Slashdot Mirror

Now, I'm sure there's much to be debated about whether or not the ACLU should be taking this action and suing the NSA. Frankly, I'm not sure if this lawsuit is called for or not. It could just be a waste of a government agency's time but the courts will throw it out if that is the case. I'm pretty sure it's not--I'm pretty sure this will be heard in a court of law but the ACLU just won't get anywhere.

Now, I've heard a lot of talk among people of the ACLU being a crazy leftist organization that's terribly out of touch with reality. But, no matter who you are, you have to admit that the ACLU prevents you from losing anything that might be considered a civil liberty.

No one can argue, this group pushes back so hard against the government even when it comes to something like domestic spying on a relatively small part of the population. They put forth such an effort that I'm sure if any member of the government is about to make a decision about our rights they are probably thinking, "If I do this, the ACLU is going to be all over me in the press ..."

And that's why I love the ACLU. Because I can sit on my fat ass and not have to worry about the government getting carried away.

But right now, our system is deeply flawed. We are IDed by our Social Security # in a mass of places and financial applications - which is leading to ever increasing Identity theft. Who would have thought? A 9-10 digit number with a name attached, which one has to give out everywhere, to be used in ID theft?

Absolutely. We will all be much more secure with a RealID card, through which we will all be identified by a number with a name attached. There is no way anyone would consider using a RealID name and number for identity theft, unless, perhaps, the government and related organizations started using that data for tracking people. I'm sure the requirement for a common machine-readable technology" doesn't imply that anyone will actually be reading or collecting this information, or associating it with other personal data.

The Real ID Act says federally accepted ID cards must be "machine readable," and lets Homeland Security determine the details. That could end up being a magnetic strip, enhanced bar code, or radio frequency identification (RFID) chips.

In the past, Homeland Security has indicated it likes the concept of RFID chips. They are readily scanned by proximity systems without requiring direct contact.

The card must contain, at a minimum, name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, and a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on. The address must be a physical address, and not a post office box. Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements, such as a fingerprint or retinal scan, in addition to the minimum requirements.

If you have nothing to hide, there is no reason to be concerned. The Real ID system will only serve to keep you safe and secure. http://www.aclu.org/pizza/ Remember, Citizen, The Computer is your friend!

I'm no fan of racism or prejudice of any kind, and I know it still happens a lot, but unless you can prove that someone tweaked the system specifically to link these movies together, and rather the system didn't just sift their relation out of the morass of data that is customer tracking, I'm gonna have a hard time believing this is racist.

Oh, and your post speaks volumes about the prejudices you harbor. Slashdot readers can't get offended because of their ignorance or unfamiliarity with minorities? Are you being racist and saying all slashdot readers are not minorities? Maybe slashdot readers just don't get offended as easily as other people, or they just don't think it's worth it to get upset over something that was probably an accident.

Chill out, cool down, and maybe focus on some more important issues

I'm going to assume you actually aren't aware of what's going on, and that you're not deliberately trying to pretend, and supply you with some reading material. Please consider the following articles in support of my statements:

Let's start with the no-fly list:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/25/no_fl y/index_np.html
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/ 09/27/MNNOFLY.TMP&nl=top
http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/reports/prot estersdetained.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/957183/po sts

This one's just fun: they barred Ted Kennedy (the senator):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/19/senator_on _terror_watch/

And this one just basically says the No-Fly list is managed rather stupidly:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/07/aclu-suit/

Now lets look at the Patriot act:

First, this google search returns almost 3 million hits on patriot act abuses:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Patriot+Ac t%22+abuses&btnG=Google+Search

Here's a detailed analysis by the ACLU about what's wrong with the Patriot Act:
http://www.aclu.org//safefree/general/17203leg2003 0214.html

Here's a Register article about how the Patriot Act isn't being used against terrorists, but rather regular criminals (a group for which the act was not meant to be used, I'd consider that an abuse), side-stepping their civil liberties:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/05/22/us_antiter ror_law_used_against/

Here's an article about an interesting talk that went on at Harvard about the subject:
http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/voices/2003 10/1010abuses.html

Here's a fun reprint of a Village Voice article about the NYPD seeking to spy on protestors and such:
http://www.refuseandresist.org/police_state/art.ph p?aid=619

I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point. The Patriot Act should be quietly killed off and our civil liberties re-affirmed.

Enjoy your readings...

Looking at the linked campaign, I'm extremely supportive (having been against the UK equivalent for quite a while now).

But guys, could you pick the right target, yeah? It's the Government, stupid... businesses wouldn't want to touch it with a stick as it's government mandated extra costs with no business benefit.

Oh, come on now. I'm sure the Bush administration would never, ever ask a Federal agency to do something explicitly forbidden by law. Nor would they ever use secrets for political gain. To suggest otherwise would be blatantly partisan!

Oh - and as far as the FBI fast-tracking new hires to deal with sensitive information? Two words: Robert Hanssen.

Check out the ACLU use case for integrated CRM.

America may be falling apart, but it's because of people like you. Oh how quickly we forget that our country was founded on the questioning of authority. Balance of powers, representation, freedom...those words ring a bell? Why are the ones that are so adament about spreading "freedom" to other countries (at least, those we have an economic interest in...oh, and aren't strong enough to fight back) so willing to give up their own? http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c =130 Do those look like rights that the government already has? Or maybe we should be asking, do those look like rights the government SHOULD have? I'm really getting sick of Republicans using FUD to scare the ignorant masses into sacraficing their civil liberties in the name of security and the war on terror. Let's use the secret wiretaps as an example here. Are there terrorist threats in the world today? Yes. Would allowing secret wiretaps of American citizens help monitor them? Yes. Do these two facts justify the use of allowing secret wiretaps of American citizens? NO! Jesus tapdancing Christ people, why not have a camera in every household monitoring your actions while we're at it? Maybe a CIA officer handcuffed to you at all times? Hell, why not just station each of us in some massive jail with no outside contact? At least we'd be safe right? No terrorist going to get us that way! Sacraficing liberty and freedom in the name of security is anti-American and the way Bush and his administration is spinning it off is terrorism. Don't forget your roots and don't forget how quickly one bad dictator can ruin a powerful nation. Countries with seemingly unlimited power have fallen before, we are no different. You ever wonder how all those great empires fell and think "how in the hell did they let that madman drive their nation into the ground?". That's what's happening now. And if we aren't careful, we're going to end up becoming a footnote in history as another world power that toppled because of poor leadership that drew way too many enemies. That's when the terrorist will have won, when we start living in fear and sacraficing the freedom we tout. Hell, I'm not all that convinced they haven't already won. Time will tell. P.S. The bill was passed by an overwhelming majority because it was thrown together at the last minute because they needed to do something to prevent mass hysteria in the wake of 9/11.

The ACLU has a less dramatic but just as powerful scenario in SWF form.

Being a far left wing liberal, I donate to the ACLU and Americans United, Being a humanist, I also frequently donate blood. I feel that this is a more tangible gift than cash.

This illegal spying and stuff has been going on since before bush was in office. Actually it isn't illegal either but that another story.

We have always had agreements with other countries to spy and tap phone conversations. If something interesting is found they alert the proper authorities. This was automated around 1997 and now key words are caught and automated recording takes place. Typically, our agreements with the other countries allow them to collect the data on US citizens while we collect on their citizens. This gives the appearance of the government not having to deal with the constitution.

This project is commonly refereed to as Echelon Here is a tad bit more info on it

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authorized spying and searches in terrorist/national security and other related matters regardless of the nationality or location of the person(s) being spied on. Originally this act intended for a court consisting of around 11 members to approve the actions. This court regularly reports to congress. Unfortunately (fortunately depending on your outlook), in 1979, President Carter decided that under certain circumstances could allow government officials to bypass these procedures. This was probably a reaction to the hostage crisis during his term. President Clinton expanded this a little in '95. Bush using the processes from these executive orders changed the policy being used to take advantage of them. Unlike Carter and Clinton, his provision were made into law by provisions in the patriot act.. Your probably right in that these executive orders go against the constitution but until they are successfully challenged, they are law and therefore legal. (That doesn't mean it rite though.)

As for the ban on torture loophole? I think you are misreading somethign here. All this deal did was say that interrogators accused of using improper methods could offer as a defense that they were acting on orders that a reasonable person would believe to be lawful. This doesn't mean that i could order you to starve a person until they talk and you would get away with it. What it does say is that if an order is lawful to a reasonable person you can use that as a defense. This means if i order you to wake the prisoner at different time in the night to disrupt thier sleeping habits and confuse them, as long as a reasonable person wouldn't consider that torture, you wouldn't get in trouble. Imunity isn't even mentioned either. This is a purposed bill too, it hasn't made it's way into law and needs to be cleared with debate before it becomes law.

I know it is fun to bash Bush and the current administration. People always do it when thier party isn't in control. Lets be honest here and bash him for stuff that needs to be bashed. Saying we can toruture people even though existing law says we cannot is stretching the truth a bit. This doen't mean it hasn't happend and if it did, those resoncible should be presecuted. Saying ilegal wire taps or ilegal spying isn't being truthfull either. The facilities that made it possible were put in place well before bush or his cronies came to power. Under current law, regular law enforcment have to get permision from a judge (well except for patriot act provisions). But we can see were government officials aren't held to that law unnder certain circumstances. Is it right that government officials can spy on it's citizens without going thru the regular chanels? Probably not but that doesn't mean it is not legal.

In case anyone is wondering, executive

How to keep the country running and yet combat the deficit even has party allies drawing swords. It's taxes and spending debated per usual -- but this time it's the difference between the House and Senate budget priorities that's causing all the heat. In an editorial, THE WASHINGTON POST said "though neither offers much to cheer about, the Senate's version is by far the fairer. It would cut $35 billion in projected entitlement spending over the next five years, compared with $50 billion in the House version. But the differences between the two bills are bigger than those numbers suggest. The Senate would make the cuts without digging into programs for low-income people." THE ECONOMIST echoed these sentiments somewhat, noting, " The House package, supported by Mr Bush, tries to cement his tax-cutting legacy...Some 40% of the House tax cuts would go to those earning more than $1m a year; the very rich would get only 8% of the Senate's cuts."

Below are links to the ongoing debates surrounding U.S. fiscal policy -- reducing the deficit, tax cut plans, and budget priorities. Explore both sides of the debates and then do your own number crunching by visiting sites with budget numbers and analyses.
Civil Liberties and the Patriot Act:

The Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Not for profit grassroots group concerned with American civil liberties. The site contains updates on local civil liberties actions, tools for activists, a legislation watch and policy briefs on the Patriot Act.

The Department of Homeland Security
The Department of Homeland Security offers information about Homeland Security legislation, the President's Homeland Security proposal, and analysis of the department. Other features include transcripts of speeches given by Governor Tom Ridge at the National Association of Broadcasters Education Foundation 2002 Service to America Summit and President Bush's Address to the Nation concerning homeland security. Online chat transcripts with Governor Ridge are also included.

Homeland Security, Homeland Profits
On the Corpwatch Web site (a corporate watchdog group), Wayne Madsen argues that corporations are standing to make billions from selling "surveillance and information-gathering systems to government agencies and the private sector." Madsen cautions that this technology will be utilized to intimidate and squelch dissent.

How the USA Patriot Act Puts the CIA Back in the Business of Spying On Americans
In this issue brief, the American Civil Liberties Union argues that the USA Patriot Act includes domestic espionage against American citizens. According to the ACLU, the USA Patriot Act "permits a vast array of information gathering on U.S. citizens from school records, financial transactions, Internet activity, telephone conversations, information gleaned from grand jury proceedings and criminal investigations to be shared with the CIA (and other non-law enforcement officials) even if it pertains to Americans."

> I think that there are different definitions in use.

Yes. The ones you are using are not precisely representative of the law in the US, however.

> I have a freedom from having religion forced upon me.

Yes.

> I do not have the "freedom" of forcing all those around me from expressing their religion.

Yes.

> I have the freedom of not having the state force it upon me.

Yes.

> They can't make me pay for and walk past the 10 Commandments in the courthouse.

Actually, they can. This is an area where a lot of people are unaware of the current rulings by the courts. The Supreme Court has ruled that displaying the Ten Commandments in a public facility, including a courthouse, is often permissible.

This is partly due to the fact that many of the Ten Commandments factor into the historical basis for the law, and partly because religious expression isn't prohibited, only endorsement. If the context indicates many religious and non-religious views can be expressed in that area, it can be permissible. Context is critical.

If it's paid for privately, there is even more leeway.

A link with a decent analysis and references to cases:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx? id=15483

> They can't force me to pray every morning.

True.

> But I can't force you, a private citizen, from expressing your religion,
> whether on your private property or unobtrusively on public property.

Yes and no. You actually -can't- require that religious expression be unobtrusive in public places. Obtrusive, in your face, loud, boisterous, impossible to ignore religious expression is not only permissible in public places, it can only be prohibited or restricted in very narrow ways.

One factor is that it cannot be restricted more than non-religious expression. If I can have a "Promote Recycling" rally that uses bullhorns, chanting, direct contact with passers-by, then I can do all the same things for a religious event in the same public venue. Religious speech is almost -never- more restricted than other speech.

Public prayer, and religious assembly is expressly protected, -even- in public schools. There have been some cases about that; students leading public services against abortion and the like on school grounds. The ruling is always that it can't be prohibited, only controlled to the minimum level needed to avoid distrupting learning.

Some ACLU references:
http://www.aclu.org//religion/tencomm/16254res2005 0302.html

Here is the ACLU's official policy on hate speech:
http://www.aclu.org//studentsrights/expression/128 08pub19941231.html

But the whole debate over homosexuality is an easy target where the ACLU clearly shows a double standard. They worked to actively deny the right of a private organization to chose who it associates with (google ACLU vs Boy Scouts), one of the most basic freedoms of a free society.

When a group of fundies were arrested for protesting a gay rights even, one of the charges was hate speech -- simply for having signs that said the Bible says gay sex is wrong, etc. The ACLU declined to support their case.

(Amusing video of the "hateful" actions that got them put on trial for a maximum 45 year sentence: http://www.afa.net/clp/videos/philly11.wmv)

MUCH more timid than the gay activists, especially including the ones I see here in San Francisco.

Any way you slice it, they're not following the I'll Die to Defend it line.

They're quick to defend the rights of an artist who has created something that some people find objectionable...provided that it's not a Christian nativity scene on someone's front lawn that non-Christians find objectionable. The ACLU is strangely silent when that happens.

Oh is it? "September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show." "December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors." "November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school." "August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln." "February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages." "July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school." April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating." "January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways."

Wow, that ACLU sure does turn a blind eye to protecting religion.

I'm quite sure that if a city specifically shut down a nativity scene on private property that the ACLU would be all over it. (Assuming, of course, that the situation was biased. If the city shut down everything on everyone's lawns, navity scenes and garden gnomes alike, it would be stupid, but legal and fair.)

One of my civil rights as a law-abiding citizen is my right to own a gun. Why do we have the NRA? Because the ACLU doesn't defend this right; we need another organization to pick up the slack.

Why do we have an EFF? The ACLU already spends lots of effort fighting for the exact same causes that the EFF does. Ultimately because some peopl prefer to focus in particular areas more than the ACLU does. I suspect the NRA would exist even if the ACLU did defend gun rights.

On that particular issue, well, yes, the ACLU has a different interpretation of the second amendment. I don't actually agree with their assessment, but they're hardly hostile to gun ownership Unless you found the organization, I doubt you'll find an organization that you entirely agree with. I chose to accept that and support several organizations that work in areas I care about.

They're quick to defend the rights of an artist who has created something that some people find objectionable...provided that it's not a Christian nativity scene on someone's front lawn that non-Christians find objectionable. The ACLU is strangely silent when that happens.

Oh is it? "September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show." "December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors." "November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school." "August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln." "February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages." "July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school." April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating." "January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways."

Wow, that ACLU sure does turn a blind eye to protecting religion.

I'm quite sure that if a city specifically shut down a nativity scene on private property that the ACLU would be all over it. (Assuming, of course, that the situation was biased. If the city shut down everything on everyone's lawns, navity scenes and garden gnomes alike, it would be stupid, but legal and fair.)

One of my civil rights as a law-abiding citizen is my right to own a gun. Why do we have the NRA? Because the ACLU doesn't defend this right; we need another organization to pick up the slack.

Why do we have an EFF? The ACLU already spends lots of effort fighting for the exact same causes that the EFF does. Ultimately because some peopl prefer to focus in particular areas more than the ACLU does. I suspect the NRA would exist even if the ACLU did defend gun rights.

On that particular issue, well, yes, the ACLU has a different interpretation of the second amendment. I don't actually agree with their assessment, but they're hardly hostile to gun ownership Unless you found the organization, I doubt you'll find an organization that you entirely agree with. I chose to accept that and support several organizations that work in areas I care about.

Yeah, the ACLU hates Christians.

Yeah, the ACLU hates Christians.

Yeah, the ACLU hates Christians.

Yeah, the ACLU hates Christians.

Yeah, the ACLU hates Christians.

Case in point:

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/21679prs2005112 1.html

(An apology in advance, I kinda started to rant and ramble at the end, so you can skip this post if you want.)

Well, now that most of my Thanks is given, I've had a chance to review your supports for the ongoing ACLU assault on Christian's rights.

Your words:
HOWEVER, I believed it because of the ongoing assault on Christian's rights from the ACLU which I have seen again and again:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/11/01/desert.cross .ap/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments /
http://www.aclu.org//religion/tencomm/16298prs2000 1012.html
http://www.kotv.com/main/home/stories.asp?whichpag e=1&id=91429

Let me get these done first.

First one, a large permanent cross in a national park. This one was filed by the ACLU/SC (SC for Southern California, this group was founded by Upton Sinclair). I don't know if you know anything about his views on religion, his bibliography should give you an idea (here's a link from Google's beta book search, neat stuff, well if you hadn't heard, he was a pretty big critic of the organized religion and later became a socialist). Anyhow, I can respect the loose assertion that the ACLU/SC reflects on the ACLU in the same way that say, Catholics reflect on Christians. Each is a smaller group that affiliates with a whole. If you let me judge you by the actions of Catholics, then you can judge the ACLU by the actions of ACLU/SC -- i.e., the fallacy of generialazation. But getting past that -- the park didn't even try to fight it, it never even went to court, everyone involved just rolled over, because they knew that the anonymous ranger (that haha, "claimed to be Catholic") that sought the ACLU/SC's help would have won in court. Damn those courts.

Second one, Glassroth v. Moore. I am not a lawyer, but if you are I'd be interested to know why you believe both courts were wrong. Further, the ACLU was not a plaintiff in this case. The only relevant case that the ACLU was a plaintiff in was ACLU v. Rabun County (11th Circuit) in 1983. Was the U.S. "intolerant of Christian views" back then? I don't recall. But further, if you look up the opinion http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/20021670 8.pdf, the money quote is on the bottom of page 34: "Clearly erroneous they [the district court's previous findings of fact] are not. Moreover, even if we were free to review the determination de novo, having examined the record ourselves, we agree with the district court that it is "self-evident" that Chief Justice Moore's purpose in displaying the monument was non-secular. Given all of the evidence, including the Chief Justice's own words, we cannot see how a court could reach any other conclusion." So, basically open and shut. After Moore's appeal was rejected it should have been clear that his next step wasn't to get suspended in an act of civil disobedience but to obey the court's decision (what? a judge with contempt for the court?!) and used his only recourse, get the Constitution amended. It's laughable to consider the First Amendment to be an "assault on Christian's rights" so maybe you offered this example by mistake.

Third one, Montanna's Custer county officials roll over and settle in a similar year-2000 case involving another Commandments monument and a "seasonal nativity". I don't know what this shows us as far as assaults or tolerance go (because it didn't go to court and apparantly the Christians in power that put them there agreed to more/r

It's a little of both, I'm afraid:
According to this news article, it's some residents of the city that are suing. Admittedly I didn't find the source before posting. I basd the posting on my recollection of a conversation with a friend. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170468,00.html

HOWEVER, I believed it because of the ongoing assault on Christian's rights from the ACLU which I have seen again and again:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/11/01/desert.cross .ap/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments /
http://www.aclu.org//religion/tencomm/16298prs2000 1012.html
http://www.kotv.com/main/home/stories.asp?whichpag e=1&id=91429

The constitution says "congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" When a county puts up ANY display, that's a county matter, not a federal one. Where are the rights of the states? GONE!

Why does the ACLU regularly file suit on issues like government properties allowing the display of Christian religious symbols AT CHRISTMAS when the VAST majority of people in this country celebrate that at LEAST as a secular holiday. Is it really oppressive? No way! This kind of thing makes me sick!

What does the Boy Scouts having their jamboree on federal property have to do with the establishment clause? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! The Boy Scouts having 'under God' in their oath is NOT the state establishing a national Christian religion.

Non-ACLU assaults
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/venrtura.htm
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/wtccross.a sp

Here's the point, these are NOT about getting the state to endorse my religion. What it IS about is that there are a majority of people (still) who agree with the vast majority of Christian belief and practices, and who are not negatively affected by the city, county, state or feds recognizing that these ideas are consistent with community standards and offer some value to the community at large. Also, the facts are that the 10 commandments have a unique relationship to the rule of law in our country and it's revisionist history to claim otherwise.

Let's be clear, persecution of Christians for their religious beliefs DOES occur. Predominantly this is at the hands of atheistic or Muslim governments. More than 150,000 Christians were killed last year for their Christian beliefs. (Source: Missionary to Indonesia speaking at my church - not available on the web. This number is consistent with other sources I have heard.) What's happening here is not persecution. What is happening here is that the culture is becoming more intolerant and hostile to my worldview. Others may disagree, but I have observed management in my company tell people that they cannot discuss religion at work. This is a violation of free speech rights regardless of religious views, but there's a fear and perception that recognition of religious belief at work is unacceptable. It's only going to get worse and worse.

Do you believe that when the school system rents a church facility to have graduation (because school facilities are not big enough to handle the event) that this is the state sponsoring religion? What if the "church" is a synagague, mosque or temple? Frankly I would absolutely NOT care if the school system rented and atheist-owned hall for graduation. If my kids' worldview was going to be damaged by one incident in one location one time, my world view would be pretty indefe

The same ACLU that has consistently fought in favor of allowing children to pray, distribute religious literature, or otherwise express their religious beliefs in schools? You're either arguing against an organization you know little about, or simply being disingenuous. Neither one is a particularly honorable tactic for persuading people to your beliefs.

"The ACLU supports the right of high school students to wear satanists t-shirts or t-shirts proclaiming their homosexuality (which is good, the ACLU SHOULD do that, the students SHOULD have that right), but at the same time doing nothing when students are expelled for wearing a Christian t-shirt...the ACLU will defend a graduates right to make an anti-war speech at comencement (which is good, they should be allowed), but not defending a student's right to say a prayer during a speech at commencement (which is just as much a valid form of speech)."

Such rampant stupidity on Slashdot tonight.

Please provide citations for your claims. With any citations you do miraculously manage to cough up, please also detail how the people involved went to the ACLU and were turned down. But before you do that, you might want to take a peek at these:

ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader's Right to Sing "Awesome God" at Talent Show
September 20, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rty.cfm?ID=19116&c=139

Colorado Agrees to Restore Jewish Prisoner's Kosher Diet in Response to ACLU Lawsuit
October 13, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/Prisons/Prisons.cfm?ID=19253&c =127

City of Omaha and ACLU of Nebraska Announce Settlement in Lawsuit Over Muslim Woman Barred from Public Pool
February 18, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rty.cfm?ID=17523&c=141

ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors
December 22, 2004
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29

ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln
August 11, 2004
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rtylist.cfm?c=142

The ACLU certainly has more compassion and tolerance for delusional kooks than I do. I mean, look at that last one, for example. "Church of the Awesome God"? If I ran the ACLU I'd demand that they not only be forced out, but perhaps tarred and feathered for good measure. Maybe it's a good thing the ACLU is run by people who care about freedom for *everyone*, eh?

"The ACLU supports the right of high school students to wear satanists t-shirts or t-shirts proclaiming their homosexuality (which is good, the ACLU SHOULD do that, the students SHOULD have that right), but at the same time doing nothing when students are expelled for wearing a Christian t-shirt...the ACLU will defend a graduates right to make an anti-war speech at comencement (which is good, they should be allowed), but not defending a student's right to say a prayer during a speech at commencement (which is just as much a valid form of speech)."

Such rampant stupidity on Slashdot tonight.

Please provide citations for your claims. With any citations you do miraculously manage to cough up, please also detail how the people involved went to the ACLU and were turned down. But before you do that, you might want to take a peek at these:

ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader's Right to Sing "Awesome God" at Talent Show
September 20, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rty.cfm?ID=19116&c=139

Colorado Agrees to Restore Jewish Prisoner's Kosher Diet in Response to ACLU Lawsuit
October 13, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/Prisons/Prisons.cfm?ID=19253&c =127

City of Omaha and ACLU of Nebraska Announce Settlement in Lawsuit Over Muslim Woman Barred from Public Pool
February 18, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rty.cfm?ID=17523&c=141

ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors
December 22, 2004
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29

ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln
August 11, 2004
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rtylist.cfm?c=142

The ACLU certainly has more compassion and tolerance for delusional kooks than I do. I mean, look at that last one, for example. "Church of the Awesome God"? If I ran the ACLU I'd demand that they not only be forced out, but perhaps tarred and feathered for good measure. Maybe it's a good thing the ACLU is run by people who care about freedom for *everyone*, eh?

"The ACLU supports the right of high school students to wear satanists t-shirts or t-shirts proclaiming their homosexuality (which is good, the ACLU SHOULD do that, the students SHOULD have that right), but at the same time doing nothing when students are expelled for wearing a Christian t-shirt...the ACLU will defend a graduates right to make an anti-war speech at comencement (which is good, they should be allowed), but not defending a student's right to say a prayer during a speech at commencement (which is just as much a valid form of speech)."

Such rampant stupidity on Slashdot tonight.

Please provide citations for your claims. With any citations you do miraculously manage to cough up, please also detail how the people involved went to the ACLU and were turned down. But before you do that, you might want to take a peek at these:

ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader's Right to Sing "Awesome God" at Talent Show
September 20, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rty.cfm?ID=19116&c=139

Colorado Agrees to Restore Jewish Prisoner's Kosher Diet in Response to ACLU Lawsuit
October 13, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/Prisons/Prisons.cfm?ID=19253&c =127

City of Omaha and ACLU of Nebraska Announce Settlement in Lawsuit Over Muslim Woman Barred from Public Pool
February 18, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rty.cfm?ID=17523&c=141

ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors
December 22, 2004
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29

ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln
August 11, 2004
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rtylist.cfm?c=142

The ACLU certainly has more compassion and tolerance for delusional kooks than I do. I mean, look at that last one, for example. "Church of the Awesome God"? If I ran the ACLU I'd demand that they not only be forced out, but perhaps tarred and feathered for good measure. Maybe it's a good thing the ACLU is run by people who care about freedom for *everyone*, eh?

"The ACLU supports the right of high school students to wear satanists t-shirts or t-shirts proclaiming their homosexuality (which is good, the ACLU SHOULD do that, the students SHOULD have that right), but at the same time doing nothing when students are expelled for wearing a Christian t-shirt...the ACLU will defend a graduates right to make an anti-war speech at comencement (which is good, they should be allowed), but not defending a student's right to say a prayer during a speech at commencement (which is just as much a valid form of speech)."

Such rampant stupidity on Slashdot tonight.

Please provide citations for your claims. With any citations you do miraculously manage to cough up, please also detail how the people involved went to the ACLU and were turned down. But before you do that, you might want to take a peek at these:

ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader's Right to Sing "Awesome God" at Talent Show
September 20, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rty.cfm?ID=19116&c=139

Colorado Agrees to Restore Jewish Prisoner's Kosher Diet in Response to ACLU Lawsuit
October 13, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/Prisons/Prisons.cfm?ID=19253&c =127

City of Omaha and ACLU of Nebraska Announce Settlement in Lawsuit Over Muslim Woman Barred from Public Pool
February 18, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rty.cfm?ID=17523&c=141

ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors
December 22, 2004
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29

ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln
August 11, 2004
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rtylist.cfm?c=142

The ACLU certainly has more compassion and tolerance for delusional kooks than I do. I mean, look at that last one, for example. "Church of the Awesome God"? If I ran the ACLU I'd demand that they not only be forced out, but perhaps tarred and feathered for good measure. Maybe it's a good thing the ACLU is run by people who care about freedom for *everyone*, eh?

"The ACLU supports the right of high school students to wear satanists t-shirts or t-shirts proclaiming their homosexuality (which is good, the ACLU SHOULD do that, the students SHOULD have that right), but at the same time doing nothing when students are expelled for wearing a Christian t-shirt...the ACLU will defend a graduates right to make an anti-war speech at comencement (which is good, they should be allowed), but not defending a student's right to say a prayer during a speech at commencement (which is just as much a valid form of speech)."

Such rampant stupidity on Slashdot tonight.

Please provide citations for your claims. With any citations you do miraculously manage to cough up, please also detail how the people involved went to the ACLU and were turned down. But before you do that, you might want to take a peek at these:

ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader's Right to Sing "Awesome God" at Talent Show
September 20, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rty.cfm?ID=19116&c=139

Colorado Agrees to Restore Jewish Prisoner's Kosher Diet in Response to ACLU Lawsuit
October 13, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/Prisons/Prisons.cfm?ID=19253&c =127

City of Omaha and ACLU of Nebraska Announce Settlement in Lawsuit Over Muslim Woman Barred from Public Pool
February 18, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rty.cfm?ID=17523&c=141

ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors
December 22, 2004
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29

ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln
August 11, 2004
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibe rtylist.cfm?c=142

The ACLU certainly has more compassion and tolerance for delusional kooks than I do. I mean, look at that last one, for example. "Church of the Awesome God"? If I ran the ACLU I'd demand that they not only be forced out, but perhaps tarred and feathered for good measure. Maybe it's a good thing the ACLU is run by people who care about freedom for *everyone*, eh?

Following the 1992 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lee v. Weisman prohibiting "prayer, benediction, or invocation at any graduation ceremonies" conducted or sponsored by a public school board, the Duval County School Board adopted a policy authorizing students to deliver prayers and religious messages at commencements. The policy and guidelines contain no requirement that the prayers and other religious messages at graduation ceremonies be non-sectarian.

As one example, the following prayer was offered at the June 10, 1993, Jean Ribault Senior High School commencement:

Help us to understand that we must help the one who plunders in some agony or strife, for we know it must be our Christian duty to pay heed to every pride, and deny no soul the kindness of some need we can supply. Lord help us to realize that you made us all to matter to you, our maker, as well as to each other. These and other blessings we ask in the Lord Jesus' name. Amen

Following the 1992 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lee v. Weisman prohibiting "prayer, benediction, or invocation at any graduation ceremonies" conducted or sponsored by a public school board, the Duval County School Board adopted a policy authorizing students to deliver prayers and religious messages at commencements. The policy and guidelines contain no requirement that the prayers and other religious messages at graduation ceremonies be non-sectarian.

As one example, the following prayer was offered at the June 10, 1993, Jean Ribault Senior High School commencement:

Help us to understand that we must help the one who plunders in some agony or strife, for we know it must be our Christian duty to pay heed to every pride, and deny no soul the kindness of some need we can supply. Lord help us to realize that you made us all to matter to you, our maker, as well as to each other. These and other blessings we ask in the Lord Jesus' name. Amen

Following the 1992 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lee v. Weisman prohibiting "prayer, benediction, or invocation at any graduation ceremonies" conducted or sponsored by a public school board, the Duval County School Board adopted a policy authorizing students to deliver prayers and religious messages at commencements. The policy and guidelines contain no requirement that the prayers and other religious messages at graduation ceremonies be non-sectarian.

As one example, the following prayer was offered at the June 10, 1993, Jean Ribault Senior High School commencement:

Help us to understand that we must help the one who plunders in some agony or strife, for we know it must be our Christian duty to pay heed to every pride, and deny no soul the kindness of some need we can supply. Lord help us to realize that you made us all to matter to you, our maker, as well as to each other. These and other blessings we ask in the Lord Jesus' name. Amen

Following the 1992 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lee v. Weisman prohibiting "prayer, benediction, or invocation at any graduation ceremonies" conducted or sponsored by a public school board, the Duval County School Board adopted a policy authorizing students to deliver prayers and religious messages at commencements. The policy and guidelines contain no requirement that the prayers and other religious messages at graduation ceremonies be non-sectarian.

As one example, the following prayer was offered at the June 10, 1993, Jean Ribault Senior High School commencement:

Help us to understand that we must help the one who plunders in some agony or strife, for we know it must be our Christian duty to pay heed to every pride, and deny no soul the kindness of some need we can supply. Lord help us to realize that you made us all to matter to you, our maker, as well as to each other. These and other blessings we ask in the Lord Jesus' name. Amen

We're trying to figure out if it's even possible without unbelievable costs here at Davidson College, and the (some of) faculty is resisting like there's no tomorrow. We're trying to get the word out to students, but there's no voice for civil liberties yet. We already do next to nothing when we get C&Ds.
I know for a fact we're not CALEA-compliant today. And I'm trying to spread the word to create resistance.
(Oh, and The Davidsonian's front page headlines this week: "Student pulls knife at Warner," "Students robbed in satellite parking lot," and "Town makes plans for transit rail to Charlotte.")

Does the constitution need a group of lobbyists to protect itself?

Yes.

No, it's a very good idea.

First, we are dealing with minds that consider teachers authority figures. These minds are not up to the task of questioning; that's why they are called "children".

Second, it isn't up to the state to teach your religion, and ID is nothing but religion. Children deserve interaction with their parents. If the parents want to teach their children religion, then they are free to do so, but keep your flawed "science" out of my kids brains. I will undertake to be their spiritual guide, it's one of my duites as their father.

Lastly, the following quote is relivent:
"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics." -- Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100, (C) 1954

One might do well to review the The Trial of Socrates, who was put to death for asking too many uncomfortable questions. Science is about verifiable answers to questions, religion is about answers provided by Devine Inspiration. You decide what kind of society you want to live in. Also, that link contains a reference to "evil doers", and may be interesting for other reasons.

Baptists beleive that dancing, smoking, drinking, pornography, and premarital sex are sinful, and that failing to support your church with thithes (10-15% of your income) is immoral. While I have no arguement with someone that wants to hold those beliefs, I see no reason for them to become embodied in law and enforced by the police. ID is an attempt to enforce a belief under color of law. America doesn't need an American Taliban.

Very interesting reading on the subject can be found at the ACLU web site, and in particular this document.

It isn't censorship to withhold permission to use your own copyrighted works from someone who is twisting the point of your work. It's called intellecutual honesty, and I've yet to meet an ID proponet with it.

Who'da thunk we'd have a replay of the Scopes Monkey trial in today's age?

No, it's a very good idea.

First, we are dealing with minds that consider teachers authority figures. These minds are not up to the task of questioning; that's why they are called "children".

Second, it isn't up to the state to teach your religion, and ID is nothing but religion. Children deserve interaction with their parents. If the parents want to teach their children religion, then they are free to do so, but keep your flawed "science" out of my kids brains. I will undertake to be their spiritual guide, it's one of my duites as their father.

Lastly, the following quote is relivent:
"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics." -- Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100, (C) 1954

One might do well to review the The Trial of Socrates, who was put to death for asking too many uncomfortable questions. Science is about verifiable answers to questions, religion is about answers provided by Devine Inspiration. You decide what kind of society you want to live in. Also, that link contains a reference to "evil doers", and may be interesting for other reasons.

Baptists beleive that dancing, smoking, drinking, pornography, and premarital sex are sinful, and that failing to support your church with thithes (10-15% of your income) is immoral. While I have no arguement with someone that wants to hold those beliefs, I see no reason for them to become embodied in law and enforced by the police. ID is an attempt to enforce a belief under color of law. America doesn't need an American Taliban.

Very interesting reading on the subject can be found at the ACLU web site, and in particular this document.

It isn't censorship to withhold permission to use your own copyrighted works from someone who is twisting the point of your work. It's called intellecutual honesty, and I've yet to meet an ID proponet with it.

Who'da thunk we'd have a replay of the Scopes Monkey trial in today's age?

I'm still working on that too, but in the meantime, here's something more affordable for me: monthly donations to the ACLU. Ten or twenty dollars a month is easily affordable for me. It's probably doable for you too, despite not being a billionaire just yet.

Whoever told you that either didn't know what they were talking about or knew what they were talking about and banked that you wouldn't do further research. Like the previous reply said there are some age restrictive constitutional rights such as voting, but other than those the Constitution applies to all U.S. citizens. There are some unusual circumstances involving search and seizure on school property... That differ slightly because a warrant is not necessary in most cases... But if I were you I would check out the ACLU specifically the student free speech section... at http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechlist.cfm? c=87

Join to EFF and ACLU. Be happy to pay for membership. Donate, if you can.

I wonder how many europeans (as myself) are card-carrying members of ACLU. I certainly am and will be in the future as well.

http://www.aclu.org/

http://www.eff.org/

Yack

Wed, October 19 2005 - 11:33 AM
by: Gabe

Tycho and I remain free men. The fact is that Jack actually sent the fax to everyone but the intended recipient at the Seattle PD. There were a lot of names to remember I don't blame him. I've received literally thousands of emails in the past couple days. They are all commending us for standing up to Jack the way we did. Most of them go on to ask what we can do as a community to stop him. I have to admit that is tempting. The more I think about it the more I think it might not be in our best interest. Let me explain.

You can certainly mail the networks he appears on. You can even send letters to their advertisers. You can contact the senators he speaks with and demand they ignore him. If enough of us do that sort of thing and we do it long enough they will eventually get the message and drop him just like the National Institute on Media and the Family did. Would that be a good thing? I'm not sure.

Jack is not special. He is not a unique snow flake as they say. He is just the latest vocal opponent of whatever is "corrupting" our youth at the moment. When my dad was growing up it was rock and roll devil music. Then it was comic books then movies and rap music. Today it's videogames. If we were to succeed in getting Jack blacklisted from the major news outlets someone else would simply take his place. Imagine him as an actor playing a part in a play. The point is that Jack Thompson is not important. If he were to be fired a new actor would simply take up the role. The same lines would still be delivered in the same way and the same audience would pay to see it. We are actually fortunate that the current actor is so impotent in his role. Imagine what might happen if some charming, efficacious attorney took his place. The more I consider it the more I think we may be lucky to have Jack playing the part of the alarmist. The alternative might be someone who is actually capable.

-Gabe out

That's ridiculous.

First, Europe is not France+Germany.
(Hint: Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Finland)

Secondly, your view at your own country is more than strange.
Think about possessing drugs? Think about possessing porn in Utah? Think about possessing material which could be used for "terrorism"? Think about libraries removing homosexual or "anti-family" content? Think about how free journalists are to report anywhere US military is messing up things? And just think about the government surveillance if you happen to publish some "commie" or "unpatriotic" content, like ACLU, or well, being free from surveillance at about anything you do.

At least in Europe you're free to critize your government as much as you want in any position and anywhere including military zones. Apart from the freedom of porn, the freedom of public nudity, the freedom of high education, the freedom to be protected from corporations, the freedom of world's longest holidays, you also get the freedom to world view.

But either way, America isn't absolutely less free than Europe. Although we can say both Europe and America are certainly more free than North Korea, freedom is more relative&qualitive. Let's just agree that Europe and America are both very free places to hang around.

It took all of five seconds on their site to find the ACLU Annual Report.

If you're a typical middle class white suburban man and you get wronged by your local police because they choose to be lazy and not do their job investigating a crime committed against you, writing to the ACLU will get you nowhere.

Please cite references.

The problem is, that there is already judicial precedence on the issue.

Kendrick, Teri, et al. v. American Amusement Machine Association (docket no. 00-3643)
Appeal: Cert. denied, Oct. 29, 2001.

Issues: Does an Indianapolis, Ind., law against minors playing violent video games in video parlors violate the First Amendment?

Summary: The ordinance forbids any operator of five or more video-game machines in one place to allow a minor unaccompanied by a parent, guardian, or other custodian to use "an amusement machine that is harmful to minors," requires appropriate warning signs, and requires that such machines be separated by a partition from the other machines in the location and that their viewing areas be concealed from persons who are on the other side of the partition. The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ordinance does violate the rights of those under 18 years of age. Judge Posner wrote the decision.

Decision: In denying the appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court makes no ruling on the merits of the law or the challenge to it. It merely means that the case could not get the minimum vote of four justices needed to hear the appeal. It also means that all similar laws in the jurisdiction of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals are void under that court's ruling.

Also check here http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEdu cators/DiscussionStarters/BanningViolentVideoGames .shtml

and here http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers /walsh.html

So this is nothing new people. Ever since the ID brought us a world where we could literally kill and watch Nazi's die (even before that really). This has been an ongoing debate.

The one thing you MUST realize is that this is not a bill being pushed by the Right-Wing Conservative Nut Jobs (granted they aren't really all against it), this is being pushed by DEMOCRATS. You want to know who hates freedom of speech? Hillary Clinton, after the Columbine murders ordered the surgeon general to find a link between school shooting tragedies and Quake. He found no conclusive link, but that didn't stop her, Lieberman, and the rest of the gang from going hog wild trying to censor video games. I lean left politically, but you can bet your ass I don't agree with censorship.

Do what I did, I joined the EFF http://www.eff.org/ and joined the ACLU http://www.aclu.org/

sorry, I know it's OT but I gotta hear your explaination on how the ACLU, whose sole purpose is to defend the documents america was founded on (the constitution and the bill of rights), is un-american?

My main beef with the ACLU, is that they pick and choose which of the supposedly inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution are suitable for their unapologetically liberal agenda. They say they defend the Constitution, but when certain unpopular constitutional rights are infringed, they fall silent. Would they lift a finger to assist citizens of New Orleans, who had their firearms "confiscated" during the aftermath of Katrina, without due process, and just when these people needed them the most, in defending their properties from looting, probably never to be seen again? Nope. Meanwhile, the security guards hired by the rich were allowed to carry their weapons to defend their clients' properties from theft.

Loose constructionism aside, there is ample direct evidence that the founding fathers intended that the right to keep and bear arms mentioned in the second amendment be considered an individual right, not to mention recent Supreme Court rulings upholding this viewpoint.

Their take on it is here.

there are more differences than that.

You claim, consulting a judge is not required "AGAIN" and I would say, now due to the patriot act, a judge is not required the first time around.

http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecur ity.cfm?ID=9154&c=111

and (iv) allowing the FBI to use its "intelligence" authority to circumvent the judicial review of the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

any thoughts on that small bit of research?

1. I did not stay up all night documenting US abuses.

Too bad, maybe you should have.

2. The US has a very good system for arguing violation of laws. It may be slow, but it works.

When your laws are unjust, who cares if they are enforced.

4. The US does not filter the word "freedom" at any level.

No, but they would love to filter out other things, such as 'deviant smut'. Or even some boobs! When "The history channel." is being censored, there is a problem.

5. The Constitution is so important to US Citizens that it is required memorization in school, and is constantly used in Supreme Court decisions to strike down unconstitutional laws.

Really. It's a shame then that people seem to care less about violations of the constitution these days. These people seem to disagree with you

http://www.aclu.org/campaigns/campaignslist.cfm?c= 291

6. The US people are not oppressed. If we were, we wouldn't be having conversations like this, would we?

Just because you are not as oppresssed as China, does not mean you are not being oppressed. Christ, your government is trying to force the teaching of non-science in science class. Any citizen can be arrested without reason by the military. Any information about you can be siezed without notice by your government. Your media is censored. Really. Your country is NOT the bastion of freedom and good values you seem to think it is.

And the worst problem is not so much now, but the future. The trends your government are setting are truley frightening. I would not be surprised if it DID become illegal to critizise your government in the future. Already some people have been arrested for being at a protest. Sure, this is done under the guise of some other law. But it never used to be that way.

Your country is a frightening place these days. All great nations fall eventually, and it looks like it's the USA's turn.

What else can explain the FBI going after porn and Homeland Security going after Vegans, trademark infringers, and copyright infringers?! Obviously the war on terror is over. Thank you W. Bush!

What else can explain the FBI going after porn and Homeland Security going after Vegans, trademark infringers, and copyright infringers?! Obviously the war on terror is over. Thank you W. Bush!