The Bobcat Nation

The ACLU Exposed

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

By Bill O'Reilly



The ACLU exposed: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".

Last night, we reported that the Supreme Court of Oregon had ruled 5 to 1 that live sex shows are permitted in that state under the freedom of expression banner. The ACLU and The Oregonian newspaper both filed briefs in favor of that ruling. But why would the ACLU do that? What's in it for them?

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that states and local communities have the right to limit expression. This is the U.S. Supreme court, in a time, place, and manner, application of standards. That is, you can't have sex on your front lawn, even if it's a personal expression on private property. The Supreme Court realizes the Constitution requires boundaries for what Americans do. If you don't have boundaries, you have chaos. Thus, community standards and public safety trump personal expression.

But the ACLU doesn't believe that. The organization has moved so far left, that now anything goes.

• Item: The ACLU is defending the North American Man Boy Love Association, saying that although the organization champions the criminal rape of children, it has a right to do that under free expression.

• Item: The ACLU endorses virtual child pornography and has defended the right of people to obtain real child porn.

• Item: the ACLU opposed the Minutemen protests at the border, obviously, a legitimate form of expression.

So it seems the ACLU cherry picks its cases. The Minutemen certainly have a right to protest the porous border situation, but the ACLU opposes that expression. — Off the chart hypocritical.

So let's apply the no spin concept to this. The ACLU simply wants a different country, a nation where conduct it approves of, public sexual displays, child molestation literature is allowed. But the ACLU wants to inhibit conduct it disagrees with, like protesting the border and celebrating the birth of Jesus. That's what's going on.

Now my next comments are directed at our liberal viewers. How can you support a group as nakedly, pardon the pun, radical as the ACLU? This isn't about freedom. This is about imposing a radical secular progressive agenda on a country that has traditionally voted on public policy issues. If the live sex act initiative was put on the Oregon ballot, it'd be voted down big. Remember, Oregonians voted against gay marriage.

So once again, the ACLU is using an activist court to undermine what the folks want. This isn't democracy. This is judicial fascism.

It's also a joke. The founding fathers didn't write the First Amendment with live sex shows in mind, OK? Everybody understand that? You can easily pervert the Constitution by saying every kind of expression is protected, but again, that would lead to chaos and conflict.

"Talking Points" believes the 400,000 members of the ACLU should wake up and smell the totalitarianism. This organization is bent on undermining freedom, not fighting for it. And everybody should understand that.

And that's "The Memo."

How exactly did the ACLU oppose a minuteman protest at the border? I hate to be skeptical of Bill's ulterior motive, but I suspect that the ACLU has been very consistent on First Amendment issues (always in favor of more than less freedom of speech), and it is Bill who is the hypocrite with an agenda. Nothing like loosely paraphrasing a bunch of legal briefs out of context to try to scapegoat an organization out of blind partisanship. We just don't see quite enough of that sort of thing.

And just for the record, I suspect that Ben Franklin would have been in favor of live sex shows (and we know for a fact that Bill himself is a sex fiend, so the fact that he is bringing this up is really ironic) ... but who are we to try to speculate what the founding fathers would have liked or disliked. That's not really how the Constitution works ... unless one is a big believer in seances. In which case, we should just conjure up Thomas Jefferson's spirit as the new justice on the Supreme Court.

Ah, here's what he was talking about ... and his analysis of it isn't even close to reality, as per usual. I even pulled this link from a right-wing site, and it even manages to get the facts right. The ACLU is monitoring the vigilante guards at the border to make sure that no abuses of illegals occurs -- very different from being "opposed to a protest" or trying to limit anyone's freedom of speech in any way, shape or form.

Once again, Bill is full of himself and very little truth. The ACLU has consistently been in favor of free speech, regardless of whether the speech is that which they agree with (see previous discussions of their positions supporting the right to racist speech, even though it is unlikely they are themselves racists).

Their role in society is to many of our civil liberties what the NRA is to the second amendment. They are advocates for the rights -- not necessarily supporters of the people who use those rights in ways that aren't in the best interest of society. And we are lucky to have them both. Were it not for groups like them, we would have lost most of our civil liberties and gun rights long ago. Yes, both come out in support of positions that sound a little goofy at times, but that's because they don't have the luxury of picking and choosing the particular issue based on what looks good in the paper -- they support the underlying principle of freedom regardless of who's freedom it is they are defending, and they both take a lot of flack for that (strangely from polar opposites of the political spectrum).

However, it's easy for their detractors to take shots at them in the way that Bill did above, with 10,000 foot biased explanations of their positions and rationale for doing what they do with not even the slightest intellectual curiosity as to the underlying issues. Apparently Bill has no understanding of the ideas of precedents, and that if the ACLU wasn't fighting for free speech on behalf of something he doesn't care for, it just could be saving him from getting banned in an area where he is considered obscene (and there are areas where that would happen if the far left was as taken with censorship and oppression as some on the right).

But, he has to make a living by feeding his viewers what they want to hear, and try to make them feel like they are right about something. And with the shrinking list of things that Fox viewers can pat themselves on the back about these days, I guess the ACLU is just a good whipping boy for a desperation rant. Fortunately for all of us, the ACLU and the NRA aren't out to win popularity contests among the people who have chosen to hate them out of political loyalty, and therefore they are able to do what they set out to do -- serve as advocates for freedoms set out in our Constitution, regardless of political affiliation.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43220

Bay Area Cat wrote:How exactly did the ACLU oppose a minuteman protest at the border? I hate to be skeptical of Bill's ulterior motive, but I suspect that the ACLU has been very consistent on First Amendment issues (always in favor of more than less freedom of speech), and it is Bill who is the hypocrite with an agenda. Nothing like loosely paraphrasing a bunch of legal briefs out of context to try to scapegoat an organization out of blind partisanship. We just don't see quite enough of that sort of thing.

And just for the record, I suspect that Ben Franklin would have been in favor of live sex shows (and we know for a fact that Bill himself is a sex fiend, so the fact that he is bringing this up is really ironic) ... but who are we to try to speculate what the founding fathers would have liked or disliked. That's not really how the Constitution works ... unless one is a big believer in seances. In which case, we should just conjure up Thomas Jefferson's spirit as the new justice on the Supreme Court.

You have gotta be kidding me BAC!! I don't know if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing but I think you're missing the bold faced point here. These sickos defend NAMBLA yet they will go out of their way to file lawsuits to prevent something as harmless as prayer in school or wherever or maybe even protests at the border. These idiots think Michael Newdow is a god because of his quest to make everything this country was founded on have an atheistic element despite the fact that those brilliant framers of our Constitution were God fearing men.

As for the Minutemen, IF they protested their presence under ANY circumstance, they are no more hypocritical than the aforementioned conservative you're blasting in your post.

Wake up BAC, there's a common theme these losers at the ACLU are supporting and that's the decay of what little morality this society has any more these days.

You've imbibed too much of the SF coolaid rhetoric from Newsom, Pelosi, and the other ilk that city unfortunately represents.

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:How exactly did the ACLU oppose a minuteman protest at the border? I hate to be skeptical of Bill's ulterior motive, but I suspect that the ACLU has been very consistent on First Amendment issues (always in favor of more than less freedom of speech), and it is Bill who is the hypocrite with an agenda. Nothing like loosely paraphrasing a bunch of legal briefs out of context to try to scapegoat an organization out of blind partisanship. We just don't see quite enough of that sort of thing.

And just for the record, I suspect that Ben Franklin would have been in favor of live sex shows (and we know for a fact that Bill himself is a sex fiend, so the fact that he is bringing this up is really ironic) ... but who are we to try to speculate what the founding fathers would have liked or disliked. That's not really how the Constitution works ... unless one is a big believer in seances. In which case, we should just conjure up Thomas Jefferson's spirit as the new justice on the Supreme Court.

You have gotta be kidding me BAC!! I don't know if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing but I think you're missing the bold faced point here. These sickos defend NAMBLA yet they will go out of their way to file lawsuits to prevent something as harmless as prayer in school or wherever.

As for the Minutemen, IF they protested their presence under ANY circumstance, they are no more hypocritical than the aforementioned conservative you're blasting in your post.

Wake up BAC, there's a common theme these losers at the ACLU are supporting and that's the decay of what little morality this society has any more these days.

You've imbibed too much of the SF coolaid rhetoric from Newsom, Pelosi, and the other ilk that city unfortunately represents.

Koolaid. How appropriate that you bring that up....

Read the NAMBLA case and the ACLU brief. They weren't defending the ideas of the organization (contrary to what Bill and now you also claim), they were opposed to attaching liability to NAMBLA for a crime that some people committed that was supposedly influenced by their philosophy. That's the important part -- the underlying legal principal.

Had that case been successful (a tort attorney's wet dream, incidentally, as it would have set a precedent that would have made virtually any connection between a crime and someone else's speech a litigious opportunity), it would have sent a chill up and down the spines of all organizations. Suddenly, a church could be liable if a person, inspired by a sermon, murdered someone they considered evil. Is that what you want? Nobody "supported" NAMBLA in terms of their views, the issue at hand was whether they were liable for crimes others commited.

Does what I was saying now make more sense and show how silly so many of these arguments against the ACLU are, or are we so intellectually lazy that we would rather just react emotionally to every court case, regardless of the larger legal implications, and establish random precedents all over the place in an effort to punish "icky" stuff, even if it changed the law so much that it then started to threaten stuff we don't think is "icky?"

The ACLU and morality have nothing to do with each other -- they are simply proponents of freedom. If you think that freedom is immoral and that government should tell you what you can and cannot say, then that's fine -- some people feel that way. Just don't tell me that I don't get it when your source is Bill O'Reilly and mine is a lot of reading about the issues themselves.

And for the millionth time, prayer is still very much allowed in schools, and everywhere else. Not allowing someone to force someone else to pray is NOT the same thing as not allowing a person to pray when they want to pray. I know that point gets lost very easily in the propoganda talking points, but it is still very true.

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Koolaid. How appropriate that you bring that up....

Read the NAMBLA case and the ACLU brief. They weren't defending the ideas of the organization (contrary to what Bill and now you also claim), they were opposed to attaching liability to NAMBLA for a crime that some people committed that was supposedly influenced by their philosophy. That's the important part -- the principal.

Had that case been successful (a tort attorney's wet dream, incidentally, as it would have set a precedent that would have made virtually any connection between a crime and someone else's speech a litigious opportunity), it would have sent a chill up and down the spines of all organizations. Suddenly, a church could be liable if a person, inspired by a sermon, murdered someone they considered evil. Is that what you want? Nobody "supported" NAMBLA in terms of their views, the issue at hand was whether they were liable for crimes others commited.

Does what I was saying now make more sense and show how silly so many of these arguments against the ACLU are, or are we so intellectually lazy that we would rather just react emotionally to every court case, regardless of the larger legal implications, and establish random precedents all over the place in an effort to punish "icky" stuff, even if it changed the law so much that it then started to threaten stuff we don't think is "icky?"

The ACLU and morality have nothing to do with each other -- they are simply proponents of freedom. If you think that freedom is immoral and that government should tell you what you can and cannot say, then that's fine -- some people feel that way. Just don't tell me that I don't get it when your source is Bill O'Reilly and mine is a lot of reading about the issues themselves.

Yes, I have read the case and their brief. In light of the Constitution, their consistency is the ONLY thing that is respectable. What you fail to mention is the track record they have regarding who they support and stand up for. You never see them representing organizations who represent the polar opposite of what groups like NAMBLA or Michael Newdow represent.

Contrary to your all-knowing ASSumptions and assertions, Bill O'Reilly wasn't my source for that and he never really has been a person whose work I read at all. Thanks for automatically assuming otherwise though. Guess you had to "get me back" for my blanket statement about the SF coolaid you drink right?

As for the being intellectually lazy, who the f**k are you try and pull that condescending bs? Has your exposure to your demographics left you with a feeling that you all of a sudden have intellectual superiority over those who are on the opposite side of what case you're trying to make and don't happen to live near that "progressive" place known as SF?

Consistency with the Constitution and its words are only the greatest. HOwever, I'm inclined to believe that Madison, Jefferson, et al are rolling in their graves that something as sick and disgusting as NAMBLA would ever be defended under any circumstance.

You take the intellectual high ground on this argument and assume that I'm being "intellectually lazy". I take the argument that though there is merit in defending the words of the document, it certainly was never framed to deal with this type of crap that is, in some aspect, ruining the moral fabric of this society.

Yes, they do represent people on the other end of the spectrum. Like Rush Limbaugh, as was pointed out the last time we had this conversation. And if you read their website, they clearly lay out their fundamental principles that include defending all speech, even race hate speech. The lefties hate them for that, incidentally.

As to what prompted the intellectually lazy comment, I was basing it on your own words, which were obsessed with the nature of NAMBLA, even though you now say that you realize that the case had nothing to do with defending them on character, but only on legal principles. That was the ONLY basis upon which they were defended.

You also did no research on the border thing, but obviously relied on Bill's word for it -- that was the strong basis upon which I drew that conclusion.

You also blasted the people in the ACLU as being "losers" and "idiots" when speaking of court cases while ignoring the underlying legal arguments, so it lead me to believe that you hadn't done any reading on the case, which would be consistent with nearly all of the 100,000 or so times I have heard this case referenced by people who got their info directly from conservative pundits (who ironically probably DO know that the ACLU's position in the case is actually consistent with their own legal philosophies regarding liabilty and tort reform). Had I thought you had read the case, I would have thought you would have posted something with a bit more substance and nuance. If you are not intellectually lazy and did have more knowledge on the topic than you posted, then the comment didn't apply to you (and I was out of line for reading too much into your post). I said "we" in a rhetorical sense for a reason ... those who it applied to know who they are, and they are the only ones who know who they are, as I don't know what individuals are basing their opinions on until they tell me.

So after all of this, we seem to agree -- the ACLU is consistent in defending the freedom of speech. Am I right in reading that you think a caveat should be carved out against speech we find disagreeable, however? In which case, as I suggested earlier, should "progressive" places like the Bay Area be able to ban conservative speech?

I don't believe so. I think all speech should be protected against government censorship, no matter how much I dislike it. However, when the words turn into actions, then the punishment should be firm and appropriate (as was the case for the guys who actually perpetrated the crime in the NAMBLA-related incident).

I will wait for the usual suspects to opine that you "went too far" in implying the f-word in your response to me (although they won't for partisan reasons ), although I personally think it is fine -- I know where you were coming from all too well.

And just for "shoe on the other foot" purposes, read your initial post to me, and tell me whether or not there is any hint of condescension in it, 'kay?

And to work past the "ick" factor of the whole NAMBLA thing, let's put things into perspective.

Let's say a member of NAMBLA has a past misdemeanor conviction of peeping (whatever the legal term for that might be), and subsequently legally buys a gun and proceeds to shoot somebody in cold blood.

Whiny evil liberals see this as their opportunity for gun control, and pretend to be outraged that this guy was able to buy a gun with a criminal record, and proceed to draft legislation that bans gun ownership for all people with past criminal convictions, including misdemeanors. First this, they tell themselves, and then a total ban on guns will be even easier down the road.

You are the President of the NRA. Do you oppose this legislation and, quite literally, defend the right of a NAMBLA member to own a gun? Or do you shy away from the potential bad press and scorn and turn away and allow everyone with an MIP or dog leash violation lose their right to bear arms. What do you do?

And yes, this is EXACTLY the same scenario as the ACLU case, just with a quick Bizarroworld twist. So what is more important, defending the underlying freedom, or getting hung up on whatever personal views the targeted party holds?

I know where you were coming from all too well.

Oh, pray tell, how so?

And just for "shoe on the other foot" purposes, read your initial post to me, and tell me whether or not there is any hint of condescension in it, 'kay?

I guess if you said so, you're right huh? Keep reinforcing what I said before oh Mr. I'm So Well Read. If you find condescension in my disagreement, maybe you want to revisit one of your prior comments about reading into things too much.

Consistency seems to be the only thing we agree on. Since you're such a self-described well read type, how about you access the NAMBLA site and tell me how any self-respecting human being could defend these people and those who support them.

The only thing NAMBLA didn't do was actually perpetrate the act against the said victim. What you fail to realize is that despite that indirect element, what they advocate and support is generally regarded as a felony last time I checked. Maybe I'm a little off on that statement, but it's a real shame that a technicality would exonerate such a group who condones the activity.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you've already countered with your Voltaire-like words that you may not agree with someone but you'll defend until death their right to say it.

Go ahead and say it BAC....."I disagree with NAMBLA's philosophy on RAPING little boys, but I fully support NAMBLA's right to ADVOCATE the raping of boys by men.

Yeah, I know TJ, Hamilton, and the rest would really support something like that simply on account that it protects freedom of speech.

In the legal sense, you're absolutely right in your argument BAC. In the same manner, I fully agree.

You can attack O'Reilly all you want and bunch conservatives in the same capacity, but does it really pain you to consider the argument from the moral sense of things?

As I said, they are but another example of why the moral fabric of our society has gone to hell.

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:Oh, pray tell, how so?

Ummm, you must have missed that thread. I got in trouble for dropping an f-bomb once when I was pissed at someone I thought was being condescending towards me.

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:I guess if you said so, you're right huh? Keep reinforcing what I said before oh Mr. I'm So Well Read. If you find condescension in my disagreement, maybe you want to revisit one of your prior comments about reading into things too much.

I'm scratching my head over this one. You don't think your post was the least bit condescending? The phrases "You've got to be kidding," "Wake up" and something about "imbibing too much coolaid" aren't exactly respectful responses one would find in a casual conversation about issues of the day. I didn't take offense to them, but I just thought it was kind of funny that you took such offense to me so soon after you essentially did the same thing to me. Like I said, it was just a shoe on the other foot thing.

However, like I said, I understand how one can get pissed in a situation like that because I've done it before too.

Bay Area Cat wrote:And to work past the "ick" factor of the whole NAMBLA thing, let's put things into perspective.

Let's say a member of NAMBLA has a past misdemeanor conviction of peeping (whatever the legal term for that might be), and subsequently legally buys a gun and proceeds to shoot somebody in cold blood.

Whiny evil liberals see this as their opportunity for gun control, and pretend to be outraged that this guy was able to buy a gun with a criminal record, and proceed to draft legislation that bans gun ownership for all people with past criminal convictions, including misdemeanors. First this, they tell themselves, and then a total ban on guns will be even easier down the road.

You are the President of the NRA. Do you oppose this legislation and, quite literally, defend the right of a NAMBLA member to own a gun? Or do you shy away from the potential bad press and scorn and turn away and allow everyone with an MIP or dog leash violation lose their right to bear arms. What do you do?

And yes, this is EXACTLY the same scenario as the ACLU case, just with a quick Bizarroworld twist. So what is more important, defending the underlying freedom, or getting hung up on whatever personal views the targeted party holds?

Hasn't that been rehashed before where the gun maker is implicated as an "accomplice" to the person that actually performed the crime?

Yes, in the legal sense, you will defend that member's right to own a gun regardless of his sick affiliations. However, it's convenient you insert the fact that this person is a NAMBLA member. What if he were a member of the KKK? Since we'd all be exposed to this scenario via the press, there's a strong possibility that this person's affiliation with NAMBLA wouldn't be under as much scrutiny versus whether the person was a KKK member.

If I were the NRA president, I'd defend the guy's right to own a gun and I'd be adamantly opposed to those "whiny liberals" who would subsequently draft legislation to ban gun ownership.

However, peeping isn't exactly in the realm of a dog leash infraction or getting busted on your 19th birthday for drinking beer. Peeping generally carries a stigma that is viewed as much less favorable than the latter two.

I guess my point is that I don't fully see your example as having a huge amount of similarity despite your Bizarroworld twist. You made a scenario that is totally subject to interpretation. What were the motives of the killing; who sold him the gun and under what means did he use to obtain it?

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:

You can attack O'Reilly all you want and bunch conservatives in the same capacity, but does it really pain you to consider the argument from the moral sense of things?

I am happy to discuss morals in a conversation about morals. However, in this particular conversation about law and legal precedents, morals are not a factor. As I've debated above, substituting a moral argument in the place of a sound legal argument in this case would give us an awful legal result (for both moral and immoral people).

The only reason morals are associated with this case is for purely partisan reasons -- it is something promoted by the right to discredit the ACLU as it appears sensational on the surface. The pundits are hoping that people don't dig deeper and figure the real issues behind the case, which have nothing at all to do with whether or not someone condones raping boys (which I don't, by the way).

Bay Area Cat wrote:

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:Oh, pray tell, how so?

Ummm, you must have missed that thread. I got in trouble for dropping an f-bomb once when I was pissed at someone I thought was being condescending towards me.

Well I guess since you're a mod you're left with the decision about what to do then right?

If you weren't trying to be condescending when you broke out your "intellectually lazy" quip, then I'm hardpressed to see that. Of course, this is a message board so some things are difficult to figure out in that regard. My response wasn't knee jerk by any means.

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:And to work past the "ick" factor of the whole NAMBLA thing, let's put things into perspective.

Let's say a member of NAMBLA has a past misdemeanor conviction of peeping (whatever the legal term for that might be), and subsequently legally buys a gun and proceeds to shoot somebody in cold blood.

Whiny evil liberals see this as their opportunity for gun control, and pretend to be outraged that this guy was able to buy a gun with a criminal record, and proceed to draft legislation that bans gun ownership for all people with past criminal convictions, including misdemeanors. First this, they tell themselves, and then a total ban on guns will be even easier down the road.

You are the President of the NRA. Do you oppose this legislation and, quite literally, defend the right of a NAMBLA member to own a gun? Or do you shy away from the potential bad press and scorn and turn away and allow everyone with an MIP or dog leash violation lose their right to bear arms. What do you do?

And yes, this is EXACTLY the same scenario as the ACLU case, just with a quick Bizarroworld twist. So what is more important, defending the underlying freedom, or getting hung up on whatever personal views the targeted party holds?

Hasn't that been rehashed before where the gun maker is implicated as an "accomplice" to the person that actually performed the crime?

Yes, in the legal sense, you will defend that member's right to own a gun regardless of his sick affiliations. However, it's convenient you insert the fact that this person is a NAMBLA member. What if he were a member of the KKK? Since we'd all be exposed to this scenario via the press, there's a strong possibility that this person's affiliation with NAMBLA wouldn't be under as much scrutiny versus whether the person was a KKK member.

If I were the NRA president, I'd defend the guy's right to own a gun and I'd be adamantly opposed to those "whiny liberals" who would subsequently draft legislation to ban gun ownership.

However, peeping isn't exactly in the realm of a dog leash infraction or getting busted on your 19th birthday for drinking beer. Peeping generally carries a stigma that is viewed as much less favorable than the latter two.

I guess my point is that I don't fully see your example as having a huge amount of similarity despite your Bizarroworld twist. You made a scenario that is totally subject to interpretation. What were the motives of the killing; who sold him the gun and under what means did he use to obtain it?

I agree that your thinking is correct in terms of the real legal questions. However, because you as the NRA President defended the rights of a NAMBLA member, (to further the Bizarroworld scene and assume that all pundits are now liberals), your organization is being smeared on every message board and talk show station in America as being supportive of people who rape boys, and people are calling you a loser and an idiot without ever hearing your very logical legal and philosophical questions and arguments. None of that matters to them -- you support boy rapers. That's the power of intellectual dishonesty (in the hands of biased media outlets)

That's exactly what happened to the ACLU in the real life case.

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:Oh, pray tell, how so?

Ummm, you must have missed that thread. I got in trouble for dropping an f-bomb once when I was pissed at someone I thought was being condescending towards me.

Well I guess since you're a mod you're left with the decision about what to do then right?

If you weren't trying to be condescending when you broke out your "intellectually lazy" quip, then I'm hardpressed to see that. Of course, this is a message board so some things are difficult to figure out in that regard. My response wasn't knee jerk by any means.

Like I said -- I don't care about the f-bomb thing at all. I understand why you said it, and I frankly agree with you. I only mentioned it more as an inside joke referring back to past discussions on other threads where I was the one who did it. Sorry about creating the confusion on that.

By the way, thanks, Rebecca for bringing up this topic again. You just knew I wouldn't be able to maintain silence, didn't you?

And now D is going to be mad at me because I still haven't left here for her place.... I'm going to tell her it was your fault.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:

You can attack O'Reilly all you want and bunch conservatives in the same capacity, but does it really pain you to consider the argument from the moral sense of things?

I am happy to discuss morals in a conversation about morals. However, in this particular conversation about law and legal precedents, morals are not a factor. As I've debated above, substituting a moral argument in the place of a sound legal argument in this case would give us an awful legal result (for both moral and immoral people).

The only reason morals are associated with this case is for purely partisan reasons -- it is something promoted by the right to discredit the ACLU as it appears sensational on the surface. The pundits are hoping that people don't dig deeper and figure the real issues behind the case, which have nothing at all to do with whether or not someone condones raping boys (which I don't, by the way).

You think this is a partisan thing in terms of invoking the moral issue? This isn't about partisan politics, it's about decency and a slap to the face of what the Constitution most likely originally intended

I guess where our differences lie is that I don't think the original framers had in mind that the 1st amendment would someday extend to a group of people who advocate and condone this crap against helpless young boys. Do you honestly think that when the Bill of Rights was written, that group of men had this kind of thing envisioned?

Regardless of the subject, there's great principle in consistency. Unfortunately, there are people and groups who take advantage of it with the most outlandish of arguments and beliefs.

When you incite violence or advocate any type of threat you can get in trouble for it. How can NAMBLA and their well known views get away with a philosophy and set of beliefs that are, in essence, felonies in the court of law?

Bay Area Cat wrote:By the way, thanks, Rebecca for bringing up this topic again. You just knew I wouldn't be able to maintain silence, didn't you?

And now D is going to be mad at me because I still haven't left here for her place.... I'm going to tell her it was your fault.

I'll end my posting on this subject tonight. I know you'll be back to comment later, but if I were a bettin' man, I'd bet that you would be in less trouble the sooner you get over to where you're supposed to be

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:I guess where our differences lie is that I don't think the original framers had in mind that the 1st amendment would someday extend to a group of people who advocate and condone this crap against helpless young boys. Do you honestly think that when the Bill of Rights was written, that group of men had this kind of thing envisioned?

To answer the easy question, no, I'm sure TJ, JM and crew did not envision the creation of NAMBLA (and frankly, it's shocking that a group so small gets as much press as it does even today).

However, in our legal system, you can't let cases against unpopular freaks be decided with bad law (out of pure dislike of the defendent) for a couple reasons. First, justice is supposed to be blind. Second, and more importantly to us pragmatists, each case establishes and defines our law. If you decide a case out of spite against a group that you happen to find repulsive, that same precedent will then be applied in the next case.

Clearly, we don't want to live in a world where Stephen King is liable if a kid reads one of his books and decides to kill someone (which actually did happen ... geographically very close to me when I was in high school). We also don't want churches liable if one of their own goes haywire and goes on a religion-induced shooting spree of sinners.

If people became legally liable for the crimes of others because of their speech, that would, in effect, limit everyone's freedom of speech. And you know damn well that cases would be flying all over the place trying to connect crimes to someone else's speech to find deep pockets and push off accountability to others.

So again, I know the NAMBLA is sensational, but it has nothing to do with the heart of the issue. The ACLU was not defending NAMBLA because they felt as though NAMBLA's philosophy as an organization was worth defending. They were defending freedom of speech in general because nobody else had the balls to defend it because the defendent happened to be NAMBLA. If the defendent had been somebody less repulsive, they would have defended them as well ... of course, so would have most everyone else, because absent the "ick" factor of NAMBLA, few people would agree with the merits of the case against the defendent as the law of the land.