| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: The ACLU Posted by: Boxman - [571114225] Sat, Jun 16, 2007, 22:27 The ACLU Never Forgets Its Pro-Communist Roots By Alan Sears Saturday, June 16, 2007 Just as a leopard cannot change its spots, nor a zebra its stripes, an organization whose founder admired the “ideals” of the hammer and sickle can never really abandon those destructive beginnings. More than a quarter-century after his death, the “legacy” of American Civil Liberties Union founder Roger Baldwin – a self-professed fan of Soviet communism and of Joseph Stalin – is still going strong. With the collapse of the Soviet empire, current ACLU leaders have thrown more of their support to one of the last remaining bastions of the Soviet ideal: Cuba. In 2005, for example, the ACLU endorsed an amendment lifting the ban on tourist travel to Cuba – a long-distance slap in the face to Cubans, who now watch foreign tourists feed corruption, pesos and dollars to the Communist machine, while they themselves are stripped of nearly all human rights. The insult was multiplied a year later, when the ACLU demanded an end to bans on academic travel, so scholars could lend their support to the regime. But ACLU leaders are as eager to export Cuban communism as they are to import American tourist dollars. Last week, the ACLU was in federal court, arguing that a Miami-Dade County school board broke the law by removing from its school libraries a book entitled Vamos a Cuba (Let’s Visit Cuba), which offers a strangely luminous view of life in Castro’s island “paradise.” A federal judge has already ruled that the book be returned to the shelves until the case can play out in court. The school board’s beef isn’t with what is on the pages, but with what isn’t. Parents filed complaints after finding the book to be devoid of any mention of the oppressive regime instituted by Fidel Castro nearly 50 years ago. Instead, its pages are filled with breezy commentaries on how Cubans enjoy chicken with rice (under the country’s subsidized ration plan, the average Cuban is allotted a whopping 8 ounces per month) and boating as a leisure activity (“boating” being a rather ironic term for the fragile, homemade rafts so many launch out onto the ocean, in desperate bids to escape the regime). The book’s cover, available in both English and Spanish versions, is adorned with beaming children dressed in the uniform of the Pioneers, the Communist youth organization that Cuban children are required to join. They look like Cuban Bobbsey Twins. Obviously, the Miami children targeted for this book have never been told that questioning the Cuban government is likely to lead to imprisonment … that milk is far too expensive for most on the island to purchase … that access to everyday activities like surfing the Internet is not only severely limited, but closely monitored by the government for any shred of dissent against Castro and his cronies. Absent from the pages of Vamos a Cuba is any mention of the ruthless 20-year prison sentences levied on Cuban poets and journalists and priests who failed to fawn over their fearless leader. Instead, the book depicts Cubans as living as freely as they please. Incredibly, the ACLU claims that removal of these fictions somehow violates students’ constitutional rights to “access of information.” That’s right: your kids have a constitutional right to absorb misinformation. If a pro-Communist wants to lie about the impact of the Party on the people, your tax dollars should encourage children to read those lies. Of course, this same “right to access” doesn’t apply to information that the ACLU’s intolerant agenda deems misleading. They’re not nearly as interested in allowing both evolution and intelligent design to be discussed in science classes, or in letting a student who disagrees with homosexual behavior present his views openly and peacefully to a fellow student. It’s doubtful that a biography stressing John Paul II’s resistance to Communism, a children’s book stressing the importance of having both a mommy and a daddy, or, of course, a revisionist view of the impact of the ACLU would make the organization’s suggested reading list for Florida public schools – or the subject of an ACLU lawsuit to protect children’s “access.” After all, when it’s not promoting Communism, the ACLU is promoting atheism. As the Number One religious censor in America, they’re probably more responsible than anyone for removing Bibles, books on Christian faith, history, and heritage, and textbooks debunking Darwinian theory from public library shelves all over the country. And yet blocking the truth isn’t enough. The ACLU chooses clients who want to replace factual information with lies, like the blatant misrepresentations of Cuban life in Vamos a Cuba. In its determination to keep a book so ridiculously backward on the shelves, the ACLU is clearly bent on a mission of disinformation. But then, it would have to be, to promote the current Cuban regime. Cuba’s own Constitution declares that: "Citizens have freedom of speech and of the press in keeping with the objectives of socialist society.” Translation: Toe the party line, fellow Cubans, or face the consequences. Perhaps the book should be retitled, Vamos a Prisión. | |||||||
| 53 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 12:35 |
Agreed, SZ. Federer/Nadal is becoming a historical rivalry. Agree about the holt post as well. | ||||||
| 54 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 01629107 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 12:46 |
Holt 43 ACLU has argued that while the right to produce child porn should not be protected, the right to distribute and own that material should be protected. I'm really not familiar with this argument and like I said, I did poke around for something from the ACLU in support of this position. While NAMBLA does to my understanding facilitate an underground network for trading child porn, it does not (again to my understanding) do so explicitly. Such underground activities are not protected free speech and to my knowledge NACLU has never defended NAMBLA or any other group or individual for distributing or possessing such materials. What ACLU does defend, is NAMBLA's stated endeavor, to change our laws so as to allow for physical relationships between adults and children. While the very thought of this is obviously vile, seeking to change existing laws to accomodate a group's preferred lifestyle is not illegal and is protected by the 1st Amendment. If you're familiar with any examples of ACLU support for NAMBLA or other groups or individuals owning or distributing child porn I'd like to see it. One slightly gray area may come in cases where NAMBLA has defended the ownership and distribution of fictional materials that some consider child porn, such as drawings or cartoons or literature. I believe ACLU has defended ownership and distribution of such materials, arguing that they are not child porn. considering the power that the ACLU wields , I don't think it's such a good idea to automatically approve of everything they do. slapping ACLU critics down and labeling them as anti-freedom is pretty extreme isn't it? I don't know that anyone here automatically supports everything they do. I don't know much about Tierny or how he may have used his post to further any particular agenda, for example, and there are very likely cases they've taken up that I'd have trouble with. But to my knowledge, the bulk of their work has been to protect individual freedoms and the right to due process. Extending that protection to members of society who commit the most vile acts is essential. Once we decide that some people are not deserving of the rights and freedoms of the rest of us, they begin to break down for everyone. Jag Requiring members to profess faith in a higher being is nothing if not a religious stance. Athiests are not specifically excluded. Being a religious group does not mean that it must cater to one specific religion. Whats funny about your posts here is that you are so eager to find fault with ACLU that you completely disregard any of the good and important work they do. This either means you have no regard whatsoever for getting to the truth of the matter, preferring simply to demonize a group by any (honest or dishonest) means necessary, because they have an occasional tendency to disagree with some of your personal politics - or that your really do resent the concept of due process of law. Wilmer and Holt Thanks for posting in this thread. Well rendered pro-right arguments (wherever your overall positions might actually lie) have been increasingly rare here for years now. Its very refreshing to come across an argument that requires and deserves research and time to properly respond to. I know neither of you are new to the forum by any means but I do hope both of you continue to frequently contribute. | ||||||
| 55 | Jag ID: 3064839 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 12:50 |
I knew you would bring up the oath. Yes, you do take an oath, but no religion is taught or practiced, if you think a religion is practiced, please let me know what sect. What does attacking the Boys Scouts and Christmas events have to do with freedom? | ||||||
| 56 | Perm Dude ID: 13652810 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 12:59 | It doesn't have to be a "sect" to be religious, Jag. | ||||||
| 57 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 13:06 |
My 9 year old son attended a cub scout meeting with a friend a few months ago, unbeknownst to me. It was made clear to him that the troop was an LDS only troop, in fact every scout troop in the county I live is associated with an LDS ward. Kyle came home demanding to be baptised(like his sister)so he could be like the other kids and be a scout. I explained to him that that was not a proper reason to join a church, and the discussion would be tabled until some unidentified future date. Now if only jag could council me as to how a moderate would react to such a situation. | ||||||
| 58 | Perm Dude ID: 13652810 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 13:07 |
Isn't it obvious, PV? A moderate would blame Clinton. :) | ||||||
| 59 | Jag ID: 3064839 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 13:12 | Your arguements have converted me, the ACLU is great, we need someone to champion the cause to stop the damn Boy Scouts and those annoying Christmas decoration, not to mention, we really need to help those poor picked on pedophiles. Where can I send my check? | ||||||
| 60 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 13:14 |
Where can I send my check? 1233 North 190 East Lehi, Utah 84043 I also accept Visa, Mastercard and Discover - sorry, no American Express. | ||||||
| 61 | Jag ID: 3064839 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 13:18 | Your story sounds a little hokey, but if you are telling the truth, I wouldn't want my kid in that troop. | ||||||
| 62 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 01629107 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 13:21 |
Jag Federal funding isn't supposed to go to groups that discriminate on the basis of religion, which the BSA does. I'm aware that there are some exceptions to this, and I presume that ACLU takes the same stance in those cases as well. I do understand the simplistic, end result-oriented reaction to these stories - that the BSA are a generally benevolent organization that provides a helpful public service in enriching the lives of children... so they should just be left alone. But in protecting our rights and freedoms, the process is just as essential as the result. When you turn a blind eye and allow an exception to a particular group because it provides an important service to some people, you open the door for that kind of subjective discretion to be applied in all kinds of places. If ACLU left the BSA alone and the powers that be then decided they could cite federal BSA funding as fair reason to fund some other group which you detest (and which also shouldn't otherwise qualify), maybe then you'd see why opening the door to BSA in the first place was a bad idea. The subjective discretion you endorse (I do wonder whether you have extended your own arguments enough to realize your position) is a certain path to totalitarianism. | ||||||
| 63 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 13:31 |
#61 Did you open the link in #57? Did you go here? Also, make sure that den and pack meeting dates, times, and places are announced each week in Primary. Ya think if a kid doesn't attend primary there's a slight chance of ostracization? You requested: I knew you would bring up the oath. Yes, you do take an oath, but no religion is taught or practiced, if you think a religion is practiced, please let me know what sect. Could I have answered your request with any more detail? Instead, I'm accused of concocting a hokey story. Sheesh. | ||||||
| 64 | Tree ID: 5663688 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 13:50 |
The BSA is not openly religious, that is a bunch of nonsense, they say you have to believe in God to join, but don't even say which God. Excerpted from page 47-54, Boy Scout Handbook, 11th Edition, (#33105), copyright 1998 by BSA, ISBN 0-8395-3105-2 ( from scoutmaster.org), regarding Boy Scout Law... Scout is Reverent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others. and, of course, the Oath you mentioned, also from Scoutmaster.org, Excerpted from page 45-46, Boy Scout Handbook, 11th ed, (#33105), copyright 1998 by BSA, ISBN 0-8395-3105-2. . . . To do my duty to God . . . Your family and religious leaders teach you about God and the ways you can serve. You do your duty to God by following the wisdom of those teachings every day and by respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs. that, at the minimum, excludes those who don't believe in God, and if an organization is using federal monies and school properties, it needs to be inclusive, not exclusive. the scouts certainly do plenty of good things in building leaders. but that doesn't give them carte blanche. | ||||||
| 65 | Jag ID: 3064839 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 14:03 |
If you are done vilifying the BSA, how about addressing the ACLU war on Christmas and how does this affects our freedom. ACLU anti-Christmas More Stories Here is one where they demanded a tree People thought Philly fans were bad booing Santa, hell, the ACLU bashes the entire holiday. | ||||||
| 66 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 14:03 |
The U.S. Congress chartered Boy Scouts of America in 1916, with the declared purpose of promoting "the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues." There is no mention of a religious purpose, obviously, since our secular U.S. Congress could not have chartered a religious organization. Imagine if Red Cross, which also has a Congressional charter, demanded to know whether victims of natural disaster believed in God before being willing to help them! BSA would not be the large, successful group it is today without public sponsorship. It demands the privileges and funding of a public-sponsored organization, but refuses to honor its public duty to be nondiscriminatory in its policies and functions. Among the privileges BSA receives: The nominal "Commander in Chief" of BSA is the President of the United States. It receives direct federal funding through the Combined Federal Campaign. (Federal employees can get paid leave to fund-raise for CFC groups.) Its primary recruiters traditionally have been public school teachers. It traditionally receives free rental from public schools. Half of all Scout units have been directly sponsored by public schools and school boards. BSA uses local, state and federal buildings, parks and property free of charge or with major fee breaks, such as the rental for the token fee of $1.00 of Ft. Camp Hill, Virginia, for the Boy Scout annual Jamboree. Boy Scouts has been recognized and advertised on U.S. postage stamps. Another major sponsor is the PTA, a group set up to enhance the experiences of all students in the public schools. Additionally, a significant percentage of BSA's overall funding is from United Way, whose own "Eligibility Criteria for Organizational Membership" (adopted by National Congress, November 30, 1972) reads: "Faithfully adheres to a policy of nondiscrimination with respect to age, sex, race, religion, and national origin in connection with the makeup of its governing body, committees, and staff and the persons whom it directly and indirectly serves." United Way of America advertises that "every group receiving funds ... maintains a policy of nondiscrimination." Since BSA has redefined itself as a private club with a religious test for membership, its Congressional charter, government/public school subsidy, and United Way funding must be dropped. But why would it wish to discriminate? link | ||||||
| 67 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 14:11 | If you are done vilifying the BSA I'll quit villifying them when they quit trying to recruit my son onto the LDS Church roles, and when they quit forcing parents who are not religious to either lie or abandon participation altogether. | ||||||
| 68 | Tree ID: 5663688 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 14:51 |
If you are done vilifying the BSA, how about addressing the ACLU war on Christmas and how does this affects our freedom. personally, for me, it's separation of church and state. i've got no real issues with secular holiday items like trees and sleighs, but i'm not keen on cross or a star of david. as for your woefully ignorant "vilifying" comment, other than PV's very personal situation in dealing with the BSA, the only vilification being done around here is by you, against individuals, beliefs, causes, and even organizations that have helped YOU maintain some of your freedoms. it should be noted that despite your insistence to paint the ACLU has some whacked out group that only defends liberal causes, they defended the rights of, among others, the American Nazi party, the pro-gun rights Second Amendment Foundation, the infamous and very much not left-leaning "God Hates Fags" Westboro Baptist Church, and Oliver North. regarding the Second Amendment Foundation case, it flies pretty much in the face of any anti-ACLU comments said above in regards to gun cases, as th e suit was filed against the North Central Regional Library District (NCRL) in Washington State for its policy of refusing to disable restrictions upon an adult patron's request. Library patrons attempting to access pro-gun web sites were blocked, and the library refused to remove the blocks. more from the SAF Press Release on the matter... | ||||||
| 69 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 01629107 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 18:19 |
Jag Not sure who you're talking to, I don't think I've villified the BSA. Anyway, if the point hasn't sunk in by now it just won't. The ACLU does more for you than you'll ever know (clearly) and you'll always demonize them for those times when their efforts to preserve or enforce the Bill of Rights happens to favor bad people or infringe on the practices of some of our more cherished institutions. The nature of our sensationalist media will always focus on those events, and ignore the cases where they work for more agreeable end results. You should always remember to thank the liberal media for forming your opinion of the ACLU. Like the friend who Deroy Murdoch quotes, I thank God for the ACLU, even if we might not always agree with them or the battles they choose or the results their persuits might lead to. | ||||||
| 70 | Jag ID: 3064839 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 23:21 |
Anyway, if the point hasn't sunk in by now it just won't This is the worst arguement I have ever seen. What point is suppose to sink in? The ACLU is anti Boy Scouts and Christmas and defend Nazis, pedophiles and gay bashers, at the expense of millions of tax dollars a year for court costs. If the point hasn't sunk in by now, that the ACLU is worthless, it just won't. The nature of our sensationalist media will always focus on those events I can't believe you even typed that. It is those events that ACLU seeks out. The media doesn't seek out the ACLU, the ACLU seeks out the media. | ||||||
| 71 | Perm Dude ID: 13652810 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 23:24 |
ROFL! It's like Sean Hannity here. The ACLU is Anti-Christmas! Pro-pedophiles! Hate the Boy Scouts! Gotta hand it to you Jag: Despite waves and waves of facts being thrown at you, you aren't dissuaded from your opinions. Hold fast, friend! Those godless realists are everywhere!! | ||||||
| 72 | Tree ID: 5663688 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 23:27 |
This is the worst arguement I have ever seen. and apparently the only one you saw, since you apparently missed the rest of them. i'll miss you when you gotta start the 11th grade in a couple months, and your posting stops. | ||||||
| 73 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 01629107 Sun, Jul 08, 2007, 23:33 |
Fortunately for Jag his stark hatred of those who defend the Bill or Rights will not preclude him from being protected by them. Or it. Let freedom ring. | ||||||
| 74 | Myboyjack ID: 8216923 Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 19:13 | A list of cases where the ACLU has litigated for the rights of Christians | ||||||
| 75 | Tree ID: 3624918 Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 19:32 | come on MBJ, everyone knows the ACLU is a bunch if whiny, Jewish New York Liberals who hate Christianity. | ||||||
| 76 | sarge33rd ID: 76442923 Mon, Jul 09, 2007, 19:45 |
just ask Jag. ;) Nice find MBJ. | ||||||
| 77 | christian nadal ID: 50124617 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 18:29 | I find it interesting that the ACLU is not concerned about the federal government advertising, distributing, selling, illegal weapons to the public through BATF licensed weapon companies. Allowing the federal government to lie and introduce false evidence in federal court to obtain convictions so as to steal their properties and intern them in the Federal Concentration Camp System known as the BOP. A simple thought? If the feds can lie, perjure themselves in federal court, introduce false evidence to get convictions on people,from something sold through catalogs like ShotGun News or on the web by Sarco, Inc. then what chance do people have in more complex cases that do not involve tenth grade level federal statutes that are easy to understand as in Title 26 Section 5845, 5811, 5812 and 18 Section 922(o)(1)? | ||||||
| 78 | Perm Dude ID: 3615610 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 18:40 | Why would the ACLU be interested in that? | ||||||
| 79 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 19:13 | I believe, that would be called a "sting" operation, and it isnt illegal. Thus, no ACLU interest. (Unless I am grossly misunderstanding your post. IOW, The ACLU doesnt raise hell over the Feds setting up the sale of illegal narcotics for the purposes of law enforcement either. Why would they on this?) | ||||||
| 80 | holt ID: 360131020 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 19:46 |
Are you talking about fine products like this? http://www.sarcoinc.com/images/bmg-m2-wc-600.jpg | ||||||
| 81 | Boldwin ID: 3013265 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 20:22 |
MBJ is right that the ACLU has filed amicus briefs in cases in support of christians but at this point they're lukewarm partial lefthanded help isn't really helpful or welcome. It's like your ex offering you sympathy. | ||||||
| 82 | biliruben ID: 5610442715 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 20:23 |
Good for rabbits and grouse.
| ||||||
| 83 | Boldwin ID: 3013265 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 20:24 | Or aliens/predators. | ||||||
| 84 | sarge33rd ID: 76442923 Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 20:32 |
*shaking head at 81* Just can NOT bring yourself to admit it can you Boldy? | ||||||
| 85 | holt ID: 360131020 Thu, Feb 07, 2008, 02:59 |
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE0DB103CF93AA35751C1A965958260 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE2DE1E38F931A35753C1A965958260 http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/adl/cotc/los-angeles-plot.html It wouldn't surprise me that the "feds" would lie or use false evidence in court. That's a good reason to avoid them by not doing things like stockpiling machine guns. one part of the ACLU mission is to seek to protect this: Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake. So, going after federal prosecutors or law enforcement officers who lie or introduce false evidence is something that the ACLU might very well do, but if you're a member of what is perceived to be a violent white supremacist group then you may find yourself with very few allies (regardless of whatever injustice you may be a victim of). | ||||||
| 86 | holt ID: 360131020 Thu, Feb 07, 2008, 03:14 | http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/ftp.py?people//n/nadal.christian/dignity.030194 | ||||||
| 87 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Thu, Feb 07, 2008, 12:24 |
HERE, is where the ACLU is needed Nabila Mango, a therapist and a U.S. citizen who has lived in the country since 1965, had just flown in from Jordan last December when, she said, she was detained at customs and her cellphone was taken from her purse. Her daughter, waiting outside San Francisco International Airport, tried repeatedly to call her during the hour and a half she was questioned. But after her phone was returned, Mango saw that records of her daughter's calls had been erased.... | ||||||
| 88 | Myboyjack ID: 56039812 Thu, Feb 07, 2008, 12:34 |
hmmmm....I think the government will the "laptop = suitcase" argument; however, I'm not sure their right to conduct a border search and seize a person's laptop relies on that alone. Maybe I won't take my laptop to Germany next month....gonna make the baseball draft a real pain in the a$$ though. | ||||||
| 89 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Thu, Feb 07, 2008, 15:45 |
If the Govt is going to equate laptops with suitcases, then they need to be added to the "Do Not Carry On" list. Allowing you (seemingly) to bring it to the airport, only to have it seized and not reurned a year later...is bogus. Where are the warrants allowing seizure of personal property? Where is the Probable Cause for executing the seizure? By what authority, do they delete the history of incoming calls from a persons cell phone? Sorry MBJ, this is direct stomping of citizens constitutional rights, and its indicative of how this sound-bite "war on terror" has been allowed to grow until its become a monstrosity busily trampling on citizens. And please, no one give me that "I'd rather they do this than allow a terrorist in" bullsh*t. No one wants terrorists allowed in. But neither do I want my government, taking my property without due process/cause. | ||||||
| 90 | Myboyjack ID: 8216923 Thu, Feb 07, 2008, 17:18 |
I left out the word "lose" in post 88...a search of a laptop is not the searcof a suitcase. Where are the warrants allowing seizure of personal property? Where is the Probable Cause for executing the seizure? These aren't required when conducting a border search. That's always been the law. It's considered a "reasonable" search. The Constitution only requires warrants for "unreasonable" searches. I'm very troubled by the seizure of laptops and cell phones for anything that goes beyond insuring they aren't an immediate threat; however, the government has traditionally been allowed wide latitude to search for contrband at the border. Technology is often ahead of legal precedent. Seems to me these searches of electronic equipment are more intrusive on privacy interests than a search of luggage and should be considered unreasonable absent probable cause; however the government has precedent on its side. | ||||||
| 91 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Thu, Feb 07, 2008, 17:29 | lol Challengers 50-50-90 rule. Facing a 50-50 proposition of the missing word being "win" or "loose", there exists a 90% probability I'll make the wrong choice. :) | ||||||
| 92 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Thu, Feb 07, 2008, 17:29 | make that "lose", not "loose"...sheeesh | ||||||
| 93 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 19:10 |
This thread is littered with many, many pathetic posts, but I'll resurrect it in order to share a great article written by a 10 year ACLU-WA attorney who just left to become a law professor at Loyola School of Law. Ten Years with the ACLU - What I have learned from the outstanding, collegial, and supportive bench and bar of this state When I left private practice in 1998 to begin with the ACLU, I knew that the position would allow me to work on some interesting and important cases. I did not predict that I would be, in the words of that aphorism that is part blessing and part curse, practicing civil liberties law in "interesting times." I had a front-row seat when the city of Seattle overreacted to anti-WTO demonstrations in 1999 by declaring most of downtown a "No Protest Zone." New computer technologies turned me, somewhat by accident, into an authority on the rights of public school students who get suspended for using the Internet to say things their school principals don't like. Most important, I did not predict that much of the ACLU's work in the years since the terrorist attacks of September 11 would be devoted to defending the concept of the rule of law itself, which has been assailed by the pernicious argument that it is somehow an unaffordable luxury for the government to follow the rules that protected our nation's freedoms for two centuries. Funny thing is, if you turn off Fox News for just a second and read about the ACLU's work from the attorneys themselves, I think you'll come away with a ton of respect for the landmark, vital and under appreciated work they do. Recognizing historical parallels can help you frame a successful argument. We were contacted by students who were threatened with suspension from school not because of anything they had written on the Internet, but because they had created a bulletin board for open discussion on which other anonymous students had said punishable things. In many important respects, the case resembled the famous sedition trial against John Peter Zenger in 1735. | ||||||
| 94 | Tree ID: 248472317 Thu, Apr 15, 2010, 13:14 |
Marine's anti-Obama Facebook comments fuel debate The local American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement Wednesday that it has sent a letter to Camp Pendleton's commanding officer urging the Marine Corps to protect Sgt. Gary Stein's right to freedom of speech. | ||||||
| 95 | Perm Dude ID: 5510572522 Thu, Apr 15, 2010, 13:18 |
He's absolutely got the right to free speech. But Obama is his boss and to take off on your boss there is likely to be repercussions. Free speech doesn't mean there are no costs. | ||||||
| 96 | Razor ID: 57854118 Thu, Apr 15, 2010, 13:20 | The right to free speech does not protect en employee from consequences resulting from him speaking against his employer. If I call my boss a shithead on Facebook, I'd expect that it would not be taken lightly by my corporation, if they found out. | ||||||
| 97 | Tree ID: 248472317 Thu, Apr 15, 2010, 13:37 |
absolutely. for me, the relative issue was the ACLU protecting the freedoms of the Marine in question. Since many on the Right feel the need to bash the ACLU for simply existing, i thought it was important to post an instance where they are defending the rights of someone to criticize Obama. (although i'm sure someone will claim this is part of the the Ron Howard-Jeremy Piven strategy, or whatever it's called) | ||||||
| 98 | DWetzel ID: 33337117 Thu, Apr 15, 2010, 13:42 |
"(although i'm sure someone will claim this is part of the the Ron Howard-Jeremy Piven strategy, or whatever it's called) " For the record, please don't type stuff like that when I'm drinking Diet Coke. It burns when spewed out the nose. | ||||||
| 99 | Tree ID: 248472317 Thu, Apr 15, 2010, 13:52 | we could alternately call it the Howard-Piven Strategy, or the Ron-Jeremy Strategy, since you're getting hosed big-time if you actually believe this is what is going on right now. | ||||||
| 100 | astade Sustainer ID: 214361313 Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 00:46 |
If his opinions are regarding health care reform I don't see it as a big issue. It would be another thing if he was criticizing military deployment/strategy...something that is close to his line of work. Additionally, if a government employee couldn't voice their opinion about any stance of Obama's then we'd have a significant US population that was stifled (since we have big government). | ||||||
| 101 | Perm Dude ID: 5510572522 Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 00:57 |
That's largely true. But a military person trades away a lot of political speech when they sign up. When the guy (the organizer of the Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots) says: "My oath was to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and that oath will be kept. I won't "Just follow" orders. There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But many others do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution and to the people..." He's treading very close to the line. | ||||||
| 102 | astade Sustainer ID: 214361313 Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 01:23 |
RE: 101 I can't disagree with that. I hadn't seen that quote, but I agree that there is a fine line and being dissident can come with a price. | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: | ||||||||