Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It’s called a precedent. In the particular case, if the Free Speech right was lost then it would have sent a precedent that any group who allows a forum for people to express their ideas is responsible if any of their members commits a crime related to those ideas. Protected only if those ideas and expressions do not present a clear and present danger to a particular victim (that is a victim you can identify, not generalize).
Don’t just read one group you despise into that, it applies to all groups. Whether it is a church, a 2nd amendment rights group, an anti-immigrant group, an anti-abortion group, a pro-(insert race here) group, et al. All are protected in their ideas. You cant just say no, we wont fight for this right for this group because we don’t believe in the group or its message but that you fight for the general right to express ideas. Otherwise you run the risk of slowly eroding those rights because you chose only to defend them for “safe” groups.
If your post is descriptive of the NAMBLA website, I'm not sure that you are clear on what their goals are. There are times when the obvious criminal intent of a group must be weighed against their right to promulgate that intent through protected speech.
Conversely, I guess I would have to ask what it is about Santa Claus that poses a clear and present danger to anyone, and why the ACLU feels compelled to remove Christmas, and the secular symbols which accompany it, from public discourse.
The salt reference is actually an old line from Mad magazine (Kurtzman era).
See, my mother never let me have MAD magazine. She thought it "coarse." Imagine that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Have a good evening, counselor. Try to practice a little virtue. Leges sine moribus vanae, you know.
Not a counselor yet, as scores and background checks haven't come back from the BAR. Ya know, gotta make sure my "moribus" is good enough to be a lawyer! (HAHAHAHA).
Yeledaf, your description of the ACLU applies in many areas. Don't criminals sleep better at night knowing they will have to be tried and found guilty before they are sentenced? That's the funny thing about basic constitutional protections -- they apply to everyone even the odious. All reputable lawyers, be they conservative or liberal will tell you that. As for cherry picking, its good that the ACLU does not seem to do that. Today one group may be favored in society and tomorrow it may be someone else. Yet we can depend on the continuance of the rule of law.
And the ACLU did certainly have a hand in preserving some basic freedoms for all Americans, not just those you consider beloved.
Yeledaf, your description of the ACLU applies in many areas. Don't criminals sleep better at night knowing they will have to be tried and found guilty before they are sentenced? That's the funny thing about basic constitutional protections -- they apply to everyone even the odious. All reputable lawyers, be they conservative or liberal will tell you that. As for cherry picking, its good that the ACLU does not seem to do that. Today one group may be favored in society and tomorrow it may be someone else. Yet we can depend on the continuance of the rule of law.
And the ACLU did certainly have a hand in preserving some basic freedoms for all Americans, not just those you consider beloved.
In no post have I advocated denying anyone his basic constitutional rights. But it is undeniable that the ACLU's main contemporary focus is on uprooting our cultural heritage and aiding the spread of voices and sentiments which are inimical to an ethical and cultivated society.
In no post have I advocated denying anyone his basic constitutional rights. But it is undeniable that the ACLU's main contemporary focus is on uprooting our cultural heritage and aiding the spread of voices and sentiments which are inimical to an ethical and cultivated society.
That's like saying that the main intention of criminal defense attorneys is to foster lawlessness in the US. People have all types of views of cultural heritage but to live in a pluralistic society means rights must be allowed to all; even those people and groups considered marginal. 'Freedom and justice for all' (which was written by a socialist) is the highest aim of an ethical and cultivated society.
That's like saying that the main intention of criminal defense attorneys is to foster lawlessness in the US. People have all types of views of cultural heritage but to live in a pluralistic society means rights must be allowed to all; even those people and groups considered marginal. 'Freedom and justice for all' (which was written by a socialist) is the highest aim of an ethical and cultivated society.
I don't find your comparison analogous at all, though I hasten to add that the work of many criminal defense attorneys has indeed been, in effect, to foster lawlessness.
Your reference to cultural pluralism and freedom and justice for all (North Korea calls itself a Peoples Democratic Republic, so I would lighten up on the socialist references a bit, were I you) does nothing to address my citing of the ACLU's ongoing efforts to strip away the cultural heritage of the United States, which expresses itself through secular figures like Santa Claus and secular holidays like Christmas.
If your post is descriptive of the NAMBLA website, I'm not sure that you are clear on what their goals are. There are times when the obvious criminal intent of a group must be weighed against their right to promulgate that intent through protected speech.
The goals are not an issue but an ability to express those goals is. I’m not entirely 100% sure on what their goals are and I don’t care to know, but their right to express them is guaranteed no matter how I, you, or anyone else feels about it. Even if you feel it is criminal, it is protected unless the clear and present danger exceptions exist. Very similar to pro-marijuana advocates who advise on how to grow or transport pot. They are protected but those who act or commit the act are not. Yes, I know there is a difference between a joint and a young boy, but generally speaking, there is no difference between the freedoms to express those viewpoints. It is the illegal act that doesn’t enjoy the protections. That is what people who are inimical to the ACLU fail to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Conversely, I guess I would have to ask what it is about Santa Claus that poses a clear and present danger to anyone, and why the ACLU feels compelled to remove Christmas, and the secular symbols which accompany it, from public discourse.
Comparing apples to oranges. We can discuss the other case because we have a wealth of information and details, now you’re not referring to any specific case where we can discuss the merits of the complaint that brought any ACLU action when requested by a citizen. Also, the clear and present danger is an exception to the Freedom of Speech right. That is completely different than the religious clauses of the first amendment.
However, in general I don’t care about the holidays but I do see a difference when some people or groups try to use the holiday as a ruse to push their religious ideas or agenda onto children who are not their own through government agencies (schools, city government, etc...).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
