Today on Blogcritics
Home » ACLU Policy To Legalize Child Porn Distribution

ACLU Policy To Legalize Child Porn Distribution

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter1Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Students of liberty, from John Stuart Mill to Thomas Emerson, have all intentionally excluded children from their formula for freedom. The ACLU does not. Not even when the subject is pornography. Quote from Twilight Of Liberty

In 1982, the ACLU, in an amicus role, lost in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court to legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography.

The case is New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747.

The ACLU’s position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. And with good reason: as long as a free market in child pornography exists, there will always be some producers willing to risk prosecution. Beyond this, there is also the matter of how the sale of child pornography relates either to free speech or the ends of good government. But most important, the central issue is whether a free society should legalize transactions that involve the wholesale sexploitation of children for profit.

The ACLU objects to the idea that porn movie producers be required to maintain records of ages of its performers; this would be ” a gross violation of privacy.” Quotes from Twilight Of Liberty

I don’t think that any other ACLU stance evokes more anger from me, than this one. I mean, how sick can you get? Do these people not have a conscience at all, or are they just plain EVIL? How can one argue this sick, twisted view in the name of “protecting civil liberties?” Please, some liberal out there that loves defending this evil organization…explain this to us.

Since the ACLU thinks that child pornography should be legal, it is not surprising to read that it is against making it a felony to advertise, sell, purchase, barter, exchange, give, or receive child pornography. It is particularly distressed about the prohibition on advertisement, arguing that “the law cannot expect every publisher to decode every advertisment for some hidden and sinister meaning,” as if it took a technician-armed with a special decoding device-to ferret out pictures of children ludely exhibiting their genitals. Quote from Twilight Of Liberty

As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be. A few years later (1988), Lynn told the Senate Judiciary Committee that even requiring porn producers to maintain records of their performers’ ages was impermissible.
“If there is no federal record-keeping requirement for the people portrayed in Road and Track or Star Wars,” he said, “there can be no such requirement for Hustler or Debbie Does Dallas.”
Citizen magazine

Is the ACLU completely retarded? I would love to think there was some kind of saving grace for an organization that says it is about protecting civil liberties, but with positions like this…which you KNOW are against the will of the people, I don’t know if there is. My head is about to explode just typing this stuff!

Let’s take a deeper look at the industry that the ACLU wants to defend here.

“It would be a mistake to think that all the children who are being exploited sexually are kidnapped by “kid porn” operators. Many of the children are being sold to people by their parents. In some cases, the parents have agreed to perform incest with their children. Gonorrhea of the throat in infants as young as nine and eighteen months has been reported. source

This is as sick as it gets folks. But the ACLU believes it is a freedom being denied to people. And before liberals start to ask, yes, the ACLU has a current policy advocating the legalization of child porn distribution and possession. Yes, the ACLU still currently defends pedophile organizations.

“Mere possession should not be a crime,” said John Roberts, executive director of the Boston branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.”
The Boston Herald

They are a radically out of control organization that consistently goes too far, and they must be stopped before they destroy our nation. As for those who support the ACLU, this is the kind of crap your money goes to. As a parent of a five-year-old child, and as a citizen of this great nation, I am outraged! Help us stop this insane organization!

STAND UP! TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TO SUPPORT THE PUBLIC EXPRESSION OF RELIGION ACT OF 2005

Sign The Petition To Get The ACLU Off The Taxpayer’s Dole
Read More About The Evils Of The ACLU At Stop The ACLU.Com
Edited: DFN

Powered by

About Jay

  • Dawn

    The ACLU is a wasted, steaming pile of dung. Their protection for child molestors rights alone makes them deserving of a vicious painful extraction from our society.

    To answer your question, yes, they are malevolent retards.

  • Nancy

    On another thread about the ACLU recently someone tried to enlighten me about why the ACLU defends these sorts of people & positions. I don’t think I care. It’s one thing to defend unpopular positions, it’s quite another to defend child porn in any aspect, be it production, advertising, or possession. I do begin to think the ACLU has outlived its usefulness. Certainly they seem to have outlived their sanity.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Why are we screaming about something from the 1980s? Is there a more recent relevant story about this in the news?

  • http://www.stoptheaclu.com Jay

    Such as their defense of NAMBLA?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Is that new? The bulk of the post refers to stuff from the ’80s.

  • http://xraystyle.blogspot.com Bryan McKay

    Actually, the most recent and relevant position, to answer bhw’s query, is that child pornography is wrong and sexual exploitation of children must be stopped. The laws that they’re fighting are those making “virtual” child pornography a crime. This is pornography in which people of legal age are impersonating and depicting sex acts involving children without actually using children. While this may still be a vile fetish, it would certainly fall under the protection of free speech.

    Dawn: What exactly makes the ACLU a “wasted, steaming pile of dung?” That seems like a rather vicious sentiment. Do you actually read the ACLU’s positions or do you just read whatever spin the conservative bloggers put on them?

  • ClubhouseCancer

    The ACLU is a public, transparent organization whose website contains lots of information about what they do and are up to. I can’t remember the details of Ferber, so I won’t speak to it.

    But the Massachusetts case involving NAMBLA is a free-speech issue. A lawsuit sought to hold the organization liable for the murder of a boy based on NAMBLA posting disgusting crap on the Internet. I’m sure there’s a summary of their position on aclu.com. They do not support man-boy relationships.

    The ACLU have defended all kinds of scumbags over the years, and some righteous folks too. All of them deserve Constitutional protections.

    Happy speech everyone agrees with doesn’t need protection.

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    Can you cite a specific link where the ACLU filed an amicus brief in New York v. Ferber?

    And I just postulating here, but your final links fall too close to having blogcritics advocate a specific political/religious position.

  • http://www.stoptheaclu.com Jay

    It is still their current policy and position…that is current enough. Child porn is not free speech.

    Here is the link you asked for.

    Its in the post.

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    I don’t see any reference to the ACLU there, hmmm? Did a search too

  • ClubhouseCancer

    For instance, if I murdered an ACLU official, his family could blame and sue you for suggesting above that he should undergo “a vicious extraction from our society.”

    But the hard work of organizations like the ACLU, and the pressure they put on courts and pols to uphold the right to make unpopular speech, wouldn’t let it happen.

  • http://xraystyle.blogspot.com Bryan McKay

    “It is still their current policy and position…that is current enough.”

    No, it’s not. And there is no mention of the ACLU in that link. Where the fuck do you get your information?

  • Dawn

    They notoriously have supported child molestors rights as recently as this year – when I have time I will go find the case. I believe the case was struck down by the courts, but the point is they don’t see the harm they do their reputation to help those who are truly aggrieved by being willing to help those who prey on children.

    I find it truly disturbing that this specifically doesn’t bother a vast number of people on BC. Everytime someone blasts the ACLU the liberal leaning folks here get their panties in a bunch.

    Where is the outrage for the child victims? How about you show the same moral fortitude for helping those who actually are innocent.

    Oh, and I make lots of vicious statements. Sue me.

  • http://xraystyle.blogspot.com Bryan McKay

    I do have outrage for the child victims, but as far as I can tell, the ACLU’s stance on child pornography only offers protection to what is essentially fake child porn. As far as child molestors go, I completely support their rights. I think they’re vile and dispicable people, but that doesn’t mean we can strip away their legal rights. The ACLU doesn’t go and speak out supporting the child victims because enough people are already doing that. Everyone supports the victims, so there is nothing wrong with a voice speaking out to “support” the criminal. They aren’t supporting the acts, just the fair treatment of a human being. I don’t like child molestors any more than you do, but it’s too much of a slippery slope to start denying people rights.

    Oh, and I couldn’t sue you for making vicious statements because the ACLU would step in and protect your right to speech.

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    Also, the topic at hand is a weakly written post that doesn’t even make it’s original point very accurately yet – the ACLU’s role in NY v. Ferber

    Some more research is needed perhaps, yes?

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    The problem, Dawn and Jay, is that these issues are usually reduced to sound-bites, and all detail is lost. Invoking the spectre of child pornography ought not to be enough to cause us to switch off all brain function, else politicians try to pass laws like “Raise taxes to 90% to combat child pornography” and “Purify the [fill in the race of your choice here] race to end child pornography” and so on. Anybody that objects, then, is obviously in favor of child pornography, right?

    No, we are thinking of the children, and one of the things we’re thinking about is what sort of future they will inherit if we let zealous proescutors encroach on our freedom for the sake of a sound-bite.

    I sincerely doubt that the ACLU is in favor of molesting children. In fact, even in the most anti-ACLU statements included in the article, the author allowed that the ACLU is in favor of criminalizing the production of child pornography. The quote goes on to say that the ACLU favors the distribution of child pornography, but as has been pointed out in the comments, this is simply not true. It’s a mischaracterization of the ACLU’s position made by someone who doesn’t agree with the ACLU’s position and know he or she can win support by making a simplistic appeal and implying that those who disagree favor abusing children.

    Give the ACLU a little more credit than that, and find out how they describe their position on these issues.

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Lisa McKay

    Also, the topic at hand is a weakly written post that doesn’t even make it’s original point very accurately yet – the ACLU’s role in NY v. Ferber

    The reason for that, Aaman, is that most of the people who post this type of thing get their info from the same place, which already has stopping the ACLU as its agenda, and they do little or no independent research (and they use misleading, but attention-grabbing post titles). If Stop The ACLU.com says it’s so, it must be so.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    I found something from 2002.

    The ACLU’s position on child pornography is highly nuanced and complicated. It is easy to see how it could be construed as “evil,” but it isn’t, really.

    The above link regards the ACLU’s analysis of H.R. 4623, the “Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002.”

    H.R. 4623 was unveiled after the Supreme Court struck down two provisions of a federal law that banned “virtual” child pornography on April 16, 2002. The new legislation was designed to withstand judicial scrutiny. H.R. 4623 passed the House of Representatives on June 25, 2002.

    The ACLU is not standing up for child pornography, it is standing against authoritarian measures that make mere thoughts into crimes while having little to no effect upon the terrible crime of child exploitation.

    I’m wearing my asbestos gear, so flame away, folks!

  • http://xraystyle.blogspot.com Bryan McKay

    Thanks, Margaret. I should have posted that link myself. Can always count on you to jump in with handy quotes and research though!

  • David

    It’s not on their website, but it is in print in a policy statement. The
    source of this policy statement was actually Steve Dunlap, who ordered it
    from the ACLU, and was kind enough to fax me a copy. If you have a fax
    number, I would be happy to send it to you.

    The document is titled “ACLU Answers. Issue: Pornography” and is dated
    September 23, 1991. It says:

    “We support the prosecution of child pornographers under existing laws for
    the harm they inflict on children. But we believe government may not
    restrict the distribution of child pornography once it has been published.”

  • billy

    why is this poster such a moron to lie and think we will believe him about the aclu.

    whats next? this poster will complain about a ban on dressing up in a terrorist costume.
    get a life loser.

  • http://www.stoptheaclu.com Jay

    The book I have referenced and quoted is backed up with all sorts of references. I suggest you find it in a library.

    Strossen explained that while the ACLU does not approve of child pornography, the organization is opposed to a new national law which would prosecute those who appear to be involved with child pornography. “The ACLU disagrees with [the new law], because it just means that Congress doesn’t want adults to think or fantasize about minors in this way,” she said. “That is creating a thought crime, and the ACLU won’t support that.”

    http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/xxvii/1999.01.22/news/blurbs.html

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    Billy, if you have anything to contribute to the discussion other than personal insults, please do so. Personal attacks are not permitted here.

  • billy

    and a post that is an outright lie is permitted here?

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    The post provides an opinion — see the opinion tag at the top — and includes sources and references as such. I don’t agree with the poster’s opinion, but he has not personally attacked a person. You have.

  • billy

    it is not an opinion to say the aclu argued to legalize child porn when in fact that is not true. this man may be sued for libel, as well as this site.

  • http://xraystyle.blogspot.com Bryan McKay

    David, do you have a scanner? Or perhaps you can fax it to someone who does, so we can see it ourselves. That’s really the only way to validate your claims.

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    Jay, it is not sufficient to say it’s in the book – please cite the specific source where the book gets this claim from, or change the claim.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    No, you have a severe misunderstanding of libel, and a severe mis-reading of this post. While I think the poster is incorrect, he is merely expressing his opinion and quoting from other sources. Read it again.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    I have a scanner. My office fax number is here at the bottom of the page.

    I do not know if Blogcritic’s policies allow the posting of images in comments (especially the large variety that a readable full-page scan produces). If they do not, could put the image on my web site and post the link here.

  • http://www.stoptheaclu.com Jay

    “The ACLU believes that the First Amendment protects the dissemination of
    all forms of communication. The ACLU opposes on First Amendment grounds
    laws that restrict the production and distribution of any printed and
    visual materials even when some of the producers of those materials are
    punishable under criminal law.”

    Source

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    Also from that link, perhaps a more meaningful excerpt:

    “The ACLU views the use of children in the production of visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct as a violation of childrens’ rights when such use is highly likely to cause:
    a) substantial physical harm or,
    b) substantial and continuing emotional or psychological harm.
    Government quite properly has the means to protect the interest of children in these situations by the use of criminal prosecution of those persons who are likely to cause such harm to children.”

  • http://www.stoptheaclu.com Jay

    That excerpt is no more meaningful than the one I quoted. It only reinforces what I originally said. I said they claim to be against thos who do the actual harm or production…however, the statement I provided shows that they are for its distribution and possession.

    I’m going to lunch and will get the book and provide the resources it has.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    The paragraph immediately following the one Jay posted (from the same source):

    “The ACLU views the use of children in the production of visual depictions
    of sexually explicit conduct as a violation of childrens’ rights when such
    use is highly likely to cause: a) substantial physical harm or, b)
    substantial and continuing emotional or psychological harm. Government
    quite properly has the means to protect the interest of children in these
    situations by the use of criminal prosecution of those persons who are
    likely to cause such harm to children.”

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    If you want to link to images posted on another site, that’s fine, Margaret.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Thank you, Phillip. I filter the “img” tag from comments on my site, too.

    If David or someone else in possession of the document in question faxes it to me, I will put the image on my server and post a link here.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    All in all, I’m not sure it is relevant at this point. I think we’re developing a pretty clear view of the ACLU’s position already. Not so heinous as some seem to think but certainly more… interesting than many people would be willing to allow.

  • http://xraystyle.blogspot.com Bryan McKay

    I agree that it is certainly more “interesting” than most would think, but I’d like to see the ACLU stance in a better context. Everything so far has been quotes pulled from various sources, but nothing that seems to come directly from the ACLU. The only source we’ve seen that actually points to information on the ACLU site seems to be clearly against child pornography. Until I see something similarly official to back up any other claims, that’s really the only position we can verify.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Do you have original information from the ACLU — or just stuff that came via Dr. James Dobson, one of the least credible people in America.

    This sounds to me like an example of quoting from conservative spin, which is always dangerous.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Also, the idea of basing an article from a four-year-old book, referring to a 1982 brief, is a little far-fetched as “news.”

    I’d like to see a first-hand reference (a copy of the amicus brief, for example) before I’d consider this anything more than hyped-up conservative spin.

  • Dawn

    Phillip’s right, this is basically the poster’s opinion of the kinds of things the ACLU is up to.

    I don’t begrudge the organization’s desire to protect the rights of those falsely accused or unduly harrassed. But I take some serious issue with anyone who thinks that child molestors have rights.

    They don’t, they shouldn’t and I pray daily that they will soon be subjected to the death penalty for their crimes – as that would be fair.

    To anyone who thinks that victims have “enough” advocates to that I say, you sir/madam are clueless.

    Just ask the child who is being molested by a family member who’s looking out for them? Virtually NO ONE.

    This is exactly the reason why I have found be labeled a liberal so deeply appalling. No way on earth to I want to EVER be associated with anyone who thinks that someone who rapes and murders children has any kind of rights, other than to choose the tree in which they wish to be hung from.

    Now, that kind of view on criminal activity is vile.

  • http://xraystyle.blogspot.com Bryan McKay

    Just ask the child who is being molested by a family member who’s looking out for them?

    But the issue in question, as far as the molestation goes, comes after the abuse has occured and not during or before. No one may be looking out for the victim while the molestation occurs, but as soon as their situation comes to light, people will rush to their aid. The ACLU isn’t defending the actions, but rather defending the treatment of the molester after the fact.

    I won’t even argue with you about the death penalty. I think that’s wrong on several levels, but your mind is obviously made up on that.

  • billy

    thank you for explaining exactly why i’d rather be dead than called a conservative. they are bloodthirsty warmongers who can only think of killing and “hanging” people. unless of course it is unborn cells in a womb, then they would like to see the mother or doctor killed. and just to explain, it isnt “liberals” who “think” these people have rights. the constitution requires it, so if you dont like it too bad, move to iran where they hang people for non-murders.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Most civilized people are extremely uncomfortable with the fact that child molesters have the same rights as any other citizen. After all, child molestation and exploitation are vile crimes and the perpetrators are indeed despicable people.

    However, the suggestion that our principle of all people being treated equally under the law should have exceptions is reactionary because that principle will eventually come to mean absolutely nothing if it can be cast aside for the sake of emotion.

    That said, people who are convicted of child molestation and exploitation should receive far longer prison sentences than they currently do (I am opposed to the death penalty, but that is another topic).

    There is much controversy surrounding the registries of sex offenders whose obligations to society as prescribed by the courts have been fulfilled.

    While it is indeed a violation of civil rights to continue to punish a certain class of criminals once they have completed their prison sentences and subsequent parole obligations, I always have to wonder why such people are being let out of prison if they are such a threat to society that they must register themselves as such.

    In other words, if a convicted child molester is dangerous enough to be on one of those registries, he or she should be in prison, not on a list.

  • Fima Fimovich

    I would like to send you some links to publications
    about my criminal case.
    My case are getting public attention now as an example
    of miscarriage of justice. I could not defend myself,
    because I did not have enough money for computer
    expert. I was forced to confess for possession of
    child porn. I got browser hijackers while browsing the
    web. I was redirected to illigal sites against my
    will. Some illigal pictures were found on my hard
    drive only after
    recovering in unallocated clusters, without dates of
    files creation/download.
    I do not know how can courts press widely on people to
    convict them, while whole Internet is a mess.

    This is my story in inquisition21.com. There is all
    information about case written by Irish writer Brian
    Rothery.

    http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~7~page_num~3.html

    This is publication in Wired news

    http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,63391,00.html

  • Dawn

    Margaret, your last statement is a compromise I am more than willing to make. I would waive the death penalty in lieu of severe and lengthy prison sentences.

    I am not looking to put innocent people to death or behind bars, I just want to prevent innocent children from being harmed by people who cannot be rehabilitated and are predisposed to preying on the young.

    At some point as a society we must weigh the individual rights of against the overall negative impact that individual pay pose on said society.

    And Billy, I am not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. I just don’t understand the lack of compassion or interest those on the left seem to show towards victims, compared to their interest and concern toward perps. It’s twisted and perverse.

  • http://xraystyle.blogspot.com Bryan McKay

    I agree 100% with Margaret’s statement. I don’t have a lack of compassion for the victims – I have plenty of compassion for them. What sets “those on the left” apart, however, is that they can have compassion for both sides, irregardless. Although perhaps compassion isn’t the word. I don’t feel particularly compassionate towards the child molesters, but I do have some degree of concern for their civil rights. Longer prison sentences are a good idea, but as long as the perp has done the time, he shouldn’t be forced to live as a second-class citizen when he is finally deemed free and safe.

  • http://xraystyle.blogspot.com Bryan McKay

    Also, I would argue that it’s just as “twisted and perverse” to want to see child molesters dangling from a noose, but that’s just me…

  • billy

    the problem is too many people are mixing up things and believing the twisted right wing rhetoric in this piece. this is not about child molestors or even child porn makers. noone has any sympathy for these people, IF ITS IS PROVEN they have done these things.

    this article on the other hand lies and tries to make it sound like the ACLU is trying to legalize child molestation and child porn. an outright lie and fraud.

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Lisa McKay

    Just to backtrack for a minute – the reason to be concerned for the civil rights of a convicted child molester (or any other criminal) is that we can’t protect everyone’s civil rights without – well, without protecting *everyone’s* civil rights. I value mine dearly, and the only way to insure that I get to keep mine is to fight for everyone else to keep theirs, too.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    The ACLU, as I see it, is trying to protect Americans’ civil liberties. That scares some people, and it outrages others.

    Remember Michael Douglas from ‘The American President”? He said something like: If you value free speech, then go defend someone for screaming at the top of their lungs something diametrically opposed to anything you believe in. Go defend someone for expressing their right to free speech, even if it means the burning of the American flag.

    The ACLU doesn’t do these things to be popular. They do these things because you can’t pick and choose who is defended by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Sometimes, you have to defend that which you abhor, in order to guarantee that someone else will protect you.

    But going back to my original point — I think this article (or opinion piece) is based on second-hand information. It’s opinion based on opinion — and of course that can lead to misinformation. The fact that much of the article is sourced to Dr. James Dobson and other religious-right groups — whose own credibility as “objective” has to be called into question — leads me to believe this whole article is bogus.

    It’s about as valuable as trying to decipher objective facts by listening, say, to Hannity & Colmes. It can’t be done. You have to find the original source of information — something from the ACLU — and then if you decide it’s horrible, say so. But to offer your opinion solely based on someone else’s likely biased opinion is … not very valuable.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    As the editor who approved this dubious pile of paranoia and moved it to publish status, I have to point out that it’s actually got some real value, if nothing else in expressing how enormously dissatisfied some people are with what the ACLU has been doing.

    What the author fails to understand is that the ACLU doesn’t make moral judgements of the people it defends, it makes its choices based on rights. It defends nazis, neo-confederates, KKK members, terrorist suspects, child molestors and all sorts of unsavory people, not because they share the same values, but because they believe that even the most hateful people have certain basic rights.

    Dave

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    Dawn, I think you’re setting up a false dichotomy. People who care about the rights of suspected molesters aren’t required to also not-care about the victims of molestation.

    I have three young children. I care about child pornography more than I can describe. At the same time and without yielding my right to peel the skin off of someone who tries to abuse one of my children, I am deeply concerned about how easily a society can be swept into frenzies over issues that sound worse than they are.

    None of these are easy questions, and easy sound-bite answers therefore simply don’t answer them. It would be easy to lock up all suspected child molesters forever, and maybe that would save a certain number of children from being molested. Easy, but not right, because every person deserves a fair trial. I might even be tempted to applaud that policy — until I’m picked up and thrown in jail over false evidence.

    We need to punish the perpretators of these acts to the fullest extent of the law — at least — but we need to be sure that we’re punishing the right people for the right reasons, and not just whoever happens to be caught for crimes of which they’re not really guilty.

    That’s what the ACLU tends to be very good at — sticking up for the alleged criminals nobody else will, in case everyone later realizes that we were acting rashly. They’re like anti-lynching advocates in that sense.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    Excellent point, Dave. Given the 54 comments and counting, I’d say this post has been effective at getting some people to think, for sure.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Thanks, Philip. I do think that there’s a point to be made about the ACLU, though. While their defense of the fundamental rights of those who no one else will defend is laudable, they are open to valid criticism in some other areas. Their take on rights relating to religion does appear to be biased and selective – and that may be what’s really troubling Dobson and his surrogates, even if they go after the easy target of defending child pornographers.

    The ACLU has been overly aggressive in trying to sanitize society by purging every religious element – even the most harmless. And they seem to exclusively target Christianity. Their attempts to ban nativity scenes and the like go overboard.

    Dave

  • Dawn

    That’s all well and good and I can see the merit in yours (Phillip) and the amazingly astute Dave N.’s points about civil liberties.

    But what I am opposed to is the ACLU spending it’s time, money and effort protecting the rights of criminals, while neglecting the rights of the next victim of the crime that these perpetrators will undoubtedly prey on.

    Really, at some point our heads must come out of the clouds. Protect their rights based on the constitutional provisions, but for crying out loud, these people aren’t to be treated as equals to law-abiding citizens.

    That is an affront to my own desire to be a forgiving soul.

  • http://xraystyle.blogspot.com Bryan McKay

    They don’t neglect the rights of the victims – the victims aren’t in danger of having their rights trampled on. There may be personal dangers and such, but that doesn’t fall under the category of a civil liberty. The ACLU is protecting constitutional rights. There are many other organizations which exist to protect the victims of violent crimes and sexual molestation.

    You’re right about one thing though: these people aren’t to be treated as equals to law-abiding citizens. You know why? They aren’t law-abiding citizens. And guess what, the law provides for this! Convicted felons aren’t granted the same rights as normal law-abiding citizens. No problems there. As soon as they’re released from prison, however, you can’t keep imposing the same restrictions. Unless, of course, you’re going to make a public registry of EVERY convicted criminal for EVERY crime and treat all ex-cons the same.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    What the ACLU could certainly use is a better press office. They seem to go blithely forward doing what they do sort of self-righteously without any real consideration for the possibility of negative public reaction. They know they’re right in what they’re doing and just assume that everyone will understand. It’s typical liberal pinhead behavior. They really ought to go out of their way to champion a few causes which might score some points with their opponents and then get them broadly publicized. If they took up a religious freedom case now and again, or a few free speech cases for abortion protestors they’d score a lot of points. The problem is that their choice of whose rights to defend is just a tiny bit selective.

    Dave

  • Dawn

    Ahh, but not all crimes have the same recidivism rate or the predatorial nature as those that involve child victimization.

    I don’t think every shoplifter, robber, drug-addict, manslaughterer, drunk driver (well, maybe drunk driver) should be continously oppressed once their time is up, in fact, if they would make mandatory sentences that were realistic for crimes against children of the sexual or violent nature, then this wouldn’t even be an issue.

    But because of organizations like the ACLU treating these types of criminals like some kind of normal human being and acting as though they behave like the rest of us, they have lessened the vicious nature of their crimes and they are subsequently perceived as petty and minor in nature.

    Really, what these criminals are guilty of are hate crimes and they should be treated like domestic terrorists as that is what they are doing.

  • http://xraystyle.blogspot.com Bryan McKay

    Interestingly enough, Dave, you can find this link right in the Features section on the front page of their site. Of course, it’s very typical conservative pinhead behavior to look over something like that.

  • http://xraystyle.blogspot.com Bryan McKay

    […] they have lessened the vicious nature of their crimes and they are subsequently perceived as petty and minor in nature.

    That’s just not true. No one perceives child molestation has petty or minor. Not even us liberals. And the ACLU hasn’t lessened the nature of these crimes in the slightest. Show me one example of this.

  • http://stoptheaclu-ok.blogspot.com Republican Vet

    What a poor excuse for trying to serve humanity. Where the ACLU defends child molesters and bails them out of jail and fights for immediate probation, rather than prison time…….another child is molested and murdered.

    Whoever thinks the ACLU is fighting for “basic rights” of ALL humans has a serious comprehension and morality disorder.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Interestingly enough, Dave, you can find this link right in the Features section on the front page of their site. Of course, it’s very typical conservative pinhead behavior to look over something like that.<<

    Well, Bryan. Since I’m one of the people who’s been defending the ACLU on this thread I didn’t bother to go to their website so I never had a chance to overlook that link. Now that you’ve pointed it out I see that the ACLU is making some effort to improve their public image, but I guess it’s not really registering with people like the author of this post.

    Dave

  • Bobbi Sparks

    SOUNDBITE: Power, money and court dominance is why the ACLU will defend anyone and anything THEY deem right. They make the rules and force everyone else to follow them. Their agenda is obedience to their NWO leaders who pay them well. Their goal is a Godless society where litigation is needed for ANY AND ALL actions – job security. The ACLU has no soul, no morality, no American patriotism and they don’t give a damn about any God but their own – money. Anyone who thinks differently has been sufficiently brainwashed.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    NWO? A pro wrestling league controls the ACLU?

    That would explain a lot, actually.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    Thanks, Bobbi. This thread was starting to make sense, but I think you’ve fixed that now.

    Dave, I’m not arguing that the ACLU is perfect, just that we would all be worse off without it. It is the nature of such an organization that it must offend some people with each case they take — because of the nature of the issues for which they fight — and over a long enough time, they’re sure to take a position to offend everyone.

    I disagree with a lot of the cases in which they’re involved, but I wouldn’t have it any other way.

  • Shark

    Dear Phillip Winn, Bryan McKay [lisa, too!], and Margaret Toigo:

    Thanks for your sane and balanced comments.

    (And even my ol’ buddy DaveNalle gets a compliment for most of what he’s added here — and Aaman et al for having the patience to pursue the links)

    Dear Dawn,
    Jeeeesus, chreest, you get emotional over this stuff! I mean… I understand, but stuff like, “…I take some serious issue with anyone who thinks that child molestors have rights…” is some DANGEROUS shit, especially if — gawd forbid — some pissed off neighbor, co-worker, family member, etc. decides to ACCUSE YOU OF CHILD MOLESTATION.

    (Anecdote Warning: I have two good friends who recently went through Hell on Earth due to flimsy accusations by revenge seekers. I hope it never happens to you, especially if your ideas of justice ever become the law of the land.)

    ==========

    Anyway…

    This poster’s “book”, “essay”, and HEADLINE are obviously a load of horseshit, just more distortions and propoganda from some right-winged parrot who — thanks [partly] to the ACLU and Blogrcritics — now has a mass audience for his lies and jingoisms.

    Thanks to all who continue to have the patience to challenge and debunk.

  • ClubhouseCancer

    I just looked closer at the book he linked to.
    William Donahue is a twisted, stupid, misguided, awful, hateful person. The Catholic League does itself no favors by having him as a spokesman. Here’s some shitty things he’s said over the last couple of years, so you can judge for yourselves.

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200412210001

    I think someone must point out that it’s the hard, unpopular work of groups like the aclu that alllow for robust discussions like the one everyone’s having here.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    I think someone must point out that it’s the hard, unpopular work of groups like the aclu that alllow for robust discussions like the one everyone’s having here.

    Indeed. God bless ‘em, even when they seem to have their collective head in the wrong place.

  • http://xraystyle.blogspot.com Bryan McKay

    Even if you don’t necessarily support the causes the ACLU fights for, you still have to admire the courage and conviction it takes to stand up for freedom of speech for a Nazi rally or for the right to privacy of former child molestors.

  • jimpursell

    I want a psychological profile of liberal,ACLU type persons – if there is such a thing free to the public.

  • Angry parent

    I am tired of how easy it appears to find child porn. I have daughter, and it sickens me to no living end that the aclu has tried once again jeapordize the rights of innocent people for trash peddling scum. Why not give these people death penalty ?

  • Chris

    Wow, when a sexual aid drug is the first post, you know the internet has become a festeing cesspool of sexual intent and more focally, greed, with lust as its subordinate. That aside, I have been semi-permanently mentally damaged(lengthy repairs that are over the heads of psychologists with PhDs – I’ve tried over 40) by pedophiles and those who would manipulate things to have their way. I’m not at all surprised to see that they are working even now to be able to publicly “voyeuristicly” molest children. I am surprised, however, that they are being allowed to make progress. Not enough Americans remember what this country is, nor what we initially stood for and should even now stand for, in the manner that our founders stood. Militia… subdued by gun suppression. Justice… traded for “security”. Freedom… traded for more “security”. We let them put us in cages to help us be more protected. Now, this activity within the ACLU is evidence of only one of the many activities we have allowed ourselves to become nearly powerless to completely stop. The forcible annihilation of this organization through nonviolent means may be required, and would be quite costly. If this is not an option, we must retake our government, for like in Star Wars(making an analogy for those that need to better understand), the Republic is no longer able to keep control of itself. Age 24, 212 IQ, impoverished all my life, seldom by choice. This opression must end.

  • Chris

    Apologies for the lack of clarification on the last post. It occurred to me that in some mindsets the idea of the phrease “be more protected” may be misconstrued. It is lacking in punctuation as well. The intended meaning is the idea of being safer, or of being protected, for the detriment to one’s privacy(which the more intelligent see as a detriment to one’s security), or even of feeling safety due to the allusion of some protector figure or group assuring safety with teh sacrifice of certain things. I.e. – mafia tactics. We are under the allusions of safety, providing the illusions of safety that we self-manufacture as rationalization of rather alarming truths.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    Chris: the sexual aid post you referred to was just ping spam and has been deleted.

  • randy

    All you are doing is repeating history by hammering on predators. Don’t believe me ? Look back in history, The words you are speaking today are the same words that was spooking in the past about a group of People. this group where called Child Molesters persecuted, ridacuted and put to shame and even imprisoned before we where even a country. People felt that this group amoral and now they feel that it’s ok. I’m going to give you a hint this group that prefer the Ark that Ned Flanders built, with 2 male animals of each species so nothing “improper” would happen… Until he blurts out:”Hey you too, cut that out!” If you don’t get it by now then you will never get it. Albert Einstein wrote, “The problems that exist in the world today can not be solved by the level of thinking that created them

    Google

    ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights

    ACLU, gay couples sue to uphold same-sex marriages in Oregon

    ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group …

    ACLU in Bed with Child molesters !

    ACLU defends child-molester group

    ACLU Fights for Child Molester Rights

    ACLU fights child molester ‘banishment’

  • Trevor Loughlin

    I am against child abuse. Certainly the higher grades of child pornography depict criminal activity (such as penetrative sex between an adult male and young child) and those involved can be dealt with by existing laws on rape and under age sex.
    The remaining images are psuedo-pornography (nudity, inter teen sex and “lewd” behaviour) and the actual viewing of ANY grade of C.P. image is a psuedo-crime similar to possession of drugs, and has led to appalling human rights abuse on the part of the law comparable to the so-called war on terror.
    Children and families are being destroyed by opportunistic state officials. Eventually this massive false abuse scandal (all visual psuedo-crime laws are false abuse) will discredit legitimate child protection measures.
    I am begining to hold those responsible for expanding the definition of sexual predation into thought crime law (and consensual teen sex) with the same contempt I have for murderous sexual predators. The irony is that I am a puritan in my own personal life and until I looked into this issue would probably have expressed the same ignorant idea that “sexual predators” must be a uniform group, rather than a small group of sick men who should be subject to constant checks, and a vastly larger group of psuedo-criminals facing a lifetime of employment and housing discrimination guilty of nothing more then political incorrectness. I suggest you check out the inquistion21 website and rent a DVD of “Capturing the Freidmans” to realise that you and your children are not safe from this legislation.
    The vast majority of links on the inquistion21 site are to libertarians such as myself. There a few links to the sites of disgruntled paedophiles who no doubt are delighted to so so many “normal” people be classed as such. After all, at this rate EVERYONE will end up classed as such. I sometimes wonder if the abuse industry has a secret paedophile agenda!
    I certainly would not appprove of this since we only have to look at Iran to see how very early marriage has put women into the hands of sexual predators in religious guise leading to the complete moral and genetic degeneration of that nation, and genetic degenerates in the more extreme Mormon sects have used the same technique.
    Bearing in mind that in many instances legislators
    hide behind legal immunity as in the case of Waco, how long will it be before a state of civil war exists (as in one young man’s misguided and tragic attempt to avenge this official mass murder) when enough “decent” families have been abused by the authorities? I say it’s time for retroactive legislation to jail and seize assets of ALL those involved in the war on our own citizens. The ACLU is therfore quite legitimate in attempting to repeal the law.

  • me

    YOu kids are so full of shit please turn this ridiculous blog off. You each – regardless what side you argue ACLU and Child Porn – sound off like you know next to nothing about the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
    We are a Democratic Republic. the ACLU is a Socialistic/Communistic organization and while that does fly in Canada, the ACLU does not fly here.
    Child Porn is not about speech either – it is about conduct – it is beyond a “thought crime” fucking a kid is an act and all are to be held accountable for their acts.
    And if any ACLU document is “so subtle,” it is, no doubt, to shroud the fact that the logic; as it has always been; is all fucked around.
    What sanitary world do you live in? If I ever meet up with you all as you spew out your ridiculous beliefs in public I; or someone like me will challenge you – No personal attacks thats so stupid – grow up.

  • jon

    its sick that people actually defend these people.

  • cloe

    Has any of the ACLU mothers and fathers offered to have their own children filmed? My goodness, if I ran to county I would send child protective services to each and every ACLU household that has minor children.

  • Edward Petersen

    No jon, it’s not sick. It’s necessary. I think it’s funny that the ACLY is being called a socialistic organization when they defend the rights of extreme right orgnaizations such as the KKK and neonazi groups. Do you deem the KKK socialist?

    The thing with child abuse is that, while it’s terrible for the child, it’s blown out of proportion. It’s one thing to lock up a man who has raped and murdered innocent children, it’s another thing to jail men for looking at drawn pictures of fictional events.

    I’m talking about the ban on “lolicon”. This is a Japanese form of drawn porn involving underaged girls. Is it obscene? Very often, yes. However, things like scat porn (pornography involving feces and urine) are also “obscene”, but who would ban it, other than an authoritarian religious supressor? Drawing a little girl having sex harms no one, yet because of the outrage at acts of pedophilia, people can get jail time for it.

  • Nino Baldino

    This unhappy bunch hates the ten commandments but loves to film then watch little children down to the age of 6 raped and sodomized by adults…go figure.They make money and have freedom fought for by folks who believe in those commandments and yet the aclu smirks all the way to the bank.while they tear down those commandments and replace them with the dollar sign..Nino

  • anon

    “It’s one thing to defend unpopular positions, it’s quite another to defend child porn in any aspect, ”

    This is the kind of thinking that will destroy our great nation, because in reality if you canot rationally try to defend child porn, you have no basis for it to be wrong in the first place, playing devils advocate is the first step to truly understanding a situation, and if you cannot do that, you may as well wrap a big old chain around your neck and hand it to an authoritarian douche bag who is able and willing to use the accusations of child pornography or pedophile to incite witch hunts.

  • James

    And it’s a shame ACLU lost! This isn’t about child porn at all, it’s about forfeiting our rights by jumping like the trained dogs we are to buzz words like pedophile. You make it illegal to look at anything and you’re screwing your rights over. Go ahead play disgusted, feign righteous indignation, everyone else does, cause they are blinded to what politicians and their agendas are doing to our rights. A free market is a good market, if we fear demand we ultimately fear ourselves.

  • billy young

    the aclu is a sick organisation,tell me this,what would you do if someone took your child to become a porn star?

  • zingzing

    fuck him on tape?

  • zingzing

    heh. nice one, comment editors.

  • nino baldino

    this is the same hate group that wants to ban the boy scouts ..it figures..an organization founded by a communist.

  • nino baldino

    notice some comments and how the children being raped and sodomized are never spoken of..golly we have to have rights to….like driving on the left side of the road,or taking booze before flying the plane..nonsense..notice so few mention what I did.re: boy scouts and the censorship of them….take it from whence it comes..

  • pat

    The children suffer the indignities of the oppressors whether it be their own parents,institutions, or the spiritually corrupt. Any source of support for child pornography is a travesty and contempt for humanity and civilization as a whole. They are uncivilized sub human beings and should have no rights within in a place which the masses call civilized . Empower and protect children and destroy the sources of origin and support for this vile evil permanently.

  • gay bob

    No the ACLU is not evil.
    Perhaps you are.
    As an artist I can tell you that children are beautiful. They are in a lot of ancient art.
    And just owning pictures of nude children does not make you a pervert. It can be just the opposite.
    After all we are everyone of us born nude wether you like it or not. This is the way God prefers it.
    Maybe you are the pervert.

  • Norm Haugen

    Let’s not forget, Charles, Rust-Tierney – a member of the Virginia ACLU, who pleaded guilty to having child pornography.