# Is there some reason I shouldn't be enraged at Bill O'Reilly's comments re: the ACLU? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 8, 2003, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257 "2003-01-08T05:15:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Conti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c67d28/32.png) [@Conti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Conti)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/21 "2003-01-08T08:29:28Z")
OBSCENE…not OBSCENSE ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/22 "2003-01-08T10:32:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Speech that overtly incites violence: > “You, go kill dem niggers over there.” What about, oh, “No taxation without representation”? > [@](#): > > Speech that is libelous: > “All of the mods are vicious communazipedophiles that like to beat nuns on weekends” Who’s to say if it’s libelous or not? The government? You’re asking us to, effectively, immunize our governmnet to any sort of criticism. > [@](#): > > Speech that is used for fraud: > “I have this good Nigerian friend that desperately needs your help!” And, again, who decides if it’s fraudulent? The government? Man, I’m starting to get uncomfortable tingles up and down my spine… ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/23 "2003-01-08T10:33:29Z")
For Conti… > [@](#): > > 1. An average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. Good luck finding a single “average person” anywhere. > [@](#): > > 1. The work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law. You know, a picture of an apple can be patently offensive. > [@](#): > > 1. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value Define “art”, please. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/24 "2003-01-08T10:40:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > **You know, a picture of an apple can be patently offensive.** Must you turn every thread into a PC v Apple rant? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/25 "2003-01-08T13:54:18Z")
**SPOOFE** : ah, you _are_ aware that all **Conti** did was state the Supreme Court’s test for obscenity? And while you’re right that there is a measure of subjectivity to that test, that subjectivity isn’t fatal. All law is has subjective elements. We ask juries in tort cases to consider how an “average reasonable person” would act under the same circumstances, for example. ---
**Author:** ![jeevmon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@jeevmon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeevmon)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/26 "2003-01-08T14:16:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Muad’Dib \* > \*\*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. \*\* Care to post a cite for the literature that details how to seduce children? The ACLU press release cited above refers to literature that advocates changing age-of-consent laws. Such literature and advocacy is perfectly legal and protected by the Constitution. Espousing a position that “this thing X that is presently illegal should be legal” (or its inverse "this thing Y that is legal should be illegal) is not a crime, and is also protected by the Constitution. Just because a plaintiff says its so don’t make it so, and there is obviously a difference of opinion as to the content of the literature at issue. As far as what civil liberties (or whose civil liberties) the ACLU protects, there is already a substantial financing machine that defends the free speech rights of anti-abortion advocates. Similarly, there is already a well-funded advocacy group that advances the interest of gun owners. I don’t have a real problem with the ACLU deciding to spend its resources on those who don’t have access to representation otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/27 "2003-01-08T15:03:49Z")
Here’s a link to [O’Reilly “Talking Points” on the ACLU](http://www.foxnewschannel.com/story/0,2933,71990,00.html). It’s nasty. > [@](#): > > …Using tactics the Taliban would admire…This, of course, is fascism, not freedom…according to the ACLU and some other misguided Americans…Does that make any sense at all?..certain pressure groups like the ACLU are now using the Constitution to push an agenda that is harmful to many Americans…I hope Santa puts coal in their stocking. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/28 "2003-01-08T15:12:36Z")
I don’t like everything the ACLU does. However, I support them because I know that, if I ever needed to ask them for assistance (and would hopefully get it), they’d be a good group to have on my side. They, for better or for worse, will support just about anyone, anytime, anywhere as long as the issue is a first-amendment issue. Other things as well of course. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/29 "2003-01-08T15:48:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Care to post a cite for the literature that details how to seduce children? Not on this message board. And anyone who does, I will petition the moderators to remove the link and ban the poster. Advice on how to commit a crime is not protected speech, nor should it be. How easy do you want to make it for perverts? My favorite ACLU story is the two cases of children who objected to being moved out of the US. In one case, the parents wanted to move back to Chile, and the ACLU argued that children should be forced to live with their parents. In the other, the parents wanted to move back to the USSR, and the ACLU argued that children had the right to decide where to live. The day I support the ACLU is the day they start acting as if the Second Amendment were part of the Constitution as well. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/30 "2003-01-08T15:48:59Z")
“Speech that overtly incites violence: “You, go kill dem niggers over there.”” Or, “Let’s go dump all this tea in the harbor.” Or, “Gentlemen, I know not what course others will take, but as for me…Give me liberty or give me death!” Them’s all fighting words. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/31 "2003-01-08T15:54:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*Not on this message board. And anyone who does, I will petition the moderators to remove the link and ban the poster. > > Advice on how to commit a crime is not protected speech, nor should it be. So should we just take the allegation on faith, then? > [@](#): > > My favorite ACLU story is the two cases of children who objected to being moved out of the US. In one case, the parents wanted to move back to Chile, and the ACLU argued that children should be forced to live with their parents. In the other, the parents wanted to move back to the USSR, and the ACLU argued that children had the right to decide where to live. > \*\* So the ACLU insisted children move to a right-wing fascist country, but not that they move to a Communist totalitarian country? Damn those conservative ACLUers! Absent a cite, of course, I’ll assume that there were relevant differences in the two cases. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/32 "2003-01-08T15:57:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*Not on this message board. And anyone who does, I will petition the moderators to remove the link and ban the poster. > > Advice on how to commit a crime is not protected speech, nor should it be. \*\* Yes, yes, very noble, etc. Now how about just a cite to a reputable source that confirms there ever was such literature. Otherwise it’s a bit of a kangaroo court case - their crime was so heinous we cannot show you the evidence, but you must find them guilty because their principles are so repugant. ---
**Author:** ![ElwoodCuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/edb3f5/32.png) [@ElwoodCuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElwoodCuse)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/33 "2003-01-08T18:13:55Z")
**Shodan** , why should the ACLU spend time and money defending the 2nd amendment when the NRA is already on top of that? And how is the ACLU “anti-Christian”? Because they support the separation of church and state, as directed by the Establishment Clause? They don’t care what a private citizen does in terms of worship–only when the government gets involved are they concerned. ---
**Author:** ![Conti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c67d28/32.png) [@Conti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Conti)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/34 "2003-01-08T18:27:47Z")
Another case that bothers me about the ACLU: They put pressure on a high school in Kentucky, attempting to force them to have a “homosexual” club. WTF?! Did any of you people have “heterosexual” clubs in your high schools?? Clubs in schools are based on academics and sports, not relationships. If I were the principal, I wouldnt have allowed it either! Nor would I have alllowed a “dating” club or a “relationship” club. A sex ed class that teaches safe sex, would of course be allowed. I would probably even allow a safe sex class just for homosexuals. A sex ed club however? NEVER The high school in Kentucky ended up closing down ALL their clubs, by the way, just to silence the ACLU. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/35 "2003-01-08T18:42:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Conti \* > \*\*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 \*\* Again, cite please? In fact, just link me to any case where ACLU is suing any other party would be fine. Brutus, that goes for your Christmas case you linked to, as well. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/36 "2003-01-08T18:58:24Z")
> [@](#): > > They put pressure on a high school in Kentucky, attempting to force them to have a “homosexual” club. > . . . > The high school in Kentucky ended up closing down ALL their clubs, by the way, just to silence the ACLU. No. They supported the request of some _students_ to be allowed to set up a support group/club. The ACLU did not walk into some random school and demand that they set up a “Homosexual Club.” As to the “need” for a club supporting hetrosexual students: do you have the statistics on the thousands of students harrassed and beaten every year for being straight? And the fact that the school shut down all the clubs simply shows that the school board was spiteful. The ACLU did not order them (or have a court order them) to injure all students with the intention of spiting a few–that was the sole responsibility of the School Board or Administration. ---
**Author:** ![Azael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Azael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Azael)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/37 "2003-01-08T19:00:13Z")
No you should not be enraged… Bill O’Reilly is a smarmy little ass-clown. Who gives a shit what he thinks? ---
**Author:** ![light\_strand](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a6a055/32.png) [@light\_strand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/light_strand)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/38 "2003-01-08T19:10:36Z")
What the hell is wrong with the ACLU supporting personal responsibility? According to the cite, NAMBLA posted no obscene material but > [@](#): > > The web site contained materials that advocated for legislative change of age-of-consent laws concerning sex between adults and adolescents and included statements by various writers, including Allen Ginsburg and Camille Paglia, references to academic journals about sexuality, some fiction and poetry, and a clear statement against coercive sex or breaking the law Now can anyone really say that this kind of material would be an incitement to abduct, rape and murder a child? For crying out loud, NAMBLA may be a despicable organization, but they still have rights. Say, for example, the NRA posted on their web site that fully automatic weapons should be legal, and had similar stuff supporting that opinion as listed above. If a guy went to their site and proceeded to preform mass murder with an AK47, would you say it was alright for that man to sue the NRA. I didn’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/39 "2003-01-08T19:31:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Conti \* > \*\* Did any of you people have “heterosexual” clubs in your high schools?? \*\* Not a club, but there was the prom, a spring formal, and about half a dozen other dances throughout the year that pandered to heterosexual relationships – not to mention three or four school plays every year that featured heterosexual relationships, and plenty of books in English class featuring exclusively heterosexual relationships. The dances weren’t even discussions of gender dynamics, or support groups for people who suffered abuse for their sxual identity, or anything like that – they were meat-markets. If you want to pretend that a straight club is equal to a glbt club, get it right. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Muad\_Dib](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/35a633/32.png) [@Muad\_Dib](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muad_Dib)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257/40 "2003-01-08T20:33:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by plnnr \* > \*\*“Speech that overtly incites violence: > “You, go kill dem niggers over there.”” > > Or, “Let’s go dump all this tea in the harbor.” > > Or, “Gentlemen, I know not what course others will take, but as for me…Give me liberty or give me death!” > > Them’s all fighting words. \*\* Yes, and all of those were prosecutable. Whether or not the laws that they were rebelling against were valid is a separate matter. If the laws were not, then it was moral for them to make those statements, however, within the context of those laws (no matter how unjust) it was still illegal. And no, I am not going to provide a link to those materials, primarily because the ACLU, NAMBLA, or anyone else does not dispute the existence and content of them. What is in dispute is whether or not they have the right to distribute such material with the intent of it being used to break the law. They do not. The ACLU is wrong to support them. Any allusions to the founding fathers only makes sense if you believe that laws against having sex with children are just as immoral and tyrannical as rule by divine right. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-some-reason-i-shouldnt-be-enraged-at-bill-oreillys-comments-re-the-aclu/147257.md?page=3)