OBSCENE…not OBSCENSE
What about, oh, “No taxation without representation”?
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.
And, again, who decides if it’s fraudulent? The government? Man, I’m starting to get uncomfortable tingles up and down my spine…
For Conti…
Good luck finding a single “average person” anywhere.
You know, a picture of an apple can be patently offensive.
Define “art”, please.
Must you turn every thread into a PC v Apple rant?
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.
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.
Here’s a link to O’Reilly “Talking Points” on the ACLU. It’s nasty.
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.
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
“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.
So should we just take the allegation on faith, then?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No you should not be enraged… Bill O’Reilly is a smarmy little ass-clown. Who gives a shit what he thinks?
What the hell is wrong with the ACLU supporting personal responsibility?
According to the cite, NAMBLA posted no obscene material but
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.
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
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.