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!
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - 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.
2 - 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.
3 - bhw
Why are we screaming about something from the 1980s? Is there a more recent relevant story about this in the news?
4 - Jay
Such as their defense of NAMBLA?
5 - bhw
Is that new? The bulk of the post refers to stuff from the '80s.
6 - 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?
7 - 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.
8 - 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.
9 - 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.
10 - Aaman
I don't see any reference to the ACLU there, hmmm? Did a search too
11 - 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.
12 - 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?
13 - 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.
14 - 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.
15 - 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?
16 - 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.
17 - 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.
18 - 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 â€"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!
19 - 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!
20 - 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."
21 - 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.
22 - 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
23 - 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.
24 - billy
and a post that is an outright lie is permitted here?
25 - 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.