porn. None, nada, zilch. Again, if kiddie porn exists, kids were harmed --with the exception of the damn virtual kiddie porn. Let's set that aside and assume sane heads prevail. I personally don't see a distinction, but there may well be one.

That known harm, keyed to every instance of the kiddie porn, justifies the harsh and complete ban of it. I fully support this. I don't know anybody that doesn't.

I hate to write this, but I'm gonna.

Stories containing kiddie porn, did not harm kids in their production. That is a key difference between what NAMBLA appears to do, and kiddie porn itself.

In terms of their sicko rating, I have to say I don't see a difference really. It's all ugly stuff. Too ugly.

We have stories --publications that advise us on may criminal things. It is permitted to both produce and consume these things.

Why?

Because producing them and consuming them is not tied to a known harm.

That is key.

So, stories of murder, questionable sexual acts, fictional scenarios of many kinds are valid expression period. We allow these things because they do not, in and of themselves, cause harm.

People, bent on that kind of harm, find these things stimulating and that's bad. The worst kind of bad actually.

But, that's their deal too.

If we eliminated everything NAMBLA ever produced, (which I personally would not complain about doing) those people bent toward those kinds of harm would still exhibit that bent.

There remains lots of literature --art in general capable of such stimulation, even when said art and literature is not crafted with that intent.

Their bent would still manifest itself then, meaning our act of censorship got us nothing!

One then could say, "Let's purge it all then!". The realists among us realize this is quite futile. Stories can be told --verbally if need be, sickness still exists, and harm will still manifest.

We then gain nothing by diminishing the scope of protected expression, so why do it then?

That's where the ACLU is. By holding the line on that one point, they insure the solutions we find, as a people, are ones that serve us in the best way possible.

Surrender that and we suffer a regression not unlike the witch hunts, holy wars and other gross behavior.

Please read what I wrote very carefully. You've made one core mistake already. The conclusion it brings you is not correct. I fear follow on ones may continue in the same vein.

I don't want that and I'm sure you don't either.

As for the pedophiles, I think they should all burn long and slow...

I've had to do what it takes to put one in jail twice!

(Fricking twice Herb! And it's close family too. --was close family. Difficult to even type about it. Despite it being close family, I don't believe there should have ever been a second time ok?)

Trust me on this. We are not so far apart as it seems. The end result we both desire is the same. Avoiding undue harm is where we differ.

It has nothing to do with wise. I'm not so wise. I would do pretty ugly things to combat this, given the power to do so. (that's why we have democracy) It's also nothing to do with sophisticated.

What I write here is the expected behavior according to the highest law of the land. On this matter it sucks ass. Again, I would be brutal and just address this harshly, if I had the power to do so. It's that vile to me.

But, I don't. And neither does anybody else. That's the price of a free society. We either come to acceptance and realize freedom is not worth it

(which I don't accept)

,or

we deal and work through things accordingly.

That's black and white Herb. No grey, no relative.

I don't carry water for the pope either.

The crux of the case is that a man that murdered a kid was found to have NAMBLA literature in his possession. Does this mean that if a kid commits suicide with a Judas Priest album at his side the the members of Judas Priest should be held liable for his death? Even if they sing about suicide?

I have no problem with locking these guys up if they actually commit illegal acts, but they are not liable for this kids death soley by being members of the group that published the material the murderer had in his possession.

Herb hates NASA too. Their abortion of missions has got to stop!

Chickenjuggler, I'm all for art and I'm all for free expression.

Given that child pornography is illegal and prosecuted aggressively, there is a general agreement in this society that it in no redeeming manner involves either.

Missing, I'm not piling on, but earnestly hope you reconsider providing an even faint defense of those promoting this stuff.

Herb

Let me make it really clear.

I don't support anything NAMBLA does. Please read my post(s) again. It's sick stuff, I don't advocate it period.

I do support the ACLU in their efforts to check unwarranted reductions in our civil liberties.

That NAMBLA case, morbid as it is, has the potential to set a very harsh precedent that will impact every author everywhere. That's worth serious consideration and that is what the ACLU is making sure happens.

This is also why I posted the lock pick scenario.

It's the same legal question!

Remember, we cannot just apply the law where we will. That's selective enforcement. Sure it happens, but it's not supposed to. People that bring selective enforcement cases to court generally win.

It's like using a nuke to get rid of a terror cell. Does it work? Hell yes it does!

It works too well actually. Lots of people are impacted for no solid justification and that's long been established as a generally bad idea.

Legally, this is a nuke!

What we need, legally, is a precision hit squad. Focused on the specific elements that are problematic.

We won't get that precision weapon, if we just pull the trigger on the nuke right now.

That's why I support what the ACLU is doing. That is clearly differentiated from what NAMBLA is doing.

The bastards are leveraging our freedom for their gain. It won't last, but it will take time to address properly.

Lets review: the ACLU prevents mere mortals from playing God, yet if a God-loving mere mortal is oppressed, the ACLU ensures the mortal a right to openly love God.

God bless the ACLU!

"That NAMBLA case, morbid as it is, has the potential to set a very harsh precedent that will impact every author everywhere."

Bologna. It sounds like you want to protect the illegal and prurient, which leaves children wide open to abuse. Talk about a straw man. IT'S AGAINST THE LAW IN ALL 50 STATES! Wake up, man.

"Legally, this is a nuke!"

If ever there was a need for nukes, it's called for in dealing with the abuse of little kids. Strange how you don't simply bend over backwards to excuse these guys, because your gymnastic legalist gyrations would make even Nadia Komaneci jealous.

These kinds of excuses and moral relativism give me even less hope for the left. I hope the ACLU comes up often in the 2008 elections, because this is precisely the kind of issue that American voters need to see with a microscope under the full light of day.

Herb

So what happens if a person writes a novel that includes child abuse and then someone murders a kid and is caught with that book. Should the author be held liable? You seem to think so. I don't.

All I'm saying is enforce the laws that defend kids currently on the books.
Unlike you or I, kids can't defend themselves.

That used to be whom the democrat party would defend: the defenseless. Now, with all their attorneys and well-funded coffers from smut peddlers, the ACLU hardly qualifies as a defender of the defenseless.

It's now go after the Boy Scouts, the unborn, and defenseless kids.

Herb

I agree, but it's not illegal to write about child porn, just the same as it's not illegal to write about murder. The people that commit the crimes are responsible, not members of an organization that had nothing to do with the actual crime itself.

Should I be arrested for drug possession if I have a subscription to "High Times"?? (which I don't)

"The people that commit the crimes are responsible, not members of an organization that had nothing to do with the actual crime itself."

Unless it falls under RICO. La Cosa Nostra is an example.

That's being done! (laws)

Expanding author liability is not the right solution to this problem, and will be abused period.

I know what you want is to stop the publications cold. I share that view. We don't need this stuff. But we must do this in a way that will not be leveraged for other purposes.

Again, that's why the ACLU is doing what it is doing.

Should we hold that author liable for the child abuse, we then establish that authors can be held accountable for what those who consume their work do.

That is not current law, nor should it be.

What will happen is that everybody that has something bad happen, will point back to some inspiration and try to hold them accountable. This will absolutely happen, which is why we don't currently have the law.

So, the burden is to demonstrate the known harm that either is linked to the creation of these publications, or will always occur as a result of them having been created.

Sadly, that burden has not yet been met.

I think it can, and think it should. That means not expanding law with author post liability. It does mean working hard on what is and what is not protected speech.

It needs to start there and it needs to be tied to harms --known harms, cause and effect that is provable.

Missing said>>>>
I don't support anything NAMBLA does. Please read my post(s) again.

Missing, Herb, doesn't read anyone's posts because he has ALL the answers. YOUR WRONG no matter what.

"So, the burden is to demonstrate the known harm that either is linked to the creation of these publications, or will always occur as a result of them having been created. Sadly, that burden has not yet been met."

Again. Yes it has. Child pornography is illegal in all 50 states. There is no question.

If you're talking about NAMBLA type groups and what they may publish, whether you consider it technically illegal or not, there's plenty to go after them for. As an example, it's against the law, say, to promote prostitution. This is even worse, since it involves kids. Therefore, there's plenty on the books to throw the book at 'em.

Herb

So, by your logic, the makers and or the actors of the movie "Jackass" should be held liable for the McMinnville butt slapping case since those kids were imitating the movie? Where do you draw the line?

Of course there's something to go after regarding NAMBLA, catch them in the act of molesting children if that's what they do! However, in context to the ACLU case, the question is this: Are members of this group individually liable for the death of a child because the person who caused the death was caught with NAMBLA material? The answer is absolutely NO in my book. The person that murdered the child is soley responsible. Take away the NAMBLA part of the equation, and it would be cut and dry. But because you oppose the organization, you are okay with compromising their civil liberties. I oppose them as well, but I have a core belief that civil liberties should be protected for all NO MATTER WHAT.

You're so concerned about the rights of offenders.

For once, how about concern for those victimized by the bad guys?

Herb of course I'm concerned about the victims and want the bad guys to be put away.

Like I said, if I have a subscription to High Times, does that mean I smoke pot? Is that enough evidence that the police should be able to break down my door and search my house for drugs? You assume that members of NAMBLA automatically molest kids. I'm not so sure that's the case, and would prefer to have it proven in a court of law rather than assume and convict. If proven, throw them in jail and toss the key in the river. But like I said, the crux of this whole debate is whether NAMBLA members are liable for the death of a kid who was murdered by a guy who had NAMBLA material in his possession. I just don't see any liability. What I do see is different treatment of these people based on their affiliation with this group.

"...if I have a subscription to High Times, does that mean I smoke pot?"

Actually, the odds would be FAR higher that you did. In fact, if we could have a detective weigh in here, my guess is that it could be one indicator for a judge to grant probable cause for a search, surveillance, or both.

Herb

So if I watch CSI, does that mean I'm trying to figure out how to get away with murder?

If someone is a member of the Mormon church, should they be investigated for polygamy due to probable cause and membership to an organization that has a history of supporting polygamy?

See, you're all about the witch hunt, and that's not how America's laws are set up to work.

I'm sure plenty of Cops and DEA people subscribe to High Times for their, uh, "research".

"See, you're all about the witch hunt..."

You must have been in the '70's musical group The Spinners, because that's all you're doing.

Don't be a ninny. It's called probable cause. If I'm all about 'the witch hunt,' then I'm sure you have a problem with law enforcement. Ironically, it's often those very same police that save people like you when you're in trouble.

Herb

It's called probably cause.

Yes it is. And is not the issue under discussion.

I have all 6 CSI-LV DVDs -- My murder skills have far surpassed the average American's. Watch out people, according to the troll's odds, I'm out to get someone. And soon.

I think the CSI stuff is damn cool.

It's on topic too. Think about it. If one wanted to do a murder and get away with it, just look at the resources available!

IMHO, some good planning and education and it's a no-brainer. Should we then be editing these resources?

Maybe right?

So let's take hacking. I'm actually not all that bad at that. My current skill level is easily KSKD bot net level. I used to routinely exploit boxes to get them fixed. Was far quicker and safer, where the user data was concerned, than most other means and methods.

(gotta have passwords, root level access, or be able to boot another root environment, or one's options are really limited.)

Where was that all learned? The latest and most relevant stuff can be found online easily enough.

My start though? Computer rags in the Thriftway, bought right in the small town I came from.

Funny, those articles on file systems, assembly language, how to write your own disk editor, etc... made understanding the contents of said discs pretty easy. Still use some of those ideas today.

So, let's ban those.

I play poker. Depending on the venue, that's a problem these days. Shall we ban that info?

Then we get to manipulation. Everybody does that. They learn it from their peers, see it on TV, read about it in books, etc...

Fuck it, let's ban the drama. Too much people hacking knowledge.

Been through the lock picking bit. Ban it too, along with info on keys and entry systems.

If authors become liable for those crimes people choose to do, with their understanding, we are gonna see a lot less authored that has any real value.

Now, let's differentiate that from probable cause.

Let's say I'm up on charges for some crime. Picking locks, hacking, etc... Maybe they found lock picks, some microchip data sheets and a few copies of 2600 magazine laying around. Saw them through the window, or perhaps in the car exposed.

All on the table, valid and just cause.

Having a collection of related documents and publications sure would lead to further investigation right? Your detective would think so. That same detective would also warn of the dangers of not honoring the law.

There are cases every day where known guilty people go free because the law was circumvented in an attempt to get a collar.

Now, let's say I'm convicted.

Do we go back and say the authors are at fault for having educated me in the first place?

No! We don't have law for that. Said law would not be just either.

(publication not tied to known harm that has a cause effect, provable link to crimes.)

eg: publishing a book on hacking does not mean readers of that publication will ALWAYS go hacking things they don't own. That's probable cause, it's also a matter of more than one theory of the crime.

One could have been inspired by other authors, yet not be in possession of their works. Perhaps, the newest arrivals had not yet been consumed!

Then there is the issue of having acquired the information via other means. Reading the books then might be for pleasure.

It goes on and on.

Again, I bring up kiddie porn because the cause effect provable link exists. (minus the damn virtual porn --bastards!)

Making kiddie porn involves kids period.

Writing a story that communicates kiddie porn is just sick. It does not require kids.

In the case of the kiddie porn, the link is provable, beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the case of the story, this is not the case.

And yet again, said a lot of different ways, this is the legal matter before the ACLU, not the actual perp, nor the probable cause used to investigate, nor the act itself.

Sheesh Herb, for all those times you and Deane have piled up on me and others for not understanding the complexity of the issues, this has been a very tough thread.

We can get these guys shut down. We can do it and preserve what remains of our civil liberties.

Ignoring the ramifications of the law, while doing this, really is placing the ends before the means.

That's yet another time tested bad idea.

Civil liberties are fine. However, in war as Abraham Lincoln and FDR showed us, they are not absolute. Neither are civil liberties absolute in yelling fire in a crowded theatre, or in otherwise harming the innocent.

Most detestable are vile pedophiles using our Constitution as an excuse for their dastardly deeds and the so-called civil libertarians who defend them.

The ultimate absurdity is the attitude of liberals who actually believe our Founding Fathers would accept such pornography as within the scope of protection by the Constitution.

Leftists contort themselves like pretzels whilst manufacturing phoney arguments to twist the intent of our Founding Fathers.

When I think of all the brave men and women lying in graves on foreign soil who gave their lives to defend our freedoms...and then organisations like the aclu try to twist those sacred freedoms to excuse the inexcusable, makes me furious.

Herb

Nah Herb, you just want to circumvent the bill of rights, and the founding fathers would disagree with you, not me.

I've not contorted anything Herb, neither has anyone else. It's just been detailed as many different ways as it takes to differentiate the issues.

Actually Civil Liberties are mandatory Herb. We don't grant them, we only regulate them as necessary to address harm or property.

You continue to imply that this discussion somehow supports pedophiles. Just how many times must it be said? Nobody supports the pedophiles. Nobody Herb.

Porn is protected speech. IMHO, they would have allowed it, just as they wrote the law, knowing a great many works of literature and theatre featured pornographic material.

The tech has changed, expression just hasn't.

You guys continue to make up these straw men.

It simply makes you appear eager to defend the bad guy.

Herb

Whatever...

Herb said>>>>
You guys continue to make up these straw men.

That's all YOU EXTREMERS do.

I honestly believe that the founding fathers, were they returned to life, would have long ago taken up their muskets to restore their greatest work, our Constitution.

Anyone who thinks for one minute they would approve of what the courts have done to it is delusional. Remember, they are the radicals who limited the power of the Federal government to only those matters spelled out in it. And through that tenth amendment gave the States, and the people everything else.

What powers are left to the states that existed at the time of it's adoption. Hell, now they have to get permission of the courts to include a religous symbol in the State Seal. Oh wait! That's been prohibited.

Combine the resources of the ACLU, with judges who treat the Constitution as if it's a thing meant to be reinvented as they see fit, and the will of the people means nothing.

Stoney...
Sounds alot like the Bush administration.

Uh, no Trixter. Not at all.
Although, in your liberal mind, perhaps.

Herb

Herb IGNORANTLY siad>>>
Although, in your liberal mind, perhaps.

Your so deft you don't even know when to quit. Your hilarious! Your the same kind of people that are running things down in New Orleans. It's a GD disaster and so is listening to you.....

My, my, Trixter.

You're rather ham-fisted this morning.

Anyone who calls himself a Republican, yet is as left-leaning as you deserves some challenging.

Herb

Anyone who is EXTREME RIGHT as yourself need to woke the F up!

And it's LILLY-LIVERED!

Uh, that's lily-livered.

Hand wring on, you not-so-closeted liberal.

Herb

And your a closeted Nazi??

Name-call on.

You've proved my point better than I ever could.

Herb

As did you you.....
Keep it up and your kind will find their way right out of Washington in masses.

Other than historic low approval ratings for your democrats in power, is that all you've got?

Sad, Trixter.
Very sad.

Herb

MY Dems???
See how sad you are.
JHC your ignorance is incredible.
Your even a liar.

Trixter.

If you vote like a democrat.
Defend positions like a democrat.
And attack Republicans like a democrat.

You've defined yourself.

Herb

Vote like a Dem??
You really are deft....
Thanks for showing your (I don't read anyone's posts ever) side.