Okay, before I fly off the handle, I’d like to ask for someone who saw the entirely of The O’Reilly Factor dealing with the ACLU. From what I saw, he was arguing that it was a corrupt, or at least wasteful, organization that does more harm than good. Okay, I can handle that. I could even agree.
But when listing the ACLU’s crimes, he listed among them support of unpopular causes such as NAMBLA. Heck, when he responded to letters about this commentary, and someone wrote in that he was inspired to join due to O’Reilly’s show, he said wryly, “I’m sure NAMBLA will be very happy to hear that,” or something along those regards.
Now, let me emphasize that I am NOT soliciting opinions about the ACLU, for I really know relatively little about what its pros and cons are. This is what I would like to know, and go off on, if informed it’s true:
Is Bill O’Reilly one of those assholes who think that unpopular, disgusting, or morally offensive groups and speeches do not deserve protection and support of any kind? Is he one of those deluded nutbags who love free speech, as long as he agrees with it, otherwise it needs to be governmentally suppressed?
In other words, my dear Dopers, tell me: do I have a reason to rant?
Well, since it is Bill O’Reilly…no, not really. It’s like Pitting Jack Chick or Fred Phelps…tired, boring and worn out. He’s a TV commentator who helps ratings by making bombastic comments. What did you expect? Thoughtful and reasoned analysis from TV?
I didn’t see the O’Reilly show (I don’t watch that much TV). Actually the ACLU’s membership is at an all-time high this past year, so I’d be careful about labelling it an “unpopular” organization. The ACLU seems to be the lone voice calling for protecting our rights as American citizens against Ashcroft and his ilk these days.
Yes, that describes O’Reilly–meaning that a rant is rather pointless. Would you submit a rant complaining that rabid dogs are dangerous or lobotomized gerbils are stupid? Then why would you bother ranting against a guy who makes a living by trying to be as obnoxiously error-prone as Rush, but fails to demosntrate Rush’s command of humor?
I never said the ACLU should have its ‘speech’ limited. But a cold shoulder (and pocketbook) from rational America would be nice.
For the first example, I am taking the easy road and present the ACLU’s defense of NAMBLA
Next, and straight from Bill O, we have the ACLU threatening to sue (gee, no abuse of the courts there) a cash-strapped school district if the word’Christmas’ was not removed from a calendar.
I would daresay that I think most ACLU actions are frivolous and intrusive. Interfering in local matters, where they can ‘outspend’ their opponents in court, is their MO.
Don’t get me wrong. I realize that every now and again they may work towards a worthy cause, but IMHO, those instances are few and far between.
And I hope nobody here is naive enough to believe that we have absolute ‘Free Speech’. There are obvious limits on what you can say without penalty.
The ACLU supported NAMBLA, which outright promotes illegal sexual contact with children. So you think that this kind of speech should be protected? Telling others how to meet children and lure them into sexual acts is wrong and should not be protected speech. Just as telling a terrorist how to make a nuclear device and sneak it into the country should not be permitted, so is the case with NAMBLA. The ACLU has went too far.
The ACLU also tried to sue a major city (maybe New York, i can’t remember) because they were diverting traffic to allow visitors at a Christmas Nativity scene to park on the street. What was the ACLU thinking?!?! If this had been a Muslim event, do you think they would be complaining? NO
The ACLU is anti-christianity, in my IMHO, and tries everyway it can to provide stumbling blocks to anythign Christian related. They bullied one school district to change “Christmas Vacation” to “Winter Vacation”, or something of the sort. Christmas is an official holiday of the United States government! They should goto Congress if they want that changed; not bully around groups or individuals who can’t afford to defend themselves.
Re: the NAMBLA case: so now you and O’Reily are finally taking a stand against the idea that people should take personal responsibility for their actions, instead of blaming it on what they read on the internet?
The ACLU is in the right here, and the irony is that O’Reily is defending a position of “blame what I read-saw-heard/ society, not me!” usually reserved for his own ridicule. They are defending NAMBLA from being sued for publishing materials that advocate change in the laws: an activity which is legal and should remain so, no matter how detestable we might think those changes might be.
—Next, and straight from Bill O, we have the ACLU threatening to sue (gee, no abuse of the courts there) a cash-strapped school district if the word’Christmas’ was not removed from a calendar.—
Ah. The whole story, so we can decide for ourselves, no? Or, rather, just a short blurb no longer than what you’ve already related here (making the cite almost useless)?
From past years, I’ve learned that we almost never get the full story from Cal Thomas, O’Reily, and gang, so I’ve learned to ask for… an actual cite that lays out the actual facts of the case? In past years, their cites have turned out to be bogus or grossly misrepresented. “Rev. C. Welton Geddy” seems to agree with me on that score: “I have heard the complaints about teachers telling their students not to say ‘Merry Christmas.’ That’s ridiculous,” Geddy said. “Certainly we oppose a government establishment of any expression of religion as the official national expression, but I would adamantly defend the rights of people of faith to express their faith in appropriate ways in both private and public places.”
—And I hope nobody here is naive enough to believe that we have absolute ‘Free Speech’. There are obvious limits on what you can say without penalty.—
Obviously: some things are not speech. But is advocating a change in the laws rightly punishable? What’s the logic here: that NAMBLA somehow knowingly tricked the rapist into thinking that NAMBLA had already incited lawmakers to legalize unconsenting rape, let alone lowering consent laws?
The ACLU did not support NAMBLA, or the Nazis in Skokie. They supported civil rights. Period. These groups are reprehensible, and should be shunned by decent people everywhere. However, they should not be used as an excuse for the government to encroach on our rights.
Once the government decides certain groups are too sick and deviant to have rights, and can get away with it, what’s to stop them from branding us as too sick to have rights?
The specific case involved the parents of a boy who had been raped and murdered by a NAMBLA member suing the orginisation and the ACLU taking their defense. The family sued NAMBLA because they had explicit instructions (both on their website, and in printed materials sent to members) detailing how to seduce, and sexually exploit children, and then how to get away with it. The ACLU defended NAMBLA, on the grounds that the first ammendment protected such speech.
This was a clearly stupid and wrong move on the part of the ACLU.
NAMBLA was posting material that was not “just for educational purposes” but was overtly encouraging a crime. This is a far more obvious case than the abortion doctor “hit-list” case of a few years ago. The anti-abortion group had a much better case (yet were still found guilty) than NAMBLA, yet the ACLU did not go rushing to their aid.
Fucking hypocrites.
This is why many people hate the ACLU, they are more than a bit selective on what civil liberties they want to protect and when they want to protect them.