ACLU Sues Indiana over Child Safe Law

[southsideirish71]

Democratic Councilman Greg Bowes, one of two council members who opposed the ordinance, also questions the practicality of enforcing the law and thinks it does little to protect children.

Many child molesters abuse children in their families or other children they know -- not strangers, he said.

Though it's every parent's worst nightmare, "we don't have that much trouble of people grabbing children out of parks."

 

ACLU fights child molester 'banishment'

 

Just when you think these f***ers have gone goofy with their lawsuits, they one up themselves. I could care less if Joe the rapist or child molestor is inconvienienced on his way to work. Lets try a novel idea, lets protect the kids from the evil that stalks them. The friends of nambla and child molesters, perverts and child pornographist keep doing their f***ed up work.

 

Some more "great" work that the ACLU has done on the befalf of perverts and molestors.

 

• The group represented inmates in a class-action lawsuit that said a state prison policy prohibiting visitation between child sex offenders and minors violated the U.S. Constitution. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to that policy.

 

The ACLU’s position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography

 

As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be. A few years later (1988), Lynn told the Senate Judiciary Committee that even requiring porn producers to maintain records of their performers’ ages was impermissible.

[Balta1701]

Well, the good news is that the "Barry Lynn" you mention is no longer a legislative council for the ACLU. The bad news is that the ACLU every so often does pick the wrong group as a cause. This is a potential such case.

 

Here's the one question you do have to answer though...the ACLU argues that a 1000 foot ban is simply too much, as it cuts across a significant amount of Marion county. If that made just entering the county or traveling down major roads illegal, that'd be a bit much. Not to have sympathy for those folks, but a county just can't ban people from staying inside it if they're not posing a threat, can it?

 

The law as written does sound a bit vague. It'd be nice to at least see how it is enforced first before filing the suit though, as sometimes the undefined temrs can be defined in sensible ways.

[southsideirish71]

Well, the good news is that the "Barry Lynn" you mention is no longer a legislative council for the ACLU. The bad news is that the ACLU every so often does pick the wrong group as a cause. This is a potential such case.

 

Here's the one question you do have to answer though...the ACLU argues that a 1000 foot ban is simply too much, as it cuts across a significant amount of Marion county. If that made just entering the county or traveling down major roads illegal, that'd be a bit much. Not to have sympathy for those folks, but a county just can't ban people from staying inside it if they're not posing a threat, can it?

 

The law as written does sound a bit vague. It'd be nice to at least see how it is enforced first before filing the suit though, as sometimes the undefined temrs can be defined in sensible ways.

 

Well whats an acceptable range then. We have similiar laws in Illinois that keep perverts away from the kids. You have to have a safe haven. So there is no mistake, of well I didnt know that this was really 500 feet. Just because I was on the swingset, that isnt near the school. This makes it absolute. We also have similiar distance limitations for additional penalties on the sale of drugs and the use of handguns near schools or playgrounds.

 

I wonder if the ACLU would represent the parent of a child who decides to spray the brain matter of a pervert against the wall when they catch them hurting their kids.

[Balta1701]

Well whats an acceptable range then. We have similiar laws in Illinois that keep perverts away from the kids. You have to have a safe haven. So there is no mistake, of well I didnt know that this was really 500 feet. Just because I was on the swingset, that isnt near the school. This makes it absolute. We also have similiar distance limitations for additional penalties on the sale of drugs and the use of handguns near schools or playgrounds.

 

I wonder if the ACLU would represent the parent of a child who decides to spray the brain matter of a pervert against the wall when they catch them hurting their kids.

I'm afraid I don't know what an acceptable range would be, it would make sense to me to actually look at a map and see what sort of area that would actually cover. If it's covering all of downtown indy, it's too far. If it covers just a few sparse blocks, then it's fine. 1000 feet does seem a bit far. Or, the law could have been written with a more specific exemption, like allowing travel down interstate highways or something like that. But again, this would be the reason to see how it's enforced. If someone gets lost and drives a block or two away from a school that they can't even see, a cop runs the plates, and the person winds up under arrest for being lost and too close to a school that they didn't even know was there, that just doesn't make much sense. But of course, that's a hypothetical, so who knows whether or not that would actually be enforced like that until the law is actually in place.

[southsideirish71]

I'm afraid I don't know what an acceptable range would be, it would make sense to me to actually look at a map and see what sort of area that would actually cover. If it's covering all of downtown indy, it's too far. If it covers just a few sparse blocks, then it's fine. 1000 feet does seem a bit far. Or, the law could have been written with a more specific exemption, like allowing travel down interstate highways or something like that. But again, this would be the reason to see how it's enforced. If someone gets lost and drives a block or two away from a school that they can't even see, a cop runs the plates, and the person winds up under arrest for being lost and too close to a school that they didn't even know was there, that just doesn't make much sense. But of course, that's a hypothetical, so who knows whether or not that would actually be enforced like that until the law is actually in place.

 

That excuse can work with any distance limitation. Well I just turned the corner and there was the school. Oh and the child in my trunk, he needed a lift, you mean he is 8. He told me he was 18. And as a person who worked in law enforcment for 7 years I can tell you, that we actually heard something similiar to that. The child he was giving a lift to, was in his back seat. He stayed at the treeline just behind the school, out of sight. When the kid was leaving from school to his house, captain pervert jumped him from the bushes, then told him he was going to kill him and his parents if he didnt be quiet. When he was asked why he was near the school, he said well I couldnt see the school with the big trees around.

Edited June 2, 2006 by southsideirish71

[Balta1701]

That excuse can work with any distance limitation. Well I just turned the corner and there was the school. Oh and the child in my trunk, he needed a lift, you mean he is 8. He told me he was 18.

Is there a difference between driving past a school/driving a block away from a school and actually being stopped next to it?

[southsideirish71]

Is there a difference between driving past a school/driving a block away from a school and actually being stopped next to it?

 

 

Well what if he is just asking directions, what if he is lost and needs the teacher to tell him where to go, what if his job is 2 blocks from the school, what if on lunch breaks he just gets confused and winds up in the swingsets. Who knows. lets give them as little wiggle room as possible.

[Soxbadger]

I think the ACLU is good because they take positions that a normal lawyer or law firm could not take.

 

Yes they take extreme positions, but there are plenty of people out there trying to strip our constitutional freedom every day. One group dedicated to trying to expand constitutional protection's is not really going to hurt.

[southsideirish71]

I think the ACLU is good because they take positions that a normal lawyer or law firm could not take.

 

Yes they take extreme positions, but there are plenty of people out there trying to strip our constitutional freedom every day. One group dedicated to trying to expand constitutional protection's is not really going to hurt.

 

Yes that is what they are doing in this case. Working for the person who wants to f*** children, their freedom to f*** children has been deprived by our moralistic society. Thank God the ACLU is here to keep their dream alive. Making sure their constitutional protections are there, so one day in a perfect world they will have the ability to make their dreams come true.

 

The ACLU is worthless pile of dogs***. The devil wouldnt even represent this filth in their attempts to f*** kids. Yet they jump up there with smiling faces and bravado.

[Rex Kickass]

The constitution protects kid f***ers too.

 

You may not like it, but its still so.

[YASNY]

There are a lot of things the ACLU has done over the years that has royally pissed me off. But, I'm glad they are around.

Edited June 3, 2006 by YASNY

[minors]

Oh the poor child molesters this is a new low.

 

 

Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana's legal director, said the city ordinance effectively restores the long-discarded, punitive practice of "banishment," because it is virtually impossible to travel the streets and highways of Marion County without passing within 1,000 feet of a public playground or other prohibited site.

Drive on I-65 and you pass the Velodrome and a skate park, Falk said. "You can't get from point A to point B in Indianapolis without being in violation."

The suit gives anonymous examples of former offenders who would be hurt by the ordinance.

There's the man who received counseling and was awarded joint custody of his son, now 7 years old. The pair frequently visits parks and other recreational centers. Because the man is employed at a place within 1,000 feet of a park, he would breach the ordinance by going to work, the suit says.

Another man votes at a public school within range of a sports field. Because he is not eligible to cast an absentee ballot, the new restrictions would keep him from voting, the suit says.

 

 

Here is a clue stop molesting little kids you sick f**** then you won't have to be treated like an outcast. What a novel idea.

 

The constitution protects kid f***ers too.

 

You may not like it, but its still so.

 

 

And a good way to protect the kids is to beat these thugs till they are vegetables and have to live out there days in pain confined to a bed.

Edited June 3, 2006 by minors

[minors]

Yes that is what they are doing in this case. Working for the person who wants to f*** children, their freedom to f*** children has been deprived by our moralistic society. Thank God the ACLU is here to keep their dream alive. Making sure their constitutional protections are there, so one day in a perfect world they will have the ability to make their dreams come true.

 

The ACLU is worthless pile of dogs***. The devil wouldnt even represent this filth in their attempts to f*** kids. Yet they jump up there with smiling faces and bravado.

 

That's not true they stand up for the murderers, child molesters and every other thug because these are good people and God is the real ememy not these upstanding people.

[Texsox]

There are a lot of things the ACLU has done over the years that has royally pissed me off. But, I'm glad they are around.

 

The ACLU has been a major pain in the backside to BSA, and seems to always be on the side of some group or cause I would not want to be identified with but, I do agree with YASNY. I can never write this clearly but here goes.

 

Where do we draw the line?

 

things that should be protected ___|___ things that shouldn't be protected

 

As a society, we become rather knee jerk in our reaction to things and start to become more and more strict. IMHO, without someone taking unpopular positions and judging them against our Constitution, we would wind up with

 

things that should be ___|___ protected things that shouldn't be protected

 

So when our Constitution allows people who should not be on the same planet with children, to be 1001 feet away or 500 feet away, I cringe and think we're

 

 

things that should be protected things that ___|___ shouldn't be protected

 

By protecting the most depicable causes and people and making certain their rights are respected, the margin of error means that everything that should be protected is. IN other words, to assure everyone good has their rights, we put up with a few idiots and perverts having their rights preserved. The alternative is eliminating rights for all the idiots and perverts and having some good people silenced as well.

 

Plus, there is always a check and balance. The legislature can always rewrite any law and try to get it passed on that basis. The fine tuning brings the line back to where it should be.

 

In another X feet away law. McAllen (city of over 100,000 people) passed an ordinance that made strip bars illegal within 750 feet of any Church or School. Seems fair enough until you consider there is no point in McAllen that isn't within 750 feet of any Church or School

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's not true they stand up for the murderers, child molesters and every other thug because these are good people and God is the real ememy not these upstanding people.

 

They stand up for the Constitution and anyone who seeks to create laws that are against the Constitution.

[Rex Kickass]

Some of the "kidf***ers, murderers and thugs" that the ACLU represents and works with:

Rush Limbaugh

Anyone under the age of 18 in Ohio (who are not necessarily guaranteed attorney access if tried as a juvenile)

Handicapped people who can't gain access to offices in government buildings

ACORN (A low and moderate income advocacy group)

HIV patients having their medical records revealed without consent

The Tabernacle Baptist Church of Eastpoint, GA

Olivia Turton of Frenchtown, NJ (A second grader who wanted to sing a religious themed song at a public school talent show.)

 

Seriously - who needs em?

[Gregory Pratt]

I think the ACLU is good because they take positions that a normal lawyer or law firm could not take.

 

Yes they take extreme positions, but there are plenty of people out there trying to strip our constitutional freedom every day. One group dedicated to trying to expand constitutional protection's is not really going to hurt.

 

As soon as I saw this thread, I knew that you'd be in it. I'm glad you're consistent!

 

 

Some of the "kidf***ers, murderers and thugs" that the ACLU represents and works with:

Rush Limbaugh

Anyone under the age of 18 in Ohio (who are not necessarily guaranteed attorney access if tried as a juvenile)

Handicapped people who can't gain access to offices in government buildings

ACORN (A low and moderate income advocacy group)

HIV patients having their medical records revealed without consent

The Tabernacle Baptist Church of Eastpoint, GA

Olivia Turton of Frenchtown, NJ (A second grader who wanted to sing a religious themed song at a public school talent show.)

 

Seriously - who needs em?

 

The ACLU does some good work but, perhaps, an equal amount of bad. Ultimately, it's a good thing that they're around, because when you launch lawsuits over every little thing that you consider an infraction of the Constitution, you're bound to get somethings right, sometimes.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

As soon as I saw this thread, I knew that you'd be in it. I'm glad you're consistent!

 

The ACLU does some good work but, perhaps, an equal amount of bad. Ultimately, it's a good thing that they're around, because when you launch lawsuits over every little thing that you consider an infraction of the Constitution, you're bound to get somethings right, sometimes.

They get to choose their causes, not their individual defendants. (i.e. when the Jewish ACLU lawyer took the case to help out the Nazis that wanted to march in Skokie during the 1970s and were denied their Constitutional rights to assembly and free speech)

[EvilMonkey]

Some of the "kidf***ers, murderers and thugs" that the ACLU represents and works with:

Rush Limbaugh

Anyone under the age of 18 in Ohio (who are not necessarily guaranteed attorney access if tried as a juvenile)

Handicapped people who can't gain access to offices in government buildings

ACORN (A low and moderate income advocacy group)

HIV patients having their medical records revealed without consent

The Tabernacle Baptist Church of Eastpoint, GA

Olivia Turton of Frenchtown, NJ (A second grader who wanted to sing a religious themed song at a public school talent show.)

 

Seriously - who needs em?

Since you listed some of themany causes the ACLU have taken up, just thought I would let you know of a few others. Oh, and just my opinion, but I think the whole defense of Rush by them was just a political ploy, and not from some sense of serving the greater good.

 

The ACLU also represents and works with:

Groups trying to keep military recruiters out of schools.

http://www.aclu-sc.org/mrops/

People looking to cause a disturbance at a (political) book signing (Republican, of course)

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103...006-664206.html

Applauds the fact that we cannot now get info on foreign passengers coming to the US (so much for security there)

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/25709prs20060530.html

Alligns themselves with CAIR to defend guys with ties to Al Qaeda

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/086280.php

Wants taxes to pay for trips to terrorist states

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/new...al/14701337.htm

And refuses to allow dissent in its own ranks, eshewing the transparancy it wants in government for a very closed system of yes-men.

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=/200...RROR=SHOW_ERROR

and despite their notorious anti religion in schools stance, has no problem endorsing Islam in schools.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArti...&issue=20060519

 

Sure, they can pick some winners, but they sure can pick some losers.

[Rex Kickass]

My point is that the ACLU is there to defend people who don't otherwise get defended. Something they have a right to have, whether or not they deserve it. And I am a big believer in equal protection under the law, regardless of who you are.

[jackie hayes]

But if we really, really don't like them, that takes away their rights. That's how democracy works.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Since you listed some of themany causes the ACLU have taken up, just thought I would let you know of a few others. Oh, and just my opinion, but I think the whole defense of Rush by them was just a political ploy, and not from some sense of serving the greater good.

 

The ACLU also represents and works with:

Groups trying to keep military recruiters out of schools.

http://www.aclu-sc.org/mrops/

People looking to cause a disturbance at a (political) book signing (Republican, of course)

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103...006-664206.html

Applauds the fact that we cannot now get info on foreign passengers coming to the US (so much for security there)

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/25709prs20060530.html

Alligns themselves with CAIR to defend guys with ties to Al Qaeda

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/086280.php

Wants taxes to pay for trips to terrorist states

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/new...al/14701337.htm

And refuses to allow dissent in its own ranks, eshewing the transparancy it wants in government for a very closed system of yes-men.

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=/200...RROR=SHOW_ERROR

and despite their notorious anti religion in schools stance, has no problem endorsing Islam in schools.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArti...&issue=20060519

 

Sure, they can pick some winners, but they sure can pick some losers.

 

With military recruiters, you do know that there are multiple Pentagon databases (one put in the No Child Left Behind legislation) where every school has to turn over data on high schoolers so they can look for potential recruits. The databases include personal information including birth dates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity and what subjects the students are studying. When they can't keep their hands on keeping 26.2 million vets' info secure, I wonder how secure the information is for these kids. I'm not even going to get into the privacy debate because being in favor of this info dump to the US government in the current form is complete indefensible.

 

Not to mention the schools that get targeted...The Globe inquiry found that recruiters target certain schools and students for heavy recruitment, and then won't give up easily: Officers call the chosen students repeatedly, tracking their responses in a computer program the Army calls "the Blueprint." Eligible students are hit with a blitz of mailings and home visits. Recruiters go hunting wherever teens from a targeted area hang out, following them to sporting events, shopping malls, and convenience stores.

 

Officers are trained to analyze students and make a pitch according to what will strike a motivational chord -- job training, college scholarships, adventure, signing bonuses, or service to country. A high-school recruiting manual describes the Army as "a product which can be sold."

 

The manual offers tips for recruiters to make themselves "indispensable" to schools; suggests tactics such as reading yearbooks to "mysteriously" know something about a prospect to spark the student's curiosity; notes that "it is only natural for people to resist" and suggests ways to turn aside objections; and lists techniques for closing the deal, such as the "challenge close":

 

"This closing method works best with younger men," the manual reads. "You must be careful how you use this one. You must be on friendly terms with your prospect, or this may backfire. It works like this: When you find difficulty in closing, particularly when your prospect's interest seems to be waning, challenge his ego by suggesting that basic training may be too difficult for him and he might not be able to pass it. Then, if he accepts your challenge, you will be a giant step closer to getting him to enlist."

 

More at http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...ools_carefully/

 

And every group, even the ACLU, makes mistakes. Hell, during WW II, some head members of the ACLU said that the threat of Japanese aliens was the equivalent to a machine gun nest that needed to be taken out.

 

But like the case with CAIR, The tactics involve denial of medical treatment, threats of arrest or deportation to coerce people, and denied access to legal representation. They're not promoting Al Qaeda. They are keeping the US on their toes to keep that wonderful document called the Constitution a reality instead of throwing it onto the scrapheap of history in the name of security. They don't get to choose their individual defendants -- just the causes (i.e. access to legal representation)

 

As for the data dump re: flights -- how about the FBI, CIA etc. begin doing a little investigative work, get a thing called probable cause and then go from there? Hell, most of the impotent bureaucrats couldn't have been bothered to get actual verifiable, truthful evidence regarding Iraq's weapons programs -- so what the Hell is going to happen if they get all this information of what books we're reading, who's flying where, etc. etc. etc.?

 

And that Investors article was a laugh: "Even jihad is presented as an "internal personal struggle to do one's best to resist temptation," and not holy war." -- Um..a jihad is actually an internal personal struggle to do one's best to resist temptation. Seems like the author of the article needs a little background in the religion he loves to bash. And I've had to team teach a unit on Islam during my teaching experience. My co-teacher and I went over the 5 pillars of Islam with discussion and video (the Hajj scene in Malcolm X is so damn good for showing what a Hajj actually is) about the similarities and differences between Islam and the two other major world religions (which had already been covered in a unit by the time we had gotten to the school) Led to a good discussion.

 

And the other good part about that Investors article is them blaming 'liberals' for declaring "under God" un-Constitutional when the 2002 majority opinion in Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2002), rev'd sub nom. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004), holding that the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, was written by Senior Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, a Richard M. Nixon appointee.

 

I'm interested in who wrote the opinion for the case they reference.

 

The ACLU is by no means perfect, but I'm damn glad that they're there taking on a lot of situations.

[mr_genius]

With military recruiters, you do know that there are multiple Pentagon databases (one put in the No Child Left Behind legislation) where every school has to turn over data on high schoolers so they can look for potential recruits. The databases include personal information including birth dates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity and what subjects the students are studying. When they can't keep their hands on keeping 26.2 million vets' info secure, I wonder how secure the information is for these kids. I'm not even going to get into the privacy debate because being in favor of this info dump to the US government in the current form is complete indefensible.

 

Not to mention the schools that get targeted...The Globe inquiry found that recruiters target certain schools and students for heavy recruitment, and then won't give up easily: Officers call the chosen students repeatedly, tracking their responses in a computer program the Army calls "the Blueprint." Eligible students are hit with a blitz of mailings and home visits. Recruiters go hunting wherever teens from a targeted area hang out, following them to sporting events, shopping malls, and convenience stores.

 

Officers are trained to analyze students and make a pitch according to what will strike a motivational chord -- job training, college scholarships, adventure, signing bonuses, or service to country. A high-school recruiting manual describes the Army as "a product which can be sold."

 

The manual offers tips for recruiters to make themselves "indispensable" to schools; suggests tactics such as reading yearbooks to "mysteriously" know something about a prospect to spark the student's curiosity; notes that "it is only natural for people to resist" and suggests ways to turn aside objections; and lists techniques for closing the deal, such as the "challenge close":

 

uhhh, so you think the army shouldn't recruit?

 

do you want mandatory military service? a draft?

 

[LowerCaseRepublican]

uhhh, so you think the army shouldn't recruit?

 

do you want mandatory military service? a draft?

 

The way they go about it (a program where students are automatically opted in with their personal information being given out without their consent to an organization that has shown cannot keep the data secure) is incorrect. Interested parties will find out the option of the military. Plus, they are a discriminatory organization ("Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy specifically) so they are not allowed in most schools. And when the government threatens schools that don't allow this to go on, they get their funds taken away? That is bulls***.

 

And yes, when you have about 500 allegations of recruiters lying to students to get them to sign up (and that was in 2005...and just the reported ones) A person who wants to join the military can and will. However, the way the government is involving themselves in the school system vis a vis military recruitment is totally asinine.

[mr_genius]

The way they go about it (a program where students are automatically opted in with their personal information being given out without their consent to an organization that has shown cannot keep the data secure) is incorrect. Interested parties will find out the option of the military. Plus, they are a discriminatory organization ("Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy specifically) so they are not allowed in most schools. And when the government threatens schools that don't allow this to go on, they get their funds taken away? That is bulls***.

 

And yes, when you have about 500 allegations of recruiters lying to students to get them to sign up (and that was in 2005...and just the reported ones) A person who wants to join the military can and will. However, the way the government is involving themselves in the school system vis a vis military recruitment is totally asinine.

 

 

haha, first off the army is not a disciminatory organization. with your standards ANY organization could be considered discriminatory. if they don't allow recruiters on campus they should lose their funds, the military is an important part of our country.

 

oh, and 500 allegations isn't that much if you consider the amount of recruiting that goes on. but yea, they need to be honest with recruits... atleast we can agree on that.

[Texsox]

Bottom line the ACLU defends the Constitution not the groups whose rights are being challenged. While it would be nice if those persons were always perfect, that isn't how we chip away rights in this country. We trample on the Constitution with groups we don't like, and when it gets applied to us, then we worry.

 

I don't have problems with the military having equal access with other groups to recruit.