The ACLU comes to Rush Limbaugh's defense

[CShine 0]

Who woulda thunk it?

[TitanTiger 20,542]

Excuse me for a sec. I need to store up some canned goods and bottled water for the coming of the Apocalypse.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I heard abt ten minutes of Rush talking abt this today - he said it shocked him as much as it did anyone!!!

[MDM4AU 336]

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!

Officials confirm that Hell, in fact, froze over on Monday! Details tonight at 10.

[Tiger Al 0]

I've told you folks before that the ACLU is a proponent of civil liberty's for everyone. Oddly enough, many conservatives who love to bash the ACLU don't know that they also took up the cause of a young radio talk show host in Santa Barbara in the late eighties who had been wrongly terminated by his station. That young radio hosts name...Sean Hannity. And, my oh my, how he loves to knock the ACLU every chance he gets. He even knocked the very chapter who got his job back for him.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

Well, Al, it seems so few and far between. So often, I'm baffled at the cases they choose to fight and those they ignore. More often than not, it seems that the cases that further or support a more leftist ideology or agenda get picked up first while ones that swing the other way are left to be defended by the ACLJ or the Rutherford Institute.

[Tigermike 3,078]

Taking this case would also be high profile and make it appear that the ACLU is looking out for ALL.

[Donutboy 0]

I heard abt ten minutes of Rush talking abt this today - he said it shocked him as much as it did anyone!!!

The only thing that shocked me was that they'd spend resources defending someone who probably has more resources than they do. The American Civil Liberties Union has routinely taken up causes from both the right and left.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

I'd be interested to see what the percentage of cases they take that advance or support on side (left or right) would be. No one is disputing that the ACLU takes up cases that seem to support or defend more conservative viewpoints sometimes. What is in dispute is whether they do it very often, or as often as they take up cases that would be more in line with liberal or left-leaning viewpoints.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

Oh, and to answer Donut's question about why they'd take up a case where the person they are defending is well off enough to defend themselves...I think it's pretty self-evident. It's a high profile case...a perfect showcase to give the appearance that the ACLU is not a left-leaning organization. Throw in a few big name cases to pretty up the image, y'know?

[Tiger Al 0]

I'd be interested to see what the percentage of cases they take that advance or support on side (left or right) would be...What is in dispute is whether they do it very often, or as often as they take up cases that would be more in line with liberal or left-leaning viewpoints.

That depends...do you view the Bill of Rights as being a liberal or conservative document??? I don't mean that rhetorically or snidely, but I think that it really depends on how you view it.

Titan, I really don't think the AClu cares whether it is perceived as "left-leaning" or "right-leaning."

[War Eagle 96 10]

I've told you folks before that the ACLU is a proponent of civil liberty's for everyone.

Even those that practice "man/boy" love.

NAMBLA

[TitanTiger 20,542]

That's not a legitimate rebuttal to what I'm asking. I'm not viewing the Constitution as right or left. What I'm asking is how often does the ACLU defend the free speech/civil liberties of people who are expressing more left-leaning views vs those who express right-leaning views. From what I can tell, it seems they are more concerned with defending people when they feel leftist views or proponents of leftist views are the "wronged party". They just take on a few token cases that involve more right-leaning views or people to give off a veneer of objectivity.

[Tiger Al 0]

I've told you folks before that the ACLU is a proponent of civil liberty's for everyone.

Even those that practice "man/boy" love.

NAMBLA

The issue in the NAMBLA case wasn't whether their beliefs are right or wrong, but whether content on their website makes them complicit in a crime.

The family of Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge said the North American Man/Boy Love Association and its web site which is now off-line incited the attempted molestation and murder of the boy on Oct. 1, 1997.

One of two men convicted in the killing, Charles Jaynes, 25, reportedly viewed the group's web site shortly before the killing, and also had in his possession some of NAMBLA's publications. Also convicted in the killing was 24-year-old Salvatore Sicari.

The ACLU said the case, filed in federal court in mid-May, involves issues of freedom of speech and association.

"For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case," John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU, told Boston Globe Wednesday. "It has to do with communications on a web site, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever."

ACLU officials said NAMBLA members deny encouraging coercion, rape or violence.

It would be like if I said something in this thread that really sent you over to the point that you hunted me down and killed me, then my family wanting to include AUNation in criminal charges as being an accomplice to your crime.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

Ahem, what NAMBLA does promote IS criminal behavior. You do not have to coerce, rape, or otherwise do violence to a child for sex with them to be criminal. NAMBLA knows this, yet continues to put stories and advocacy articles on their site encouraging this behavior and arguing for it's legal legitimacy.

For the ACLU to defend this is incomprehensible.

[Tiger Al 0]

Ahem, what NAMBLA does promote IS criminal behavior.  You do not have to coerce, rape, or otherwise do violence to a child for sex with them to be criminal.  NAMBLA knows this, yet continues to put stories and advocacy articles on their site encouraging this behavior and arguing for it's legal legitimacy. 

For the ACLU to defend this is incomprehensible.

As someone who has never visited their website I can't honestly say what is on there but, from what I do understand, they don't promote coercion, rape, violence or murder do they? Again, from what I understand about them is that they are for reducing age of consent laws. While I may not agree with that, I couldn't hold them any more culpable for the rape and murder of a boy than I would hold Playboy culpable for the rape and murder of a woman. I thought you were a strict rider of the wagon entitled "Criminals are responsible for their own actions."

[TitanTiger 20,542]

As someone who has never visited their website I can't honestly say what is on there but, from what I do understand, they don't promote coercion, rape, violence or murder do they? Again, from what I understand about them is that they are for reducing age of consent laws. While I may not agree with that, I couldn't hold them any more culpable for the rape and murder of a boy than I would hold Playboy culpable for the rape and murder of a woman. I thought you were a strict rider of the wagon entitled "Criminals are responsible for their own actions."

I have visited their website and it's sickening. Yes, they are for reducing age of consent laws. And they have accompanying "personal stories" about these man-boy relationships, with the accompanying make-you-want-to-hurl spin doctoring that makes it look as if grown men having sexual relationships (that OF COURSE are non-coerced or "rape") is natural, desireable, healthy, and so on. The whole point of age of consent is that we as a society recognize that children are easily manipulated and therefore CANNOT consent to such a relationship. Without consent, it is rape simply by definition.

Playboy, which morally repugnant on various grounds, does not advocate or glorify criminal behavior. It is lawful (even if immoral) for grown men to have sex with grown women they aren't married to.

What NAMBLA does is different. They are promoting and, by extension, encouraging criminal behavior. Having sex with a child is a crime just like murder is a crime. And while I do hold criminals responsible for their behavior, I do also hold those who enable or encourage them to do so responsible as well. If a kid blew up a school using directions on how to build a homemade bomb that he found on the internet, I would hold the person who posted such info responsible in some capacity as well.

[Tiger Al 0]

See, like I said, which you claimed was not a legitimate rebuttal, it depends on how you look at the Bill of Rights. I look at it to say that, even if everything you said about NAMBLA is true and then some, they are not culpable in the rape/death of that boy because they are not guilty simply by association anymore than you, as a moderator who let things get out of hand which resulted in WE96 "murdering" me, are culpable in his "crime" because you are associated with him through this website.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

There is a difference in "associating" and "encouraging". For instance, I would not be liable if he killed you just because he was a member here and I conversed with him from time to time on unrelated (to the murder) subjects. However, if it could be shown that I posted ways to commit murder without getting caught, or encouraged kiling of Auburn fans who hold liberal viewpoints, or if I talked with him about how to murder you...then I would be liable.

To me, this is what NAMBLA does. They encourage criminal behavior and even give a bunch of warm and fuzzy stories "demonstrating" how "normal", "healthy", and so on these sexual relationships with children are. They are not passive, they are active. I'm not saying that "associating" with a pedophile is wrong...but encouraging and legitimizing his criminal actions (particularly to the extent that NAMBLA does) should make them culpable to some degree.

[Tiger Al 0]

Think long and hard about what you are saying. Do I truly have freedom of speech if I'm to be held accountable for a crime YOU commit because of something I say or write???

TA-"Titan, go rob a bank because you'll get rich and never have to work again."

TT-"Officer, I don't know what came over me. This guy on a message board made robbing a bank sound so good."

Police-"Let's get an arrest warrant for the guy on the message board, too."

Thank God for the ACLU if that's what you think of the Bill of Rights!!!

[TitanTiger 20,542]

I think our system of justice has long been able to distinguish between episodic, flippant statements and detailed and sustained encouragement. I'm sorry, but if a website was started that called for the mass killing of a certain race, or those of certain political persuasion, or of abortion doctors, and someone read that site then performed a killing of said group, I think the owner of that site has some culpability. I'm not saying they get the same charge as the person who actually did it, but that they be charged with some kind of crime for inciting and encouraging criminal activity.

I see no difference in this and what NAMBLA does. If grown men go and seek out sexual relationships with children, encouraged and incited by what they read on that group's site or in other group materials, then NAMBLA has some culpability for his actions. They should at least be on the hook for some degree of statutory rape or sexual exploitation of a minor. I don't believe you could charge them with actual rape (as in, an act that goes beyond a minor being unable to consent but is actual physical or psychological "force") or murder. But they should bear some responsibility for encouraging the sexual relationship in the first place...knowing all along that it is criminal.

[Tiger Al 0]

Well, congratulations then, Titan, you will have managed to suspend the first amendment right of every citizen in this country. Let's just not stop there, let's go after the ninth amendment, too. We can use that same logic to indict Smith and Wesson the next time someone uses one of their products to kill.

The only thing that NAMBLA is culpable of in the case that the ACLU defended them on was poor taste. Words and ideas don't make my choices for me. I do what I do because I CHOOSE to do them, not because I see a Mapplethorpe picture that makes me want to kill gays.

Look at this another way:

If all you did was make the suggestion to me that it sure would be nice if man could fly like the birds, then, when I invent the airplane do you have the right to be included as a patent-holder??? No.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

Well, congratulations then, Titan, you will have managed to suspend the first amendment right of every citizen in this country. Let's just not stop there, let's go after the ninth amendment, too. We can use that same logic to indict Smith and Wesson the next time someone uses one of their products to kill.

Again, false comparison. Smith & Wesson makes a product that has many lawful purposes, among them, target & sport shooting, self defense, and so on. They cannot be held liable for you taking their product and doing something unlawful with it that they neither advocate nor encourage.

On the other hand, if you are encouraging people to directly commit a crime, particularly something as serious as the sexual exploitation of a child or murder (to use my other example), that is different territory and I think you know it. I think you can and should be held somewhat responsible for what you say in that regard.

You know as well as I do that the freedom of speech is not absolute. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater or call in bomb threats for instance. And if you do one of those things and people are hurt trying to escape from the building, there are legal repercussions. That is all I am saying here.

The only thing that NAMBLA is culpable of in the case that the ACLU defended them on was poor taste. Words and ideas don't make my choices for me. I do what I do because I CHOOSE to do them, not because I see a Mapplethorpe picture that makes me want to kill gays.

I realize they don't make choices for you. That is why I am not suggesting that the penalty be the same for the incitor. There is some responsiblity...not full responsibility, but some.

Look at this another way:

If all you did was make the suggestion to me that it sure would be nice if man could fly like the birds, then, when I invent the airplane do you have the right to be included as a patent-holder??? No.

Once again, bad comparison. Civil laws having to do with patents and copyrights are not the same realm as criminal acts.

[Tigermike 3,078]

We can use that same logic to indict Smith and Wesson the next time someone uses one of their products to kill.

The gun control folks have been trying to do that already haven't they?

As far as an organization being held responsible for the actions of their members. The KKK was bankrupted by the Southern Poverty Law Center for that very thing. A young black man was hung by members of the KKK in Mobile, Al. They went to prison as they should have and the KKK was sued and lost.

I despise the KKK and as far as I know have never known one of their members.

Not a hijack attempt but there seems to be similarities in that situation and this discussion.

[Tiger Al 0]

Well, congratulations then, Titan, you will have managed to suspend the first amendment right of every citizen in this country. Let's just not stop there, let's go after the ninth amendment, too. We can use that same logic to indict Smith and Wesson the next time someone uses one of their products to kill.

Again, false comparison. Smith & Wesson makes a product that has many lawful purposes, among them, target & sport shooting, self defense, and so on. They cannot be held liable for you taking their product and doing something unlawful with it that they neither advocate nor encourage.

On the other hand, if you are encouraging people to directly commit a crime, particularly something as serious as the sexual exploitation of a child or murder (to use my other example), that is different territory and I think you know it. I think you can and should be held somewhat responsible for what you say in that regard.

You know as well as I do that the freedom of speech is not absolute. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater or call in bomb threats for instance. And if you do one of those things and people are hurt trying to escape from the building, there are legal repercussions. That is all I am saying here.

The only thing that NAMBLA is culpable of in the case that the ACLU defended them on was poor taste. Words and ideas don't make my choices for me. I do what I do because I CHOOSE to do them, not because I see a Mapplethorpe picture that makes me want to kill gays.

I realize they don't make choices for you. That is why I am not suggesting that the penalty be the same for the incitor. There is some responsiblity...not full responsibility, but some.

Look at this another way:

If all you did was make the suggestion to me that it sure would be nice if man could fly like the birds, then, when I invent the airplane do you have the right to be included as a patent-holder??? No.

Once again, bad comparison. Civil laws having to do with patents and copyrights are not the same realm as criminal acts.

But you seem to be wanting to reduce free speech down to the point that the most pathological of us will not be endangered by what we read. Yes, free speech does and should have legal limits, but I think that it's a huge leap to say that NAMBLA was a conspirator in the murder of that ten year old, which was what his parents were saying, simply because someone read their material.