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.
The ACLU has always been, and still is a real mixed bag. They do indeed provide support to the unpopular and even loathsome views (such as NAMBLA after two of their members raped and murdered a 12 year old boy), and once in a while they get it right.
But they are not a non partisan org, and never have been, so the people that support the ACLU 100% need to at least admit that.
The ACLU openly supports racial preferences in society, and openly ignores the 2nd amendment, as they state they disagree with it.
They also get real soft on religion, (other than christianity), in particular islam.
At this rate, I wouldn't be surprise if the ACLU have also offshore money like the SPLC did. C-D have a thread about it.
The ACLU has always been, and still is a real mixed bag. They do indeed provide support to the unpopular and even loathsome views (such as legally defending NAMBLA after two of their pedo members raped and murdered a 12 year old boy), and once in a while they get it right.
But they are not a non partisan org, and never have been, so the people that support the ACLU 100% need to at least admit that.
The ACLU openly supports racial preferences in society, and openly ignores the 2nd amendment, as they state they disagree with it.
They also get real soft on religion, (other than christianity), in particular islam.
Yes, even child rapists need a defense. Without one, we are just sentencing people to prison based on accusations, which, kind-of sucks for the few that are innocent. All we can do is hope the guilty ones get sentenced for a long time. Those guys don't do too well in prison.
NAMBLA and Neo-Nazis are similar types of people, but it is one thing to have deranged ideas, which is legal, and acting on them, which is not. We cant be arresting people for their thoughts. Talk about a slippery slope.
I haven't studied the ACLU the way you have. It is made up of far-left, ultra-liberal lawyers, so the hypocrisy you are describing doesn't come as a shock to me. But when it comes to the 1st amendment, they usually get it right.
The liberals are upset that the truth is leaking out.
They also want to protect rioters from consequences of their crimes.
Most cities are giving blanket immunity to the rioters, looters and arsonists. However the ACLU being a far left, activist organization will do anything they can to support subversive, anti American activity, including censorship and violating the First Amendment. Ironic, as I thought their exact purpose was to protect people's Constitutional Rights. Ever see them support the Second Amendment? LOL! No!
Most cities are giving blanket immunity to the rioters, looters and arsonists. However the ACLU being a far left, activist organization will do anything they can to support subversive, anti American activity, including censorship and violating the First Amendment. Ironic, as I thought their exact purpose was to protect people's Constitutional Rights. Ever see them support the Second Amendment? LOL! No!
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think this is a first amendment issue. It is a right to privacy issue, which is a bill of rights issue. But as has been stated multiple times, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public street.
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think this is a first amendment issue. It is a right to privacy issue, which is a bill of rights issue. But as has been stated multiple times, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public street.
Yes, there is no right to privacy on a public street.
This is about the Democrats realizing that their lies and propaganda supported by the mainstream media about peaceful protests is falling apart.
Democrats wanted their brown shirt thugs to feel as if they had free reign to do as they pleased, because orange man bad.
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think this is a first amendment issue. It is a right to privacy issue, which is a bill of rights issue. But as has been stated multiple times, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public street.
I'm not either, but the irony, no matter what amendment it is violating is conspicuous.
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.
