Is the ACLU good for America?

[Ned]

Originally posted by MikeH
I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Voltaire

Free speech is indeed a part of the ACLU agenda. However, it is today a very small part. The problem comes with pushing the so-called separation of Church and State, the right to privacy, and the protection of criminals. Their interpretation of all these so-called constitutional rights is extreme.

On the US foregn policy, they are constantly filing FOI trying to expose US military secrets on the war on terror, etc. The want to expose everything we are doing on al Qa'ida based on their assumption that we are torturing detainees.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Ned


Mike, the anti-Americanism comes from a consistent attack on the US military by the ACLU.

So how do you explain the fact that a number of conservatives work for the ACLU? Are you allies also un-American?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Admiral


So how do you explain the fact that a number of conservatives work for the ACLU? Are you allies also un-American?

Interesting. I too was once a member.

[KrazyHorse]

Sikander, Imran, Guynemer:

[Lawrence of Arabia]

yeah, the ACLU attacks the US army when they torture prisoners. torturing is american, and attacking the US army when they do that is unamerican.

[JohnT]

Re: Is the ACLU good for America?

Originally posted by Lancer
Just watched what's his nime, the Irish guy, on FOX. He was interviewing the mayor of Miami who was trying to get a law through which would make convicted sex offenders stay 500 feet from the beach. Apparently the ACLU will fight it...

Wtf is wrong with such a law? Keep the perverts away from their prey, protect the people, children, etc? Wtf is wrong with the ACLU?

1. "Is the ACLU good for America?" Yes.

2. "What's wrong with this law?" If the guy was a habitual beach offender, keep him from the beaches! But he's not, so the law is stupid.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

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

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.

This is different than parole. If you let the guy out 10 years in and then said you could do this stuff for the next 10 years, until you reach your statutory maximum, that's something entirely different.

However, this law seems to say that child molestors, even after they've done their max time, can't go to the beach for an undetermined time... and as pointed out, seems like the law is so child molestors go somewhere else and become some other city's problem.

Free speech is indeed a part of the ACLU agenda. However, it is today a very small part.

You know absolutely nothing about the ACLU's agenda. Their biggest programs right now is acting against the PATRIOT Act, which has great implications on free speech.

nor a Christian organization that is not sued.

And Ned ignores all the times the ACLU has DEFENDED Christian churches which are being forced out of a community. Of course that doesn't fit with his world view.

On the US foregn policy, they are constantly filing FOI trying to expose US military secrets on the war on terror, etc. The want to expose everything we are doing on al Qa'ida based on their assumption that we are torturing detainees.

Heaven forbid they want to find out all the information after we have pictures proving we were treating the Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghirab less than humanely.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
Mike, the anti-Americanism comes from a consistent attack on the US military by the ACLU.

Cite? The only thing I've seen the ACLU say which protained to the military is that everyone had a right to a trial by jury and had a right to legal representation. Since the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wants to protect constitutional rights it seems like advocating the constitution's protections of due process and trial by jury is what they are doing not attacking the military.

It is nice know you believe everyone who opposes Bush's illegal detentions without trials or charges is unAmerican in your eyes.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Why is prison the only way to repay that debt? How about a combination of jail and a less limited access to society?

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

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Aren't felons already restricted from voting anyways?

Only while serving their sentences. Eight states also have laws prohibitting ex-felons from voting, including Florida. These laws are not intended to punish ex-felons, btw, but were designed to weaken the Black vote.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
1st Amendment concerns are triggered when Imran's House of Happy Children's Books is allow to open up across the street from a school but the evil Zribbler's Wide World of Porn must keep at least 1/2 mile away.

Originally posted by Imran
That's not a 1st Amendment issue. The city passing such a law (putting them under a different zoning requirement) uses the secondary effects doctrine, using statistics saying that adult stores depress property values and increase crime. Its considered a regulation of business and not a 1st Amendment issue.

As long as the law is not designed to eliminate adult stores and can prove the secondary effects through statistical analysis, it doesn't rise to a 1st Amendment issue.

Government regulation of speech (book sales) based upon the content of the speech does trigger 1st Amended concerns. My guess is that the government used "the secondary effects doctrine, using statistics saying that adult stores depress property values and increase crime" to show a compelling governmental interest, and the zoning regulation was narrowly tailored to protect that interest.

I'm wondering if the same kind of analysis can't be used to keep ex-con child molesters away from children.

[Whoha]

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

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

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Is the ACLU good for America?

Yes. Beyond any doubt.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Government regulation of speech (book sales) based upon the content of the speech does trigger 1st Amended concerns. My guess is that the government used "the secondary effects doctrine, using statistics saying that adult stores depress property values and increase crime" to show a compelling governmental interest, and the zoning regulation was narrowly tailored to protect that interest.

I'm wondering if the same kind of analysis can't be used to keep ex-con child molesters away from children.

Except for the fact that the court has stated repeated that 1st Amendment concerns don't apply to generally applicable zoing laws. Zoning laws have various different classifications and putting a commerical enterprise in a lower classification between of property values depreciation and crime increasing does not implicate 1st Amendment issues. That is why you have to prove that it increases crime and lower property values, because the general zoning law requires such.

Even if it was a 1st Amendment issue, and passed muster, you can't apply a decision to adult commerical enterprises to people! People have far more rights than businesses. Any 1st Amendment challege to adult bookstores would be based on free speech. This is not free speech, but a violation of the right to travel, under substantive due process of the 14th and 5th Amendments. 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.

[Kuciwalker]

Who hacked Berz's account?