Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Captain Virgil Hilts on July 23, 2006, 01:26:45 PM
-
ACLU sues on behalf of Fred Phelps Church of Hate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html)
-
Phelps is an *******. Seven letters, starts with A, ends with E, H in the middle.
The ACLU is right to protect his freedom to be one.
the Patriot Guard.
-
thats one freedom I can live without. thanks, but no thanks.
-
There's a limit to every right, and that includes free speech and religion. Protesting at a funeral is more than just a little over the line.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
There's a limit to every right, and that includes free speech and religion. Protesting at a funeral is more than just a little over the line.
That's the crux of it, for me. If this was about protecting these scum's right to protest in public, I would support it. But, a funeral is IMO a private affair (unless its a state funeral) and the family IMO has a right to privacy if they desire. That should include them being able to exclude whoever they want.
culero
-
I don't think they're protesting from private land. If so, the owner can exclude all he wants.
-
As I said in a previous thread, the ACLU picks the cases they represent VERY carefully. They occasionally pick a cause such as this because it covers both sides of the political spectrum...anti-war protestors...whom they sympathize with...and criticism of gays and lesbians, which is a sop thrown to "far right" conservatives.
It's also a high profile case.
They're so damn transparent it's laughable.
-
The specific thing that the ALCU is trying to protect might not be such a good choice, but I appreciate that they are protecting our freedoms.
In fact, I bet the parents/family of the dead soldier feel pretty bad. First, they are very sad that their son is dead. Secondly, they might be questioning why he had to die. But then to have a group at the funeral showing their hate for you and your dead son, thats the icing on the cake.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The specific thing that the ALCU is trying to protect might not be such a good choice, but I appreciate that they are protecting our freedoms.
In fact, I bet the parents/family of the dead soldier feel pretty bad. First, they are very sad that their son is dead. Secondly, they might be questioning why he had to die. But then to have a group at the funeral showing their hate for you and your dead son, thats the icing on the cake.
The ACLU does not protect freedoms, it protects it's agenda. It's agenda should, by now, be trasparent as can be by looking at the high profile cases they take and don't take.
This "phelps" group is dispicable.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
-
ACLU needs to be thrown in a "internment camp"
-
ACLU protecting Christians? Unpossible.
-
ACLU needs to protect people *from* Christians.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
ACLU needs to be thrown in a "internment camp"
It's the Amerikan thing to do. :aok
-
You do realize who foots the bill when these communists decide to "protect" someone's civil rights?
-
Originally posted by lukster
You do realize who foots the bill when these communists decide to "protect" someone's civil rights?
DING DING DING DING!!!!!!
EDIT:
Wait......the DNC?
-
The ACLU has one goal and that is to undermine the United States of America.
Roger Baldwin , founder of the ACLU, was not a fan of capitalism. So why do we continue to curtsy in front of the ACLU? They're a despicable organization no matter if they happen to be on a side you agree with. Their only real purpose is to undermine the USA. Don't ever forget their mission.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
ACLU 100 Greatest Hits (http://www.aclu.org/interactive/100greatest/interface.html)
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6713443/
The ACLU sued some religious fanatics that were trying to teach intelligent design in high school.
In that case, they certainly were in the right. Lets stick to learning about facts in school.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
OH NOES! TEH INTERNETS TUFF GUY!
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
OH NOES! TEH INTERNETS TUFF GUY!
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Freedom is for all right thinking Americans?
heh.
-
1st amendment should never have been..should be repealed..bottom line..this free speech crap causes more trouble than it is worth.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
1st amendment should never have been..should be repealed..bottom line..this free speech crap causes more trouble than it is worth.
Most particularly yours. Ease up on the death threats, tuff guy.
-
Originally posted by Horn
Most particularly yours. Ease up on the death threats, tuff guy.
Why should I ease up? what are you going to do? Are you secretly one of the MP's? Are you gonna ban me?
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Why should I ease up? what are you going to do? Are you secretly one of the MP's? Are you gonna ban me?
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
1st amendment should never have been..should be repealed..bottom line..this free speech crap causes more trouble than it is worth.
King George III would be so very proud. :aok
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
DING DING DING DING!!!!!!
EDIT:
Wait......the DNC?
Taxpayers have been keeping the ACLU in the dough. Just another one of those things the government spends our money on whether we like it or not. I feel a tea party comin' on.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
1st amendment should never have been..should be repealed..bottom line..this free speech crap causes more trouble than it is worth.
Awesome! A new Boroda!
-
zOMG, criticizing the .gov for allowing him to criticize the .gov...when #1 is removed astac will be the first guy sent to gitmo:rofl :rofl :rofl :noid :noid :noid :furious :furious :furious :O
-
Originally posted by lukster
You do realize who foots the bill when these communists decide to "protect" someone's civil rights?
The ACLU receives funding from a large number of sources. The distribution and amount of funding for each chapter varies from state to state. To take one particular example, the ACLU of New Jersey reported $1.2 million in income to both the ACLU-NJ and its affiliated tax-exempt foundation in the 2005 fiscal year. Of that income, 46% came from contributions, 19% came from membership dues, 18% came from court awarded attorney fees, 12% came from grants, 4% came from investment income and the remainder from other sources.
I'm thinking this isn't what you had in mind.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm thinking this isn't what you had in mind.
You cited only one chapter. Even 18% of their income is way too much when it comes outta my pocket.
-
If we became what the aclu want for this country they would be one of the first organizations banned.
Their founder was a commie and they have a stated socialist agenda.
Their stance on the second amendment is excellent proof that they do not wish to protect rights nor are they interested in a literal interpretation of the constitution.
their stance is hypocritical and dishonest on the second. They alone claim to believe that the second is not an individual right.
As for the funeral thing... they are most likely wrong... it is to me the same as yelling "fire" or "bomb" in a crowd when there is no fire of bomb. the funeral protests are attempting to start a riot in my opinion and therefore not covered by free speech anymore than "fighting words" are.
People have hit it on the head... the aclu in poll after poll is considered to be an anti American leftist organization in the last 4 or 5 decades... They need the publicity and they need to not seem so agendized.
But... their agenda stands out... they are not defending abortion clinic protesters here remember.... it is war protesters. They are not defending the religious aspect but the right to cause damage to the war effort and to anger those who support it.
As was said... they are a pretty transparent little commie group who hate individualists and hate America as the founders intended it to be.
lazs
-
AFAIK, abortion clinics are businesses. They are not public property so rights of protest do not apply.
In addition, quite often the abortion protestors attempted to blockade the clinic and keep patients from going in. No constitutional rights there either.
Next straw man?
-
Speaking of polls (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=619).
While the National Rifle Association (NRA) is the most recognized of our groups, less than half of those familiar with them (48%) trust the NRA while 52 percent do not trust them.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) inspires the clearest overall divide among the 80 percent who are familiar with them; 49 percent trust the ACLU compared to 51 percent who do not trust them, yet they have the highest percentage of responses for ‘do not trust at all’ – 30 percent.
-
I trust the ACLU. I trust them to do exactly the opposite of what I believe to be in the best interst of my country. On the other hand I don't trust the NRA to protect my Second Amendment rights. I'd be foolish to grant anyone complete trust for that I think.
Polls lie and liars poll.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
AFAIK, abortion clinics are businesses. They are not public property so rights of protest do not apply.
In addition, quite often the abortion protestors attempted to blockade the clinic and keep patients from going in. No constitutional rights there either.
Next straw man?
Actually businesses are private property. They also reserve the right to refuse service and to remove unwanted folks from their property if they so desire and trespass alws do apply there. This is not the same as governement property which is indeed public property as the people, through the government, own said property.
The right of protest does not abrogate private property owners rights. Protest is legal on public property, within certain limits such as denial of use by other citizens / obstructing traffic etc., but is subject to removal on private property at the request fo the property owner or responsible party.
-
sandie... I realize that abortion mills are private factories and that protestors have no right to block access.. I would not want the aclu to try to give them that right... I was talking about protesters on public property not blocking access... certainly the same would apply to the "reverend" tho... he should not be able to block access to public or private land.
Hardly a "straw man" if I have any idea of what one is. Perhaps an example that could be one is that the aclu never defended the rights of resteraunt and bar owners to allow smoking in their private business.
I do not believe that the aclu thinks that there should be any private business or private property.
Oh.... I believe your polls are accurate... I believe that with any organization... you will find that about half the people trust it with total naive faith and half have doubts... The fact that 30% of the people have absolutely no trust at all in the aclu is very telling tho... That is a huge number of people who litteraly hate the group.
lazs
-
So let me see...
lazs wnts the 2nd amendment to be literally enforced without any limitations, but doesn't feel the same about the 1st amendment.
ACLU wants the 1st amendment enforced without limitation but doesn't feel the same about the 2nd.
Which one is a hyopocrite again?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So let me see...
lazs wnts the 2nd amendment to be literally enforced without any limitations, but doesn't feel the same about the 1st amendment.
ACLU wants the 1st amendment enforced without limitation but doesn't feel the same about the 2nd.
Which one is a hyopocrite again?
Whoa. the ACLU absolutely does not want the first amendment enforced. They only want to enforce what supports their anti-freedom agenda.
-
Strange that those who wave the flag hardest are the ones most oppossed to freedom and liberty. Remember, Constitution Avenue is a 2 way street.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Strange that those who wave the flag hardest are the ones most oppossed to freedom and liberty. Remember, Constitution Avenue is a 2 way street.
huh?
-
Let's be honest. Who thinks the ACLU would come to the support of these very same people if they were preaching love and tolerance outside of a school rather than anti-war bigotry outside a soldier's funeral?
-
Where did I say that I didn't want the 1st to be enforced?
Do you believe that it is ok to incite a panic and endanger people by falsely yelling "fire" or "bomb"?
Is it ok to use "fighting words" say.... the n word to people with the intent to cause a fight?
Is it Ok to use obcenity in public when underage children are present?
I would be fine with all this if the government had not taken my right to defend against such people. If the protesters are allowed to cause such damage and disrespect to the families of the fallen then that would be fine with me so long as the families or any bystanders that were offended were able to lawfully attack the protesters.
How can you defend one persons right to incite a riot and not the "fire" in the theater guys?
Do you think the banning of the "n" word was to spare peoples feelings? Nope... to keep peace. Our government has taken it upon itself to decide what we can say and what we can do about the people that say it.
If I have to play by those rules then so be it but... it has to be a level playing field... The good reverend shouldn't get a pass anymore than the abortion clinic guys or howard stern.
You want to change the rules back to where the people decide what is worthy of listening to and I will go for that one and let a jury decide if there was reason enough.
lazs
-
Hmm, I don't recall any banning of the "N" word. What's the statute for that?
-
Originally posted by lukster
Let's be honest. Who thinks the ACLU would come to the support of these very same people if they were preaching love and tolerance outside of a school rather than anti-war bigotry outside a soldier's funeral?
If their rights were infringed the ACLU would be there.
Here's a question.. who do you want out there protecting our civil liberties?
-
Originally posted by lukster
You cited only one chapter. Even 18% of their income is way too much when it comes outta my pocket.
That 18% is regularly awarded to the winners of lawsuits. Christian anti-abortion legal groups have a similar take from court cases.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
If their rights were infringed the ACLU would be there.
Here's a question.. who do you want out there protecting our civil liberties?
The ACLU has pressed and is pressing continuously to deny everyone the freedom to express their religious views in "public". They are not the champions of free speech unless it suits their agenda.
If we didn't have big brother and the ACLU deciding what was was ok to say we wouldn't need this "protection" you speak of.
-
The ACLU has never tried to keep people from expressing their views in public.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The ACLU has never tried to keep people from expressing their views in public.
What would you call it when that highschool valedictorian's mic was cut? It was cut soley because the school was buffaloed by the ACLU. The ACLU even stated that "there should be no controversy over this".
This is but one example revealing one of the not so hidden agendas of the ACLU.
-
As I recall, it was school officials, not the ACLU, that cut off her mic.
-
students are required to submit their speeches in writing ahead of time and they're told if they deviate from the script at all, their microphones will be cut off. The district maintains that's exactly what happened in this case.
Not the ACLU.
-
Originally posted by rpm
As I recall, it was school officials, not the ACLU, that cut off her mic.
The school was still under the threat of a law suit from the ACLU. Make no mistake, the ACLU was behind this. You guys are fooling yourselves if you don't think the ACLU is the biggest culprit in denying these young people freedom of speech.
-
They didn't do anything, but even if they did, they were ensuring freedom of religion, not reducing freedom of speech.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
They didn't do anything, but even if they did, they were ensuring freedom of religion, not reducing freedom of speech.
I'd dig up the reports and show you what the ACLU did if I thought it would help to change your mind. Since I don't I'm not going to go to the trouble.
-
Read thru the post's
Can't believe no one brought up that issue with the child molester organization NAMBLA.
Yea the ACLU has been fighting the good fight for quite a few years to protect those guys right to molest little boys.
Yea if you guys want to believe they have no agenda then show me where that is in the Constitution.
I know it's probably right next to that right to kill your baby clause they were able to find during Roe v Wade.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
They didn't do anything, but even if they did, they were ensuring freedom of religion, not reducing freedom of speech.
I believe it would be freedom "From" not of.
-
Originally posted by Gunston
Read thru the post's
Can't believe no one brought up that issue with the child molester organization NAMBLA.
Yea the ACLU has been fighting the good fight for quite a few years to protect those guys right to molest little boys.
Yea if you guys want to believe they have no agenda then show me where that is in the Constitution.
I know it's probably right next to that right to kill your baby clause they were able to find during Roe v Wade.
Blah blah blah... Freedom of speech and right to privacy.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I'd dig up the reports and show you what the ACLU did if I thought it would help to change your mind. Since I don't I'm not going to go to the trouble.
What a long way of saying, "I can't support my assertations.".
-
All of us 2nd Amendment types have it all wrong. We won't be rising up to remove a tyrannical government -- our own ****ing citizens will willing give away those freedoms without a fight for:
1. Security. If you have nothing to hide...
2. Your rights end where my feelings begin.
3. Dammit, it's the FLAG! (I don't recall swearing during my enlistment that "I will support and defend the flag of the United States against all enemies...)
etc.
Obviously, won't just be the LIBEURLS that send us down the river into being subjects of the all encompassing corporate Nanny State, though they will certainly pitch in on the freedoms they find particularly disturbing.
Phelps is a tool of the highest order. But, the pissy thing of it is, is that if we want to live with any individual freedom what-so-ever we have to tolerate tools like Phelps. We have to accept that 3-4 tools will burn a flag each year without any common sense level of justification to go with that act. We have to accept that, on occasion, an enemy may take advantage of our general level of openness and freedom to commit terrorist acts. The alternative is the iron clad security and "proper thought" you find in a Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. And don't forget that the majority of the citizens in both generally supported the regimes. Hell, the Germans couldn't drop the Wiemar Republic fast enough to get back to a new Kaiser (papa Adolph) who put the commies in their place, cleaned up the streets of hooligans and rabble rousers, got rid of that degenerate culture and returned Germany to solid "family values."
I don't even want a taste of that "security" myself, therefore I tolerate Phelps. I don't even want the security of an "American Singapore."
I generally side 100 percent with what the ACLU supports. Even NAMBLA. They have a 100 percent right to free speech even if it is disgusting. However, if a NAMBLA follower acts on that speech then they have a 100 percent right to life in prison.
Just like religionists have a 100 percent right to brainwash their children. Of course, I'm ONLY talking about the "bad" religions like the Jeffs Clan, or the "Jihad means Love" types, or the Hollywierd Scientology scene. A lot of people might not agree with their ability to totally **** up their children from an early age on, but where do you draw the line? Currently, with a group like the Jeffs we draw it at 16 year old child brides in arranged polygamous marriages to older men by the whims of Jeffs. However, are the Baptists and Protestants cultists as well? (Hell, just ask a hardcore follower of one about the other and see what the answer is :)) No dancing or drinking on one side, and smoking purses and marching orders from the supreme (human) leader in Rome on the other... A slippery slope, I say.
My biggest ***** with the ACLU, and it's not a small one, is that they clearly see some rights as more important than others. The ACLU's red-headed-stepchild is, of course, the 2nd Amendment.
However, you take what you can get, and for now there is no rights organization that seems to have the focus and resources to stand up for the Bill of Rights as fully as the ACLU, regardless of who they support in the process (its the right, not the content of the expression) or don't support (firearm owners). Regardless of who founded the organization and for what purposes way back when. Case by case I can't really disagree with any position I have read so far in recent years (aside fro their views on the 2nd). FWIW, I also think the NRA does a piss poor job of supporting the 2nd, but I joined anyway for much the same reason. The Illinois Rifle Association, which I also joined, is borderline incompetent in a battleground state, but again, what's the alternative today? Maybe I can become involved moving forward, if it's not just some insider's downstate hunter's/trapshooter's club. You take what you can get.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What a long way of saying, "I can't support my assertations.".
I made my point several times over in thread I referred to. It seemed to cause little concern then. I guess that so long as it isn't my rights being trampled we just don't care.
The ACLU sues schools that allow freedom of speech if it is religious speech involved. They have a long and on going history of doing this. If you will clearly state that you think this isn't true then I will go to the trouble of proving it. If you don't really care and will just sweep it aside like Midnight Target did with his statement about if they did then it was to protect freedom of religion, then why should I bother?
-
I made my point several times over in thread I referred to. It seemed to cause little concern then. I guess that so long as it isn't my rights being trampled we just don't care.
The ACLU sues schools that allow freedom of speech if it is religious speech involved. They have a long and on going history of doing this. If you will clearly state that you think this isn't true then I will go to the trouble of proving it. If you don't really care and will just sweep it aside like Midnight Target did with his statement about if they did then it was to protect freedom of religion, then why should I bother?
I want to hear specifics.
Here's one lawsuit:
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case seeking to uphold an elementary school student's right to religious expression.
The Frenchtown Elementary School student, whose initials are O.T., wanted to sing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. School officials refused to allow the student to sing her song, saying it would give the impression that the school favored religion. “O.T.” remains anonymous to protect her privacy.
"There is a distinction between religious expression initiated or endorsed by school personnel, and speech initiated by individual students," said ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York. "The Constitution protects a student's individual right to express herself, including religious expression."
In its brief, the ACLU argued that no reasonable observer would have believed that the school endorsed the religious message behind the student's song, and that the school therefore had no right to deny her choice of song.
The talent show was open for anyone from the 1st through 8th grades who wished to play a solo instrument, dance, perform a skit or sing karaoke. Students were permitted to select their own songs or skits.
"We are dedicated to protecting the right of individual religious expression," said ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. "O.T. has our full support in defense of her right to sing a religious song in the talent show."
The ACLU of New Jersey has participated in other cases involving the right of individual religious expression, including recently helping to ensure that jurors are not removed from jury pools for wearing religious clothing and that prisoners are able to obtain religious literature.
The case, O.T. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, was filed in federal court in Trenton.
And here's another one:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky announced today that U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. has issued a temporary restraining order to prevent Russell County High School from including prayer during its graduation ceremony tonight.
“This case is not about whether people can or should pray; it’s about families and individuals deciding for themselves whether, when, and how to pray,” said Lili S. Lutgens, a staff attorney at the ACLU of Kentucky. “Our founders intended that these religious decisions be made by individuals and families, not the government.”
The ACLU of Kentucky sought the order Tuesday on behalf of a Russell County senior who believes that the planned prayers would have been an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and of specific religious views by the school.
Students who want to pray are free to organize a private, religious baccalaureate service before or after graduation, Lutgens said, but including prayers in the official graduation ceremony is a violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition against government-sponsored religion.
The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the inclusion of clergy-led prayer at public school graduations and student-led prayer at school sporting events. “The Constitution forbids the state to exact religious conformity from a student as the price of attending her own high school graduation,” the Court wrote in its 1992 Lee v. Weisman decision.
I agree fully with both positions. I bet if the prayer in the second case involved Satanism of Islamic Jihad then it wouldn't be such an OUTRAGE to many people who dislike the ACLU's meddling with their ability to overtly, or by implication, proselytize the "one true religion" at government funded events. See, you get the real strong impression where such outrage is concerned that it's not religion in general at the core, but resistance to the open acknowledgment that there is one true religion in America under Christ.
like this suit:
The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia and Americans United for Separation of Church and State today asked a court to order the removal of a large portrait of Jesus prominently displayed outside the principal's office at Bridgeport High School, saying that the display is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
"The Constitution's ban on government endorsement of religion is good for both government and religion. It keeps religion free and allows government to represent us all," said Andrew Schneider, Executive Director of the ACLU of West Virginia. "In violating that ban, Bridgeport High School is interfering with the right of all students to freely express their religious beliefs."
The current debate dates to a March meeting of the Harrison County Board of Education, when a local resident, Harold Sklar, submitted a formal request that the portrait be taken down. However, this is not the first time the display has been questioned. Sklar had asked for the portrait's removal several times over a 10 year period, but his requests were ignored.
Schneider noted that even if the portrait reflected the beliefs of a majority of individuals, the United States Supreme Court ruled unequivocally in 1943 in a landmark West Virginia case that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to ensure that fundamental liberties like freedom of religion are not subject to the whims of a majority.
"School officials are flouting the First Amendment principle of church-state separation and in the process providing students a shoddy civics lesson," said Richard Katskee, Assistant Legal Director of Americans United.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, seeks to remove the portrait and obtain damages as well as reasonable attorneys' fees.
I somehow don't think that portrait, outside the principal's office, is meant as a private expression of his faith. Seems more like a "get with the program" kind of thing to me. But again, substitute a pentagram for the Jesus portrait and the outrage over the suit vanishes, I imagine.
-
Here ya go: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17034
-
Kind of sounds like a he said/she said case.
District lawyer Bill Hoffman said the regulation allows students to talk about religion, but speeches can't cross the line into the realm of preaching.
"We encourage people to talk about religion and the impact on their lives. But when that discussion crosses over to become proselytizing, then we to tell students they can't do that," Hoffman said.
McComb, who said she plans to study journalism at Biola University, a private Christian school in La Mirada, Calif., doesn't believe she was preaching.
"People aren't stupid and they know we have freedom of speech and the district wasn't advocating my ideas," McComb said. "Those are my opinions. It's what I believe."
Of course, her speech featured ... six references to God or Christ, two biblical references and a detailed reference to the crucifixion of Christ. Sounds more in line with "preaching/proselytizing" than the impact of religion on her life (I've heard both preaching and people talking generally about the value of religion in their lives and detailed biblical references usually accompany the former) but I would have to see the full transcript to have a better foundation for that position.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
Kind of sounds like a he said/she said case.
Of course, her speech featured ... six references to God or Christ, two biblical references and a detailed reference to the crucifixion of Christ. Sounds more in line with "preaching/proselytizing" than the impact of religion on her life, but I would have to see the full transcript to have a better foundation for that position.
Charon
Sounds like the ACLU is deciding what is and isn't appropriate speech to me. Guess she was free to say what she wanted so long as it was approved by the state and endorsed by the ACLU. With that sort of first amendment protection I really, really, don't want them "defending" my rights.
-
Sounds like it was the Clark County School District's decision. My version of the story doesn't mention that the ACLU was there at all. Go figure.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Sounds like it was the Clark County School District's decision. My version of the story doesn't mention that the ACLU was there at all. Go figure.
There are at least two references to the ACLU speaking on behalf of the school in that article. If that's too vague then read the follow-up on that page:
"“Proselytizing is improper in school-sponsored speech at valedictorian graduations,” he said, adding the ACLU had sued in the past to ensure proselytizing was prevented at school-sponsored events."
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17162
-
Oh... so the ACLU wasn't there after all. Excellent.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Oh... so the ACLU wasn't there after all. Excellent.
The ACLU has sued this school and others. They had a pending suit which they agreed to drop providing the school toes their line. Is this really ok with you? If so then here's another example of my previous comment about it being ok to trample "other" peoples rights.
-
People do not have the right to proselytize on public property.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
People do not have the right to proselytize on public property.
Since when? I don't recall that the constitution provides for freedom of speech unless it's religious.
-
Well, sounds like a state endorsement of a particular religion otherwise. Taxpayer dollars funding a public sermon to a captive audience. Especially so, since we know her preaching about the joys of free sex and hedonism through the mystery of satanic ritual wouldn't fly. What about using the alloted time to support her beliefs and justifications for not believing in God. Would you honestly support that expression of free speech? What if your's was one of a handful of families in a Muslim school district where there were daily prayers to Mecca (your child doesn't have to pray, just stand out as the only one in class not following their peers) or listen to a valedictorian preach the power of Jihad against the infidels on your tax dollars?
Separation of Church and State is fairly clear, and helps there actually be a freedom of religion and freedom from religion in our private lives. As I noted in the earlier post, if you want to teach you children to worship dancing garden gnomes that's your deal -- go for it. But don't start pushing that crap on me or my children at a government funded event or as part of the daily school experience.
Charon
-
Originally posted by lukster
Since when?
1947
-
Originally posted by Charon
Well, sounds like a state endorsement of a particular religion otherwise. Taxpayer dollars funding a public sermon to a captive audience. Especially so, since we know her preaching about the joys of free sex and hedonism through the mystery of satanic ritual wouldn't fly. What about using the alloted time to support her beliefs and justifications for not believing in God. Would you honestly support that expression of free speech? What if your's was one of a handful of families in a Muslim school district where there were daily prayers to Mecca (your child doesn't have to pray, just stand out as the only one in class not following their peers) or listen to a valedictorian preach the power of Jihad against the infidels on your tax dollars?
Separation of Church and State is fairly clear, and helps there actually be a freedom of religion and freedom from religion in our private lives. As I noted in the earlier post, if you want to teach you children to worship dancing garden gnomes that's your deal -- go for it. But don't start pushing that crap on me or my children at a government funded event or as part of the daily school experience.
Charon
First of all I'd like to know where you find that there is a clear requirement for separation of church and state in the constitution. Even without that however I will agree that it is inappropriate for a principal or other school official to preach a sermon at a mandatory school event. This was not the case here however. This student was a private citizen clearly acting on her own behalf. She was undoubtedly denied her first amendment rights and I hope she is able to take it to the supreme court.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
1947
Proof?
-
You can proselytize on public property (such as a street corner) and I have no problem with that. "Escuse me, no, I dont want the Jack Chick (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp) bible tract, thanks..." and walk on down the road. In a public school, supported by my tax dollars it's a different matter. Especially since by religion we are talking about (lets get real here) only a select subset of religions with a big gap between Christianity and a few others like Juadism, etc.
Charon
-
Originally posted by lukster
She was undoubtedly denied her first amendment rights and I hope she is able to take it to the supreme court.
IANAL, but I'm betting she loses.
-
In this case "public" refers to paid for and operated by taxpayer funding. The seperation of church and state applies. Don't say it doesn't because the SCOTUS has ruled on that already.
I wonder Luke if you would be this upset about this if she had been Muslim and not Christian. For some reason certain Christians feel they can force their religion upon people at any time or place. They then get all upset the world is out to get them when they are told to hush.
You want to preach? Go to the church. You want to learn? Go to school.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Proof?
Google is your friend.
-
Originally posted by Charon
You can proselytize on public property (such as a street corner) and I have no problem with that. "Escuse me, no, I dont want the Jack Chick (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp) bible tract, thanks... and walk on down the road. In a public school, supported by my tax dollars it's a different matter. Especially since by religion we are talking (lets get real here) about only a select subset of religions bith a big gap between Christianity and a few others like Juadism, etc.
Charon
The supreme court has ruled it's not different and that students have the right to free speech in schools. It is incumbent on the schools to prove that the exercise of that free speech would interfere with the education process.
Your taxes pay for that street corner too btw.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sandie... I realize that abortion mills are private factories and that protestors have no right to block access.. I would not want the aclu to try to give them that right... I was talking about protesters on public property not blocking access...
Have protestors of this type been stopped from protesting?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Google is your friend.
My google skills are usually pretty good but I'm coming up short here. Maybe you're referring to a local or city ordinance where you live?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Have protestors of this type been stopped from protesting?
I think they have created a very large region around abortion clinics in which no protesting is allowed.
It was reversed in 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/28/scotus.abortion/
-
Originally posted by lukster
My google skills are usually pretty good but I'm coming up short here. Maybe you're referring to a local or city ordinance where you live?
Everson v. Board of Education
;)
-
Originally posted by lukster
I think they have created a very large region around abortion clinics in which no protesting is allowed.
It was reversed in 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/28/scotus.abortion/
I think it varies state by state. http://www-cgi.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/scotus.abortion/
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Everson v. Board of Education
;)
Evidently google is not your friend. Try again?
Everson v. Board of Education
330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Docket Number: 52
Abstract
Argued:
November 20, 1946
Decided:
February 10, 1947
Facts of the Case
A New Jersey law allowed reimbursements of money to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system. Children who attended Catholic schools also qualified for this transportation subsidy.
Question Presented
Did the New Jersey statute violate the Establishment Clause of of the First Amendment as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion
No. A divided Court held that the law did not violate the Constitution. After detailing the history and importance of the Establishment Clause, Justice Black argued that services like bussing and police and fire protection for parochial schools are "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function" that for the state to provide them would not violate the First Amendment. The law did not pay money to parochial schools, nor did it support them directly in anyway. It was simply a law enacted as a "general program" to assist parents of all religions with getting their children to school.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Evidently google is not your friend. Try again?
Keep going... "Establishment Clause"
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Keep going... "Establishment Clause"
I see nothing about prohibiting proseltyzing on public property here:
"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State.""
-
You're going to have to spoon feed this one Sandy.
-
The next landmark ruling came down in 1947. In the case, Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court applied the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment to the states. In the context of the "separation of church and state," the Court's foundational reinterpretation of the Constitution was complete. From 1947 forward, the Court has ruled with regularity on religious issues, in direct violation of the original meaning of the First Amendment. Their rulings, and those of lower courts (federal and State) have become the "law" of "separation of church and state." - Source (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g004.html)
Wikipedia can also be your friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education)
-
Originally posted by rpm
You're going to have to spoon feed this one Sandy.
If he wants me to believe that it is illegal for a private citizen to proseltyze on public property he simply has to link the law. Otherwise I'm calling bs.
-
Originally posted by rpm
You're going to have to spoon feed this one Sandy.
I think I need a bigger spoon. :D
-
If proseltyzing were illegal on public property would the ACLU be backing these religious anti-war nuts right to do so at a funeral on public property? Come on, we both know it ain't so. Everyone makes mistakes, no biggie.
The ACLU knows there is absolutely no danger of these whackos converting anyone to their faith and so they'll make a few bucks off Joe taxpayer while giving the appearance they are protecting everyone's freedoms. When there is a real possibility someone might be influenced like the instance I mentioned they fight tooth and nail to shut them up.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I think I need a bigger spoon. :D
If you can't admit you were wrong at least stop trying to make it look like I'm the one that's ignorant.
-
Churches can't be public property and cemetaries are rarely public property, AFAIK.
-
Originally posted by lukster
If you can't admit you were wrong at least stop trying to make it look like I'm the one that's ignorant.
Wrong about what?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Wrong about what?
Are you serious? You said you cannot proseltyze on public property.
-
Oh now you want to mince words. :aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman
People do not have the right to proselytize on public property.
Mince words? I say that people do have the right to proseltyze on public property. It's guaranteed by the first amendment. I have to admit that it's sometimes difficult to know when people are joking in a text forum. You've been giving me the runaround. Are you yanking my chain?
-
Apparently, the Supreme Court does not agree. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that they are the experts.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Apparently, the Supreme Court does not agree. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that they are the experts.
How can you believe that the ruling you cited had anything at all to do with what a private citizen does on public property? Please, give me your rationale.
-
Establishment Clause.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Establishment Clause.
This is pointless. I should have resisted Thrawn's challenge.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What a long way of saying, "I can't support my assertations.".
LOL.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
LOL.
I'll never learn.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-2036.ZS.html
" 1. Milford violated the Club’s free speech rights when it excluded the Club from meeting after hours at the school."
-
Originally posted by Sandman
LOL.
You seem to be doing very little to support your assertions here. You made a statement and then claimed to have backed it up with the phrase "Establishment Clause" refusing to explain how you think this prohibits proselytizing by a private citizen. Since the "Establishment Clause" concerns state or governement support for religion I can only assume you to believe that you consider all public property to be madated religion free. the Supreme Court ruling I just posted denies that as a valid assumption.
If you won't state your position then what's the point of continuing this "conversation"?
-
I thought this was about the ACLU? The case you cited has nothing to do with the conversation. It has nothing to do with the ACLU, and it has nothing to do with religion as a part of a school program.
-
I can't help but go back to the "fighting words" or incieting a riot.
If I were to berate some poor colored person with the "n" word.... Then if he assaulted me I would be assigned most of the blame by our legal system. If I yelled fire in a theatre just to see the reaction and someone was inujured or died.. I would be charged...
Try yelling "bomb" in an airport these days... go ahead... I dare ya. Would the aclu help you?
charon... as for the second? the aclu would love nothing more than a total ban on civilian gun ownership. I have found that any organization that wants to destroy the second has an agenda to increase the power of government in a socialist/communinst way. I think it is the most telling thing about the aclu.
lazs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I thought this was about the ACLU? The case you cited has nothing to do with the conversation. It has nothing to do with the ACLU, and it has nothing to do with religion as a part of a school program.
Are you talking to me?
Read the thread and perhaps you'll understand that the case I mentioned has very much to do with the ACLU. I wasn't going to drag it into this other than a brief mention until Thrawn got snotty about it and then Sandman made his outrageous claim.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Are you talking to me?
Read the thread and perhaps you'll understand that the case I mentioned has very much to do with the ACLU. I wasn't going to drag it into this other than a brief mention until Thrawn got snotty about it and then Sandman made his outrageous claim.
My bad, I missed a page there. The case was relevant to the topic, but still has nothing to do with the ACLU.
AND
It is not the same as limiting the speech of the valedictorian in Nevada.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
My bad, I missed a page there. The case was relevant to the topic, but still has nothing to do with the ACLU.
AND
It is not the same as limiting the speech of the valedictorian in Nevada.
You're jumping in the middle here without following the continuity of posts. I'll summarize for ya.
Original post: ACLU supports freedom of speech for anti-war hate mongers (on public property)
My contention: ACLU does not (always) support freedom of speech but rather sues to suppress it when the speech is religious in nature and they think they can get away with it.. I supported this with a link to the instance where the school pulled the plug on the graduation speaker. the ACLU had a pending law suit against that school for this very sort of thing. The ACLU went on record supporting the school's actions.
Sandman claimed that no one has the right to proselytize on public property.
I refuted that with the Supreme Court ruling that made it clear schools must not infringe upon freedom of speech even when it is religious in nature.
What part are you having a problem following?
-
charon... as for the second? the aclu would love nothing more than a total ban on civilian gun ownership. I have found that any organization that wants to destroy the second has an agenda to increase the power of government in a socialist/communinst way. I think it is the most telling thing about the aclu.
I can’t disagree with the first part. However I see it more as an ingrained East Coast intellectual/academic bias where the liberal squeaks out from behind the libertarian. Really hard to deny, and as with Orwell's Animal Farm -- some Amendments are “more equal” than others at ACLU. Disturbing, and you really have to write off the ACLU where the 2nd is concerned.
Having said that, they do an awful lot of work relative to the 4th Amendment that certainly stands in the way of big government and government intrusion. From opposing those random “safety” checks on roads to “no-knock” and most things in between. I also think that, overall as an organization, they are not supporting an economic liberal agenda (outside their charter) regardless of any individual beliefs on the issue.
FWIW, I’ve found more than a few strong 2nd Amendment supporters who agree 100 percent with Government trampling the 4th. The whole, “If you’ve got nothing to hide, help the cops and feds thing.” Not the NRA as an organization per se, but people who are proud members. There was a recent debate on one of the collector firearm boards recently over the 4th, where:
1. A shot was apparently fired from an apartment complex at about 2:00 am.
2. The police came up to the door of a gun owner in the complex and asked if he had any firearms (unclear if they singled him out specifically somehow or were just fishing door to door or even if a shot was really fired).
3. He acknowledge that he did.
4. The police asked if they could come inside and “look around” his place.
5. He said “Sure,” nothing to hide here.
6. The police spent several hours in his apartment, during which time a female roommate was asked to put her hands up, and they recorded the serial numbers on his rifles before leaving.
This guy, and at least one other poster saw absolutely nothing amiss about this. Help the cops with a tough job, give in to their request to avoid potential suspicion, nothing to hide, etc. I don’t imagine he would object to an erosion of the 4th in general (not just by his choice), and in fact the support poster noted how it could really help clear up all theses drug dealers by formally making the police’s job easier relative to the 4th. Didn’t see any potential “reality” negatives to his future 2nd Amendment rights. He trusted the government at all levels to always be fair and just and do the right thing. Obviously, many disagreed as well.
Charon
-
charon... I will take anything the aclu gives me so far as defending the rights of the individual.... I just find that they have a distinctly liberal bent that is as you say.... the liberal hiding behind the libertarian...
I distrust libertarians for being the wussies they are... I dislike the aclu for being the socialists they are. They never seem to fight the high profile cases of human rights that I have an interest in but allways go for the lefty ones.
For instance... they coulda gained some ground with me by fighting some of the new "imminent domain" laws allowing cities to annex land to sell to retailers or bussiness. They could fight some of the high profile EPA and BATF abuses...
But... like I said.. I will take what they get for me and hold my nose in disgust with their agenda and all the things they ommit.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lukster
You're jumping in the middle here without following the continuity of posts. I'll summarize for ya.
Original post: ACLU supports freedom of speech for anti-war hate mongers (on public property)
My contention: ACLU does not (always) support freedom of speech but rather sues to suppress it when the speech is religious in nature and they think they can get away with it.. I supported this with a link to the instance where the school pulled the plug on the graduation speaker. the ACLU had a pending law suit against that school for this very sort of thing. The ACLU went on record supporting the school's actions.
Sandman claimed that no one has the right to proselytize on public property.
I refuted that with the Supreme Court ruling that made it clear schools must not infringe upon freedom of speech even when it is religious in nature.
What part are you having a problem following?
I followed it all quite well, including your spin... nicely done.
1. Nothing in your link to the story in Nevada said anything about the ACLU except that they agreed with the actions of the 9th circuit. The school was adhering to a ruling laid down by the court of appeals, not bowing to pressure from the ACLU.
2. The problem with the valedictorian's speech was that it amounted to prosthlytizing at a school function. That is not allowed nor should it be.
3. Your second link to the SC ruling about the use of a school after hours by private groups has nothing to do with the Nevada case. One is a school function the other is mearly land use.
follow?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I followed it all quite well, including your spin... nicely done.
1. Nothing in your link to the story in Nevada said anything about the ACLU except that they agreed with the actions of the 9th circuit. The school was adhering to a ruling laid down by the court of appeals, not bowing to pressure from the ACLU.
2. The problem with the valedictorian's speech was that it amounted to prosthlytizing at a school function. That is not allowed nor should it be.
3. Your second link to the SC ruling about the use of a school after hours by private groups has nothing to do with the Nevada case. One is a school function the other is mearly land use.
follow?
I stand by my points. Feel free to disagree. No ACLU bullying required.
-
Thrawn wins. :rofl
-
Sean Hannity wins. He just ripped some idiot liberal law professor a new one on this issue. When Sean brought up the issue of right to privacy the prof could do nothing but stutter. :aok
-
Originally posted by lukster
Sean Hannity wins. He just ripped some idiot liberal law professor a new one on this issue. When Sean brought up the issue of right to privacy the prof could do nothing but stutter. :aok
Well hell, why didn't you say so in the first place?
I'm convinced.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Well hell, why didn't you say so in the first place?
I'm convinced.
Well, what do you think? Do people have a right to privacy? By that I mean do people have the right to conduct a funeral, even on public lands, without someone getting in their face and yelling they are glad their loved one is dead? If you don't believe people have this right to privacy then how can you complain about anyone looking at your phone or financial records?
-
I am not sure it is a "right" but it certainly is a polite thing to do. In the "wild west" which had a lower murder rate than every large city in America today... allmost everyone was armed and no one would think it was OK to crash a funeral with a protest that offended the family. I suppose that the offenders would be beaten or shot and everyone would just say that they got what they deserved.
Free speech has morphed into... say whatever you want with no consequences. The harm you do to others with it is without consequence.
This I dissagree with. If we are unwilling to beat the rude a holes to a pulp... we should at least be able to sue for.... who knows? I am not into sueing but I am sure someone knows. I would rather just beat em to a pulp and let a jury of Americans decide if it was aggravated or not.
If these people want to have a protest then get a permit and do it on the street away from the funeral.
The reverand shows a disgusting lack of respect and good manners. I believe that a good beating would do better than a law suit but....in todays world....
lazs
-
I agree that the constitution does not grant a right to privacy explicitly but it does make clear that it's own provisions are not all inclusive, that people are to have all freedoms and rights not otherwise specified and not just those that are.
I've read and heard a lot about violation of privacy from Bush critics lately. I'd like to hear from them on this issue. Is the ACLU fighting against grieving families right to privacy?
-
Originally posted by lukster
I'd like to hear from them on this issue. Is the ACLU fighting against grieving families right to privacy?
Please point to the part in the Constitution that covers this.
-
The aclu has seen fit to ignore human rights violations that are huge compared to this... as I have pointed out in other threads.
If nothing else... they could have simply ignored this one too. But they didn't. They felt that an attack on the military was too valuable to pass up... that the individuals and the grieving families right to some decent and deserved privacy was trivial. If they did not have an agenda they would have went after much more clear cut and high profile (meaning affecting more people) abuses.
Don't you feel good tho to know that the aclu has defended your right to crash a funeral and be abusive to the grieving family?
Certainly that is more important than your right to keep and bear arms or have your property siezed to build a strip mall for the city.
lazs
-
Does the NRA need help?
As for eminent domain, you're right. The ACLU should do more.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Please point to the part in the Constitution that covers this.
Covers what? Please be specific.
-
sandie... Of course the NRA needs help.. 20 million members would have a much greater affect than 4 million and half the people in the country trusting them.
As for the aclu... It is difficult for me to like em... no matter what they support it seems that there is a fly in the ointment. It is fine to say that the unpopular need to be defended but... why allways the agenda? the choices of what to defend and what not to speak volumes to me.
But... I am pragmatic.. I will gladly accept the victories that I feel benifiet me that as an individualist and try to ignore their socialist (there is that word again) agenda while accepting the victory.
I wish that they could be steered to a more centrous individualist agenda but....
lazs
-
Originally posted by lukster
Covers what? Please be specific.
The right to privacy as you've described it.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The right to privacy as you've described it.
I could cite the reference to which I alluded about the constitution guaranteeing freedoms not covered by it but google is your friend.
Are you saying there is no right to privacy? Are you one of those complaining about Bush trampling this "imaginary" right by examining phone records?
-
Sandman..when your family gets raped and murdered...And the ACLU has gotten rights for the murderer and molester to 1) get off with "probation 2) gets to recreate the attacks with ..umm"cartoons"
You will say...GOOD FOR THEM!!! thats there right!
It is really disgusting to see people support this
I understand..they do fight for some good ideas on the "whole"..but jesus christ....Fighting for NAMBLA?...or people crashing funerals...Thats disgusting
The people who run NRA are a bunch of old men who shoot trap with $4,000 shotguns ...We the folks who love our "evil black rifles" have to continually fight to keep "semi -auto..mean looking rifles"
So..the ACLU..fights for" our freedom to speak...but then also fights for Moletsers to make "animated" molesting of your 6 year old daughter...
Now i am a NRA memeber for life...they dont always fight hard for the specific guns i enjoy.....BUT..atleast they arent fighting for "virtual pedaphiles rights"
Its very hard to find organizations that do everything you want...but crap ..IF NRA was also fighting to keep murders armed..because its there 2nd Amend right..I would not be a member
But..I can see you back the ACLU with the virtual child molesting....great character
-
Originally posted by lukster
Are you saying there is no right to privacy? Are you one of those complaining about Bush trampling this "imaginary" right by examining phone records?
Clearly, the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and establishes the right to privacy from government intrusion or invasion. Many would argue that phone records would seem to fall under this category.
This is not the same thing as "a grieving families right to privacy" as you have stated. I would like to know where within the Constitution that this identified.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Clearly, the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and establishes the right to privacy from government intrusion or invasion. Many would argue that phone records would seem to fall under this category.
This is not the same thing as "a grieving families right to privacy" as you have stated. I would like to know where within the Constitution that this identified.
If you will tell me how phone records stored away from your home are protected by the 4th amendment I'll tell you how inviduals have a right to privacy even when they are in public.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Clearly, the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and establishes the right to privacy from government intrusion or invasion. Many would argue that phone records would seem to fall under this category.
This is not the same thing as "a grieving families right to privacy" as you have stated. I would like to know where within the Constitution that this identified.
Sandie,
Straw man there and you know it. The constitution does not limit the citizenry. The constitution provides limits on GOVERNMENT dealings with it's citizens not the other way around.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Sandie,
Straw man there and you know it. The constitution does not limit the citizenry. The constitution provides limits on GOVERNMENT dealings with it's citizens not the other way around.
You're not getting it either. Lukster asks, "Is the ACLU fighting against grieving families right to privacy?"
Which I have tried to ask repeatedly, where is the Constitutional ground for such a fight?
Sandman: Please point to the part in the Constitution that covers this.
Lukster: Covers what? Please be specific.
Sandman: The right to privacy as you've described it.
Lukster: Are you saying there is no right to privacy?
Sandman: Clearly, the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and establishes the right to privacy from government intrusion or invasion.
Lukster: If you will tell me how phone records stored away from your home are protected by the 4th amendment I'll tell you how inviduals have a right to privacy even when they are in public.
I asked a very specific question. It has yet to be answered. This leads into the next obvious question. Under what Constitutional grounds would the ACLU be involved with the grieving families and their right to privacy?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You're not getting it either. Lukster asks, "Is the ACLU fighting against grieving families right to privacy?"
Which I have tried to ask repeatedly, where is the Constitutional ground for such a fight?
Sandman: Please point to the part in the Constitution that covers this.
Lukster: Covers what? Please be specific.
Sandman: The right to privacy as you've described it.
Lukster: Are you saying there is no right to privacy?
Sandman: Clearly, the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and establishes the right to privacy from government intrusion or invasion.
Lukster: If you will tell me how phone records stored away from your home are protected by the 4th amendment I'll tell you how inviduals have a right to privacy even when they are in public.
I asked a very specific question. It has yet to be answered. This leads into the next obvious question. Under what Constitutional grounds would the ACLU be involved with the grieving families and their right to privacy?
I've asked you several specific questions which you have yet to answer. Just playing your game.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Well, what do you think? Do people have a right to privacy? By that I mean do people have the right to conduct a funeral, even on public lands, without someone getting in their face and yelling they are glad their loved one is dead?
No, I don't believe they have that legal right.
Now, it's your turn to answer the question.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
No, I don't believe they have that legal right.
Now, it's your turn to answer the question.
Which question?
-
Ok, I think I know what your question is. Here's the answer.
"Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-
Originally posted by lukster
Ok, I think I know what your question is. Here's the answer.
"Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I take it that you think this trumps the 1st?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I take it that you think this trumps the 1st?
I think we have to use common sense, something many are apparently sorely lacking, in it's application. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Why is that? You can't incite a riot. Why is that? These folks are doing their best to incite violence imo. Is that lawful? Does a state not have the right to balance some rights against others? I hope the ACLU doesn't chicken out and back down on this. I think they'll get their tulips handed to 'em by the SCOTUS.
-
Common sense rarely seems to apply in court.
While there are limits to free speech, most notably like those you mention where people can be hurt, maimed or killed as a result, the crap that comes out of Phelps' mouth isn't the same thing. IMHO, it's quite within his rights to say mean spiteful things about dead people. They are certainly quite beyond caring.
Certainly, Phelps is an bellybutton for doing so. Certainly, we can all hope that Phelps burns in some fiery hell, but I doubt very much that there is any legal ground from which the ACLU can fight to stop Phelps from exercising his right of free speech no matter how distasteful it may be. IANAL, but I disagree that 9th and 10th Amendments apply.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Common sense rarely seems to apply in court.
While there are limits to free speech, most notably like those you mention where people can be hurt, maimed or killed as a result, the crap that comes out of Phelps' mouth isn't the same thing. IMHO, it's quite within his rights to say mean spiteful things about dead people. They are certainly quite beyond caring.
Certainly, Phelps is an bellybutton for doing so. Certainly, we can all hope that Phelps burns in some fiery hell, but I doubt very much that there is any legal ground from which the ACLU can fight to stop Phelps from exercising his right of free speech no matter how distasteful it may be. IANAL, but I disagree that 9th and 10th Amendments apply.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
No one is trying to stop him from spewing his hate. Missouri has simply limited the time at which he can do so, not in proximity and within an hour of a funeral. They've said they aren't backing down on this.
Where in the constitution do find it acceptable to prevent someone from yelling fire in a crowded theater? Is this one of those common sense restrictions?
-
btw, didn't you say that you can't proselytize in public? What do you think these people are doing? They are proselytizing.
Of course I still say you're absolutely wrong about not being able to proselytize in pubic but I'm wondering how you reconcile the two, free speech and proselytizing.
-
It's not in the Constitution. Try Schenck v. United States. and Brandenburg v. Ohio.
-
Originally posted by lukster
btw, didn't you say that you can't proselytize in public? What do you think these people are doing? They are proselytizing.
Of course I still say you're absolutely wrong about not being able to proselytize in pubic but I'm wondering how you reconcile the two, free speech and proselytizing.
Within the context of the discussion, when I stated "public" I was talking about courts and schools and the like. If you'll recall at the time, we were talking about an issue with a school graduation ceremony.
AFAIK, you can proselytize all you want from the street. (At least as long as you're not restricting the flow of traffic).
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Within the context of the discussion, when I stated "public" I was talking about courts and schools and the like.
You can proselytize all you want from the street.
I'm glad you finally admitted that. However, what makes you think that as a private citizen you can't proselytize in school or court, provided you aren't disrupting the normal buissiness of the institution? I think you're wrong about this too.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I'm glad you finally admitted that. However, what makes you think that as a private citizen you can't proselytize in school or court, provided you aren't disrupting the normal buissiness of the institution? I think you're wrong about this too.
Finally admitted to what I meant all along?
You're mincing words. Can a public school official proselytize at the school? No. Can a public school student proselytize at the school? No. Can a court official proselytize at the court? No.
There's no shortage of court cases as evidence of this.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Finally admitted to what I meant all along?
You're mincing words. Can a public school official proselytize at the school? No. Can a public school student proselytize at the school? No. Can a court official proselytize at the court? No.
There's no shortage of court cases as evidence of this.
I never suggested that officials could proselytize while functioning in their official capacity. You're wrong about the other though.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I never suggested that officials could proselytize while functioning in their official capacity. You're wrong about the other though.
Oh ****... you're right. Brittany McComb was allowed to finish her valedictorian speech (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-20-Tue-2006/opinion/8027170.html).
McCombs has sued the school (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_on_re_us/religious_valedictorian;_ylt=AlX4DUvTb1HejZnwIajIa.8DW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBhZDhxNDFzBHNlYwNtZW5ld3M-). If you're right, she'll win.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Oh ****... you're right. Brittany McComb was allowed to finish her valedictorian speech (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-20-Tue-2006/opinion/8027170.html).
Thanks to the bullying of the ACLU. They have the schools afaid to sneeze for fear someone will say geshundeit. The fat lady ain't sung on this one yet though. I think it'll go all the way to the SC and be a nice black eye for the ACLU and win for freedom of speech.
-
The ACLU wasn't there. The school warned her and she didn't heed the warning. Maybe next time she'll listen.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The ACLU wasn't there. The school warned her and she didn't heed the warning. Maybe next time she'll listen.
Did you read anything I posted on this? The ACLU did have a pending suit against this school district at the time of the speech. This suit was in regards to the school and religion. The ACLU spoke up for the school saying that they acted correctly in shutting off her mic. Do you honestly not see the ACLU pressure on this school?
-
School District lawyer Bill Hoffman has said previously that the school was following 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rulings that have obligated districts to censor student speeches for proselytizing.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I don't know if that's the suit the ACLU was pressing or not. I think that's going to be overturned as a result of this latest censorship though.
However, you never responded to the SC rulings I linked earlier in which the SC upheld religious group's right to meet and conduct religious activites on school property. The SC held that schools may not prohibit this activity based on the fact that it is religious. These meetings fall into your "proselytizing" category and I'll go so far as to say that most christian meetings do.