Yeah, that would be me, its why I’m called “Mr. Sunshine”.
Pretty well, I suppose, but I seem to have become kindly and avuncular. I wonder if there is a support group?
Because “good” is a subjective term and a matter of opinion. Issues of Constitutionality aren’t…or won’t be once a court determines them.
We worried that we’d be spreading our resources too thin. We worried that the negative publicity would stop people from contributing. But we weren’t worried we’d lose the fight. There’s a reason people fear the ACLU and get annoyed when they join a fight. It’s not because the ACLU is full of left wing hippy zealots, It’s because it’s packed full of lawyers who know damn well know the law and always come the battle on sound legal ground.
Am I one of those lawyers? Hell if I know. Truth be told I’ve only been on the legal panel for a few months so I still have a lot to learn. In the time I’ve been there we’ve discussed cases that we didn’t pursue because they didn’t deal with civil liberties. There were cases we didn’t pursue because they had alternate legal and non legal remedies available and didn’t necessarily need the ACLU’s help. But I have NEVER seen a case come before us where we dismissed it because, while it was blatantly unconstitutional and infringed on someone’s civil liberties, it just wasn’t worth bothering about.
We fight the fights that need fighting. Even the ones you might not see as “good guys” because, if you’ll pardon the phrase, we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. If you ignore the “bad guys” and ignore when their civil liberties are infringed upon, you give up too much ground. When the “good guys” get hit next, there’s too much precedent and too much complacency towards the infringement to affect a powerful enough change.
Well, Ender, sometimes you guys really piss me off! Keep up the good work.
Let’s see if I can somehow clarify this in a hurry, work beckons in a few hours.
The thing I was reading was a lawyer for a supposedly neutral organization, with the job (lawyer) of drumming up people/groups to sue. Other than suing “wrongdoers”, what does the ACLU do? (Well, defense counsel, but I’m lumping the legal stuff together in all forms. Remove the lawyers and what is the ACLU?)
So you have a person that is passionate about defending Constitutional Rights. Noble I’ll be the first to say. It’s the way they (ACLU) go about it that rubs me the wrong way. I’m sure there are a few cites that will make me think they’re the saviors. But I can bet the house they’re few and far between, at least when considering the cause being advanced.
In this case, there is a person debating the views of someone that theoretically is eligible to be defended by said lawyer. So if Ron Austin is fighting for free speech, why is he getting involved in debates? Granted, a lawyer (I’m not slamming lawyers in general) is allowed an opinion to be stated. But if your mission in life is to defend people’s right to say what they think/beleive, why do it outside a court of law? Why take your case to a debate forum to make your point? Why try to win the battle before it’s begun in the courts if you’re neutral?
It seems the answer is to take a position to actively work to change public opinion before it ever gets to the courts. A great tactic as it paved the way for the Republicans to enact the Equal Rights Amendment (sorry, had to remind some people of that), but to claim to be a neutral organization while actively working to help those they agree with, rather than those they disagree with. Hardly seems neutral and noble in this light.
OTOH, sometimes actions speak louder than words. And you take into account that the glorious actions don’t make up for what is really happening. Anyone want to be the first to invoke *****ization?
Of course, when we visit NAMBLA, we understand the innocence and and benign nature of the legal resources used by the ACLU.
According to NAMBLA:
Um, gay Dopers, can we get a ruling on the defense of this?
Seems more harsh than anything I’ve seen in the Op-Ed pages lately, even in this Red state. A call for sleeping with children. Obviously NAMBLA doesn’t speak for gays in general, but remember that “info” when writing any checks in the future to the ACLU. Keep in mind this is some of the public’s perception basis when when judges and lawmakers vote the way they do.
A travesty, I tells ya! My nephew is 12, why the hell should I be looked down upon for having sex with him? My neice is 16 and growing to be a very pretty woman. Why am I denied the pleasures Lord? WHY!?!?!?
A travesty I can’t “love” them the way they deserve to be! Why should anyone deny me the right to have sex with them? At least the ACLU is there to defend my right to actively seek, through simple speech, the right to say “Hey, I know you’re 12, but let’s have sex!”
I’m writing a check tomorrow. :rolleyes:
crap, can someone report that to fix the coding? :smack:
You serious? You can’t see a distinction between defending the right to advocate a point of view and concurring with that point of view? Are you seriously suggesting that pederastry is part of the ACLU’s “secret agenda”? I mean, WTF? No, really, WTF?
Maybe I need a definition of 'advocating". Granted, the ACLU isn’t standing on the corner encouraging me to bed my niece, but if they want to go to court and defend me for doing so, I’d have to take a second look at the organization.
Care to send a pic of any daughters/sons and nieces/nephews you have available? Free speech, according to what NAMBLA and the ACLU’s lawsuits imply, mean that so long as they (your family members) want to directly contact me and come to my home without supervision, it’s all OK. Just make sure they’re at least 12 years old. That’s the stated age that’s acceptable posted on the website of the group defended by the ACLU. Nothing wrong here, totally acceptable.
If that’s acceptable, my e-mail is in my profile.
You know goddamned well you’d never pass that on. Because you know it’s wrong to fuck a 12 year-old. You might have some other reason to defend the ACLU, but based on defending NAMBLA, I won’t understand it.
I’ll say it flat out. Launching a defense of NAMBLA has put the ACLU on my “ban” list. Nobody will be able to justify to me sleeping with a 12 year old, Male or female. And don’t give me the links to how other cultures accespt it. If that’s the social norm you want, move to that country.
Michael Jackson has been looking for a home, and he still hasn’t unpacked his travel bag. Pedophiles just don’t seem to be very popular. But I guess I should be glad a group is doing what they can to defend the perverts? Go First Amendment!
Based on his post following your’s, I believe the answer is “No.” I also believe it proves that he’s not really bothered to read this thread.
duffer, you have convinced me. Up until now I would have said that you had a First Amendment right to speak whatever foolishness you want, but you have made it clear to us all that standing for your rights equals endorsing your point of view. So if I disagree with you, I now have the obligation to do my best to stifle everything you have to say?
:rolleyes:
I’ll spend some time out here on this lonesome, creaky branch and say that the ACLU was on your “ban” list way the hell before they ever defended NAMBLA. Their defense of same just gives you a more comfortable place from which to claim that they’re usually wrong.
And Scylla? I’ve yet to see anyone telling anyone else to shut up in this thread. It may yet happen, and I’ve no doubt that it’s happened in the past, but it’s not a phenomenon unique to defenders of the ACLU. Claiming that it is does nothing to bolster your argument.
-Waste
No, maybe you need the entire dictionary, since you are still baffled about the difference between defending the right to say X and agreeing with X.
(That’s a distinction most people learn before reaching adulthood. Just saying.)
duffer, what do you believe should be the legal punishment for someone saying, for example, “It should be legal for a sixty-year-old man to have sex with a twelve-year-old boy”? Should speaking these words carry a six-month jail sentence? A year? Two years? Life? Death? Please be specific. I’m having trouble following your argument, and this will help clarify it.
Daniel
But why is that unconstitutional? The guy may have the right to disparage the US, our troops, and the fags of the world, and even the right to have a rally or protest where he does so, but that doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t mean that he can do it whereever or whenever he wants.
One thing that I think is helpful to me about the funeral protest situation is that it helps me see the other side of other issues like flag burning.
It’s tough for me to sympathise with people who are so utterly offended by the act of flag burning that they feel it’s more important than free speech, because I was never raised to feel that the flag was sacred. Emotionally, burning the flag doesn’t do anything to me.
But protesting funerals really makes my skin crawl. This helps me have a bit more empathy towards those who’s skin crawl when they see a flag burning and want that banned.
Now, don’t start arguing with me about how the two aren’t exactly the same; I didn’t say they are, and don’t believe they are. All I’m saying is my disgust at the funeral protests helps me see the view of folks who want flag burning banning a little better. I still disagree with them, though.
How about Second Amendment?
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, and just to curry favor -
“Sumbitch! I always thought the ACLU was Leftist. Thanks for giving me some evidence otherwise.”
If the First Amendment said, “A well regulated press, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and maintain newspapers shall not be infringed,” I’d call for the amendment’s change.
Daniel
The Second Amendment, the ACLU feels, is already well-defended by the NRA, therefore, they can concentrate on other areas.
Another thing to consider-perhaps when the ACLU DOES defend the “good guys”, they don’t get any press for it, because it’s not so big of a deal?
Daniel
It doesn’t.
I think the best that can be said is that the ACLU is in favor of a certain view of civil rights, and has an interest in defining that view as unquestionable.
Something they share with a number of other organizations, obviously.
Regards,
Shodan
Damn right it doesn’t, which is why your implication of hypocrisy on their part fails.
Well, of course they have a certain view of civil rights. That’s philosophically inevitable, unless they were to have no view of civil rights. But they define that view as unquestionable? I see no evidence that this is true; to the contrary, my post above quotes one of their answers to one of the common questions about their view. Where do you get the idea that they think their view is unquestionable?
Daniel