And what's wrong with that?

I'm quite sure Dick doesn't need me to defend him, and in the interest of full disclosure, I rarely agree with the things he says (see earlier in this thread for an example), but the bolded comment above is way out of line. At no point did he say that he "supports child porn". He did lay out the reasoning the ACLU used to challenge the laws passed by Congress to try to regulate & punish those who make, distribute, & possess child pornography. That is all. He laid out the facts of the events that occurred. It is unreasonable and unfair to make the leap that, because he didn't denounce child porn as such he is therefore a "supporter" of it. The simple presentation of the events that happened does not require one to then make a value judgment regarding either the events themselves or the subject matter of those events.

This was an obscene personal attack that is totally unsupported by any evidence. Please, either present some evidence in support of your accusation, or refrain from making them.

(I am not a moderator, nor do I play one on TV.)

I actually am offended by things that seem to degrade people, porn being a prime example. I don't propose we should try to define and regulate it, but the product seems to degrade the actors, adult or child.
But we don't need a law to dictate what YOU look at just to satisfy MY personal bias.

I've sort of stayed away from the ACLU because the Minnesota chapter used to be simply the law firm for a couple of porn dealers. In my opinion, the ACLU should have directed it's limited resources elsewhere. Porn dealers make lots of money and don't need help from non-profits.

But the smart people at the ACLU believed that's where the First Amendment attack was. Maybe they are right. We did have an Attorney General that put clothes on statutes......

Maybe it's easier to focus on the LAW if you don't look at the pictures?

Except that in the case of child porn, a crime had to have been committed in order for there to be child porn for someone to look at. It's akin to receiving stolen property. You may not have stolen it but someone did and now you have it illegally.

Repugnant, hateful speech should be protected. Some piece of shit getting his rocks off looking at child porn should not.

Very well said. XD, Attack the argument actually being made, not the one you want to spin it to be to smear the author , nor person directly.

We had PM's about this EXACT line of attack yesterday. Knock it off.

It's not possible to prove "truth" objectively

Then just what are the courts and lawyers doing?

Call me naive but that it what I thought justice was all about - getting to the truth of the matter

Well...that's the goal anyway. It certainly isn't always the outcome though. Hopefully it's rare, but every so often you read about people put in prison only to be exonerated after a few years. I guess in those cases they didn't get to the truth of the matter.

http://www.knology.net/~bilrum/aclu.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/m ... 270920.asp

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0329-34.htm

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/aclu_w ... l_academy/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... tmo05.html

http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/ar ... 03583.html

I'm sure those among us who support the ACLU will not be swayed by anything I post. This list should just provide a few more examples of their depravity to those who already know it exists - and despise them for it. Folks can rationalize anything... it's amazing. They funny thing about rationalization though, one must first recognize what is irrational.

If you can think of something which is related to something else, without thinking of the thing to which it is related, you have a fine legal mind. (Unknown)

If not, as Professor Kingsfield said, "Your head is full of mush!".

Notice the authors of the cites. None of them seem to be lawyers. Hmm....

I didn't know one had to be a lawyer to voice an opinion on cases represented/argued by the ACLU. Does the ACLU know this? Gee, I better sit down and shut up cuz I'm not a lawyer.

It doesn't take a lawyer to recognize that molesters should be tracked and the communities in which they live notified. Praise the ACLU!!! Keeping the playground safe... for child abductors.

http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/ar ... 03583.html

Call me crazy, but I'm of the opinion that people who get caught having sex with little kids should, at the very least, be tracked. Whatever. Like I wrote, I know the fans won't be swayed. We've all got our minds made up.

So, what do you think of criminal defense lawyers? Imagine the awful folks they represent...

The founders created our system with the intention of minimizing the number of wrongful convictions. Defense lawyers are a necessary part of the process. Don't throw subterfuge. The importance of DLs as part of specific trials has nothing to do with the ACLU defending NAMBLAs literature explaining how to get away with raping little boys.

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/m ... 270920.asp

Read the article. What am I saying... you already know the whole story. Is this just a philosophical debate, or do you really feel this way?

The First Amendment is the First Amendment. We don't ban literature of any kind. The remedy for speech you don't like is more speech, not a government prohibition based on the contents of the speech.

The folks who don't like the speech can and always will condemn thes ideas. What are folks afraid of? That Nambla will win the debate against the rest of us? That's silly.

The ACLU wants government to abide by the Constitution. Our form of government depends on information being freely available.

It makes no more sense to ban a story about child sex than a story about a bank robbery. Either story might arguably "give ideas to the wrong people". But this is never a true problem. The "wrong people" come up with such ideas on their own, and have since the beginning.



The fact that an organization can come up with a disgusting idea and publish it does not mean that the people of the United States should jist give up our form of government and way of life. Free speech is a core value worth fighting for. There will always be another disgusting idea to top this one. I don't want to just surrender to government bans on whatever currently offends the majority of us.

Gun Control laws are the same. Prohiitions passed by rightious folks who are so blinded by the subject that they cannot follow the law when confronted by the subject. Some folks will next want to ban this forum, get our names, and probably put us on the "no fly, no buy" list. We have to protect the "'children" against un violence, ya know.

Don't fall for this propaganda.

If this is the case why do we have the FCC? Why does the far left only like free speech if its something they agree with? (sorry for the thread drift but 1st amendment is the most violated amendment, I can't stand up in school and tell the teacher to F*** off without getting in trouble but they certainly can and have told me)