[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Out of curiousity, what civil liberties have you been stripped of?
[/QUOTE]
Sure, I’ll answer that. Return the favor and let me know which civil liberties you think we should give up. Deal?
The right to have a private phone conversation. The right for my “international-financier” self to have private banking transactions. The right to have my “female-teenage” self get an abortion without parental notification. The right for my “gay” self to marry the person of my choosing. The right for my “wrong place-wrong time in Afghanistan” self to not be tortured. The right for my “bizarrely tortured logic using homophobic” self to protest gay and military funerals. Etc.
In actuality, if left up to the government, my current civil liberties would be in much worse shape than they are today, but thanks to organizations like the ACLU that fights for them, they’re not completely in the crapper.
[QUOTE=Linty Fresh]
I don’t think the ACLU lawyers feel bad at all about it. The whole point of its existence is to protect the rights of miscreants when no one else will. It’s why the group was formed.
[/QUOTE]
Miscreants? Much as I despise the KKK, neonazis and Phelps, I have to go along with the ACLU. Wanting the right to advertise your position publicly doesn’t make you a miscreant. The ACLU defends the right to a lawful and public expression of even your reprehensible position. So far, at least, your opinion doesn’t have to be popular to be protected by the law. I don’t know for how long that will be the case.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
How do you imagine, the ACLU defines “the right way” in the case of any particular legislative action? Do you find it “chilling” that they make it a point to analyze and form an opinion on the civil liberties-related ramifications of each piece of legislative business?
Some might simply call it “being thorough.” I’ve no idea what your line of work is, but I don’t imagine you have much of an appetite for placing your fortunes at the mercy of random occurrences, at least when some homework will allow you to be prepared to meet predictable challenges.
[/QUOTE]
I just find it odd that, by their own tally, 44/45 Democrat Senators vote the “right” way, and at the same time, posters are stating that the ACLU is not biased.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
I just find it odd that, by their own tally, 44/45 Democrat Senators vote the “right” way, and at the same time, posters are stating that the ACLU is not biased.
Come again?
[/QUOTE]
:dubious:
Go to post #26.
Medidate on it for at least three hours.
Please do not post again in this thread until you have done so.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
I just find it odd that, by their own tally, 44/45 Democrat Senators vote the “right” way, and at the same time, posters are stating that the ACLU is not biased.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know of anyone who’s stating that they are not biased in a general sense. They are biased. They’re just biased on civil liberties, not party. The fact that defenders of civil liberties are currently more represented in one party than the other is a fault of the party, not the ACLU. If both parties switched places tomorrow, the ACLU would be siding heavily with the Republicans.
If you have a cite where the ACLU went against civil liberties, in order to side with the Democrats, bring it on.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
I find the concept of “voting the right way” to be chilling, I guess YMMV.
[/QUOTE]
Anyone who has any political feeling whatsoever makes the exact same classification. Everyone’s standards vary, but the final classification is the same.
Are you an idiot, or being intentionally obtuse? The ACLU is “biased” towards civil liberties, and apparently the Democrats are better at those. Bias is about unfairness in the process, not about conclusions that you’re not pleased with.
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
Miscreants? Much as I despise the KKK, neonazis and Phelps, I have to go along with the ACLU. Wanting the right to advertise your position publicly doesn’t make you a miscreant. The ACLU defends the right to a lawful and public expression of even your reprehensible position. So far, at least, your opinion doesn’t have to be popular to be protected by the law. I don’t know for how long that will be the case.
[/QUOTE]
Of course wanting to advertise your position publicly doesn’t make you a miscreant.
Advocating the position that blacks are inferior and Jews are evil and that they should both be put into concentration camps or simply lynched? Or that gays should be put to death like it says in Leviticus? That makes you a miscreant. And miscreant is actually kind of a light word. I meant to say “drooling fucktard”.
Of course wanting to advertise your position publicly doesn’t make you a miscreant.
Advocating the position that blacks are inferior and Jews are evil and that they should both be put into concentration camps or simply lynched? Or that gays should be put to death like it says in Leviticus? That makes you a miscreant. And miscreant is actually kind of a light word. I meant to say “drooling fucktard”.
[/QUOTE]
On further checking as to what Phelps actually does, I withdraw my objection to miscreant.
[QUOTE=samclem]
The Lord works in mysterious ways.
[/QUOTE]
Heh
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
BTW, no one could despise Phelps and his beliefs and his agenda and his tactics more deeply than I do.
[/quote]
I’d be willing to wager that I might just edge you out. Of course, we’re talking about the Phuckers, so there no doubt exists someone who could blow both of us out of the water.
Oh, and Carol Stream? You seem to conflate the championing of civil liberties with backing Democrats. While I am inclined to agree with you, I also realize just how purposefully obtuse you’re being just to score what you erroneously believe are political points. Get out more, it’ll do you a world of good.
[QUOTE=Sean Factotum]
Ther’s always controversy when the ACLU gets involved in the Separation of Church and State fights. I think it’s a Constitutional requirement.
[/QUOTE]
Fine. Even if the OP isn’t mad at the ACLU, I’m mad at the ACLU. I don’t think they should be backing Phelps in this, and I don’t think the First Amendment prohibits the government from banning the picketing of military funerals.
As much as I absolutely, completely and totally despise Phelps with every little neuron in my body, I must grit my teeth and (as always) nod in support of the ACLU. Phelps may be an unredeemable jackass with the social skills of a schizophrenic, monkey-flinging baboon, and he may have pudding for brains, and he’s no doubt such a hatemongering fuckwicket because he is A) grossly idiotic and B) has reproductive organs that could probably fit inside an oxygen molecule with room to spare, but…
…the first amendment does not have an extra clause that excludes anyone, so even if a gibbering, feces-flinging hemorrhoid-farm wants to screech out vile messages of hatred and bigotry, he’s got the right and no one can take it away.
Did I mention that I personally believe Phelps is a grotesque mockery of a human and is a disgusting example of when DNA goes so very wrong, and deserves to get beaten violently by a large angry man with a shovel and a full can of bear repellent? I mean, I very firmly believe he ought to be allowed to say whatever he wants, but I equally firmly believe the shovel thing.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Fine. Even if the OP isn’t mad at the ACLU, I’m mad at the ACLU. I don’t think they should be backing Phelps in this, and I don’t think the First Amendment prohibits the government from banning the picketing of military funerals.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong on both counts. While what Phelps does is about as vile as it gets, as long as he doesn’t trespass onto private property or violate the constitutional rights of others, it is not the government’s prerogative to regulate their speech. That sets a dangerous precedent, and the ACLU has a long history of defending the constitional rights of total shitbirds precisely because of this reason.
I don’t like it any more than you do, Captain Amazing, but there you have it. The First Amendment is a beautiful thing, but sometimes it leads to very ugly results. If we want to uphold the freedom of speech, we’re going to have to put up with those results once in a while.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Fine. Even if the OP isn’t mad at the ACLU, I’m mad at the ACLU. I don’t think they should be backing Phelps in this, and I don’t think the First Amendment prohibits the government from banning the picketing of military funerals.
[/QUOTE]
(missed this because I was typing slow). Ahem:
The First Amendment is pretty damn clear on the issue.
[QUOTE=NinjaChick]
(missed this because I was typing slow). Ahem:
The First Amendment is pretty damn clear on the issue.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not so sure. I really don’t have enough ammo to effectively debate this, but aren’t demonstators prevented from assembling just outside the door of a particular busisness? Just as a “for instance”?
[QUOTE=NinjaChick]
(missed this because I was typing slow). Ahem:
The First Amendment is pretty damn clear on the issue.
[/QUOTE]
It does say that, true, but it’s not as black and white as you’re making it. The government can still pass laws saying I can’t say “fuck” on the radio, or hit on a twelve year old for sex, or tell you I’m going to kill you, or tell an al Qaeda member where in the football stadium to plant a bomb so he won’t get caught.
All of that is the government abridging my freedom of speech. But we’ve decided that those abridgements of my freedom are neccesary for the good of the society. The problem with the ACLU is that too often they’re absolutist.
