ACLU sues for students to wear anti-Islam shirts in Florida schools

[Political Junky]

I thought we were discussing the ACLU and clashes between freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

So I am looking for an example that relates to that topic.

We're discussing the ACLU in the thread, yes.

There is a clash between Freedom of Speech and Religion in general throughout history and currently today. My question is, what sort of example are you looking for? A previous example where the ACLU was involved? Because that was not related to that specific comment.

The ACLU is anti-religion. That is the topic.

Poor baby, that's the best you can do?

 

[Polk]

I TOTALLY agree with that.

The courts should bitchslap the one bringing ANY frivolous case to the court with harsh fines.

You realize one can lose a case without the suit being frivolous, right?

You are correct, but the losing party often pays court costs. Is that an unreasonable expectation for the ACLU. They don't have a problem taking money when they win.

Actually, losing parties rarely pay court costs in this country. In fact, it's so rare that the system of each party must paying their own attorneys' fees is called "American rule".

 

[saveliberty]

You realize one can lose a case without the suit being frivolous, right?

You are correct, but the losing party often pays court costs. Is that an unreasonable expectation for the ACLU. They don't have a problem taking money when they win.

Actually, losing parties rarely pay court costs in this country. In fact, it's so rare that the system of each party must paying their own attorneys' fees is called "American rule".

American rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The American rule is merely a default rule, not the blanket rule in the United States. Numerous statutes at both the federal and state levels allow the winner to recover reasonable attorney's fees, and there are two major exceptions in federal case law as well.

Many states also have exceptions to the American rule in both statutes and case law. For example, in California, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act allows plaintiffs to recover attorney's fees, and in insurance bad faith cases, a policyholder may be able to recover attorney's fees as a separate component of damages."

 

[Polk]

You are correct, but the losing party often pays court costs. Is that an unreasonable expectation for the ACLU. They don't have a problem taking money when they win.

Actually, losing parties rarely pay court costs in this country. In fact, it's so rare that the system of each party must paying their own attorneys' fees is called "American rule".

American rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The American rule is merely a default rule, not the blanket rule in the United States. Numerous statutes at both the federal and state levels allow the winner to recover reasonable attorney's fees, and there are two major exceptions in federal case law as well.

Many states also have exceptions to the American rule in both statutes and case law. For example, in California, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act allows plaintiffs to recover attorney's fees, and in insurance bad faith cases, a policyholder may be able to recover attorney's fees as a separate component of damages."

You just undermined your own argument, because the link you posted clearly states that each party paying their own legal fees is the default.

 

[xsited1]

ACLU sues for students to wear anti-Islam shirts in Florida schools - USATODAY.com

...

The ACLU used to only be anti-Christian

Hardly.

(The list below includes examples from the past decade only)

ACLU Defense of Religious Practice and Expression | American Civil Liberties Union

They want to look somewhat balanced as they are attempting to do on their website, but they really aren't. There are plenty of other cases which show this that I'm sure most are aware of (except the zealots who will defend the ACLU to the end). This guy's column sums it up pretty well:

Many people view the ACLU as anti-Christian (Anti-Christian Lawyers Union, etc). With all the cases they take beating away any symbol of Jesus in the public square, it's hard to think they AREN'T anti-Christian. As the new symbol of Los Angeles shows, they don't seem to have a problem with other religions, just Christianity it appears. The question is, are they really anti-Christian?

The ACLU says they are the guardian of liberty who works to defend and preserve individual rights. However, they are less fighting for something than fighting against something. They fight against intelligent design and abstinence education not because they infringe on rights, but because they are part of an order they believe needs to be abolished.

Being anti-Christian implies that they intend to specifically attack Christianity as an end of itself. As Roger Baldwin (a co-founder of the ACLU) said of the goals of the ACLU:

"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted, and I traveled the United Front road to get it.

The ACLU's actions are a part of a political worldview they hold. It was founded by communists and though many members and lawyers would say they aren't communist today that foundation influences the way they look at things. They are militant privacy advocates and anti-government to the point of wanting to take away valid tools from law enforcement. This is why they helped Rush Limbaugh, not because they support his speech, but because their causes temporarily aligned when the Florida prosecutor's office seized his medical records unjustly. That is not to say that the government is lily white when it comes to privacy, but to say that monitoring phone calls of suspected terrorists leads to a police state is ludicrous and scare-mongering.

The ACLU attacks the traditional foundation of the family in society. This is why they fight against parental notification of abortions, school choice, and the parent's role in educating their children. In fact, they attack traditional forms of authority beyond that of the state. In communist nations, the state is the highest authority and all needs and actions must be made in connection with what is best for the state. That is why you can talk about purges and gulags and communists don't flinch. Communism requires them.

Their attacks on Christianity aren't designed to eradicate Christianity, per se. They are designed to establish a social order (or more appropriately destroy the existing order) and customs that advance their ideas and Christianity isn't a part of it. In short, they aren't anti-Christian in intent, they are anti-Christian in effect.

Is the ACLU Anti-Christian? - Blogcritics Politics

 

[saveliberty]

Actually, losing parties rarely pay court costs in this country. In fact, it's so rare that the system of each party must paying their own attorneys' fees is called "American rule".

American rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The American rule is merely a default rule, not the blanket rule in the United States. Numerous statutes at both the federal and state levels allow the winner to recover reasonable attorney's fees, and there are two major exceptions in federal case law as well.

Many states also have exceptions to the American rule in both statutes and case law. For example, in California, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act allows plaintiffs to recover attorney's fees, and in insurance bad faith cases, a policyholder may be able to recover attorney's fees as a separate component of damages."

You just undermined your own argument, because the link you posted clearly states that each party paying their own legal fees is the default.

It just means to falls between "rare" and "often". Although the exceptions to federal law seem to be the types of cases the ACLU likes to try. Same for state cases.

 

[manifold]

Now xsited is referencing an opinion piece from a blog as evidence.

Clearly he knows he is full of shit and is just having fun playing the troll.

carry on,

 

[xsited1]

Now xsited is referencing an opinion piece from a blog as evidence.

Clearly he knows he is full of shit and is just having fun playing the troll.

carry on,

Troll? You're funny. BTW, where is that moderator manifesto you promised me? You never had it? You were just trolling for rep? So a troll like yourself is calling me a troll? Well done.

 

[xsited1]

The ‘Anti-Christian Liberties’ Union (ACLU)

 

[manifold]

Now xsited is referencing an opinion piece from a blog as evidence.

Clearly he knows he is full of shit and is just having fun playing the troll.

carry on,

Troll? You're funny. BTW, where is that moderator manifesto you promised me? You never had it? You were just trolling for rep? So a troll like yourself is calling me a troll? Well done.

How do you think I can spot it so well?

 

[xsited1]

Now xsited is referencing an opinion piece from a blog as evidence.

Clearly he knows he is full of shit and is just having fun playing the troll.

carry on,

Troll? You're funny. BTW, where is that moderator manifesto you promised me? You never had it? You were just trolling for rep? So a troll like yourself is calling me a troll? Well done.

How do you think I can spot it so well?

 

[manifold]

The ‘Anti-Christian Liberties’ Union (ACLU)

You really are a moron. No offense.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I don't need to when exposing your spineless, cuntly behaviour in the forum works well enough.


Now, where did my black and gold Tigers shirt go to.. There is a pep rally in Columbia U. in NYC!

Actually, it is quite wise for folks to use the measures available to us at USMB to keep the seriously disturbed and insane from any behind-the-scenes ramped-up insanity.

You are quite bothered that those safeguards are in place, obviously, as you find your whining about my taking such safeguards more important than the topic of free speech. You are insane, so that is normal for you.

Or, more like it, it's pretty hilarious to watch you throw stones and then run and hide behind the block feature. It's the kind of thing we've come to expect from a disingenuous bitch like you.

And, again, your dime store psychology continues to be about as unimpressive as your usual forum input. Hey, maybe you can clusterfuck another college reference and then cry about being busted via public messages right before you close off yours to avoid riposte. I hope you don't live near a bunny store, you crazy 'natch.

just cheerleading here, hahahahahahahahahahahha

 

[WillowTree]

It used to be that WillowTree only supported a Catholic priest's right to rape and sodomize young boys. But now she supports the rights of all religious figures to rape and sodomize young boys.

Of course that's just my opinion. With just as much a basis in actual fact as the assertion that the ACLU ever opposed Christianity.

Don't hate on me for having a different opinion.

the ACLU supports NAMBLA.. and terrorists, and illlegals.none of which is in the best interest of Americans,, hence they are anti American..and the ACLU absolutely opposes Christianity. Why else did they make the city of LA take the cross off it's logo?

If you really believe any of that then you truly are an ignorant twat.

as opposed to you? the educated twat!

 

[manifold]

Speaking of cuntrags!

 

[WillowTree]

Speaking of cuntrags!

Manifold the educated twat. Priceless! End of a perfect Thanksgiving.

 

[WillowTree]

ACLU To Represent NAMBLA







By Martin Finucane
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, Aug. 31, 2000; 5:19 p.m. EDT

BOSTON –– Saying important First Amendment issues are at stake, the American Civil Liberties Union is stepping in to defend a group that advocates sex between men and boys against a lawsuit brought by the family of a murdered 10-year-old.

The family of Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge claims in its lawsuit that the North American Man/Boy Love Association and its Web site incited the molestation and murder of the boy in 1997.

The Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU said Thursday it will defend NAMBLA because the group's activities are protected under First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of association.

"Under the First Amendment, there are no illegal ideas. Those who commit illegal acts can be punished for wrongful conduct, but the expression of even offensive ideas is protected by our Constitution," the ACLU said in a statement.

The ACLU has long accepted unpopular clients and despised causes, including Ku Klux Klansmen and neo-Nazis. In 1977, the ACLU defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill. – home to many Holocaust survivors. Thousands of ACLU members quit and contributions plunged.









ACLU To Represent NAMBLA








ManTwat!

 

[manifold]

The only reason I'm even bothering with you is because of your well established obsession with getting in the last word. I wore down Liarbilly and I can do the same to you.

Go.

 

[WillowTree]

The only reason I'm even bothering with you is because of your well established obsession with getting in the last word. I wore down Liarbilly and I can do the same to you.

Go.

you are a liar, you said ACLU did not defend NAMBLA! That's the last word..

 

[Father Time]

Wow, are you two serious with the going back & forth on eachother or is this an inside joke? Especially in this topic?

How about we say the ACLU is just scattered all over the place.

he believes in censorship out of one side of his mouth and supports the aclu out of the other,, see the irony there?

Did you get taken over by PI?

Neg repping someone is not censorship, it does not inhibit your ability to speak on this site in any way.

Now stop with the bull crap.