|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,822 Year: 4,079/9,624 Month: 950/974 Week: 277/286 Day: 38/46 Hour: 3/7 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The American Civil Liberties Union | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
As to the guy on the left, I just assumed he was doing his best Uncle Milty impression. yes, well, it's apparently against the law to do so. one source said the year before, he wore a duct-tape tux to the prom. which was not illegal.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Rap IS an effective tool of communication, YO. i love that song.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6449 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
I am referrring in case 3) to actively engaging in material support to ongoing actual acts of N. So prior restraint would not apply IMO.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
from their page:
quote: as opposed the ACLU? (who are dedicated to protecting EVERYONE'S religious and constitutional freedoms) it looks a platform for one man's crusade to fight for pro-lifers and christian conservative right and drop his own name into politics. but that's just from a cursory glance.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I am referrring in case 3) to actively engaging in material support to ongoing actual acts of N. So prior restraint would not apply IMO. i'm pretty positive that restricting support for ongoing activities is still considered prior restraint. either the actions influence the support, or the support influences the actions. if it's the first, it's a matter of taste. if it's the second, it's prior restraint. in the first case, the matter can sometimes legislated on the grounds of obsecenity, or some of the other standards i talked about. but it depends on the case -- talking about in abstract terms doesn't really work, because there are specific and different legal standards for each area.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6449 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
Again, I am referrring to material support, not rhetorical support.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
oh dear god the sheer idiocy.
Error: 404
quote: here's a reason, jay.
i'm sure he's so worried about protecting the honor of our fallen patriots at arlington, considering he's never been there. for an organization based in washington dc, that's a bit of a surprise. the sight of the those rounded tombstones in rows, covering everything you can see is not one easily forgotten. it's probably one the single most powerful things an american can ever see. and there are no crosses.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Again, I am referrring to material support, not rhetorical support. so am i. i posted a case on the h-bomb. the only reason the gag order was allowed was that national security was a more important interest than avoiding any form of prior restraint.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
It must be understood that individuals committing N must be prepared to face criminal sanctions for committing N. The organization, however, is IMO within its First Amendment rights if its advocacy is only in a general sense. Agreed.
An organization actively aiding and facilitating the commission of N by individuals (providing information on how and where to commit N, financial support for N actions, or any other action that directly facilitates N) is IMO a criminal conspiracy and is subject to criminal charges on this ground. Agree to some degree. There is a difference between members of a group, and the group itself doing the facilitating. There is also a line between financial support to actual commit and act, and financial support for people that have commited an act and now need lawyers fees, and such. The difference between the two can be seen in "political wings" of organizations like the IRA, which are considered not criminal, while the active wings are. Anyone who ends up going against a law, and any organization that acts against the law, no matter how unjust the law, should be prepared to face the consequences. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3951 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
quote: Perhaps he was referring to the crosses on the face of Christian tombstones.
This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 05-14-2005 09:53 AM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
[edit] damn i hate cookies. sorry brenna
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 05-14-2005 11:06 AM we live our lives to expect the worst, but once it happens what is left? we never have to be surprised again.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
well, i discovered a bug in the site. the logout function doesn't work correctly.
Perhaps he was referring to the crosses on the face of Christian tombstones. yes, but stones may also be engraved with a star of david. he (like dick cheney) was clearly under the impression that the headstones are crosses. notice he says "white crosses." the whole marble slab is white american marble. there is nothing to set the cross out but shape. the cemetary maintains a rather strict standard of uniformity. every headstone has to be basically the same in size, shape, and layout. that's the military way. the shape is one that is agreed upon to be unbiased to any religion or lack thereof. but the religion of the deceased may be indicated in an unobtrusive way. there is nothing here to rule unconstitutional. they are in no way establishing a sanctioned religion, or allowing religions to be inflicted on others.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2329 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
What I'm sure he is thinking of is the well known pictures of the WWII cemeteries at Normandy and Utah Beach in France.
Asgara "Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it" select * from USERS where CLUE > 0 http://asgarasworld.bravepages.comhttp://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3951 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Arachnophilia writes: also, one of the reno v. aclu (1997) cases basically rules that the fcc has no jurisdiction over the internet, if i recall. so as for child porn on the net, your point may indeed be wrong. but the three reno cases are a lengthy and confusing read. whereas with child pornography, the crime has already happened. it's not stopped because it creates a clear and present danger to children, but because the children have already been affected. the speech (photography) itself is condemned because it is generally ruled as obscene (by just about everyone) and can be seen to have no valid purpose in the exchange of ideas. instructions on how to kidnap and rape a child is considered a future indeterminant indirect threat. preventing the speech here of the illegal action is something called prior restraint. which is unconstitutional. Not correct. Most of the cases you cite deal with pornography in general and adults in particular. Some of your cases deal with profanity. Let's focus here. My previous comment was that child pornography was illegal and to operate a child porn web site would also be illegal. The fact that there is kiddie porn on the web does not mean it is legal in the US. The only reason it is not stopped is because the pornographers have not been caught. Free speech rights are superseded in this case. Here are the US statutes:
quote: 18 U.S.C. 2252 prohibits the production, transportation, or knowing receipt or distribution of any visual depiction "of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." For the purposes of Title 18, 18 U.S.C. 2256 defines a "minor" as any person under the age of eighteen years, and "sexually explicit conduct" as actual or simulated:
quote: The statute goes on to say "distribution by any means including by computer" So if your website displays images that a prosecutor believes involve minors engaged in sexual intercourse or bestiality, expect to be prosecuted. Many states also address this issue by prohibiting images of minors touching or displaying their bodies "for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer." California Penal Code 311.3-312.7. So there is both Federal and State law in place preventing the operation of a kiddie porn website. A pornographer might try to defend their porn website on the grounds of future indeterminant indirect threat and prior restraint. But they would lose the case and end up in jail.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
The fact that there is kiddie porn on the web does not mean it is legal in the US. The only reason it is not stopped is because the pornographers have not been caught. Free speech rights are superseded in this case. Here are the US statutes: Just to let you know, some of the statutes you mentioned may have been nixed by the Supreme Court in their last round of decisions on the Child Protection Act. The law in this regard is extremely fluid. And there is a reason why free speech have been superceded, which is very limited and may itself fall soon enough. This requires a little bit of explanation... Normally images, including child porn, would be constitutionally protected. They would at best fall under jurisdiction due to their "obscenity", though that criteria itself is being questioned as valid (most importantly because there is not good definition of obscenity). The reason why such laws were upheld were for expediency. The government argued that the only cp images being produced were for profit by criminals (kidnapping, raping, and then filming) and so part of a criminal enterprise. Along with this they argued that the only way they could stop this enterprise was by banning the holding or distribution of such images. The Supreme Court accepted that argument, but even in the latest writings on that subject began to question the gov'ts position. Are all made for profit? Are all made as a case of rape? Is the only way they can stop such criminal enterprises to proscribe all such images? My guess is that image making and distribution becomes more mainstream and totally out of the realm of "for profit" enterprises, the gov'ts case will falter and the SC rule against such laws. There is also a problem in that the internet is a worldwide medium and as such people have direct access, including accidental attainment, of images from nations with different standards regarding nudity, sex, and age. As people are increasingly snagged for accidental (or incidental) ownership of such images, there may be a public movement toward a bit more reality regarding such laws. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024