A.C.L.U. screws Boy Scouts

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

17 Jan 2004, 11:14 PM
burgundy

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

The big problem I have with the ACLU, you see, is stepping up and defending NAMBLA.

And I would have a big problem with them if they didn't. The ACLU defended the Nazi Party back in Skokie in the 60s/70s, and as much as I don't like man/boy buttsex, I think killing 12 million people is a bit worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master

I for one think it is a group that IS bigoted. Though, they aren't violent or hateful and they do more good than most groups combined. I support the boy scouts and think they have a right to exist and the ACLU should be looking out for their rights, not the other way around. The ACLU would never defend the Boy Scouts, because they promote beliefs that the general populace (or a good portion of it) agree with. ACLU only likes to defend the little guy, and for some reason sees the boy scouts as "the man".

Bigots? Yes.

Bad? No.

You can't be serious. If the Boy Scouts were having their First Amendment rights trampled upon, the ACLU would be the first in line to defend them.
17 Jan 2004, 11:21 PM
Diff-chan

Quote:

Originally Posted by burgundy

And I would have a big problem with them if they didn't. The ACLU defended the Nazi Party back in Skokie in the 60s/70s, and as much as I don't like man/boy buttsex, I think killing 12 million people is a bit worse.

Come on. It's not like the ACLU defends everybody who may or may not be getting their civil rights infringed, they easily could have defended someone else. A lawyer chooses their own cases, and NAMBLA could have gotten someone else to work for them if the ACLU decided not to defend them.

But, you can stay satisfied with them, my opinion is unchanged.
17 Jan 2004, 11:40 PM
burgundy

Dude, you insinuated that the ACLU decided to defend NAMBLA for political gain. Pedophiles are this country's least popular group outside of 9/11 terrorists. Defending NAMBLA did nothing to further the image of the ACLU in the eyes of most American non-pedophiles, so there had to be another reason for it.

The ACLU simply does not have to the time and the manpower to go to work on every First Amendment claim that comes their way. They pick and choose the ones they 1) believe they can win and 2) believe will set strong precedent. Because if NAMBLA and the Nazi Party are free to express their beliefs in legally permissible ways, so is everyone else.
17 Jan 2004, 11:44 PM
Diff-chan

No, I insinuated nothing.
17 Jan 2004, 11:47 PM
burgundy

My mistake. I read a reply to one of your posts and associated it with you.
17 Jan 2004, 11:50 PM
Frogacuda

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Come on. It's not like the ACLU defends everybody who may or may not be getting their civil rights infringed.

You'd be surprised how willing they are to take a case. Alot of people don't bother to reach out to them, but there aren't alot of serious cases that the ACLU will turn down altogether. I know at the very least they can help give you legal advising.

I know I was having trouble with my school back in high school and I called them up and right there over the phone they said I had a good case and they gave me all kinds of cases and precedent to show and said they'd back me if push came to shove. It was a big help, and gave me some bargaining ground with the school, and it was just a phone call.
17 Jan 2004, 11:52 PM
Diff-chan

Quote:

Originally Posted by burgundy

My mistake. I read a reply to one of your posts and associated it with you.

Cant be making mistakes like that in the courtroom burgundy.
17 Jan 2004, 11:52 PM
burgundy

And when I'm getting $200 an hour, I'll be a lot more careful.
18 Jan 2004, 02:25 AM
Parcher D.O.D.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

So if you opposed the organization that has devoted themselves to upholding our constitutional freedoms (the ACLU) then wouldn't that make you the one who had something in common with the communists and nazis?

I support the ACLU on SOME issues. Just as I think that some people deserve to be called, "traitors". Some people are "evil" and should be punished by vigorous prosecution. I just don't think that success is a measure of avarice like many liberals do. America rebelled because King George was a tyrant, and a tyrant typically calls anyone who tries to rise in teh ranks of society and not bow and scrape to the dictator a "traitor".

I'm saying that the ACLU goes too far and I disagree with them on many issues. They abuse the right to persue punishment for people they decide are "evil".

Quote:

:confused: Woah... someone just beamed up to the mothership... I really hope for your sake you meant that to sound crazy because otherwise you might have some serious issues that need addressing :|

No, I believe that what happened at Waco was wrong. I realize anyone who disagrees with what the ATF did is often put in the same category as conspiracy theorists who think that we never landed on the moon.

However, I've seen documentarys about the actual investigation of the ATF agents. The investigation was not conducted by conspiracy theorists, but by respectable internal affairs officers with a lot of convincing evidence.

I also believe that Koresh should have allowed the agents into his building. It may not be right for ATF agents to search your house, but it is pointless to resist.

The whole thing was handled badly by both sides.
18 Jan 2004, 02:40 AM
sleeve

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Okay, I did some research on the NAMBLA Case that the ACLU defended.

A few years ago, 1997, I think, two men kidnapped and killed a 10-year old.

They later uncovered the diaries of one of the guys who did it, and it turns out he was absolutely obsessed with this boy and had been planning things for months. He became a member of NAMBLA and supposedly posted on message boards and shit. I think he turned to the NAMBLA organization for "comfort". And he had NAMBLA literature, which an Ohio court showed (in another child rape case) "preparation and purpose" for the rape. I very much doubt they call it rape, but likely, you know, members of NAMBLA said, its your right to have sex with the kid, etc.

So after the murder, the family sued NAMBLA in a federal court, asking for damages. And the ACLU defended them. That's pretty much what there is to it. Hmm...

I still dont see why the ACLU defended NAMBLA. NAMBLA of course has the right to defend itself, but why the fuck is the ACLU defending them? People like this... sink or swim. There are plenty of other cases of civil rights abuses that doesnt involve an organization that has members drooling over the prospect of fucking boys.

The ACLU can choose whichever cases it wants, it shouldnt have chose this.

Ever heard the expression "bad cases make bad law?"

Perfect example. If this suit had turned out the other way, there would be precedent for all kinds of negligence suits against unpopular organizations for money damages.

So we would have more lawsuits (something I know you dislike), more liability, fewer free speech rights.

I find it ironic that, while the anti-ACLU people in this thread accuse it of being a partisan organization, they also object to all the fringe left- and right-wing groups it defends. Make up your mind, folks.

Incidentally, you guys have heard about the ACLU's role in the Rush Limbaugh medical records case, right?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page