Originally Posted by rebeld
just read the other post where wow civic brought up the aclu and i would like to say that no the ACLU is not anti-american....the aclu started out as a organization to protect the rights of those who couldnt voice themselves to our government or didnt have the abilitiy to from what i understand. in my opinion when they started out they were a great organization but time has warped what they view themselves as. granted today the aclu still does represent and protect those who honestly need it but i ask you why any organization in their right mind would represent groups such as NAMBLA(north american man boy love association). Your telling me that these people belong being protected. i dont agree with everything wow civic said, he obviously listens to all the hype and doesnt think clearly, but noone here can seriously tell me that the ACLU is honestly out there to protect all of america. just the fact that they are trying to help NAMBLA and trying to help the floridian sex offenders says to me that they are not here for the benefit of mainstream america...cause we all would love to have a sex offender next door and not know.
For what its worth, here is the ACLU press release on that topic:
ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.