Why are books with Christian overtones or messages less acceptable than communist propaganda children's books? ACLU fights tooth and nail to censor Christianity in any form (but not any other religion). Censorship is fine with the ACLU as long as it fits their agenda which can never be furthered through the ballot box.
And so here we have the crux of why debating the right is futile. JinnRikki (I) did not say they were happy. I don't know (as I said in another post, they may be at gun point) if they are happy, just that they were smiling.levistep said:
It is part of the larger point that the thought police wish to make any depiction of a ideology they don't agree with vanish. And if you have to bend the truth to do so, as you do, so be it.
Well this is what it comes to...if children in a picture are happy or not. Do you know for a fact they aren't happy? Do people in other countries think photos of smiling children in America are propaganda? What is the truth, I don't know, but censoring books certainly isn't a way to get to it.
As to your being Libertarian, it's just a label. Kind of like Sam Odam was a Democrat, yeah and I'm a monkey's uncle.
As to your being Libertarian, it's just a label. Kind of like Sam Odam was a Democrat, yeah and I'm a monkey's uncle.
TheRightSide said:
If you are a public defendant, and agree to defend a murderer - does that make you a supporter of murder?
The case in question (NAMBLA) was in regards to a vile murder. The lawsuit by the government was that the responsibility of the murder lie not with the person who commited it, rather with a person unrelated who had posted photos of it (that were passed to them) on the internet.
I realize nuance and macro views only apply when it comes to trying to change the world by dumping billions into countries overseas, but the law here in America is based upon pre-existing documents and precedent.
The implications of this (as distasteful as it was) would be that there would now be precedent to charge someone merely for posting photos of a crime and by this association, including them in the charge.
If you can't see the broad abuse of this being used as a precedent - then you have never been to an NRA meeting (the same NRA that challenged the FBI for trying to keep guns out of the hands of Arabic people on "watch lists"). Go ask someone from the NRA why they'd defend a potential terrorists right to own a gun - see what they say. Better yet, ask me (I'm a member)
The ACLU has defended Rush Limbaugh, Ollie North and Fundamental Christian Churches. This does not mean they support illegal drug shopping, illegal arms dealings to terrorists/guerillas or wacko churches.
In your specific case (NAMBLA), the larger issue was what would become of all of our rights had the government been able to turn an unrelated person into a defendant in a murder case.
You support George Bush. George Bush sent soldiers to Iraq. A soldier was charged 2 months ago with raping a women in Kuwait while awaiting transfer back into Iraq. His defense is that he was so stressed from going back for another tour that he couldn't control himself. Should George Bush be charged with rape? Or better yet, through your support of him, should you also be charged with rape?
TheRightSide said:
Mark my words - my first reaction was the same as yours. I still wonder how lawyers that sat and deposed Jeffrey Dalmer could hold themselves back from reaching across and killing the guy.
This case is a tough one to read because the crime itself was so horrible that our base reaction is to instantly want to lash out at someone/anyone. The larger issue is really what's at stake - and it just so happens the defendant may have been guilty of a lot of disgusting things, but murder was not one of them.
Well stated Vegas.....
The ACLU is one of many shining examples of how deep the hypocrisy runs within the far left. No references to God under any circumstances, but don't dare insult or censor our fav pets: islamofascism or communism or *insert the most vulgar and offensive idealogy*. The former is 'religious' the later are considered "expressing different points of view."
*************************
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/200...g-the-plug-on-free-speech-was-the-right-call/
ACLU Says Pulling The Plug On Free Speech Was The Right Call
by Jay on 06-18-06 @ 5:13 pm Filed under ACLU, 1st Amendment, News
The valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, decided to share her faith voluntarily at her graduation cermony. However, before she could get to the part that meant the most to her, Christ, her microphone went dead. Her speech was in no way endorsed by her school, however the school directly participated in censoring her free speech.
The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The judicial branch has extended the meaning of this amendment to any government body, not just Congress. However, I still don’t understand how so many ignore the part that says ” or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This is exactly what the school did to this young girl, prohibited the free exercize of her religious expression.
The decision to cut short McComb’s commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.
However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb’s mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.
They said McComb’s speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.
Before she delivered her commencement speech, McComb met with Foothill administrators, who edited her remarks. It’s standard district practice to have graduation speeches vetted before they are read publicly.
School officials removed from McComb’s speech some biblical references and the only reference to Christ.
It is shameful that the ACLU take such a backwards stance on this issue. The school obviously didn’t endorse the speech, so therefore they prohibited it, and acted upon it by censoring her.
But even though administrators warned McComb that her speech would get cut short if she deviated from the language approved by the school, she said it all boiled down to her fundamental right to free speech.
That’s why, for what she said was the first time in her life, the valedictorian who graduated with a 4.7 GPA rebelled against authority.
“I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech,” McComb said. “God’s the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior.”
The ACLU lawyer said that it could have given the perception that the speech was school endorsed. However, the school could have put out a disclaimer. The ACLU said that her speech crossed the line from religious expression into the realm of preaching. I guess if anyone knows what kind of religious expression could cause a lawsuit, it would be the ACLU since they would most likely be the ones sueing. This girl was smart and brave, but her school was rude and cowardly.
“People aren’t stupid and they know we have freedom of speech and the district wasn’t advocating my ideas,” McComb said. “Those are my opinions.
“It’s what I believe.”
*************************
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/200...g-the-plug-on-free-speech-was-the-right-call/
ACLU Says Pulling The Plug On Free Speech Was The Right Call
by Jay on 06-18-06 @ 5:13 pm Filed under ACLU, 1st Amendment, News
The valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, decided to share her faith voluntarily at her graduation cermony. However, before she could get to the part that meant the most to her, Christ, her microphone went dead. Her speech was in no way endorsed by her school, however the school directly participated in censoring her free speech.
The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The judicial branch has extended the meaning of this amendment to any government body, not just Congress. However, I still don’t understand how so many ignore the part that says ” or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This is exactly what the school did to this young girl, prohibited the free exercize of her religious expression.
The decision to cut short McComb’s commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.
However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb’s mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.
They said McComb’s speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.
Before she delivered her commencement speech, McComb met with Foothill administrators, who edited her remarks. It’s standard district practice to have graduation speeches vetted before they are read publicly.
School officials removed from McComb’s speech some biblical references and the only reference to Christ.
It is shameful that the ACLU take such a backwards stance on this issue. The school obviously didn’t endorse the speech, so therefore they prohibited it, and acted upon it by censoring her.
But even though administrators warned McComb that her speech would get cut short if she deviated from the language approved by the school, she said it all boiled down to her fundamental right to free speech.
That’s why, for what she said was the first time in her life, the valedictorian who graduated with a 4.7 GPA rebelled against authority.
“I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech,” McComb said. “God’s the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior.”
The ACLU lawyer said that it could have given the perception that the speech was school endorsed. However, the school could have put out a disclaimer. The ACLU said that her speech crossed the line from religious expression into the realm of preaching. I guess if anyone knows what kind of religious expression could cause a lawsuit, it would be the ACLU since they would most likely be the ones sueing. This girl was smart and brave, but her school was rude and cowardly.
“People aren’t stupid and they know we have freedom of speech and the district wasn’t advocating my ideas,” McComb said. “Those are my opinions.
“It’s what I believe.”
Joe Contrarian said:
I disagree with the ACLU lawyer. I don't think it can be realistically construed that she is speaking on behalf of the school. Whether or not the ACLU as an organization would pursue this I am not sure -- especially if they look back on this case.
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html
DETROIT - The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today announced an out-of-court settlement between the Utica Community School District and a local student over the censorship of her 2001 yearbook entry. The student's entry had been deleted from the yearbook because it contained a passage from the Bible.
I just had lunch this past weekend with some friends who work with the ACLU in Austin TX. Great people.
Seeing an irrational thread like this reminds me that I need to fire off one of my regular donations to the American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union asap.
Thanks for the prod.
Steve
Seeing an irrational thread like this reminds me that I need to fire off one of my regular donations to the American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union asap.
Thanks for the prod.
Steve
