Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Lately this political ad (those of you who live in Arizona will know what I'm talking about) has been on that bashes this Democratic candicate who had a position in power with the ACLU. What pissed me off other than her opontent acting as if the term liberal was a bad thing, they called the ACLU a "radical organization" that "supported dangerous criminals". They also mentioned the ACLU's support of Nambla, but what are they talking about in the terms of "dangerous criminals?" I don't know why this pissed me off so much, I hate political capagin ads as it is. They're nothing but mudslinging that you can't even trust either side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Lately this political ad (those of you who live in Arizona will know what I'm talking about) has been on that bashes this Democratic candicate who had a position in power with the ACLU. What pissed me off other than her opontent acting as if the term liberal was a bad thing, they called the ACLU a "radical organization" that "supported dangerous criminals". They also mentioned the ACLU's support of Nambla, but what are they talking about in the terms of "dangerous criminals?" I don't know why this pissed me off so much, I hate political capagin ads as it is. They're nothing but mudslinging that you can't even trust either side. This might help ya. ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000) 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 ...I hate political capagin ads as it is. They're nothing but mudslinging that you can't even trust either side. Exactly - which is why I vote with my back. Choosing between Republicans and Democrats is like choosing whether you'd like to be run over by a Ford Windstar or a Chevy Venture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piprus Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 We may not always agree with the kinds of cases the ACLU takes on, but...what if the Bushites and their fundonazi minions would move to ban internet sites like this as "inflammatory"? Wouldn't you like to have ACLU on our side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts