Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 2:50 AM
23 online now:
Heathen, Pressie, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,982 Year: 9,018/19,786 Month: 1,440/2,119 Week: 200/576 Day: 3/98 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   The American Civil Liberties Union
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 61 of 141 (208027)
05-14-2005 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by jar
05-14-2005 9:29 AM


Re: Suspended from school
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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 05-14-2005 9:29 AM jar has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 62 of 141 (208028)
05-14-2005 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Thugpreacha
05-14-2005 9:37 AM


Re: prior restraint
Rap IS an effective tool of communication, YO.

i love that song.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Thugpreacha, posted 05-14-2005 9:37 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 4587 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 63 of 141 (208030)
05-14-2005 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by arachnophilia
05-14-2005 9:28 AM


Re: prior restraint
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by arachnophilia, posted 05-14-2005 9:28 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by arachnophilia, posted 05-14-2005 10:06 AM paisano has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 64 of 141 (208031)
05-14-2005 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by jar
05-14-2005 9:46 AM


Re: ACLJ
from their page:

quote:
Through our work in the courts and the legislative arena, the ACLJ is dedicated to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 05-14-2005 9:46 AM jar has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 65 of 141 (208033)
05-14-2005 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by paisano
05-14-2005 9:54 AM


Re: prior restraint
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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by paisano, posted 05-14-2005 9:54 AM paisano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by paisano, posted 05-14-2005 10:09 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 4587 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 66 of 141 (208034)
05-14-2005 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by arachnophilia
05-14-2005 10:06 AM


Re: prior restraint
Again, I am referrring to material support, not rhetorical support.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by arachnophilia, posted 05-14-2005 10:06 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 05-14-2005 10:18 AM paisano has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 67 of 141 (208035)
05-14-2005 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by jar
05-14-2005 9:46 AM


Re: ACLJ
oh dear god the sheer idiocy.

http://www.aclj.org/Issues/FAQs/Question.aspx?ID=179

quote:
Leslie from Utah asks: With the Ninth Circuit ruling unconstitutional the cross in the Mojave Desert that was placed there by WWI veterans, could that precedent be applied to all of the white crosses at Arlington National Cemetery?

Jay answers: Leslie, I'm concerned about that, and I think that court decision is a very, very serious violation of the Constitution in and of itself. I think the idea that you would now take a symbol and say because it has a religious association it has to be removed is wrong. In my view, why wouldn't it affect Arlington Cemetery?


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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 05-14-2005 9:46 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Monk, posted 05-14-2005 10:48 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 68 of 141 (208036)
05-14-2005 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by paisano
05-14-2005 10:09 AM


Re: prior restraint
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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by paisano, posted 05-14-2005 10:09 AM paisano has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 69 of 141 (208042)
05-14-2005 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by paisano
05-14-2005 8:44 AM


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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by paisano, posted 05-14-2005 8:44 AM paisano has not yet responded

    
Monk
Member (Idle past 2088 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 70 of 141 (208043)
05-14-2005 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by arachnophilia
05-14-2005 10:15 AM


Re: ACLJ
quote:
and there are no crosses

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by arachnophilia, posted 05-14-2005 10:15 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-14-2005 11:05 AM Monk has not yet responded
 Message 72 by arachnophilia, posted 05-14-2005 11:11 AM Monk has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2092 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 71 of 141 (208047)
05-14-2005 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Monk
05-14-2005 10:48 AM


Re: ACLJ
[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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Monk, posted 05-14-2005 10:48 AM Monk has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 72 of 141 (208048)
05-14-2005 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Monk
05-14-2005 10:48 AM


Re: ACLJ
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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Monk, posted 05-14-2005 10:48 AM Monk has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Asgara, posted 05-14-2005 11:22 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 73 of 141 (208052)
05-14-2005 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by arachnophilia
05-14-2005 11:11 AM


Re: ACLJ
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.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by arachnophilia, posted 05-14-2005 11:11 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by arachnophilia, posted 05-14-2005 2:05 PM Asgara has not yet responded

    
Monk
Member (Idle past 2088 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 74 of 141 (208062)
05-14-2005 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by arachnophilia
05-13-2005 10:26 PM


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:
Title 18 of the United States Code governs child pornography. See Chapter 110, Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children. 18 U.S.C. 2256 defines "Child pornography" as:

"any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct . . ."


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:
"(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person"

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by arachnophilia, posted 05-13-2005 10:26 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Silent H, posted 05-14-2005 12:31 PM Monk has responded
 Message 79 by arachnophilia, posted 05-14-2005 2:49 PM Monk has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 75 of 141 (208065)
05-14-2005 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Monk
05-14-2005 12:00 PM


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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Monk, posted 05-14-2005 12:00 PM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Monk, posted 05-14-2005 2:13 PM Silent H has responded

    
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019