marblehead
Veteran
No no no. It can't be true that a civil liberties organization actually fights to protect people's civil liberties, it just wouldn't make sense.
Upvote
0
Another ACLU lawsuit against Ten Commandments meets with defeat
- Thread starter Ave Maria
- Start date
Ringo84
Separation of Church and State expert
- Jul 31, 2006
- 19,228
- 5,252
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Thank you, World. That means a lot.You three are amazing. When I read your posts, my faith is restored.
Good to see you (not because of the comment but because it's been a few days)!
Ringo
Upvote
0
SteveAtheist
Senior Member
Why should facts matter to CGL? From reading his earlier posts containing the absolutely false claims about the ACLU that he has neglected to defend, it should be clear that he is not interested in facts as much as he is interested in spreading propaganda.
How about Corey? Can you defend anything other than a definition of word?
Upvote
0
Well, I did defend my statements Steve.
I just read something, posted by Polycarp1,comparing an organization that wants pedophilia legalized to a Pro-life organization.
This isn't about the First Amendment or the Constitution, this is about common sense.
This isn't about quieting NAMBLA, it's about protecting children and protecting the law.
You can condemn NAMBLA, without customizing the First Amendment.
But my point is; supporting NAMBLA, directly or indirectly,speaks volumes of an organization.
Yes, these pedophiles (Democrats no doubt) have the right to spew their perversion, just as I have the right (the duty, really) to condem these perverts.
The ACLU also proposed the legalization of child inappropriate contentography, in the early 80's.
The First Amendment is not to be customized, no. But, freedom in America and throughout the civilized world, ought to have limits. This being one of them.
I just read something, posted by Polycarp1,comparing an organization that wants pedophilia legalized to a Pro-life organization.
This isn't about the First Amendment or the Constitution, this is about common sense.
This isn't about quieting NAMBLA, it's about protecting children and protecting the law.
You can condemn NAMBLA, without customizing the First Amendment.
But my point is; supporting NAMBLA, directly or indirectly,speaks volumes of an organization.
Yes, these pedophiles (Democrats no doubt) have the right to spew their perversion, just as I have the right (the duty, really) to condem these perverts.
The ACLU also proposed the legalization of child inappropriate contentography, in the early 80's.
The First Amendment is not to be customized, no. But, freedom in America and throughout the civilized world, ought to have limits. This being one of them.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
Two organizations want the law changed to suit their agenda -- One organization you agree with; the other you find morally repugnant.
Which is exactly what we all have a right to do under the First Amendment. But taking the First Amendment away from anyone, even NAMBLA, isn't the answer.
The Constitution supports NAMBLA. What does that tell you?
And the First Amendment protects you both equally -- your smear of Democrats notwithstanding.
Facts, please? I suspect the issue is not what you say it is.
The First Amendment allows you to have that opinion -- it also guarantees that it remains just that -- an opinion, nothing more.
Because frankly, I, for one, don't want you deciding where those limits should be.
Upvote
0
One group wants to protect children the other wants to harm children. That goes without saying, regardless of you stance on abortion.
I wasn't disagreeing with that.
The Constitution doesn't support NAMBLA, the Constitution supports their freedom of speech.
The ACLU took it a step further; New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747
Our opinions, not actions.
As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General?s Commission on inappropriate contentography that child inappropriate contentography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child inappropriate content could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be.
You need someone like me to decide what the limits ought to be.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Polycarp1
Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
No. I DON'T think so. If you really are an Israeli living in Halifax, not an American conservative trolling for arguments, I want to go on record as hoping that your entry into the U.S. is banned. Because we as a country don't need aliens like you who explicitly state they wish to deprive us of our Bill of Rights guaranteed liberty. And I think you'll find that liberals and conservatives alike will agree with that.
For the record, I compared NAMBLA and RTL in exactly one way -- the one important to what the ACLU did. Kind of like comparing God to an unjust judge, or His Kingdom to a mustard seed, in order to make a single point.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
So what? The Constitution doesn't get suspended when children are at issue. Civil Rights are Civil Rights, and the right to peacably assemble and petition the government -- even to petition the government to decriminalize pedophilia -- is guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Fortunately, the right to publicly decry NAMBLA as a pack of sickos is equally guaranteed.
Actually, I don't see how they "took it a step further."
"In 1982, the ACLU became involved in a case involving the distribution of child inappropriate contentography (New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747)[80] In an amicus brief, the ACLU argued that the law in question "has criminalized the dissemination, sale or display of constitutionally protected non-obscene materials which portray juveniles in sexually related roles," while arguing that child inappropriate contentography deemed obscene under the Miller test deserved no constitutional protection and could be banned"
And opinions -- and the right to make those opinions public -- are what are at issue here.
Two funny things -- first, I've found this statement repeated verbatim among several Anti-ACLU sites , but my research into the actual Commission doesn't say much.
Second, none of those sites mention that Lynn is himself an ordained minister.
I'd rather have the Constitution do that.
Upvote
0
SeraphymCrashing
Senior Member
Wow, such undisguised arrogance. I reject your views and I rejoice that you have no legal power to place any such limits.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
Quite so -- the ACLU is far from perfect, but their principles are noble.
Assuming the earlier statement about Child inappropriate contentography is accurate (and I've seen nothing to indicate it is), it is a typical piece of legalese doubletalk that I'd expect from lawyers.
And, to get back on topic, it is precisely throught cases such as the OP that, win or lose, we all now know where the "limits" are. Better they be decided by the judicial system than arbitrarily selected by any one zealot.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
trunks2k
Contributor
To my knowledge the aclu has had two positions in regards to child inappropriate contentography cases.
One was against laws that outlawed fake child inappropriate contentography (drawings and altered images) arguing that they should not be illegal because no child was actually harmed in the creation of the images.
The other was against overly strict definitions of child inappropriate contentography that would make valid artistic works, as well as other works that a reasonable person would not consider to be inappropriate contentography classified as child inappropriate contentography.
Upvote
0
SteveAtheist
Senior Member
Who will always 'seem to meet with defeat'? The ACLU. They weren't really 'defeated' here and they have won plenty of cases.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
And even when they lose, we all win. Legal Precident is how future courts will decide the legality of future cases. The next time a similar case comes before the courts, they'll have this decision to help them decide that one. The upshot being, we now have a clearer idea of where "the line" is in matters of Church/State Separation.
The worst that happens to the ACLU is they've got to pay the court costs for losing. And I'm sure my $50 donation will compensate them in some small way.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
