Amazon 7 #1 January 13, 2004 Even though the Ultra Right Wing has maligned the ACLU as a Leftist liberal irrelevant organization incessantly, perhaps they really are out to protect the Bill of Rights after all and I wonder why so many psuedo-patriotic Americans don't support their efforts to keep your freedoms as put forth in the Bill of Rights a reality. http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=14698&c=27 PALM BEACH, FL - In a motion filed today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida said state law enforcement officers violated Rush Limbaugh’s privacy rights by seizing the conservative radio talk show host's medical records as part of a criminal investigation involving alleged “doctor-shopping.” “While this case involves the right of Rush Limbaugh to maintain the privacy of his medical records, the precedent set in this case will impact the security of medical records and the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship of every person in Florida,” said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida The ACLU of Florida’s Simon added: “For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh. But we have always said that the ACLU’s real client is the Bill of Rights and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view.” “We have defended the rights of every group on the political spectrum from anti-war protesters and Oliver North to church-state separation activists and Jerry Falwell,” Simon noted. Discuss amoungst yourselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #2 January 13, 2004 Ah........... They still suck!!!!!!!!! Nice try though (by them) "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #3 January 13, 2004 Good.....right or wrong Rush still has rights. The ACLU DOES get something right now and again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 January 13, 2004 Please remember that the ACLU really doesn't take left or right sides. The main stated goal of the ACLU is to protect the Bill of Rights. Sometimes that means they come to the defense of some pretty strange characters and some seemingly pretty strange causes, but if you look behind the obvious wierdness, you'll see that they're really just working on that top ten list our country's founders thought was a good idea. One such philosophy is "I don't agree with your statement, but I'll defend your right to say it." So, they might end up defending the KKK's right to hold a parade. Normally that would be a fairly disgusting idea, but freedom of speech and the freedom to peacefully assemble are things guaranteed by the Bill of Rights -- so there ya go.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #5 January 13, 2004 Good for them. It will be interesting to see if Rush continues to refer to them with the same disdain as he used to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #6 January 13, 2004 QuoteGood for them. It will be interesting to see if Rush continues to refer to them with the same disdain as he used to. Why would it make any difference to Rush? He didn't ask them to get involved and he is WELL represented by Roy Black. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #7 January 13, 2004 I don't think so. When they actually READ the first ammendment I suspect Rush might start respecting them. Rush is well represented without them. This is purely a political move on their part.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #8 January 13, 2004 >This is purely a political move on their part. As defending the civil rights of unpopular people and groups is what they do most often, I'd say it's just business as usual for them. This time it just happens to be one of their stronger critics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #9 January 13, 2004 Perhaps. Lord knows they all loathe the KKK and they have defended them often enough. Perhaps they've turned a new leaf, but I doubt it. I still find it hard to believe they've read the bill of rights given some of the views they espouse. Still, this is surprising. Be interesting to see what happens.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #10 January 13, 2004 I've seen firsthand the ACLU defend the rights of Christian students on my high school campus. What I like about that organization is that they will stand up for ANYONE whose rights are being compromised, unrestricted by political ideology. The reason you don't see them advocate for many christian groups is that those groups typically have and use their own legal representation. There's simply no need for the ACLU to step in in many of those situations. From my observations, the ACLU tends to step in when either 1. an individual's rights are being compromised, OR 2. there is an opportunity to set legal precedent regarding certain constitutional rights. The latter is most probably the case with the Limbaugh incident. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #11 January 13, 2004 Vinny Vinny Vinny.. have you ever actually read anything on their site? Their position paper " Freedom is why we are here" http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=10740 I would think ANY red blooded Patriotic American would support them... and if not then maybe that person really does not believe in the principles on which this great country was founded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #12 January 13, 2004 They can write whatever they like. I'm sure they do some good things from time to time. The majority of the time I've seen them I disagree with what they are doing. I see many cases where they should step in and don't - fairly public ones.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #13 January 13, 2004 QuotePlease remember that the ACLU really doesn't take left or right sides. The ACLU as an organization doesn't, but the membership/supporters do. You mentioned their support of the KKK and parades. They supported the KKKs right to have parade permits in New York, Boston, and Illinois. The one in predominantly Jewish Skokie, Illinois cost them a huge amount of support. Membership can have an agenda that drives the focus of an organization. So does funding. One time the leader of a "non-aligned" African nation was asked about his sympathies. His reply? "There are only 3 non-aligned nations, the US, China, and the USSR." Whoever supplies the money determines the political leanings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #14 January 13, 2004 QuoteQuotePlease remember that the ACLU really doesn't take left or right sides. The ACLU as an organization doesn't, but the membership/supporters do. You mentioned their support of the KKK and parades. They supported the KKKs right to have parade permits in New York, Boston, and Illinois. The one in predominantly Jewish Skokie, Illinois cost them a huge amount of support. Membership can have an agenda that drives the focus of an organization. So does funding. One time the leader of a "non-aligned" African nation was asked about his sympathies. His reply? "There are only 3 non-aligned nations, the US, China, and the USSR." Whoever supplies the money determines the political leanings. It was the American Nazi Party in Skokie. ACLU defended their right to have a parade through a Jewish neighborhood.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #15 January 13, 2004 It's fairly easy to see who REALLY supports freedom just be reading the replies in this thread.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
meltdown 0 #16 January 13, 2004 "I would think ANY red blooded Patriotic American would support them..." Maybe if they spent a little more time legitimately defending peoples rights and a little less time suing school districts who don't bow down to the PC police, they'd get a little more respect from "red blooded" Americans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #17 January 13, 2004 I don't think that support of the ACLU defines who does/doesn't support freedom. Freedom of action is sometimes freedom from the actions of others. It seems that the ACLU does not respect the life choices of a lot of people. It tends to try to force the one set of beliefs on others. A lot of people just want to live their lives without ACLU "mother hens" telling them how to live. This is the basic flaw of political parties of both persuasions. The idea that their political agenda must be forced on the other side "for their own good". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #18 January 13, 2004 I can think of no better example of the ACLU being over the top than the Parental Notification Law. I wonder how many of those who support the ACLU on this position are parents? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #19 January 13, 2004 If you don't want to see someone else's actions/parade/whatnot, you always have the option to not attend/look away. Your right not to look is not infringed by their right to demonstrate. However, when your right not to look becomes the reason why they are not permitted to demonstrate, then, we have a problem. Sure, the American Nazi Party is NOT popular. Neither is the KKK. However, none of these political ideologies are against the law. You can't outlaw a way of thinking. You can outlaw actions, but not thought. It seems very cut and dry at first. Outlaw demonstrations by Nazis, the KKK, and other extremely deplorable people. Makes sense. They're so obviously wrong that there's no point in allowing them to demonstrate, right? BUT...if we prohibit the ANP from having a parade because their ideas are unpopular, where do we draw the line? Do we then prohibit the NRA from having a demonstration in a town with a high population of environmentalists? Their ideas would be unpopular with the locals, same situation as the Nazi parade... Where does it end? What it comes down to is this: Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble... As long as they're assembling peacefully and not violating any laws, you have to let them assemble, regardless of what view they happen to be espousing. When we start restricting freedom of speech and the right to public assemblage, we set a dangerous precedent. In conclusion, as much as I may hate someone's point of view, I completely support their right to talk about it, demonstrate about it, and believe it. I want those same rights when it comes to my own views. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #20 January 13, 2004 QuoteI don't think that support of the ACLU defines who does/doesn't support freedom. Freedom of action is sometimes freedom from the actions of others. It seems that the ACLU does not respect the life choices of a lot of people. It tends to try to force the one set of beliefs on others. A lot of people just want to live their lives without ACLU "mother hens" telling them how to live. This is the basic flaw of political parties of both persuasions. The idea that their political agenda must be forced on the other side "for their own good". The overwhelming majority of ACLU actions are defending someone or some organization FROM the government. Which is exactly what the Bill of Rights does. I would be interested to hear of any ACLU action that did not support an individual's or private organizations's rights against government intrusion. Perhaps you will give some examples where ACLU has supported trampling on an individual's rights. The biggest problem the "Right" has with ACLU is that many on the Right really want the government to exert control over other people (such as sexual behavior laws recently overturned in the south, drug laws...) extending to wanting the government to prevent unpopular groups from expressing their views (such as the Nazis in Skokie). I also notice that many on the Right see no problem in depriving a citizen of his right to an attorney and to face his accusers.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #21 January 13, 2004 QuoteYou can't outlaw a way of thinking. You can outlaw actions, but not thought. How about the Hate Crime Law? Doesn't it criminalize someones thoughts? Quote Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble... Campaign Finance Reform does exactly this. QuoteWhen we start restricting freedom of speech and the right to public assemblage, we set a dangerous precedent. Agreed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bsoder 0 #22 January 13, 2004 The ACLU defends the Bill of Rights in the way they interpret it. That may or may not be the way others interpret it. 2nd amendment being the prime example. "The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration." Whether or not you believe in "gun control" or not, the point is that the ACLU defends the BoR in the way they see fit. If I wanted to fight a court battle where I'm defending the "individual's right to keep and bear arms" argument, they would not help me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #23 January 13, 2004 they might help. it depends on the situation. the ACLU doesn't object to licensing, registering and requiring certain training to own guns. The ACLU would object to banning them outright. even the NRA supports checks to keep guns out of the hands of felons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bsoder 0 #24 January 13, 2004 Perhaps I should have looked for a less "volatile" Amendment to use for my example. My point was that they interpret the 2nd in a collective way - the "militia argument." They don't interpret it in an individual way - the "right to keep and bear arms argument." The ACLU is for the BoR in the way they interpret it, that was my point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #25 January 13, 2004 QuotePerhaps you will give some examples where ACLU has supported trampling on an individual's rights. They seem to get involved in quite a few issues that I define as "mind control"/"big brother" stuff. I grew up in a town with a population of 10,000. Our mayor was a honest, likeable guy. He would wander around on Saturdays with an edger and hedge clippers on main street smoking his cigar. Someone with the newspaper asked him who he wanted for a city manager. He said he wanted an " hard-working, God-fearing person" that could do the job right. The ACLU sued him and the city for the comment. His response was that "God-fearing" is a generic term for honest and he just wanted someone honest for the job, he wasn't trying to exclude atheists. I think they are generally meddling a-holes. They try to micro-manage the lives of others. That is what makes them so irritating. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
