Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California

We came to that pass on December 15th 1791.

Of course the ACLU supports civil liberties, just as the name suggests, and will defend the rights of groups it disagrees with. If you are against that then you're against liberty, the U.S. constitution and any civilisation worthy of the name.

Right, there's no way to make a case here that "liberty" cannot possibly apply to criminal and sociopathic behavior, is there? Or that the Constitution certainly never intended that in their defense of liberty. Of course if we decided they didn't we'll just call the Constitution antiquated anyway, because we're determined to have OUR perverted definition of liberty. No sane society ever did such a thing but that doesn't matter to anyone here of course, since no society in history ever got anything right, only we moderns get it right. ALL "liberty" is good to you, is "civil rights." Right, I'm waiting for the defense of the kidnap-torture-rapists. It's coming soon I'm sure.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sociopathic speech isn't just an opinion we may all choose to agree or disagree about.My view of islam comes from their own books, onifre, I don't make it up. the Koran and the Hadiths, plus Sharia Law. To give them civil rights in a democratic society is to commit that society to suicide. Check into it sometime.The Westboro group should NOT have been defended. They are sociopaths too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Right, there's no way to make a case here that "liberty" cannot possibly apply to criminal and sociopathic behavior, is there?

---

In other words advocating views that you dislike should be considered "criminal and sociopathic" in itself. That really says it all doesn't it ? You'd complain if your views were categorised like that - even though there is certainly cause to. In fact the far Right in the U.S. is constantly claiming that that's going to happen - and it never does. And if it did the ACLU - who you hate - would be there to fight your corner.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

The only rights we have are the ones we can defend. When we cannot defend these rights for the least of us, for the ones with whom we vehemently disagree, then we ourselves have no rights.

The logic is breathtaking. "Views that I dislike" is how murderous Nazism is categorized, and child molestation and kidnap-torture-rape, just "views" I "dislike." If I call them criminal and sociopathic that somehow makes ME the criminal and sociopath. Really, there is no doubt that my views are going to get categorized as something along those lines, of course, and yes it's already happening, it's all part of the perversion of morality, truth, reason, reality, etc., that's been growing for some time. And very probably you are right that the ACLU would take my case too, since they want to LOOK LIKE they're being even-handed.Is there nobody here that gets this point, are you ALL twisted?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

"Ones with whom we vehemently disagree" at one time might have included opinions about forms of church services, different denominations, or who should be President, or different political platforms. Now it applies to murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc. And you guys still don't get it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The logic is breathtaking. "Views that I dislike" is how murderous Nazism is categorized, and child molestation and kidnap-torture-rape, just "views" I "dislike." If I call them criminal and sociopathic that somehow makes ME the criminal and sociopath.

---

Of course you have to rely on misrepresentation. The ACLU does NOT defend Naziism, or child molestation or kidnap-murder-rape. It DOES defend freedom of speech even for people who advocate abhorrent things. Which is a legitimate and principled position.And quite frankly if you think that an Orwellian tyranny based on hate and lies is "good" I have to say that it is your morality that is quite thoroughly inverted.

... or the right to own slaves, or the desirability of joining the Klan, or the inferiority of Jews, or the exciting political program of the Nazi Party ...Freedom of speech has always been guaranteed to bad people, this is not just some hip new trend invented by those long-haired young people with their newfangled i-peds and nubile phones. As for child molesters: Got that? It used to be legal to say that it was a good idea to have sex with a ten-year-old girl, and then to have sex with a ten-year-old girl. A century later, it's still legal to say it but not to do it, and you regard this freedom of speech as a novelty that presages the End Times.---You came out with similar ill-informed nonsense about gun control, too, didn't you? Those cannot remember the past are doomed to talk crap about it, as George Santayana would have said had he been more plain-spoken.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But not nazis or any other political philosophy you find to be bad. But not Islam or any other denomination you find to be bad. Really? Where? Show me. Give me an example.Do you repudiate an accused's right to the presumption of innocence? Do you repudiate an accused's right to council? Do you repudiate an accused's right to a jury trial? Do you repudiate an accused's right to not be tortured?The ACLU will defend these rights regardless of the charged offense. Whether you're an embezzler or a baby-raping priest these rights are there and need to be defended. The ACLU does not defend the "right" of gay men to molest little boys. That is your bullshit.What the ACLU defends is NAMBLA's right to speak, as abhorrent as it is. To have a web site where they discuss their ugly philosophy. Only a defense attorney defends the molester and he does that by saying "he didn't do it."The right defended is "freedom of political speech," not molestation. You do not get the point, do you! To you constitutional rights are only for those you think are worthy. Maybe I should be in charge and find your violent, bloody religion to be not worthy.The ACLU defended the right to free political speech, not any right of the NAZIs to burn jews. Only by hearing the NAZIs spew their garbage can society abhor and reject their philosophy. That is what "freedom of speech" is all about. And the ACLU defends it at every turn.

quote:

---

The only rights we have are the ones we can defend. When we cannot defend these rights for the least of us, for the ones with whom we vehemently disagree, then we ourselves have no rights.

---

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : more

Well, of course you would, that's what I've been saying you do. You would also commit the fallacy of poisoning the well by misdefining my views as Orwellian tyranny etc. etc. You've said only what I've been saying you all say, why bother to repeat it? Oh I know why: if you just keep saying it you'll get everybody to believe it.My point of course is there is no right to "free speech" of a criminal and sociopathic sort except in the revisionist mindset you all share, and the idea that such freedoms were ever intended to apply to "people who advocate abhorrent things" is a perfect example of that revisionist mindset that the ACLU pursues, against any sane understanding of the Constitutional freedoms that prevailed until really quite recently. I guess it all started with the insane idea that pornography is freedom of speech. Bring down civilization, that's exactly what they want to do.There never was any "right to speak" for people who advocate the stuff NAMBLA advocates. And how nave of you all to think that supporting the right to advocacy of abhorrent things is somehow not to support the doing of those abhorrent things.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

With all its talk of original sin, hell, lake of fire, the bloodshed you hope to see one day in Revelations, plus your god's history of murdering innocent civilians, non-combatant women and children, ethnic cleansing writ large, not to mention the wholesale slaughter of the population of an entire planet, then you must feel that there can be no right to "free speech" for this criminal and sociopathic sort nor for the adherents of such a vile, sick and demented philosophy.I disagree.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : I'll get it right, eventually.

quote:

---

Well, of course you would, that's what I've been saying you do. You would also commit the fallacy of poisoning the well by misdefining my views as Orwellian tyranny etc. etc. You've said only what I've been saying you all say, why bother to repeat it? Oh I know why: if you just keep saying it you'll get everybody to believe it.

---

Excuse me, but you are the one who reacted to a mention of the ACLU with hate and lies. And it's hard to see your objection as based on anything other than the fact that the ACLU defends freedoms that you don't like, despite the Constitutional guarantees. And you have certainly talked of feeling that you have a duty to suppress views that you don't like.

quote:

---

My point of course is there is no right to "free speech" of a criminal and sociopathic sort except in the revisionist mindset you all share, and the idea that such freedoms were ever intended to apply to "people who advocate abhorrent things" is a perfect example of that revisionist mindset that the ACLU pursues, against any sane understanding of the Constitutional freedoms that prevailed until really quite recently. I guess it all started with the insane idea that pornography is freedom of speech. Bring down civilization, that's exactly what they want to do.

---

Since to the best pf my knowledge the ACLU acted within the legal system in all the cases that you mentioned, I suggest that your problem is with the courts - although I guess that you are also arguing that even legal representation should be denied ? And if you aren't then why object to the ACLU providing legal representation?

quote:

---

There never was any "right to speak" for people who advocate the stuff NAMBLA advocates. And how nave of you all to think that supporting the right to advocacy of abhorrent things is somehow not to support the doing of those abhorrent things.

---

Here you assume that protecting the right to free speech is not a valid objective in itself. But why ? And why attack the ACLU when it "supports" views like yours to the same extent ?

Perfect example of reversing good and evil. God punishes SIN, evil behavior, including what I'm calling criminal and sociopathic behavior, which is a righteous act (after first showing how to escape the consequences of sin too, so none of it has to be experienced) but you call THAT "criminal and sociopathic." Amazing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.