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 LibertyIn 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.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - 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.
27 - 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.
28 - 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.
29 - 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.
30 - 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.
31 - 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
32 - Aaman
Also from that link, perhaps a more meaningful excerpt:
33 - 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.
34 - Margaret Romao Toigo
The paragraph immediately following the one Jay posted (from the same source):
35 - Phillip Winn
If you want to link to images posted on another site, that's fine, Margaret.
36 - 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.
37 - 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.
38 - 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.
39 - 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.
40 - 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.
41 - 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.
42 - 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.
43 - 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.
44 - 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.
45 - 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
46 - 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.
47 - 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.
48 - 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...
49 - 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.
50 - 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.
51 - 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.
52 - 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
53 - 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.
54 - 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.
55 - 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
56 - 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.
57 - 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.
58 - 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
59 - 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.
60 - 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.
61 - 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.
62 - 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.
63 - 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
64 - 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.
65 - Victor Plenty
NWO? A pro wrestling league controls the ACLU?
That would explain a lot, actually.
66 - 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.
67 - 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.
68 - 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.
69 - 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.
70 - 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.
71 - jimpursell
I want a psychological profile of liberal,ACLU type persons - if there is such a thing free to the public.
72 - 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 ?
73 - 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.
74 - 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.
75 - Christopher Rose
Chris: the sexual aid post you referred to was just ping spam and has been deleted.