The ACLU - pros and cons

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

yeah - I wonder why? Thoughts?

Here's a wild one - perhaps it's because there are some forms of "acceptable" killing, such as shooting someone coming after your kids with a knife. I'm not aware of ANY acceptable forms of child molestation.

there are movies that contain just about every possible perversion you can think of... silence of the lambs? people loved it... and one of the bad guys got away in the end

i think irex said it best, let the customer decide

the alternative would be a society that i don't think any of us would want to live in... what if we developed the ability to read minds one day... would we arrest someone just for thinking about molesting children?

i think the whole essence of "freedom" is being able to think whatever you like and make you own choices about good and bad... if you act in a way that is against society, you will be punished... but i don't think you can punish someone just for thinking that way... and that is all "virtual" is, thought, not action

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Spock

A lways/ always
C odling / changing
L iberals / laws
U nquestionly /un-intelligently

gee, they're both so good ... hard to pick!

[inked]

This definitely a case of "both...and" not "either...or".

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

yeah - I wonder why? Thoughts?

Here's a wild one - perhaps it's because there are some forms of "acceptable" killing, such as shooting someone coming after your kids with a knife. I'm not aware of ANY acceptable forms of child molestation.

If I'm right you're suggesting that because most of us think it is possible to be "righteous" in killing someone, then a person playing that game gets into that mindset. I can see how that's different from something that is always wrong no matter what.

I'm not sure about the "catharsis" argument: that virtual noncery might give a vent for their feelings and prevent them acting them out. IIRC the evidence is that it has the opposite effect.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I can see how that's different from something that is always wrong no matter what.

that's up for debate to... it is not illegal to dissemenate porn if the person depicted is 18 or older, even if they physically appear much younger... so one would assume that the law is to protect the victim (a minor being asked to pose), as opposed to the person that views it

in any virtual porn situation, is their a victim?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I'm not sure about the "catharsis" argument: that virtual noncery might give a vent for their feelings and prevent them acting them out. IIRC the evidence is that it has the opposite effect.

what evidence?

this goes back to things like "do violent video games make people violent?" or is it just that people who are already violent are attracted to those games

remember, we are talking whether adults should be allowed to view this sort of thing... it is already illegal to dissemenate porn to a minor, even if it is the type we consider legal for adults

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

this goes back to things like "do violent video games make people violent?" or is it just that people who are already violent are attracted to those games

and also does it feed those tendencies, make them stronger?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

that's up for debate to... it is not illegal to dissemenate porn if the person depicted is 18 or older, even if they physically appear much younger... so one would assume that the law is to protect the victim (a minor being asked to pose), as opposed to the person that views it

in any virtual porn situation, is their a victim?

I agree that it's up for debate. Dunno what the answer is meself.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

what evidence?

this goes back to things like "do violent video games make people violent?" or is it just that people who are already violent are attracted to those games

Long time ago (20 years or so) I did a psych degree and the studies at that time showed that violent films made people more violent. However, I have no idea what more recent studies show, nor whether it's the same for porn, and am happy to be educated.

[Spock]

New Ohio Law Allows Cops to Request ID
Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Ohio Republican Gov. Bob Taft on Wednesday signed a bill into law passed by the state legislature with barely a word of dissent. Supporters of the state's security measure, which takes effect in 90 days, say it's a tool the state can use in fighting terrorism.

"We felt very strongly that we needed to have laws in Ohio to out our state on the frontline of fighting terrorism," Jacobson said.

But dissent is building over authority given to police officers, who can now ask, "What's your name?" as a tool to fight terrorism. Failure to identify oneself could land an individual in jail.

The American Civil Liberties Union opposed the measure because of the new powers it gives to police.


.....................sigh...............

[HOBBIT]

I just joined the ACLU.

[Rían]

I encourage you to always do what you think is right and to thoughtfully consider things in a fair and open way I hope you can do lots of good with your membership There's a lot of need out there, and injustices that need advocates.

[Nurvingiel]

I've been lurking in this thread for a few pages now. Very interesting.

People should be allowed to refuse to give their name to a police officer who doesn't have a good cause for stopping them. And police officers already have the authority to stop people who are doing something suspicious or otherwise warrant being stopped.

[Spock]

...now why doesn't that answer surprise me....

[HOBBIT]

How do you guys feel about the ACLU v. NSA case?

[Spock]

They should stay the h*** out of it.

[HOBBIT]

yeah, the NSA should stay the h*** out of our phone calls, etc. my thoughts exactly

[Spock]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

yeah, the NSA should stay the h*** out of our phone calls, etc. my thoughts exactly

As long as you're not talking to terrorists or planning anything that will kill Americans, I agree with you.

[Insidious Rex]

...or a member of Greenpeace or certain unions or leftists organizations or the ACLU itself ironically... but everyone else we wont remember what we hear... we promise...

[Spock]

Oh, yah, I forgot them.

[Spock]

Wednesday, January 25, 2006


HASBROUCK HEIGHTS, N.J. — A male high school student can wear a skirt to school after the American Civil Liberties Union reached an agreement with school officials.

The ACLU announced the deal Tuesday. It will allow a Hasbrouck Heights School senior to wear a skirt to protest the school's no-shorts policy.

The district's dress code bans shorts between Oct. 1 and April 15, but allows skirts, a policy 17-year-old Michael Coviello believes is discriminatory.


.......and you wonder why criminals take so long to get through court hearings....

[inked]

Now here'e a blast. The ACLU wants to limit the free speech of its Board members:

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006...-by-its-board/

the original NYT article is linked in this report.

Oh, where's the Kleenex? I'm laughing so hard I'm tearing up!!!!