ACLU, that bastion of free speech.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Incidentally, the ACLU declined to pursue any disciplinary action whatsoever, those hypocritical, censor-happy bastards!

 

So Nuke, your one and only source of information was proven totally wrong.  How 'bout you explain how this proves you right?

 

 

Of course they're gonna backtrack now that their hypocrasy was made public. Enough people hate them already and they dont need anymore black eyes. Id have thought that was obvious but I guess that went over your head in your rush to defend them.

[Texsox]

Here's the quandary I feel in our society and my Christian views.

 

I do not want other religion's practices, creed, traditions, crammed down my or my child's throat at school, at a basketball game, or while visiting a National Park. To assure that doesn't happen, I must also respect the rights of others to not have my religious practices crammed down theirs.

 

That in my best opinion is ACLU's position, and in our society, that seems appropriate to me. To say they are trying to destroy Christianity is a distortion. Destroying Christianity would involve closing Churches, tearing down symbols on private property, passing laws making it illegal to practice. Nuke has been in countries where the government and private citizens do seek to destroy Christianity. I am certain he would be willing to share some stories of what he saw in the middle east and agree what the ACLU is doing wouldn't destroy the practicing of Christianity, just place it squarely in the private arena. Further, without winning their cases, based on US Laws and procedures, nothing would happen besides a few donors wasting their money. The fact that they win these cases reflects our society's current views on religion. Can we expect less when most people are not outraged by Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" or the Howard Stern show?

 

I have also seen where ACLU's attention has increased the outward appearance of Christianity. Wauconda's nativity scene and cross was removed from the city hall back in the late 80s or early 90s. Last time I was in Wauconda, hundreds of residents had erected hundreds of crosses on their property. Score one for the big Guy. From one of the town square, to hundreds on roofs, in backyards, and hopefully in their hearts.

[bmags]

of course i don't always agree with the aclu, but if they ever stop being radical and challenging everything, its worse for us. It really would be.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

of course i don't always agree with the aclu, but if they ever stop being radical and challenging everything, its worse for us. It really would be.

 

 

If they weren't so petty, if they weren't so eager to trample all over small towns and schoolkids with their vile litigation, if they didn't support child pornography, if they didn't seek to usurp the rights of parents to raise their kids then maybe I could tolerate them somewhat.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Here's the quandary I feel in our society and my Christian views.

 

 

I have also seen where ACLU's attention has increased the outward appearance of Christianity. Wauconda's nativity scene and cross was removed from the city hall back in the late 80s or early 90s. Last time I was in Wauconda, hundreds of residents had erected hundreds of crosses on their property. Score one for the big Guy. From one of the town square, to hundreds on roofs, in backyards, and hopefully in their hearts.

 

 

That's called a backlash. I bet the hypersensitive moron who whined about it is a lot more offended now that there are more symbols of the religon that he doesn't believe in than ever and in places where even the ACLU can't touch them.

[jackie hayes]

Of course they're gonna backtrack  now that their hypocrasy was made public.  Enough people hate them already and they dont need anymore black eyes.  Id have thought that was obvious but I guess that went over your head in your rush to defend them.

Uh huh. I used to give you some credit for at least trying to make an honest argument, but here every single thing you used to back up your case was wrong, and you don't have the spine to admit that you just screwed up.

 

They aren't backtracking -- the very first response to this, before the articles were written, a day before this interview you saw, was from the president of the ACLU, saying that there was virtually no chance anything would come of it. AFTER she said this, your source goes on tv and throws a hissy fit, saying he was about to be kicked out. Not that you've ever trusted anyone w/ the ACLU before, but damn, now all of a sudden his word is gospel, despite lots of evidence to the contrary.

 

Noone even mentioned religious freedom cases until he did. By all reports, it had nothing to do with the complaint.

 

The complaint which did not come from the people he was having the disagreement with. You claimed that he was being kicked out (no) for disagreeing (no) on issues (no). He disagreed w/ some central officials on matters of oversight, administrative crap, and he took it public. That prompted someone from the Oregon affiliate (note: not the people he was arguing w/) to issue the complaint. All of which you've conveniently ignored, in your mindless ranting on a vast left-wing conspiracy to replace all Bibles w/ kiddie porn. What a joke.

 

The ACLU did nothing here but confirm how committed they are to individual rights, even when they're being blasted by someone on the board. That's an amazing show of patience, I wouldn't blame them one bit for disciplining these 2. You've confirmed that you're incapable of reading the news to find out if some nut on tv had his facts straight.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Uh huh.  I used to give you some credit for at least trying to make an honest argument, but here every single thing you used to back up your case was wrong, and you don't have the spine to admit that you just screwed up.

 

They aren't backtracking -- the very first response to this, before the articles were written, a day before this interview you saw, was from the president of the ACLU, saying that there was virtually no chance anything would come of it.  AFTER she said this, your source goes on tv and throws a hissy fit, saying he was about to be kicked out.  Not that you've ever trusted anyone w/ the ACLU before, but damn, now all of a sudden his word is gospel, despite lots of evidence to the contrary.

 

Noone even mentioned religious freedom cases until he did.  By all reports, it had nothing to do with the complaint.

 

The complaint which did not come from the people he was having the disagreement with.  You claimed that he was being kicked out (no) for disagreeing (no) on issues (no).  He disagreed w/ some central officials on matters of oversight, administrative crap, and he took it public.  That prompted someone from the Oregon affiliate (note: not the people he was arguing w/) to issue the complaint.  All of which you've conveniently ignored, in your mindless ranting on a vast left-wing conspiracy to replace all Bibles w/ kiddie porn.  What a joke.

 

The ACLU did nothing here but confirm how committed they are to individual rights, even when they're being blasted by someone on the board.  That's an amazing show of patience, I wouldn't blame them one bit for disciplining these 2.  You've confirmed that you're incapable of reading the news to find out if some nut on tv had his facts straight.

 

 

You obviously didn't hear the man himself speak out on TV last night, you just read the whitewash the NYT published but I don't expect you to listen or care when even one of your own sees this organization for what it is.

 

Mr. Meyers himself said he was about to be kicked out, Meyers himself said he had a major disagreement with the ACLU board and not just over administrative stuff either. Dont take his words and try to make them mine.

 

As I've proven in my earlier post, the ACLU is all about individual freedoms alright. The freedom to be a child pornographer, the freedom to say whatever kind of vile crap you want over the airwaves regardless of how offensive it is, the feeedom to do any and everything save for even hint that you are somewhat religous. If you are they're coming with their lawsuit hammer.

[jackie hayes]

You obviously didn't hear the man himself speak out on TV last night, you just read the whitewash the NYT published but I don't expect you to listen or care when even one of your own sees this organization for what it is. 

 

Mr. Meyers himself said he was about to be kicked out,  Meyers himself said he had a major disagreement with the ACLU board and not just over administrative stuff either.  Dont take his words and try to make them mine. 

 

As I've proven in my earlier post, the ACLU is all about individual freedoms alright.  The freedom to be a child pornographer, the freedom to say whatever kind of vile crap you want over the airwaves regardless of how offensive it is, the feeedom to do any and everything save for even hint that you are somewhat religous.  If you are they're coming with their lawsuit hammer.

 

Yeah, never mind that he announced it AFTER the president of the ACLU said he wouldn't be kicked out. Which you could have learned easily if you'd just looked at the news. You're a riot, I'm done with this.

[PoohIss]

No Nuke.  I'm saying that to proclaim that O'Reilly is some sort of bastion of righteousness is bulls*** -- just as dropping MOAB's is "compassionate conservatism".  The fact that you tear things into "sides" is an act of partisan hackery.  I remember during the election, you were one of the ones trumpeting the fact that Bush was God and everything against him was just lies etc. while everything that came out against Kerry was somehow valid.  They were both softheaded, incompetent, moronic boobs that deserve to be beaten to death with woks.  If you're gonna whine about one side pulling s***, then do it for both sides when they are in the wrong. 

 

Gay marriage amendment?  Cabinet position of Homeland Security?  Increased drug war? Etc. -- Sure sounds like a conservative less government program set-up to me!

I really like the wok idea. Do you think they could turn that into a reality show. "Beat your Politician!" I'd watch every week.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

You obviously didn't hear the man himself speak out on TV last night, you just read the whitewash the NYT published but I don't expect you to listen or care when even one of your own sees this organization for what it is. 

 

Mr. Meyers himself said he was about to be kicked out,  Meyers himself said he had a major disagreement with the ACLU board and not just over administrative stuff either.  Dont take his words and try to make them mine. 

 

As I've proven in my earlier post, the ACLU is all about individual freedoms alright.  The freedom to be a child pornographer, the freedom to say whatever kind of vile crap you want over the airwaves regardless of how offensive it is, the feeedom to do any and everything save for even hint that you are somewhat religous.  If you are they're coming with their lawsuit hammer.

 

Speaking of oversensitive whiners, Nuke...meet kettle. Cuz I know I want government telling me what I can and can't see, can and can't listen to on TV, on CDs etc. Don't you wanna be at a concert and see John Ashcroft sitting next to you? f***, we might be out til 10:30 tonight! If a person wants to put a crucifix, a giant cross with a Jesus being crucified, a 2 ton 10 Commandments monument ON THEIR PROPERTY, they are more than welcome to do so. However, they cannot and should be able to put it in public buildings run by the state because that leads to the endless controls of having to put up the Pillars of Islam, the 4 Noble Truths of Buddhism, the tenets of the Church of Spongebob Squarepants, etc. etc. etc.

[CrimsonWeltall]

The freedom to be a child pornographer

 

Please show where the ACLU supported child pornography.

 

Here's a nice long list of ACLU sponsored destruction of anything Christian and promotion of all that's wrong with America.

 

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/ACLU/StoryArchives.asp

 

Did you even read this list?

 

ACLU fights Creationism: GOOD

ACLU fights Creationism: GOOD

ACLU fights religious abstinence program in schools: GOOD

ACLU fights Christmas display on City Hall: PICKY, BUT NOT HORRIBLE

ACLU supports gay marriage: FINE

ACLU supports gay adoption: FINE

ACLU protects free speech: GOOD

ACLU fights prayer before govt meeting: PICKY, BUT NOT HORRIBLE

etc etc

 

Would you like to point out which of these cases is SPECIFICALLY anti-Christian or promoting ALL of what is wrong with America?

[FlaSoxxJim]

If a person wants to put a crucifix, a giant cross with a Jesus being crucified, a 2 ton 10 Commandments monument ON THEIR PROPERTY, they are more than welcome to do so.  However, they cannot and should be able to put it in public buildings run by the state...

 

It sure seems simple enough, doesn't it? But then you get the "damn activist judges" (I thought those could only be liberal) who don't get it and want the Ten Commandments in their courthouse and can't figure out what all the hoopla over it is.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Please show where the ACLU supported child pornography.

 

 

I already did but I'll put em up again.........just for you.

 

 

GAME

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/n....asp?story=1147

 

SET

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/n....asp?story=1014

 

MATCH!

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/coment...e.asp?story=652

[Rex Kickass]

It sure seems simple enough, doesn't it?  But then you get the "damn activist judges" (I thought those could only be liberal) who don't get it and want the Ten Commandments in their courthouse and can't figure out what all the hoopla over it is.

 

Not to mention on their robes.

[CrimsonWeltall]

GAME

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/n....asp?story=1147

 

This article is about a proposed law against "virtual" child pornography. It could prosecute people who made pornography which "seems" like it features minors, even if it doesn't. So basically any porn which features women which look young or fake, animated pornography which has characters which look underage. The article is NOT about actual child pornography.

 

It also features this sentence: According to William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, the ACLU has called pornographic material featuring children "wholly protected by the First Amendment."

 

Of course anyone can go to the ACLU's website and see that the ACLU does not say any such thing.

 

NOT GAME.

 

SET

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/n....asp?story=1014

 

This article is not about child pornography either. It is about a convicted child molester being banned from all city parks. The ICLU argued that it was unfair to ban a child molester if they do not also ban rapists and murderers.

 

NOT SET.

 

MATCH!

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/coment...e.asp?story=652

 

Again, not about child pornography. This article is about the famous -and usually misrepresented- case about the ACLU and NAMBLA. After their son was killed by 2 men, the parents sued NAMBLA being NAMBLA "gave the murderers courage" because they had visited the NAMBLA website. The ACLU argued that this was shifting personal responsibility from the people who actually committed the crime to a third party.

 

NOT MATCH.

 

 

Care to try again? Perhaps this time with a news site or at least a site with some credibility?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

This article is about a proposed law against "virtual" child pornography.  It could prosecute people who made pornography which "seems" like it features minors, even if it doesn't. So basically any porn which features women which look young or fake, animated pornography which has characters which look underage. The article is NOT about actual child pornography.

 

It also features this sentence: According to William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, the ACLU has called pornographic material featuring children "wholly protected by the First Amendment."

 

Of course anyone can go to the ACLU's website and see that the ACLU does not say any such thing.

 

NOT GAME.

This article is not about child pornography either. It is about a convicted child molester being banned from all city parks. The ICLU argued that it was unfair to ban a child molester if they do not also ban rapists and murderers.

 

NOT SET.

Again, not about child pornography. This article is about the famous -and usually misrepresented- case about the ACLU and NAMBLA. After their son was killed by 2 men, the parents sued NAMBLA being NAMBLA "gave the murderers courage" because they had visited the NAMBLA website. The ACLU argued that this was shifting personal responsibility from the people who actually committed the crime to a third party.

 

NOT MATCH.

Care to try again? Perhaps this time with a news site or at least a site with some credibility?

 

 

 

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Care to try again? Perhaps this time with a news site or at least a site with some credibility?

 

 

Does it really matter where the info comes from if actual court cases are being talked about? I thought not.

 

But here ya go any damn way

 

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?d...eyword=&teaser=

 

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/7653525.htm

 

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0%2C1283%2C5383%2C00.html

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

More.......

 

 

In this one they challenge a Child Porn law signed by Howard Dean of all people!

 

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/docu...ocumentID=13048

 

 

 

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/29...3pdf/03-218.pdf

 

 

http://www.azcentral.com/abgnews/articles/...internet17.html

 

You're done.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Does it really matter where the info comes from if actual court cases are being talked about?

 

WTF?

 

None of these 3 new links are even about the same cases from the earlier links.

 

The first one is from some service you have to sign up for and has no details about what law it's referring to.

 

The second and third ones are about mandatory internet filtering for public libraries. The ACLU argued that the internet filters which were going to be used block MORE than just child pornography and obscene materials, and thus were restricting free speech.

 

It seems like you don't read my posts any more than you read the websites you link to. You make this sassy-ass GAME SET MATCH post and then when I show that none of the links were about child porn, you're just like WHATEVA WHATEVA.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

This was cut from my first link in the GAME, SET MATCH POST

 

 

Guess you're the one not reading are you?

 

Donohue has monitored the ACLU for years. He recalled an incident where an undercover policeman successfully solicited child pornography that featured children as young as five years old engaged in sexual activity. While the child porn hawkers were convicted, they received sentences of just two to seven years. Donohue makes clear, "If the ACLU had had things its way, they never would have been sentenced at all."

 

Read the damned article before you question its credibility and come up with smartass comments of your own.

[Rex Kickass]

I already did but I'll put em up again.........just for you.

GAME

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/n....asp?story=1147

 

Game: The ACLU went after a law that was broad and vague. The ACLU didn't set out to legality of Child Pornography. They sought to make sure that an overly broad law was struck down before the tool was used to arrest something else that was objectionable. Your sourcing on the matter quotes the same guy who I believe said that "Hollywood loves anal sex." And it fails to quote a single ACLU paper or statement that says what its position on child pornography actually is. Most likely its because there are no child pornography position papers in the ACLU library. Just a guess.

 

It instead quotes ACLU bashing "literature," to show the ACLU positions. Probably because the ACLU's actual positions doesn't support their argument.

 

Further, just like you can still be a patriot and oppose the patriot act, you can still be against child pornography while opposing a law called "Anti-child pornography law" if the language isn't appropriate.

SET

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/n....asp?story=1014

 

I remember the child molester story when I lived in Michigan City. If you have a public property, you can't discriminate who gets to use those specific facilities. If a sex offender wants to go to the beach in this country, you can't stop him or her. They have a right to peaceably assemble.

 

I know its not popular to defend the rights of convicted sex offenders who have served their time and completed their sentence but if you expect your freedoms to be protected, the less savory in this world need to have theirs protected as well.

MATCH!

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/coment...e.asp?story=652

 

And your match point is defending the right of someone to sue NAMBLA for cash because it exists? I'm sorry that their son died and they have the right to see justice served on the depraved human being who killed him but that doesn't mean they have the right to sue an organization that some asshole uses as an excuse to garner sympathy and focus attention away from the atrocity he committed. NAMBLA does not advocate the murder of children as far as I'm aware.

 

The ACLU is there to defend the liberties of the citizens who need their liberties defended. Quite often these people aren't the nicest folk in the world, like NAMBLA, pornographers, Rush Limbaugh. But they are people who need their liberties defended, and that's what the ACLU does.

 

It's fine if you're against freedom. It's your right to feel that way.

 

What troubles me the most is that you sit there and quote Bill O'Reilly's show and because you saw one interview you discount every other article on the issue. You consider that show news, and it frankly simply is not. O'Reilly Factor is not news. Neither is HANNITY and colmes. It's commentary and opinion, just like the stuff that you source (Reclaim America) for your arguments. Of course, you'll just say its liberal media and point to CBS whose CEO endorsed President Bush for reelection. But I guess its all liberal media.

[CrimsonWeltall]

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/docu...ocumentID=13048

 

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/29...3pdf/03-218.pdf

 

http://www.azcentral.com/abgnews/articles/...internet17.html

 

First one is about a law which could make illegal any content "offensive to minors". A court found the law to be far too broad and struck it down. Does not include the ACLU defending child pornography.

 

Second one is about COPA, which we already went over. Did you read this 41-page PDF document or did you simply do a google search for "ACLU child porn" and post whatever sites came up?

 

Third one is AGAIN not about child pornography, but about children possibly being exposed TO pornography. Like the others, this law was determined to be too broad. For example, a child has access to the Hot Chick Contest here on Soxtalk. If whitesoxfan99 posted an overly-sexual (define this however you want) picture on there and some 12 year old Sox fan happened to see it, should whitesoxfan99 or possibly the mods/admins of Soxtalk face legal problems?

 

You're done.

 

OHHHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[CrimsonWeltall]

This was cut from my first link in the GAME, SET MATCH POST

 

 

Guess you're the one not reading are you?

 

Donohue has monitored the ACLU for years. He recalled an incident where an undercover policeman successfully solicited child pornography that featured children as young as five years old engaged in sexual activity. While the child porn hawkers were convicted, they received sentences of just two to seven years. Donohue makes clear, "If the ACLU had had things its way, they never would have been sentenced at all."

 

Read the damned article before you question its credibility and come up with smartass comments of your own.

 

lol, are you serious?

 

The interview some anti-ACLU guy and he says HAW HAW HAW I BET THE ACLU WULD WANT THEM NOT SENTENCED AT ALL and you take that as a fact that teh ACLU defends child porn? Perhaps he should have gone farther and said "If the ACLU had had things its way, they would eat babies while they have sex on their Satanic altars", because this guy's opinion is clearly fact.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

lol, are you serious?

 

The interview some anti-ACLU guy and he says HAW HAW HAW I BET THE ACLU WULD WANT THEM NOT SENTENCED AT ALL and you take that as a fact that teh ACLU defends child porn?  Perhaps he should have gone farther and said "If the ACLU had had things its way, they would eat babies while they have sex on their Satanic altars", because this guy's opinion is clearly fact.

 

 

The whole thing then

 

On April 16, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down major portions of the Child Pornography Protection Act, which prohibited Internet porn hawkers from making "virtual" child pornography.

 

The ACLU immediately declared victory, calling the decision a triumph for "free speech." One spokesman declared the Child Pornography Protection Act "punishes the expression of ideas."

 

"I seriously doubt our Founding Fathers had child pornography in mind when they wrote the First Amendment," said Dr. D. James Kennedy, founder and president of the CENTER FOR RECLAIMING AMERICA. "Regardless of what the ACLU might think, child pornography—virtual or otherwise—is not speech. Child pornography is child pornography.

 

"Granted, the ACLU has opposed laws against pornography for years."

 

ACLU's Policy 4 states, "The ACLU opposes any restraint on the right to create, publish, or distribute materials to adults, or the right of adults to choose the materials they read or view on the basis of obscenity, pornography or indecency."

 

When it comes to child pornography, the ACLU is opposed only if "such use is likely to cause: a) substantial physical harm; or B) substantial and continuing emotional or psychological harm."

 

As author/professor F. LaGard Smith points out in ACLU: The Devil's Advocate, this wording creates a huge legal loophole. In 1991, Douglas Gates, of Glendale, Arizona, invited a ten-year-old girl to use the swimming pool located in his apartment complex. He invited her to get changed in his bedroom, where he secretly placed a video camera.

 

Smith explains, "By the ACLU's policy there would have been no violation of the childrens' rights, because they were merely unsuspecting victims. Not raped, not physically harmed, not psychologically scarred for life."

 

According to William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, the ACLU has called pornographic material featuring children "wholly protected by the First Amendment."

 

Donohue has monitored the ACLU for years. He recalled an incident where an undercover policeman successfully solicited child pornography that featured children as young as five years old engaged in sexual activity. While the child porn hawkers were convicted, they received sentences of just two to seven years. Donohue makes clear, "If the ACLU had had things its way, they never would have been sentenced at all."

 

So why does the ACLU take such an extremist stance on child pornography? Smith says it stems from their absolutist stance on free speech: "For the ACLU, the primary purpose of defending pornography, and especially kiddy porn, is to give all indecent free speech elbow-room. Thankfully, not many folks will demand the right to create, distribute, or possess kiddy porn. But by stretching the boundaries of free speech to accommodate the worst kind of expression imaginable, one can thereby assure that any indecency or obscenity short of that is likewise protectable."

[CrimsonWeltall]

I think I'm going to become a politician and propose a law called the Child Protection from Pornography Act. It will have 2 points.

 

1) People making child porn get life in prison.

 

2) People who have used the name NUKE_CLEVELAND on message boards will be executed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone who does not support this legislation clearly is in favor of promoting child pornography.