If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Former ACLU president caught researching child porn   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 261
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

12934 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Feb 2007 at 2:07 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



261 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-02-24 04:38:59 AM
beerbaron

Oh, and if anyone thinks the ACLU gives a damn about "seperation of church and state", how can this place exist? Can you imagine the shiat hitting the fan if some city council tried to create a "Jesus Christ" street? The ACLU would be all over it like ugly on an ape. No, they just are anti-christian, as well as being anti-american.

man, you nailed it. the aclu is shilling for scientology.

my eyes are rolling back so far that they're shaving layers off my brain.
 
2007-02-24 04:41:30 AM
Sum Dum Gai: So, then, if you feel that the second amendment is a right of each individual, do you then feel it is unconstitutional to forbid children, the insane, or felons from possessing guns?

First of all, there are a lot of rights that don't apply to children. They don't vote, their rights are restricted in many ways during the hours they attend school, etc. Secondly, the courts have held that as long as you comply with certain restrictions and behave yourself, as the VAST majority of gun owners do, it is not an infringement to single out folks who should not be owning firearms. In many states felons can't vote, either.

A lot of the gun-grabbers fail to recognize that guns are still a legitimate tool. Say you are a cattle rancher and you notice a fox stalking your herd. You realize he probably has rabies because of the behavior. Now, what is your solution:

A: Get the shotgun from the shed and kill the fox.

B: Petition the ACLU to defend the rights of the cattle to freely assemble and have them file a suit for harassment against the fox.

C: You shouldn't be eating steak because meat is murder.

/wonders what the overlap between ACLU supporters and PETA supporters is
 
2007-02-24 04:46:01 AM
some of you seem to have the impression that the aclu is sue-happy. trust me, it ain't. they can't take 99% of cases where people want them. why?

well, first, because people want them to take all sorts of cases, but they only take cases involving constitutionally guaranteed rights where state action is clearly involved, and even then only when the decision is likely to set precedent.

second, and more importantly: because litigation is expensive, litigation against the state is even more expensive, and the aclu runs on donations and works for free.

pretty much every case the aclu DOES take on, it tries to handle WITHOUT suing. you rarely hear about all the other work the aclu does outside of the legal foundations, but that's because big court cases are media magnets.
 
2007-02-24 04:46:55 AM
/wonders what the overlap between ACLU supporters and PETA supporters is

beerbaron, i make you.
 
2007-02-24 04:50:12 AM
More from the land of irrational arguments:
A: Get the shotgun from the shed and kill the fox.

B: Petition the ACLU to defend the rights of the cattle to freely assemble and have them file a suit for harassment against the fox.

C: You shouldn't be eating steak because meat is murder.



And just for good measure, we'll pose a question designed to infer the the ACLU and PETA are in bed with each other.

/wonders what the overlap between ACLU supporters and PETA supporters is
 
2007-02-24 04:51:38 AM
pretty much every case the aclu DOES take on, it tries to handle WITHOUT suing.

= they threaten to sue the bejesus out of entities that can't afford to be sued by the ACLU.
 
2007-02-24 04:52:09 AM
beerbaron
First of all, there are a lot of rights that don't apply to children. They don't vote, their rights are restricted in many ways during the hours they attend school, etc.

Voting is not an individual right either, it never has been. It's precisely because it's not an individual right that children and felons may be constitutionally denied the vote. Later amendments would forbid discrimination on account of race or sex, but it's fully constitutional to deny an individual the chance to vote, as long as it's not for those reasons.

It's constitutional for minimal restrictions on rights in schools, but then, students are not forced to go to any particular school, and homeschooling is also an option. Further, many "Bill of Rights" issues regarding schools aren't really issues at all. Locker searches, for example, are constitutional because the lockers are owned by the school, and they have full rights to examine them at will. Censorship in school newspapers is also permitted because the paper is officially sponsored by the school, and like any newspaper editors, they can choose content.

Secondly, the courts have held that as long as you comply with certain restrictions and behave yourself, as the VAST majority of gun owners do, it is not an infringement to single out folks who should not be owning firearms.

Which can only be true IF gun ownership is a collective, not individual, right. It would be unconstitutional, for example, to give 99% of the population a right to a fair trial but deny the other 1%. It would be unconstitutional to deny even one person. That's the force of an individual right -- a right guaranteed to each person under every circumstance.

In many states felons can't vote, either.

Again, voting is not an individual right. It is a right of the populace as a whole, but not necessarily each person within the populace.
 
2007-02-24 04:53:06 AM
So, then, if you feel that the second amendment is a right of each individual, do you then feel it is unconstitutional to forbid children, the insane, or felons from possessing guns?

Sum Dum Gai, meet Case Law.
 
2007-02-24 04:56:03 AM
joshzsmith: More from the land of irrational arguments:

So you think farmers don't need firearms? WTF are you talking about? And personally I don't think the membership in those groups overlaps much. Nutjobs tend to pick a specific focus for their mania. PETA nuts aren't the same folks as ACLU nuts, although they share tinfoil hats on alternate Tuesdays.
 
2007-02-24 04:58:48 AM
img521.imageshack.us

/ACLU consistency 'splodes
 
2007-02-24 05:03:28 AM
iKill
Sum Dum Gai, meet Case Law.

All the case law which says it's constitutional to restrict gun ownership by e.g. felons, children, etc. bases that on the premise that gun ownership is not an individual right.

If gun ownership was ruled an individual right, it would effectively overturn all that case law, because the conclusion that the restrictions are constitutional depends on gun ownership not being an individual right.

If gun ownership is an individual right, then NO restriction on which individuals may own guns could ever be constitutional.
 
2007-02-24 05:04:38 AM
iKill

= they threaten to sue the bejesus out of entities that can't afford to be sued by the ACLU.

look, i can't blame you for not knowing what the aclu does for the most part. many of its supporters don't. but there is a lot more to the aclu than lawyers and court cases. why don't you take a look at their legislative angle? it's very easy to find.
 
2007-02-24 05:10:35 AM
I love how the headline makes it look like an ACLU bigwig got caught with child porn, but as soon as you RTFA it turns out it was some small-time, state-level, former "chapter president." Nice work maintaining the Fark misdirection-and-inaccuracy ethic, submitter!

I've never understood the animosity aimed at the ACLU. The organization is committed to protecting the liberties of the Constitution. People must really be jumping through some logic hoops to find a way to equate this to anti-Americanism.
 
2007-02-24 05:10:44 AM
beerbaron:

your argument in that example is faulty because it makes the incorrect assumption that everyone who favors stricter gun control wants some kind of universal ban on all weapons

does your farmer need an assault rifle to kill that fox?
 
2007-02-24 05:19:22 AM
Funkmaster Frank: I think I can reasonably assume that you are for banning individual gun use.

Would that include my own guns?
I don't think so.
I'm just yanking the chain of these guys who seem to think that the Constitution consists of the 2nd Amendment and a bunch of other stuff that you can just ignore.
 
2007-02-24 05:24:55 AM
cankersnore: When I Googled for other news on this story I couldn't help but notice that a lot of their "Headlines" said ACLU President...it's news not FARK.


/ck out his ol' lady...she's hot!
 
2007-02-24 05:25:47 AM
beerbaron
Oh, and if anyone thinks the ACLU gives a damn about "seperation of church and state", how can this place exist? Can you imagine the shiat hitting the fan if some city council tried to create a "Jesus Christ" street? The ACLU would be all over it like ugly on an ape. No, they just are anti-christian, as well as being anti-american.

You do know that Sacramento, California, is named for the Sacraments, don't you? There are hundreds of streets, cities, counties, rivers, etc... named for Christian ideals and people. Get a freaking clue.
 
2007-02-24 05:27:04 AM
beerbaron: Can you imagine the shiat hitting the fan if some city council tried to create a "Jesus Christ" street? The ACLU would be all over it like ugly on an ape.

You're absolutely right. Speaking of beer, I'm going down to the deli on St. Mark's Place in Greenwich Village to get a beer. I mean, I certainly wouldn't want to go all the way up to Saint Nicholas Avenue in Harlem, let alone St. Ann's Avenue in the Bronx, just to buy a beer, would I?

/moran
 
2007-02-24 05:31:43 AM
Sum Dum Gai: If gun ownership is an individual right, then NO restriction on which individuals may own guns could ever be constitutional

That is simply not so. The rights to free speech, free assembly, etc. are indisputably individual rights, yes? Then how come the FCC can fine Howard Stern for indecency? And NYC can require me to get a permit for a parade? All rights have restrictions placed on them. The standard is whether those restrictions are reasonable.

/"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
 
2007-02-24 05:33:16 AM
It was probably just traci lords videos.

/that's not wrong is it?
 
2007-02-24 05:34:59 AM
Mr_Slippery: Speaking of beer, I'm going down to the deli on St. Mark's Place in Greenwich Village to get a beer.

I hear they have pretty good delis in Corpus Christi, San Diego, Providence, and San Francisco. But near where I grew up in Illinois, the towns of Hebron, St. Charles, and Zion had Fark all.
 
2007-02-24 05:35:05 AM
cankersnore [TotalFark]
I've never understood the animosity aimed at the ACLU. The organization is committed to protecting the liberties of the Constitution. People must really be jumping through some logic hoops to find a way to equate this to anti-Americanism.

1: People don't like to hear things they don't agree with and think they should have the right to shut those people up. They don't understand that that would give other people the power to shut them up.
2: People assume that defending the rights of other people to speak their piece means that you agree with what they say.
3: People mistake defending people's rights to say what they want means you want them to be able to do the things they talk about. ie, they equate defending NAMBLA's right to express themselves with wanting to allow NAMBLA the freedom to molest little boys.
4: Many people are stupid.

The ACLU defends the 1st Amendment rights of many people I loathe (NAMBLA, Rush Limbaugh, nutjob right-wing extremists, Christian extremists, etc...) but that doesn't make me want to stop them from doing it. The right to have an unpopular opinion, and make an ass of yourself expressing it, is a fundamental right of every American.
 
2007-02-24 05:36:02 AM
Another Conservative Lack of Understanding
 
2007-02-24 05:37:41 AM
give bees a chance
It was probably just traci lords videos.
/that's not wrong is it?


Only if it's that horrid "Traci, I Love You" video.

/Pours out a 40 to honor the ashes of my Miss America issue of Penthouse.
 
2007-02-24 05:47:02 AM
gterz66
Like the Catholic haters?

Show me where the ACLU has moved child molesters from their ranks to new cities and used "religious privilege" to hide child molesters in their ranks. Show me where they have used pressure to silence the victims and their families.

Not all Priests molested children. In all actuality, a very small minority did. But that's not why people hate the Catholic church. They hate the church for the systematic hiding of these perverts. They hate the church for being more concerned with its image than with the welfare of its flock.

Much of what people say about the church is unfair. But he church brought it on themselves.
 
2007-02-24 05:54:39 AM
The videos described in the complaint depict graphic forcible intercourse with prepubescent females. One if the girls is described in court documents as being "seen and heard crying", another is described as being "bound by rope."


This describes... pretty much every pron video I've ever seen from Japan.
(That didn't involve tentacles, at least.)

I've got a dollar that says this stuff was completely legal in its country of origin.
 
2007-02-24 06:11:12 AM
WHAT? The former chapter president of ACLU downloaded child porn!?

Well I guess that proves that protecting civil liberties is tantamount to supporting child pornographers!
 
2007-02-24 06:12:39 AM
Just a wild guess . . . it's a street light?
 
2007-02-24 06:32:40 AM
Umm.. Ok, so this guy downloads child porn and gets busted. Fine.

No one here is wondering why he's the focus, and why the "commercial" child porn sites aren't being targeted here?

The article talks about how this guy subscribed to the sites, but never says anything about the owners of said sites being brought to justice. Am I missing something?
 
2007-02-24 06:35:17 AM
It's no mystery why the ACLU is unpopular. Just read (and assess the IQ level of) some of the posts here. The majority of the "wad" think that Democracy means mob rule, and that the majority should be able to do whatever they want.
Trouble with that "Us vs Them" mentality is that if you really believe in liberty, sooner or later you are going to have to stand up for some scumbag who is opposed to everything you stand for. It's one of the funny little paradoxes of life that unsubtle minds can't comprehend.
 
2007-02-24 06:41:33 AM
Zamboro: Well I guess that proves that protecting civil liberties is tantamount to supporting child pornographers!

Well, rights are only needed by unpopular people. If you're a normal American, you are less likely to need protection from the ACLU than if you're a Communist, a Muslim or a pedo. Therefore, those groups are much more likely to join the ACLU full time - they need organisations like this to protect them from the hostile majority.

It's if there were an organisation campaigining against Gitmo, you'd expect terrorist sympathizers to comprise the majority of it's members. Of course, there are a few well meaning but misguided people, but I'd expect them to be in a minority.
 
2007-02-24 06:41:41 AM
rustik: Umm.. Ok, so this guy downloads child porn and gets busted. Fine.

You can pay for your child porn with Visa? everywhere you want to be. Mastercard? Priceless, or was it American Express? Don't leave home without it.
 
2007-02-24 06:43:31 AM
rustik
The article talks about how this guy subscribed to the sites, but never says anything about the owners of said sites being brought to justice. Am I missing something?

No, you're not. They are. Law enforcement is going after the sites that create child porn. The problem is that many of these sites are not hosted or run from within the United States. Many of them are in Russia and other countries that are less than cooperative with American law enforcement. The press focuses on things that get ratings. Busting American pervs gets more ratings than busting web sites run by the Russian Mafia.
 
2007-02-24 06:52:02 AM
Three things to say about the ACLU its not American, not civil and certainly has nothing to do with liberty.

For an organization founded by a communist and funded by Joe Stalin, it sure does escape the scrutiny of most.
 
2007-02-24 06:56:17 AM
0Icky0: But near where I grew up in Illinois, the towns of Hebron, St. Charles, and Zion had Fark all.

You should have gone to Palatine, then. Some good delis out there.
 
2007-02-24 06:58:09 AM
KingZog
Well, rights are only needed by unpopular people. If you're a normal American, you are less likely to need protection from the ACLU than if you're a Communist, a Muslim or a pedo. Therefore, those groups are much more likely to join the ACLU full time - they need organizations like this to protect them from the hostile majority.

I see what you're doing here. Painting all members of the ACLU with the brush of the people you don't like. I'd like to see the numbers to support your statement. But I suspect you just pulled that out of your ass.

The truth is that there are a lot of pedos out there, more than most people can imagine exist. It is a statistical certainty that one or more of them will belong to any organization with a sizable population. Senators, rock stars, cops, busboys, novelists, electricians, etc... Organizations that put adults in positions of power over kids attract a far greater number. This is not the fault of the organizations, but because pedos are attracted to positions where they can be closer to their prey.


It's if there were an organisation campaigining against Gitmo, you'd expect terrorist sympathizers to comprise the majority of it's members. Of course, there are a few well meaning but misguided people, but I'd expect them to be in a minority.

No, most people against Gitmo are against the absence of due process and the abuse of liberties that Gitmo represents.
 
2007-02-24 07:20:02 AM
rustik

Umm.. Ok, so this guy downloads child porn and gets busted. Fine.

No one here is wondering why he's the focus, and why the "commercial" child porn sites aren't being targeted here?



Overseas, most likely. If it's legal in the country of origin, there isn't a damn thing the US can do about it. (And even if it is illegal, it's a real pain to prosecute.)

There are countries where the age of consent is 14-16. Legal there. It just becomes a life-sentence felony offense once it enters the US.
 
2007-02-24 07:34:17 AM
gterz66:
Like the Catholic haters?
FU Drawing.


Did the ACLU try to hide this guy? Did they know he was raping little kids and tried to cover it up instead of trying to protect the victims?

If not, then you have no case.
 
2007-02-24 07:40:18 AM
0Icky0:
I'm sure they would be happy to defend the 2nd Amendment rights of any well-regulated militia.

They don't have to, the NRA does that. And the NRA has far more resources.
 
2007-02-24 07:45:15 AM
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

joshzsmith:
So yes, the ACLU does support the second amendment as it is written and how the supreme court has decided on it.

And that makes perfect sense. If a person isn't fit for a well regulated militia, (a violent sex offender, for example), they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

Who here disagrees with that?
 
2007-02-24 07:52:18 AM
beerbaron:
A lot of the gun-grabbers fail to recognize that guns are still a legitimate tool. Say you are a cattle rancher and you notice a fox stalking your herd. You realize he probably has rabies because of the behavior.

You are a fukcing moron. This strawman attack is based on lies the NRA tells to scare people into given them money and voting Republican. The number of people who want to ban shotguns is tiny, far smaller than the number of people who want to remove all gun control laws.
 
2007-02-24 07:52:55 AM
I live in Vermont, And I would just like to say
I'm heating my house with this post.
 
2007-02-24 08:17:31 AM
was he a priest?
 
2007-02-24 08:24:19 AM
Remember it's not hardcore porn, unless its Michael Jordan Certified Hard Core Pornography.

/one of the best SNL skits evar.
 
2007-02-24 08:27:03 AM
The ACLU defends things I don't agree with and therefore, they're terrorist abortionists. Git r done.
 
2007-02-24 08:29:33 AM
Another Child Luster Unearthed

/completely unsurprised
 
2007-02-24 08:34:07 AM
Beerbaron

Yeah, the 2nd Amendment.

Remember Hurricane Katrina?
Blackwater "employees" confiscating guns from rightfully armed citizens?
Founder Erik Prince is the brother of Betsy DeVos, a former chairman of the Republican Party of Michigan and wife of former Alticor (Amway) president and Gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos.

Whose going to take your guns?

Republicans.

/no one is going to saying anything when they come for you
//have a good time at Guantanamo
 
2007-02-24 08:41:03 AM
BEER STEAK: Kiddy porn aside, why does the ACLU get such a bad rap? I don't know much about them.

They pick and choose which 'essential' rights to defend- some people think that is indicative of a liberal philosophy due to their expansive reading of the establishment clause v. the free exercise clause and their lack of 2nd amendment work.
 
2007-02-24 08:42:19 AM
BrotherAlpha: joshzsmith:
So yes, the ACLU does support the second amendment as it is written and how the supreme court has decided on it.


It's inaccurate. US vs Miller doesn't say what the ACLU is indicating, it says that they had no proof that a sawed off shotgun was a militia weapon, essentially that any weapon that can be used in a military manner is good to go as far as the 2nd amendment. Read It.
 
2007-02-24 08:52:31 AM
FriarTuck: They pick and choose which 'essential' rights to defend-

Wrong.

Citizens go to them with legal problems in which they think their rights aren't being upheld. The ACLU researches each case and determines if the government is over-stepping it's constitutional boundries. If they clearly are, then the ACLU will defend the citizens.

All rights are essential.
 
Displayed 50 of 261 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report