U of Tex Students plan 'ACLU Nativity Scene' - Page 2

The12thMan · #11 (**permalink**) 12-02-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apotropoxy";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by The12thMan";p=&quot

Give the kids a break. They go to the most liberal college in the region and live in the most liberal city. Poor babies.

Southwestern University up in Georgetown is more liberal than UT. There is a correlation to the prestige of a university and its liberality.

You may be right, but my kid's high school is bigger so I forget about it.

Quote:

You're right about Austin, however. Thank God!!
It is a great place to live.

For liberals, that is!

apotropoxy · #12 (**permalink**) 12-03-2006, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Glitch: Now if they [UT students] got into the ACLUs support for child porn then they would be going too far.

You have been mislead. The ACLU does not support child pornography. Below are sections of a letter sent to two US Representatives laying out the ACLU's position on legislation then before the House. The document is too long to post here, but I invite you to read it through. Here are a few of the salient points:

Quote:

(5/8/2002)
The Honorable Lamar Smith
2231 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4321
The Honorable Robert C. "Bobby" Scott
2464 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4603
Re: Analysis of H.R. 4623, the "Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002"
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Scott:
H. R. 4623, the "Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002" is a hasty attempt drafted by the Department of Justice to override the United States Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. ____ (2002). While the intentions of the authors may be good, the bill is fatally flawed. We therefore urge you to vote against this bill.
H.R. 4623 seeks to ban "virtual child pornography," and prohibit "pandering" of images as child pornography even if the images are not obscene or child pornography. It creates a whole new category of prohibited speech, prohibits using sexually explicit materials to facilitate offenses against minors, creates extraterritorial jurisdiction, and creates a database of minors who have been exploited in the creation of child pornography.
The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment. H.R. 4623 attempts to ban this protected material, and therefore will likely meet the same fate as the provisions stricken from the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. […]
In 1982, the United States Supreme Court rendered its first decision regarding a state statute directed at and limited to depictions of sexual activity involving children. In New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), the Court upheld the statute and noted "if it were necessary for literary or artistic value, a person over the statutory age who perhaps looked younger could be utilized. Simulation outside of the prohibition of the statute could provide another alternative." Thus, the Court clearly had in mind the possibility of virtual child pornography as an alternative to using a real child.
The Ferber decision also noted:
We note that the distribution of descriptions or other depictions of sexual conduct, not otherwise obscene, which do not involve live performance or photographic or other visual reproductions of live performances, retains First Amendment protection. [Emphasis added.] Id. at 764-65
Based upon this precedent, the Ashcroft decision was hardly surprising. Ashcroft did, however, reiterate several principles applicable to this current effort against child pornography:
1. Nonobscene descriptions or depictions of sexual conduct that do not involve real children are a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. (Reaffirming Ferber.)
2. The government should focus its efforts on education and punishment for violations of the law rather than abridgment of the rights of free speech. Slip Opinion at 7 [Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of N.Y., 360 U.S. 684, 689 (1959)] Thus, the focus should be on those who actually harm children in the creation of child pornography rather than on those who create something from their imagination.[…]
Conclusion
Government can and should outlaw the abuse of children. However, it cannot ban speech simply because that speech may encourage unlawful acts.
The government "cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person's private thoughts." Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566 (1969). First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought. Slip Opinion at 15.
H. R. 4623 not only repeats mistakes from the past, it makes new mistakes as well. Because the bill is fatally flawed, both on constitutional and privacy grounds, we urge you to vote against it.
Sincerely,
Laura W. Murphy
Director
Marvin J. Johnson
Legislative Counsel
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/1...g20020508.html

barney-fife · #13 (**permalink**) 12-03-2006, 10:02 AM

The ACLU represents NAMBLA.

f100supersabr · #14 (**permalink**) 12-03-2006, 10:11 AM

From the keyboard of the venerable 12th

Quote:

Give the kids a break. They go to the most liberal college in the region and live in the most liberal city. Poor babies.

I think it's funnier then hell!! I especially like this line

Quote:

“The three Wise Men are Lenin, Marx, and Stalin

because the founders of the ACLU were strident supporters of Soviet style Communism.

PS I have always said that "conservatives have a better sense of humor than the vast majority of liberals. Why do "you" think liberal radio talk shows die ? Answer they are boring as hell!!!

This was the official Soviet three kings alternative Christmas song:

We three kings of the USSR are,
going to send you away very far,
to Siberia you will go,
and no one of you will again ever know.

Force-of-the-Truth · #15 (**permalink**) 12-03-2006, 10:14 AM

Ironically, apotropoxy, that last post of yours destroyed all respect I had for the ACLU. I knew that another "free speech" group supported legal simulated child pornography, but I didn't know that the ACLU did. So it doesn't see anything wrong with inciting desire to molest children? Do any of those Always Causing Legal Unrest fiends have children of their own? I don't, and I'm still enraged. I never thought I'd quote Jerry Falwell, but in this case I will: The ACLU be hanged!

Rebellion · #16 (**permalink**) 12-03-2006, 03:15 PM

which is why they didn't support the Minutemen and instead were against them.

apotropoxy · #17 (**permalink**) 12-03-2006, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barney-fife";p=&quot

The ACLU represents NAMBLA.

The ACLU represents all sorts of vile people and institutions: American Nazi Party, Rush Limbaugh, NAMBLA.
The group advocates a strong defense to the right to free speech. Below is a digest of the ACLU's position of their defense of NAMBLA.

Quote:

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

apotropoxy · #18 (**permalink**) 12-03-2006, 08:38 PM

Quote:

So it doesn't see anything wrong with inciting desire to molest children? Do any of those Always Causing Legal Unrest fiends have children of their own? I don't, and I'm still enraged. I never thought I'd quote Jerry Falwell, but in this case I will: The ACLU be hanged!

It sees something very right in preventing the government from enforcing thought crime laws. The ACLU does not believe that a crime is committed when a person engages in a fantasy. They believe that it becomes a crime when illegal actions are taken.
Did you realize that this law would also make illegal publication of fully clothed children in everyday situations if the pictures [not necessarily photos] were placed into a sexualized framing context? It could be easily argued that every Sears catalogue extant could be considered porno. It would certainly outlaw Romeo and Juliette.

apotropoxy · #19 (**permalink**) 12-03-2006, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion";p=&quot

The ACLU supports free speech it likes, which is why they didn't support the Minutemen and instead were against them.

The ACLU supports the constitutional rights of the Minutemen, just like they supported the rights of the American Nazi Party to hold a march in Skokie, Ill. What the ACLU did with regard to the Minuteman issue was to send representatives to witness the behavior of the group as they interacted with immigrants. No constitutional issue involving the Minutemen were in play. You have posted another distortion to suit you own ends.
It's time to show us what free speech of the Minutemen the ACLU "dislikes".
Go.

Righty · #20 (**permalink**) 12-04-2006, 12:07 AM

People get the impression TODAY that the ACLU is a Communist front, then they dig back to look for Commies in their rank.

Its not the other way around.

People don't look for former Communists of past to label groups TODAY. See how Democrats get all defensive when exposed.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode