But...but since I'm an unthinking partisan who blindly chooses the same side on every issue, surely the ACLU must be the exact same way!!

That's not ironic at all, and labeling it so only adds to the misconception that the ACLU is some sort of liberal propaganda machine.

The ACLU's primary purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights and protect our Constitutional rights. That's not liberal. That's not conservative. That's American.

ComicBookGuy: Sue D. Nymme: ComicBookGuy: Yes!!! Because you have a RIGHT to sodomize another man in front of young boys in a public toilet!!! Maybe a young boy, himself!!!!
[...]
Not that I was trolling, mind you!!!!

No? Then howcome you're bringing up a bunch of points that nobody is arguing for, and which Craig hasn't been accused of?

Kal Ethanuel the Lionheart: That's not ironic at all, and labeling it so only adds to the misconception that the ACLU is some sort of liberal propaganda machine.

The ACLU's primary purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights and protect our Constitutional rights. That's not liberal. That's not conservative. That's American.

THIS.

/Card Carrying.
//As an American citizen, why aren't YOU?

Kal Ethanuel the Lionheart: That's not ironic at all, and labeling it so only adds to the misconception that the ACLU is some sort of liberal propaganda machine.

The ACLU's primary purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights and protect our Constitutional rights. That's not liberal. That's not conservative. That's American.

100% Agreed.

People claim the ACLU is some 'Gay Rights' Liberal Group. These people protect what our country claims to hold near and dear.

They've protected Gay Rights (if you can claim there are any) and they've protected the rights of Fred Phelps along with many other anti-gay activists.

Not beat a dead horse but the ACLU has defended many of the people who defame it endlessly. I'm glad someone is still standing up for our rights even when it seems to be unfashionable to do so.

You know, the patriotism of the ACLU has really inspired me. I'm flying into Minneapolis/St. Paul next week, and I swear, I am going to aggressively solicit sex from everyone I meet.

The stance of no one shall be wider than mine.

0Icky0
hillbillypharmacist: the way to stop people having (gay) sex in public is.....

to remove the stigma for homosexuality in American society so that there won't be so many closeted gay men who can't deal with their longing for a donging.

/not gonna happen in my lifetime.


I've always looked at this as one of those "which came first: chicken/egg?" questions. One could argue as well that homosexuals need to try to step up and try to stop such behavior amongst us. Behavior that is (and always will be) be considered distasteful and thus continue to perpetuate the stigma society has for us.

However...on the other side of the coin...as long as that stigma is there, there will probably always be closeted gay men. And as long as there are closeted gay men, there will always be a percentage of them who seek out sexual interaction in anonymous ways. Such as public restrooms...or male escorts, if you're a rich evangelist and can afford one.

ComicBookGuy: Sue D. Nymme: ComicBookGuy: Yes!!! Because you have a RIGHT to sodomize another man in front of young boys in a public toilet!!! Maybe a young boy, himself!!!!

I'm not sure that actually happened.

"The real motive behind secret sting operations like the one that resulted in Sen. Craig's arrest is not to stop people from inappropriate activity. It is to make as many arrests as possible -- arrests that sometimes unconstitutionally trap innocent people,"

That is an opinion, and not a basis for overturning his conviction.
It is my opinion it IS to catch idiots from inappropriate activity. Helloooooo, try CRAIG's list next time?

The report alleges Craig then touched the officer's foot with his foot and the senator "proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times."

Well, it's certainly not entrapment.
And I don't think he's anymore mentally deficient than the average Republican senator so he can't really say he didn't understand the charges.

/The ACLU is wasting good money in order to get publicity.

Bhasayate: The ACLU, helping the US Americans to exercise the right to pursue happiness any old way they want since 1920. Now specializing in defending Nazis, pornographers, religious zealots, senators who solicit sex in public bathrooms, racists, and extremists of all sorts.

As voltaire said, I may not agree with what you say, but i'll fight to the death for your right to say it.

The ACLU doesn't condone their speech, or their expression, but they fight for the constatution, which says you have freedom of speech, religion, etc. The fact they do not care what the speech is prooves their lack of bias. For every nazi they defend, they defend a street preacher. Conservatives can't seem to understand that its the right they are defending, and not the person.

I love cognitive dissonance.

Maybe it's ironic because Craig's positions are in harsh opposition to the ACLU's -- but now that he's in trouble, he might be able to see they're good for something after all.

Adjective Bird Whiskey: This sounds like one of those token "See! We defend BOTH sides!" cases they take up now and again to not appear biased. And I agree with their bias usually. Just sayin'.

There are no farking sides. There is the Bill of Rights. It doesn't have sides (except, I suppose, the minority's).

The only thing I don't like about them is that I don't often hear about them defending second amendment cases. Guess they figure that the NRA has those covered....

Theaetetus: Ace Frehley's Ghost:
If we allow Larry Craig, who really should have known better, to withdraw a guilty plea on even this minor charge, then a guilty plea won't mean a damn thing from here on out.

No - it's not a "oh, gee, I plead guilty when I meant to say innocent, ha ha ha!" thing, it's a "this was an unconstitutional conviction," which is why the ACLU is stepping in.
The question is whether a guilty plea can be overturned on constitutional grounds or not, not whether any guilty plea can be overturned.

Here's a hypothetical for you:
You get arrested and brought to the station where you're tortured with waterboarding and Richard Simmons videos for the next week. Finally, they "allow" you to sign a confession pleading guilty of whatever crime they want.
Clearly that's unconstitutional - shouldn't your guilty plea be overturned on constitutional grounds?

In this case, the ACLU is saying that because Craig committed no criminal act - touching someone's foot isn't criminal, and sticking your hand under a stall isn't criminal - he has not committed a crime, even if he had the intent to commit a crime. All crimes require both an actus reus and a mens rea, and without an act, there is no crime here.

It's debatable whether Craig ultimately 'gets off' at trial, but it certainly makes sense that guilty pleas for unconstitutional convictions should be overturned.

Okay, I don't believe that you're saying here that the Senator's plea was obtained under duress, so that's out. He plead guilty to disorderly conduct. As to whether or not his actions rise to the level of disorderly conduct, I'll leave for wiser heads than mine, but I still don't see how a court of law can throw this out without saying in the future that no, you do not have the right to make any sort of plea without a lawyer present.

There seem to be a lot of people here who think Larry Craig actually screws men in public bathrooms, saying, "well I wouldn't want my kid trying to take a piss while the Senator moans about his violent sphincter contractions and shoots sperm over the privacy dividers."

That's not how it works. You wink or tap or run your hand under a stall, and if the other guy winks back you go get a hotel room. Your kid would never know this is going on.

I haven't been trolling around here in a while, but I remember Fark readers generally being a little more knowledgeable about the facts surrounding news stories than this. Has FOX News or CNN pointed their sheep in our direction lately or something?

Ace Frehley's Ghost: Okay, I don't believe that you're saying here that the Senator's plea was obtained under duress, so that's out. He plead guilty to disorderly conduct. As to whether or not his actions rise to the level of disorderly conduct, I'll leave for wiser heads than mine, but I still don't see how a court of law can throw this out without saying in the future that no, you do not have the right to make any sort of plea without a lawyer present.

No... forget about the plea for a second... The ACLU is saying that his arrest was unconstitutional; therefore his guilty plea should be overturned and the case reviewed on constitutional grounds. The plea isn't the issue, it's the constitutionality of the arrest for entrapment.

Adjective Bird Whiskey: Yellowbeard Quote 2007-09-18 09:42:14 AM
Adjective Bird Whiskey: This sounds like one of those token "See! We defend BOTH sides!" cases they take up now and again to not appear biased. And I agree with their bias usually. Just sayin'.

There are no farking sides. There is the Bill of Rights. It doesn't have sides (except, I suppose, the minority's).

Bull. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the majority of the ACLU's work, but speaking as a liberal, they are a liberal organization. I'm not saying that's bad, but don't kid yourself with the notion that they're entirely neutral.

The Bill of Rights has a well known liberal bias.

GlitchCog: That's not how it works. You wink or tap or run your hand under a stall, and if the other guy winks back you go get a hotel room. Your kid would never know this is going on.

This still seems like a good way to get the tar kicked out of you. Very risky.

Ah, the token case for the year, to give the impression that they aren't just a false front for a secular progressive interest group. Last year it was Limbaugh's medical records case.

what_now: Yellowbeard: I don't often hear about them defending second amendment cases

That's because there are no cases where anyone's second ammendent rights have been violated, save maybe when the national guard took the guns away from residents of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.

That's a really interesting point. But what about States or municipalities not allowing people to own certain types of arms? Isn't that infringement?

/Not saying that I think just anyone should be able to own just anything, but just curious about the rule of law, here.

Adjective Bird Whiskey: Don't get me wrong, I agree with the majority of the ACLU's work, but speaking as a liberal, they are a liberal organization. I'm not saying that's bad, but don't kid yourself with the notion that they're entirely neutral.

That's only true if you believe that civil rights are liberal creations. And if you believe that, then why have the conservatives been claiming to be the party of personal responsibility and small government?

Yellowbeard: That's a really interesting point. But what about States or municipalities not allowing people to own certain types of arms? Isn't that infringement?

The ACLU and the NRA have worked together several times, most recently in anti-PATRIOT ACT cases where the right to bear arms was being infringed.

/omg, the ACLU protects gun owners too?!
//yes.

Adjective Bird Whiskey: Yellowbeard Quote 2007-09-18 09:42:14 AM
Adjective Bird Whiskey: This sounds like one of those token "See! We defend BOTH sides!" cases they take up now and again to not appear biased. And I agree with their bias usually. Just sayin'.

There are no farking sides. There is the Bill of Rights. It doesn't have sides (except, I suppose, the minority's).

Bull. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the majority of the ACLU's work, but speaking as a liberal, they are a liberal organization. I'm not saying that's bad, but don't kid yourself with the notion that they're entirely neutral.

If this were true 'twould only be because conservatives tend to refuse to join (odd, since the ACLU is protecting the oldest law of the land - sort of the definition of conservatism). It is the same effect as conservatives not becoming professors. Why are most college professors liberal? Because more liberals are interested in becoming college professors.

I am fairly certain that the ACLU would happily welcome Republican members.

Theaetetus: Yellowbeard: That's a really interesting point. But what about States or municipalities not allowing people to own certain types of arms? Isn't that infringement?

The ACLU and the NRA have worked together several times, most recently in anti-PATRIOT ACT cases where the right to bear arms was being infringed.

/omg, the ACLU protects gun owners too?!
//yes.

Oh. Awesome. In that case, bad ass.

/Still need to join the NRA.

The laws need to be changed so that a suspect cannot enter a plea of any type until he's been advised by a lawyer and is in front of a judge. Then it's ironclad. "Admitting" guilt to cops who are currently working you over should not be allowed.

Theaetetus: No... forget about the plea for a second... The ACLU is saying that his arrest was unconstitutional; therefore his guilty plea should be overturned and the case reviewed on constitutional grounds. The plea isn't the issue, it's the constitutionality of the arrest for entrapment.

Fine. I just haven't heard anything about the arrest that would indicate entrapment. I'm not saying that the ACLU shouldn't pursue it, that's their reason for being.

Theaetetus: Adjective Bird Whiskey: Don't get me wrong, I agree with the majority of the ACLU's work, but speaking as a liberal, they are a liberal organization. I'm not saying that's bad, but don't kid yourself with the notion that they're entirely neutral.

That's only true if you believe that civil rights are liberal creations. And if you believe that, then why have the conservatives been claiming to be the party of personal responsibility and small government?

Since when are there actual conservatives in government? All I see these days are neo-conservatives, social conservatives with a fetish for big government.

darkedgefan: The only reason the ACLU is helping Craig is because if he stays in the Senate it hurts the Republicans. They could care less about Craig, but they would love to hurt the GOP.
Craig is an idiot who should have just resigned.

Then why did they defend Rush?

Theaetetus: why have the conservatives been claiming to be the party of personal responsibility and small government?

It's called "Double Speak".

Maybe Larry Craig can give the ACLU tap-dancing lessons.

Adjective Bird Whiskey: Come off it. They do very, very good work but they are not neutral. Yes, yes, civil liberties blah blah blah. Great stuff. I sincerely mean that. Doesn't make them politically neutral, though.

What has the ACLU done that was not politically neutral? The examples for their lack of bias are myriad: they defend atheists, they defend christians. They defend black hate groups, they defend white hate groups. They defend both homosexuals and homophobes. They defend gun owners, too.
Give me an example of their political bias, please.

The ACLU also supported this fat piece of hypocritical scum:



It's a shock to see civil liberties DEFENDED these days. However, THESE DAYS are when we need it the most.

/Limbaugh is still a fat farking hypocritical dickface

subby -100 for not understanding what the ACLU does.

Ace Frehley's Ghost: Fine. I just haven't heard anything about the arrest that would indicate entrapment.

Scroll up. Their argument, debatable, is that he committed no criminal act - touching someone's foot is not illegal, nor is running your hand under a stall. Though he may have had a criminal intent, his act itself was not criminal under any statute.

It's not cut and dried, but it's certainly worthy of examination.

what_now: Yellowbeard That's a really interesting point. But what about States or municipalities not allowing people to own certain types of arms? Isn't that infringement?

This is their take:

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.



I actually support the right of individuals to own bazookas and possibly even missiles under some very controlled circumstances. I would draw the line atnooclear weapons, as well as biological and chemical ones - but mainly because those are controlled by international treaties as well.

Wow. How did that come out "nooclear?"

Testnooclear

WTF?

Why is the proper spelling of the word the president can't say correctly that describes certain atomically driven, highly powered non-conventional explosives being changed to an incorrect spelling?

Besides that, it is dropping the space between that word and the preceding word....

Mods?

Yellowbeard: WTF?

Why is the proper spelling of the word the president can't say correctly that describes certain atomically driven, highly powered non-conventional explosives being changed to an incorrect spelling?

Well, in your Boobies, you said nuclear, whereas in your Weeners, you should have said attractive and successful African-American.

Yellowbeard: Besides that, it is dropping the space between that word and the preceding word....

(See, you auntie)

Donald_McRonald:
I think context matters. In cases of a misused ironic tag, you'd expect to see a discussion of what is/isn't irony/ironic. It would be ironic if no such conversation took place.

We could talk about dictionary definitions, but the spirit of irony certainly isn't what it used to be since we all began living in The Age of Cynicism.