Is the ACLU good for America?

[Fake Boris]

Hehe

but why is it anti-libertarian to impose fewer restrictions on pedophiles in exchange for not spending the rest of their lives permanently isolated away with people who'd gladly kill them. It would be anti-libertarian and anti-constitution (and immoral) to impose these restrictions after telling them their debt was paid, but for those in the future who acquire this debt, their payment plan will be altered. If we let em out (and I wouldn't even do that), they'll still have restrictions.

WTF?

[Ramo]

Seeing as how, I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and an amateur lobbyist for its UT branch (the TX legislature is currently meeting, so we go to the capitol to harrass legislators wrt proposed laws), of course.

As for this specific law, the sex offenders have already been sentenced, and have already served their time. Like mandatory minimums and three strikes laws, taking discretion in sentencing away from judges and juries hearing specific circumstances, and imposing rediculously broad punishments through legislatures is wrong.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Whoha

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/262005g.asp

Not when they pull this crap, in response to the question in the title.

Funny, given that a week or two ago the border patrol was complaining that the Minutement had set off those sensors too.



And agapepress.org? Give me a break.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Except for the fact that the court has stated repeated Totally different basis for challenge, and therefore you can't just take a 1st Amendment case's reason and apply it to a totally different area of jurisprudence.

Sure you can

I'd say the govenment can infringe on a person's right to travel if it shows a compelling government interest [prevention of child molestation] by a narrowly tailored law [ex-con child molesters must not live within 1/2 mile of a place where children gather].

Is this so ruddy awful?

[And by the way, what the heck are you doing over there on my policital left? I'm the liberal; you're the conservative.]

[JohnT]

[And by the way, what the heck are you doing over there on my policital left? I'm the liberal; you're the conservative.]

Pedophilia makes for strange bedfellows....

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd say the govenment can infringe on a person's right to travel if it shows a compelling government interest [prevention of child molestation] by a narrowly tailored law [ex-con child molesters must not live within 1/2 mile of a place where children gather].

Strict scrutiny is not the reasoning for 1st Amendment jurisprudence... it's a tool used for most Bill of Rights rights. The reasoning for zoning adult bookshops in certain areas is different than restricting people from areas, involving the differences between commerical rights and individual rights.

Btw, in your example, there is a compelling interest, but in NO WAY narrowly tailored. Firstly, it is vastly overbroad. What is a 'place where children gather'? What if they have been reformed in prison? Is this law merely an attempt to say child molestors can't live in our city without coming out and saying so?

It's the narrowly tailored part which is important, and why a vast majority of the time the government doesn't survive strict scrutiny. A simple rule of thumb is that the government doesn't win with strict scrutiny and that the claimant doesn't win with rational basis scrutiny. There are exceptions, but very rare... and obviously, intermediate scrutiny (usually used for gender) can go either way.

[Berzerker]

Because, firstly, child molestation is a Type 1 Felony (usually) and type 1 felonies do NOT carry the punishment of life in jail. Only murder has that punishment. Even rape doesn't fall under 'life in jail'.

So why is it anti-libertarian to support life in jail or a combination of jail and less restrictive access to society than jail affords? You're arguing about what the sentence is now, so what? I'm arguing about what the sentence should be in the future and if that sentence is constitutional.

Therefore, it is not in exchange for not keeping them in jail for life.

They would get life if I had my way, but my compromise would be early release in exchange for a life with fewer restrictions.

I think most courts would consider life in jail for one child molestation (that did not result in death) not to proportional, just as using the death penalty for rapists was decided to be non-proportional.

Life in jail would be light compared to what they'd get if caught in the act, therefore what most courts say doesn't impress me.

Secondly, the way it works is that they serve the full 20 years (who is letting a child molester out early?) and then they have additional penalties put upon them. The localities say, oh that isn't a punishment that falls under the statutory maximum. It'd be like someone serving their entire maximum for drunk driving and then being told they couldn't buy alcohol for the next 10 years.

Which violates ex post facto, we're debating whether or not it is unconstitutional to sentence molesters the way I have described - the answer is no.

Then it needs to be a part of sentencing. The community doesn't get to just tack on conditions as it sees fit.

I haven't said otherwise.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Whoha

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/262005g.asp

Not when they pull this crap, in response to the question in the title.

There does seem to be some extremists associated with the ACLU. Over all their mission is good but the ACLU seems to have trouble controling its own members sometimes. Nice article.

[Kuciwalker]

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

[Dinner]

Except the people who were triggering those senors were hampering law enforcement activity and tampering with government property. Those are crimes and commiting those are still illegal.

[Kuciwalker]

So were the Minutemen.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So were the Minutemen.

Cite?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Funny, given that a week or two ago the border patrol was complaining that the Minutement had set off those sensors too.



And agapepress.org? Give me a break.

[Dinner]

That still doesn't back up your claim that the minutemen were trying to send law enforcement officers on wild goose chases and that they were attempting to prevent law enforcement officers from doing there job. So I will once again ask you for a cite.

[Dinner]

The ACLU's official policy is to not interfer with law enforcement or to help people breaking American law in any way and that's a good policy. The problem is certain ACLU activists have taken it upon themselves to hinder law enforcement and to attempt to help people break American law. That's not good.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/ACLU,_Minutemen_trade_accusations_of_misbehavior

April 17, 2005

Grey Deacon, a spokesman of the Minuteman Project, told the "Worldnet RadioActive" show in an exclusive interview on April 14 that representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union are now criminally involved in helping illegal entrants cross the US border and avoid detection. He alleges that the ACLU activists are making noise and flashing lights to alert potential illegals to move on to a non-patrolled area of the border.

"The ACLU's position is that illegal aliens have a right to enter our border and stay in this country as long as they want," said Deacon. "That's what one of the leaders of the group told me personally."

These allegations exist despite the ACLU's officially stated position of not directly interfering with the Minutemen's activities. The ACLU's press release of March 30 affirmed that the participation of ACLU members would be strictly limited to being "neutral observers" and "recorders", not "participants", according to ACLU of Arizona Board President Stan Furman, a former Arizona State Senator.

"We recognize the right of a country to defend its borders," said Eleanor Eisenberg, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona, "but it must be done by the proper authorities and in a humane way," suggesting that the primary concern on the ACLU in interacting with the Minuteman Project was to prevent violence.

The ACLU also quotes prior allegations against the group that sponsors the Minutemen, writing that they are "alleged to have engaged in activities that go beyond First Amendment-protected activity and that is intended to intimidate, harass or otherwise interfere with the rights of others."