Your thoughts on the ACLU

[Ben Kenobi]

They defend the right of NAMBLA to state their opinion - not some (non-existant) "right" to **** little kids.

Is there evidence that the NAMBLA abuses little children? If so, they should be punished for the act. You cannot punish them for what they say, only if they act on what they say, or if they threaten someone with violence.

I agree that what they advocate is disgusting, immoral, etc. but they still have the right to say their opinion.

Another good example would be the Klu Klux Klan, let them speak, and then thoroughly refute their position.

[Q Classic]

aclu: good group, but they don't always have their heads on straight. kinda like the nra.

[Inverse Icarus]

ACLU is a speedbump in the supremacy of the white race.

and diss, your statement:

the only problem I have is their defense of NAMBLA (north american man boy love association). How could they defend such scum?

can be generalized to: the only problem I have is their defense of [group i hate]. How could they defend such scum?

scum is relative.

[Ben Kenobi]

One need not advocate relativism, Dissident.

In fact, this discussion goes way back, as long as there have been books, there has been censorship.

That's why I favour Milton's argument, in Areopagitica:

"Let truth and falsehood grapple. Who ever knew truth to be the lesser in a free and open encounter?"

To paraphrase Milton, we are falliable beings. In censoring falsehood, we inevitably censor some truth.

[Jack_www]

Re: Re: Your thoughts on the ACLU

Originally posted by The Templar


It's called 'free speech'. They defend the right of NAMBLA to state their opinion - not some (non-existant) "right" to **** little kids.

What? NAMBLA advocates the rape of minors. Telling people to rape kids is not protected by the bill of rights.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Is there evidence that the NAMBLA abuses little children? If so, they should be punished for the act. You cannot punish them for what they say, only if they act on what they say, or if they threaten someone with violence.

I agree that what they advocate is disgusting, immoral, etc. but they still have the right to say their opinion.

Another good example would be the Klu Klux Klan, let them speak, and then thoroughly refute their position.

The problem is that they tell their members to rape Kids! That is not protected speach.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The ACLU is a great organization. I voted for the first option.

[Ben Kenobi]

That is not protected speach.

Agreed. That falls under advocating violence.

[Dis]

they ****ing give a step by step guide how to have sex with little children!!!!!!

The Ku Klux Klan does not give guides how to beat up black people. So that comparison is meaningless. Same with comparison to other hate groups.

[Jack_www]

Once the ACLU start to defend groups like NAMBLA right to advocate violence and rape of minors, that just shows me how low they really are. Way to go ACLU, you defend a groups right to tell people to rape kids!

[chequita guevara]

AFAIK, NAMBLA only says people should have the right. They do not tell people to go do it. It's sad that they have a guide on how to do it, but that is no more illegal than a how to build your own bomb guide. Disgusting, yes. Unprotected speech, no.

[Jack_www]

Anther thing that makes me hate the ACLU is their suit to delay the recall election in California. They got the 9th Circuit Court to delay because they will be using punch cards, the same system that elected Gray Davis. They need to be stop before they destory this country.

[Dinner]

The punch cards have been used in every election for a half century including the recent election where Davis beat Simon.

[chequita guevara]

That's because California could not reasonably upgrade the voting booths for the 2002 election. The ACLU does realize you can't get blood from a stone.

Here's the deal. Touch screen systems have less than a 1% fallability (providing they are programmed correctly, an assumption I am not willint to make without seeing the source code and a paper record of the vote), whereas punchcards have about 4% fallability. Thus, people in countries which use punchcards will have a diminished right to vote vis a vis other counties. This violates the Equal Protection clause.

BUT (there's always a but), despite the consent decree between the ACLU and California, California has to get the permission of some Federal judge or agency to change anything related to voting in those particular counties because of some civil rights decision.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's because California could not reasonably upgrade the voting booths for the 2002 election. The ACLU does realize you can't get blood from a stone.

Here's the deal. Touch screen systems have less than a 1% fallability (providing they are programmed correctly, an assumption I am not willint to make without seeing the source code and a paper record of the vote), whereas punchcards have about 4% fallability. Thus, people in countries which use punchcards will have a diminished right to vote vis a vis other counties. This violates the Equal Protection clause.

BUT (there's always a but), despite the consent decree between the ACLU and California, California has to get the permission of some Federal judge or agency to change anything related to voting in those particular counties because of some civil rights decision.

The problems with punch cards can be solved if you know what you are doing and are carefull. With the touch screen voting, who is too say you cant hack into the system and screw with the results, or people mistakenly touch the wrong button, or the system crashes, or their is a major bug in the program. So yes when you are voting their is no system that can be 100% accurate and counts everyone vote. So does that mean that we should not have elections at all untill we find a 100% accurate system???