Slashdot Mirror

Click here to do something about this.

Click here to do something about this.

Click here to do something about this.

Click here to do something about this.

Click here to do something about this.

Click here to do something about this.

This project sounds quite interesting -- it could really help out projects like Echelon to help win the war on terrorism, if it's capable of understanding other languages of course, and could possibly build a whole database of information that's intercepted from other places. All that chatter, with the codewords they use, could possibly be understood by a football field full of Linux rackmounts, and might foil something.

Of course, such power could also be horribly misused if it came into the wrong hands. What if they wanted to enumerate every member or affiliate of the "terrorist" Green Party in the case of a "national emergency?" Feed WebFountain some data from the internet, and from ECHELON, and they would have a quick blacklist.

Or corporations, for that matter, as that's who it's designed for, could quickly blacklist people from employment who were considered "dangerous" such as whistleblowers, heavily involved union members, spies, watchdogs, and so forth.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

That would be the ACLU

No, unfortunately it's not. The ACLU's position is, in a nutshell, that some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are reserved to the government, not the people. Everything we know about the Constitution and its authors screams otherwise, but the ACLU has very selective hearing.

I don't know of any US organization that stands up for the entire Bill of Rights. If I did, I'd join it. Given their pick-and-choose policy, there is no way I can justify sending money to the ACLU.

• Obviously you have never lived in a country that kills its OWN citizens. For something closer to your home (assuming USA), check out the Waco atrocities committed by the government, as well as Ruby Ridge. Here is some If you are into films, you can also check out the controversial documentary on it.
• Obviously you haven't heard of the totalitarian regimes in Germany, USSR, and USA's close friends Saudi Arabia and Egypt. A couple of stories on the state of Egypt (USA's 2nd large recipient of military aid)
• Obviously you haven't heard of the damage done to civil rights activists in the 60's by the FBI and the CIA. Laws were actually changed to prevent this sort of thing.
• Obviously you have never been targetted by the police. (I have no proof of this but if you let me track you, I can find out :) )
• Obviously you are not a minority man (particularly black) living in some parts of USA. (Don't know this either. But I can easily verify this if you send your driver's license to me)
• Obviously you haven't heard of the infiltration of the FBI by organized criminals (particularly the Italian mafia in the 60's and 70's).
• Obviously you haven't heard of police fabricating information and jailing people.
• Obviously you haven't heard of the government cooking up bogus charges and jailing people. (Refer to the previous link and do your research)
• Obviously McCarthyism is not part of your collective mind.
• Obviously you haven't heard of John Ashcroft's recent decree to spy on antiwar activists.
• Obviously you believe the legal system represent justice. (I can't prove this to anyone. It is something that you will realize as you grow up and leave the cave that you have been living in--if you actually manage to do that!)
• Obviously you underestimate the power of the goverment.

Strange that you didn't mention the abolute *WORST* thing our government has done to free speech and that is the unconsitutional campaign finance reform that was passed in large part through the efforts of so-called "progressives". If there was anything that the First Amendment was supposed to protect it was POLITICAL SPEECH. Apparently, protecting tax dollars for "Cruifixes in Urine" is far more important than protecting the right of groups of people to gather resources and voice their collective political opinions.

The problem with this rant (and many others) is that you pick and choose your freedoms. Free Speech is OK, unless it is "Evil Right Wing Nazi Hate Speech". Freedom of Religion is great unless it involves protecting a Christian's speech. Fourth Amendment is awesome but screw the evil Second Amendment because guns are bad! And to far too many people there are only NINE articles in the Bill of Rights. The mythical Tenth Amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

And forget all that stuff in the Constitution about Congress or the people making laws. They are far too bigoted and stupid for that. We will just rely on the fair and wise Judges of this land to do that.

By law, with few exceptions relating to the government, you are not obligated to give *anyone* your social security number. This is protected by the Fair Credit Billing Act of 1976 and the 1974 Privacy ACt. The ACLU has some good info on your rights andn your SSN.

I have been developing with Notes for some years and have found out that, with the exception of UI, most complaints can be traced to lack of understanding about Lotus Notes.

It is an enterprise messaging client. To use it effectively, u need a good administrator and good developers. In other words, it is a bit like Linux. Very powerful, very flexible but you need to know what you are doing; it is not designed to protect you from yourself. Note that it does not mean that it cannot be used by idiots; just that it cannot be used by idiots out-of-box you need to customize/enhance the default email template, modify the NOTES.INI etc.

Before someone starts yapping how a user cannot be expected to do all that, I already said it is an "enterprise" solution so the IT dept. should be doing it for the user community.

I have been developed workflow solutions on both Lotus Notes and Microsoft Exchange and I have found Notes to be an amazingly well designed product. The presence of reader name/author name fields and private/public key design makes developing secure applications a snap. It has it's issues (primarily with the UI) but the latest releases R 6.5 scores well in this area.

Join the ACLU !!!

They've already shown that they can't be trusted in free society, why should they be trusted with the vote?

Why should they not? They've done their time, their debt is repaid. If we trust them enough to release them from prison, surely we can let them have a vote. Hell, a felon can still run for office and be elected. It's unjust to bar someone for life from full participation in the democratic process because of a past crime.

There's nothing in the constitution that says "equal protection - unless you have a felony conviction"; the constitutionality of the process is highly suspect.

It also makes it hard to change a bad law - if you make everyone who gets caught doing X a felon and take away their vote, there are a lot fewer voters to vote for legalizing X (where X can be use of certain drugs, gambling, prostitution, etcetera).

If this seems to be unfair to black people, how is it anything but their own fault?

Because selective enforcement and prosecution is easy and common.

And because the law can be - and is - structured such that two crimes that are in every reasonable way equivalent, but one is more often commited by blacks and one by white, are treated differently. (Power cocaine will get you a misdemeaor (hell, you can even be president), crack will get you a felony.) Here are some stats on the issue wrt drug laws.

Of coruse, you can do what the Republicans did in Florida in 2000, and simply falsely label people felons.

They are not actually fighting for the rights protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; they are redefining them as they see fit.

our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.

What about those who are morally or religiously opposed to abortion?
Our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose. For example, those who oppose war on moral or religious grounds pay taxes that are applied to military programs. The congressional bans on abortion funding impose a particular religious or moral viewpoint on those women who rely on government-funded health care. Providing funding for abortion does not encourage or compel women to have abortions, but denying funding compels many women to carry their pregnancies to term. Nondiscriminatory funding would simply place the profoundly personal decision about how to treat a pregnancy back where it belongs -- in the hands of the woman who must live with the consequences of that decision.

School voucher schemes would force all taxpayers to support religious beliefs and practices with which they may strongly disagree.

They are not actually fighting for the rights protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; they are redefining them as they see fit.

our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.

What about those who are morally or religiously opposed to abortion?
Our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose. For example, those who oppose war on moral or religious grounds pay taxes that are applied to military programs. The congressional bans on abortion funding impose a particular religious or moral viewpoint on those women who rely on government-funded health care. Providing funding for abortion does not encourage or compel women to have abortions, but denying funding compels many women to carry their pregnancies to term. Nondiscriminatory funding would simply place the profoundly personal decision about how to treat a pregnancy back where it belongs -- in the hands of the woman who must live with the consequences of that decision.

School voucher schemes would force all taxpayers to support religious beliefs and practices with which they may strongly disagree.

What, like the KKK, for example? Or how about the numerous other free speech cases they've taken on, regardless of the positions of the people doing the speaking?

I suggest you read up a bit before making uninformed statements.

What, like the KKK, for example? Or how about the numerous other free speech cases they've taken on, regardless of the positions of the people doing the speaking?

I suggest you read up a bit before making uninformed statements.

Absolutely untrue. The Bill of Rights applies to minors with a few exceptions; those exceptions apply to the ability of parents and schools (which are in loco parentis) to perform their job.

In other words, minors have a right to free speech same as anyone else does, unless that free speech is substantially interfering with their education or that of others.

The American Civil Liberties Union can explain it better than I.

Consider the discrepancies between the dubbing and subtitles in cowboy bebop, for example. Since the correctness of translating one language to another is dependant on dictionary compatibility, and the integrity of dictionaries are relative to the year, locale, and publisher, it is no wonder there are so many versions of the the Old Testament and the Bible. Now back to dubbed vs. subbed anime: after a japanese translator writes the subtitles in english, its not unusual for him/her to fix mistakes because of differences in japanese and english interpretations of english sentences. Take, for example, the sentences: "You look like a good man" and "You are a good-looking man", which may in fact look the same to your average japanese student trying to learn english. Now, the question is whether or not these changes, when converting the subtitles to a dubbed script, are changed because the english subtitles infer some bad english/american connotations or if there were "better" english words to convey the meanings of the original japanese script. These may sound like they are the same thing, but what if an american word has a bad slang or cursing connotation as one of its meanings and simultaneously providing the single best meaning to convey the point of the japanese script? Then chances are, you won't find a better word in english. Now if the distributors of the dub-version choose to replace the word because of its slang connotation, then this represents a situation in which a sub->dub conversion can be corrupted. Hence, the subtitles will provide the non-native speaker with a better meaning.

But you probably already knew that. The real question the parent (i think / i hope) intended was whether or not providing a dubbed version is a good comprimise between preserving japanese culture and getting more sales. I mean, its all good to live, speak, and drink "american", but it seems to me that "americans" are starting to expect everything handed to them in english. Not that that is a bad thing, but the animation was not created in the U.S., which, I might add, does NOT have a national language. (Here is an interesting ACLU paper with more discussion on this.) Now as more and more international corporations start to embrace this standard and treat english as the "language of commerce", we will probably start to see this trait get passed down to local, private businesses in the vicinity of those same corporations. Which means that eventually, the city (or even the country) will start to embrace it because they must deal with or work for these same private businesses, which means more awareness of the "language of commerce".

Since humans are more prone to finding an easier way to live, then we may not be far from the point when people are going to start speaking only ONE language. Which language? Probably english. While japanese will bite the dust because it didnt catch on in the stock market as the "language of champions". I'm sure there will be (bi-/tri-/n-)linguals, but only so long as the other language(s) serve a purpose. The only purpose I can think of is culture, unless someone finds a way of quantifying the efficiency of language, which would then provide an actual value to languages. But if, for some reason, japanese cultural awareness starts to decline, then the japanese language will end up like cobol. Not that cobol is dead...yet.

Anyway, IANAL (I Am Not a Linguist), but I'd hope this is why there are purists you speak of, because they are embracing the culture from which sprang forth the anime. But I'm sure there also exist anal retentives who just like purity for pureness-sake, in which case you're right, they should probably have a few drinks, sit back, and enjoy the show.

There have been ZERO reports of civil liberties violations. Now move along. There is nothing to see HERE.

The "decryptors" don't have a "business model", they have a task to complete.

I would say that Project ECHELON is doing a pretty good job of filtering information. The entire purpose behind the project is to collect as much data as possible and filter through it using advanced AI systems. I don't think a few extra phone calls are going to bother them.

Your post is offtopic, really. But since you asked:

ACLU Message Board Policy

Fairly self-explanatory. You're pretty safe to post whatever you want as long as you aren't being a serious asshat.

If I decide to start bullying someone on the ACLU message boards will the ACLU take it down? Wouldn't it violate my speech rights if they do even if it is slander?

I am not taking a position pro or con on the ACLU but it does seem like an interesting situation.

Just as an interesting thing to add, the ACLU does have a student rights forum

If I decide to start bullying someone on the ACLU message boards will the ACLU take it down? Wouldn't it violate my speech rights if they do even if it is slander?

I am not taking a position pro or con on the ACLU but it does seem like an interesting situation.

Just as an interesting thing to add, the ACLU does have a student rights forum

Eggplant62 said: A blatant attempt by some big money corporate thugs to take over the finest collaborative work this world has ever seen.

Then you said: I'm partial to the Bill of Rights, myself.

I agree the Bill of Rights trumps Linux overall (though it could be argued that Linux enjoys more support than the former, unfortunately) and is a fine piece of work, but collaborative?:

The Bill of Rights: A BRIEF HISTORY:
The American Bill of Rights, inspired by Jefferson and drafted by James Madison, was adopted, and in 1791 the Constitution's first ten amendments became the law of the land.
Additionally, James Madison used "The Virginia Declaration of Rights" as a basis, but he essentially wrote it alone.

I think it could be argued -- independently of the individual projects' merits -- that many open-source projects are without precedent at least in their collaborative aspects.

-chris

Interesting, considering that one Canadian judge blocked the extradition of three prisoners to the US after a US prosecutor taunted one of the prisoners with rape in prison. The judge said that the idea of committing the men to prison in the US after they had been publicly threatened by a US attorney "shocks the Canadian conscience." So I find it difficult to believe that Canadian prisons are worse than US prisons in this regard.

the aclu says the People don't have the right to own firearms

Bullshit.

"This shows that the ACLU is at the very least anti-second amendment."

No, this shows that the ACLU is anti- your interpretation of the second amendment.

"You claim that the ACLU is not anti-gun? Show me some proof."

From the ACLU's gun control site, "The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns."[emph mine]

I fail to see how endorsing "reasonable restrictions" on arms ownership makes them 'anti-gun'. The NRA also endorses reasonable restrictions on arms ownership; does that mean they're anti-gun also? Where the two lines of thinking diverge is on the definition of 'reasonable restrictions'. For the ACLU, banning automatic weapons which would be used only in combat is a reasonable restriction, whereas the NRA disagrees. On the other hand, the NRA is very likely to agree with the ACLU if you were to ask whether an individual may be enjoined from stockpiling Sarin gas, panzer tanks, or nuclear weapons. The NRA also agrees that convicted felons have no right whatsoever to own or possess a firearm. There is no question that gun control is both necessary and worthwhile - the only question is how much.

"Where have they ever said that they support gun ownership and use?"

The ACLU doesn't support the use of firearms any more than they support the use of free speech or right to assembly. The ACLU doesn't deal in actions, merely in civil liberties (ie the right to free speech). What the ACLU does support is a specific interpretation of the second amendment which has been aggreed upon by the Congress and the Supreme Court. The fact that the ACLU does not subscribe to your particular point of view on the second amendment does not mean that it's a hypocritical bunch of commie liberal traitors. Bob Barr has often said that while he disagrees with the ACLU on a great many subjects, it's quite simply ridiculous to not cooperate with them on the subjects on which they can agree. Quite simply, working with the ACLU toward a common goal produces far greater results than going at it seperately. The swarms of conservatives joining the ACLU to help protect the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, and other amendments shows just how vital it is that we all come together when we agree on such important topics. The ACLU isn't asking you to support them on a topic with which you disagree, so why are you and others demanding they subscribe to your particular belief regarding the second amendment?

If the ACLU supported the Second Amendment in the same fashion that they do abortion, then they woudl be demanding taxpayer subsidies for poor children to buy guns, without having to notify their parents, so they can shoot the child molestors who prey on them.

That is brilliant. Can I use that?

If the ACLU supported the Second Amendment in the same fashion that they do voting rights, then they would have have to admit that "Requiring the use of photographic identification and/or other documents as a pre-condition for [purchasing a gun] would have a disparate impact on [law-abiding citizens] with disabilities, African-Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Native Americans. Further, such a provision would disproportionately impact out-of-state students, many of whom are new residents in the area where they attend school, and homeless men and women who have neither the means to acquire photo ID nor a local address."

If the ACLU supported the Second Amendment in the same fashion that they do abortion, then they woudl be demanding taxpayer subsidies for poor children to buy guns, without having to notify their parents, so they can shoot the child molestors who prey on them.

That is brilliant. Can I use that?

If the ACLU supported the Second Amendment in the same fashion that they do voting rights, then they would have have to admit that "Requiring the use of photographic identification and/or other documents as a pre-condition for [purchasing a gun] would have a disparate impact on [law-abiding citizens] with disabilities, African-Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Native Americans. Further, such a provision would disproportionately impact out-of-state students, many of whom are new residents in the area where they attend school, and homeless men and women who have neither the means to acquire photo ID nor a local address."

I doubt it. Check out

ACLU policy statement #47:

The Union agrees with the Supreme Court's longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia'. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.

The ACLU is too busy defending the right to promote child molesting.

While

NAMBLA may extol conduct which is currently illegal, its materials fall far short of speech that may be prohibited. If that rule were to be changed to allow a suit like this one, it would introduce a regime of conformity to majority rule that would threaten the very right to dissent."

In self-serving fashion, the ACLU notes that the father of the murdered boy -- who is suing NAMBLA -- praises the ACLU for defending NAMBLA

While intent on pressing their suit against NAMBLA, the Curley family has acknowledged ACLU's concerns. In a Boston Globe article which appeared shortly after the ACLU entered the case, Jeffrey Curley's father, Bob Curley, is quoted as saying that he harbors no ill feelings toward the ACLU for defending the case. "I really do have respect for them (ACLU)", said Curley. "They are very consistent in whom they defend. It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over the years. They have a lot of courage."

Wired puts a different spin on it:

Attorney Lawrence Frisoli, who represents the Curleys, said he is glad the ACLU is defending NAMBLA, because he has had trouble locating the group's members.

Harvey Silverglate, an ACLU board member, said Wednesday that the group's attorneys will try to block any attempt by the Curleys to get NAMBLA's membership lists, or other materials identifying members.

The ACLU interprets Roe v. Wade as meaning that minors must be allowed to get an abortion, without having to even notify their parents (much less get their permission), and that taxpayers must subsidize abortions.

But "the people" in the Second Amendment means "the government," because a 30 year old woman is apparently too stupid to weight the risks vs. benefits of owning and/or carrying a firearm for self-protection, and can be denied the right to make that choice.

If the ACLU supported the Second Amendment in the same fashion that they do abortion, then they woudl be demanding taxpayer subsidies for poor children to buy guns, without having to notify their parents, so they can shoot the child molestors who prey on them.

Constitutional scholars who have bothered to write about the issue in various law review journals do not agree with the ACLU's position. You can read the law review articles for yourself at the Second Amendment Law Library. Much better than stuff put out by any pro- or anti-gun special interest group.

In justifying the ACLU's position on gun control, ACLU President Nadine Strossen said that

Putting all that aside, I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessaril

I doubt it. Check out

ACLU policy statement #47:

The Union agrees with the Supreme Court's longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia'. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.

The ACLU is too busy defending the right to promote child molesting.

While

NAMBLA may extol conduct which is currently illegal, its materials fall far short of speech that may be prohibited. If that rule were to be changed to allow a suit like this one, it would introduce a regime of conformity to majority rule that would threaten the very right to dissent."

In self-serving fashion, the ACLU notes that the father of the murdered boy -- who is suing NAMBLA -- praises the ACLU for defending NAMBLA

While intent on pressing their suit against NAMBLA, the Curley family has acknowledged ACLU's concerns. In a Boston Globe article which appeared shortly after the ACLU entered the case, Jeffrey Curley's father, Bob Curley, is quoted as saying that he harbors no ill feelings toward the ACLU for defending the case. "I really do have respect for them (ACLU)", said Curley. "They are very consistent in whom they defend. It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over the years. They have a lot of courage."

Wired puts a different spin on it:

Attorney Lawrence Frisoli, who represents the Curleys, said he is glad the ACLU is defending NAMBLA, because he has had trouble locating the group's members.

Harvey Silverglate, an ACLU board member, said Wednesday that the group's attorneys will try to block any attempt by the Curleys to get NAMBLA's membership lists, or other materials identifying members.

The ACLU interprets Roe v. Wade as meaning that minors must be allowed to get an abortion, without having to even notify their parents (much less get their permission), and that taxpayers must subsidize abortions.

But "the people" in the Second Amendment means "the government," because a 30 year old woman is apparently too stupid to weight the risks vs. benefits of owning and/or carrying a firearm for self-protection, and can be denied the right to make that choice.

If the ACLU supported the Second Amendment in the same fashion that they do abortion, then they woudl be demanding taxpayer subsidies for poor children to buy guns, without having to notify their parents, so they can shoot the child molestors who prey on them.

Constitutional scholars who have bothered to write about the issue in various law review journals do not agree with the ACLU's position. You can read the law review articles for yourself at the Second Amendment Law Library. Much better than stuff put out by any pro- or anti-gun special interest group.

In justifying the ACLU's position on gun control, ACLU President Nadine Strossen said that

Putting all that aside, I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessaril

I doubt it. Check out

ACLU policy statement #47:

The Union agrees with the Supreme Court's longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia'. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.

The ACLU is too busy defending the right to promote child molesting.

While

NAMBLA may extol conduct which is currently illegal, its materials fall far short of speech that may be prohibited. If that rule were to be changed to allow a suit like this one, it would introduce a regime of conformity to majority rule that would threaten the very right to dissent."

In self-serving fashion, the ACLU notes that the father of the murdered boy -- who is suing NAMBLA -- praises the ACLU for defending NAMBLA

While intent on pressing their suit against NAMBLA, the Curley family has acknowledged ACLU's concerns. In a Boston Globe article which appeared shortly after the ACLU entered the case, Jeffrey Curley's father, Bob Curley, is quoted as saying that he harbors no ill feelings toward the ACLU for defending the case. "I really do have respect for them (ACLU)", said Curley. "They are very consistent in whom they defend. It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over the years. They have a lot of courage."

Wired puts a different spin on it:

Attorney Lawrence Frisoli, who represents the Curleys, said he is glad the ACLU is defending NAMBLA, because he has had trouble locating the group's members.

Harvey Silverglate, an ACLU board member, said Wednesday that the group's attorneys will try to block any attempt by the Curleys to get NAMBLA's membership lists, or other materials identifying members.

The ACLU interprets Roe v. Wade as meaning that minors must be allowed to get an abortion, without having to even notify their parents (much less get their permission), and that taxpayers must subsidize abortions.

But "the people" in the Second Amendment means "the government," because a 30 year old woman is apparently too stupid to weight the risks vs. benefits of owning and/or carrying a firearm for self-protection, and can be denied the right to make that choice.

If the ACLU supported the Second Amendment in the same fashion that they do abortion, then they woudl be demanding taxpayer subsidies for poor children to buy guns, without having to notify their parents, so they can shoot the child molestors who prey on them.

Constitutional scholars who have bothered to write about the issue in various law review journals do not agree with the ACLU's position. You can read the law review articles for yourself at the Second Amendment Law Library. Much better than stuff put out by any pro- or anti-gun special interest group.

In justifying the ACLU's position on gun control, ACLU President Nadine Strossen said that

Putting all that aside, I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessaril

Well, you would be wrong. Since the ACLU has long been opposed to internet filtering in public libraries.

Of course, the parent misses the point. The story is only indirectly related to Second Amendment issues. It's a story about the First Amendment. ACLU's position on the Second Amendment is really not relevant, as it has always been very very clear about its position on the First Amendment.

You are absolutely right: we can expect no help on this issue from the ACLU. (At least the national-level one; some state-level ACLUs might actually believe in supporting all ten of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.)

I can't find it now, but a few years ago I saw a web site with a photo of a Bill of Rights poster put out by the national-level ACLU. The Amendments were not numbered, and the Second Amendment was not on the poster! And IIRC they had split up one of the longer Amendments (the Fourth?) so it looked like two Amendments, so it wasn't obvious that there were only nine on the poster instead of ten.

While I was looking for that, I checked out the ACLU web site. They offer an "Illustrated Bill of Rights" poster. I can't find a big image, and it's hard to make out details of the little one, but I don't think the Second Amendment is on this poster either. (If you have seen this poster full size and can say for sure whether the Second Amendment is on there, please do!)

http://www.aclu.org/Store/Store.cfm?ID=92&c=5

Expect no help at all from the ACLU.

steveha

Well, if the ACLU does not fight this then it would confirm suspicions that they care more about pushing a left-wing agenda than defending the rights of all Americans.

Symantec is, or course, a private company, and so may block whatever sites they wish. However, since this type of software is specifed in CIPA, there certainly could be issues there.

ACLU on CIPA

From the ACLU Freedom Network. The following are exempt from FOIA requests.

1. National Security
2. Internal Agency Rules
3. Governed By Other Statutes
4. Business Information
5. Internal Government Memos
6. Private Matters
7. Law Enforcement Investigations
8. Regulation Of Financial Institutions
9. Oil Wells

Nowhere does it state 'items embarrassing to the government.' This is a federal violation on the part of the DOJ. Maybe we can get Ashcroft to investigate himself.

Next, the second amendment makes quite clear that its justification is the need for a "well-regulated militia." This amendment is the only one in the bill of rights to have a justification of any kind. Thus, the interpretation is different, even if it uses the term "the people."

Third, you must agree that some limits are highly justifiable. Just as one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, a convicted violent criminal should not carry firearms.

Finally, the U.S. military has incredible power.

1. You're deluding yourself if your think a sub-machine gun will keep you alive in the event of a military coup.
2. The military and police will defend you in other significant scenarios.
3. Even restrictive gun laws (like in Canada) allow you to have self defense in much smaller scenarios (i.e. robbery).

I can't think of any situation where gun-nut friendly laws would have a net benefit.

Official ACLU Stance

Bill of Rights

The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

it's the job of the government to protect the people, and one way they do this is through making drugs illegal

what happens when they overdose? Leave them in the streets because they dont have health insurance? Or do we hospitalize them... give them medicine... rehab them... ??? With who's money.. this would costs tens of thousands of dollars per person every time they're found in the street?

As far as your causes crime point. This is almost laughable, if it weren't so dangerous. This, first of all, seems premised on the idea that drug use would skyrocket if it were de-criminalized. This I believe is blatantly false (who doesn't do heroin because it is illegal), but regardless ... Just because it is de-criminalized, does not mean the sale of addictive drugs can't be regulated. You can easily require that treatment options be reviewed with purchasers, that money to buy drugs comes from verifyable sources (no cash provision), and a whole slew of other protections. Certainly, there would be abuses of these policies, but it would be more effective than the current state of affairs. The street crack dealer doesn't give a damn about where the cash came from, and enforces his turf with assault rifles. Of course, so many people look at the problems with the dealers as, thats NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), so its not my problem.

I think we need to stop the disinformation that the "war" is based on and be honest about the problem. The best way to keep your kids from using drugs is to tell them the truth!

Ever heard of Tauzin-Dingell? He co-sponsored that bill, one that would allow the Bells to provide broadband over their networks in a monopoly-like fashion.

He favors DRM and other similar schemes.

His voting record on issues pertaining to the revocation of our rights is troubling - ACLU voting guide

He used to be a Democrat, then he switched to the Republican party.

I've seen the guy on C-SPAN, CNN, FAUX, etc. for years. Other than his attempts to act as if he knows what's going on in the "tech" world he is just another sleazy politician. The same garbage debate tactics and fallacies that almost all of his kind use.

They do defend religeous people who are having their freeedom of faith stepped on (e.g.). One problem that I have noticed, and possibly what you are refering to, is that frequently those who claim to be protecting their religeous freedom and infact denying that same freedom to others (e.g. trying to compel Christian prayers in schools, blocking the building of a Mosque &c). The ACLU protects the freedoms of everyone, not just far right Christians. Unfortunately this means that sometimes they have to protect the rights of those who you might consider criminals. According to the ammendments (4th I think but I don't have my copy of the bill of rights to hand) you cannot be deprived of property, liberty or life without due process, so if the government are trying to deprive someone of their life without due process then the ACLU has to oppose that regardless of any individuals feelings on the criminality or otherwise of that person. As soon as a precedent is set (one way or the other) it can be used to justify future acts and overturn earlier statute or precedent.

Stephen

You are a god-damned drooling moron.

ACLU Asks Florida Court to Reinstate Suspended Driver's License of Muslim Woman Forced to Remove Her Face Veil

Thing is, when any group (like Christianity) is in the majority, the members typically aren't discriminated against, unless it's by one faction over another.

But hey! Please tell me about David and the lion's den again?

agreed. Probably the most controversial (controversial insofar as it perpetrates the myth that the ACLU is 'Weasly') point brought up is that the ACLU doesn't protect the free exercise of religion. Luckily, it is also the easiest to disspell.

1) Freedom of Religion Bill supported by the ACLU to protect the exercise of religion by individuals.
2) ACLU helps Falwell in VA I'm sure you'll never hear about that on FOX news or Christian press. The ACLU helped the Rev. establish a church with all the rights of normal corporations, ending that form or religious discrimination.
3) The infamous veiled photo for driver's license case The most pressed argument is of course national security. But as is easily seen if anyone bothers to RTFA, 800,000 ID's have been given without a photo, so why worry about this one with an 'incomplete' photo.
4) The ACLU's efforts to keep government influence out of churches and in the hands of the peoples of the respective faiths
5) Keeping religious discrimination out of Head start

I found this in 30 seconds of searching. This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of cases where individual's religious preferences have been protected by the ACLU. If you were to go to each state's press archives, you'd find dozens of cases where the ACLU has helped to force schools to allow students to pray. The confusion comes in because most people (and apparently alot of people on Slashdot and school administrators) are entirely incapable of distinguishing between a state actor and an individual actor. When you've learned 4th grade civics, maybe you can speech more intelligibly about civic issues.

agreed. Probably the most controversial (controversial insofar as it perpetrates the myth that the ACLU is 'Weasly') point brought up is that the ACLU doesn't protect the free exercise of religion. Luckily, it is also the easiest to disspell.

1) Freedom of Religion Bill supported by the ACLU to protect the exercise of religion by individuals.
2) ACLU helps Falwell in VA I'm sure you'll never hear about that on FOX news or Christian press. The ACLU helped the Rev. establish a church with all the rights of normal corporations, ending that form or religious discrimination.
3) The infamous veiled photo for driver's license case The most pressed argument is of course national security. But as is easily seen if anyone bothers to RTFA, 800,000 ID's have been given without a photo, so why worry about this one with an 'incomplete' photo.
4) The ACLU's efforts to keep government influence out of churches and in the hands of the peoples of the respective faiths
5) Keeping religious discrimination out of Head start

I found this in 30 seconds of searching. This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of cases where individual's religious preferences have been protected by the ACLU. If you were to go to each state's press archives, you'd find dozens of cases where the ACLU has helped to force schools to allow students to pray. The confusion comes in because most people (and apparently alot of people on Slashdot and school administrators) are entirely incapable of distinguishing between a state actor and an individual actor. When you've learned 4th grade civics, maybe you can speech more intelligibly about civic issues.

agreed. Probably the most controversial (controversial insofar as it perpetrates the myth that the ACLU is 'Weasly') point brought up is that the ACLU doesn't protect the free exercise of religion. Luckily, it is also the easiest to disspell.

1) Freedom of Religion Bill supported by the ACLU to protect the exercise of religion by individuals.
2) ACLU helps Falwell in VA I'm sure you'll never hear about that on FOX news or Christian press. The ACLU helped the Rev. establish a church with all the rights of normal corporations, ending that form or religious discrimination.
3) The infamous veiled photo for driver's license case The most pressed argument is of course national security. But as is easily seen if anyone bothers to RTFA, 800,000 ID's have been given without a photo, so why worry about this one with an 'incomplete' photo.
4) The ACLU's efforts to keep government influence out of churches and in the hands of the peoples of the respective faiths
5) Keeping religious discrimination out of Head start

I found this in 30 seconds of searching. This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of cases where individual's religious preferences have been protected by the ACLU. If you were to go to each state's press archives, you'd find dozens of cases where the ACLU has helped to force schools to allow students to pray. The confusion comes in because most people (and apparently alot of people on Slashdot and school administrators) are entirely incapable of distinguishing between a state actor and an individual actor. When you've learned 4th grade civics, maybe you can speech more intelligibly about civic issues.

agreed. Probably the most controversial (controversial insofar as it perpetrates the myth that the ACLU is 'Weasly') point brought up is that the ACLU doesn't protect the free exercise of religion. Luckily, it is also the easiest to disspell.

1) Freedom of Religion Bill supported by the ACLU to protect the exercise of religion by individuals.
2) ACLU helps Falwell in VA I'm sure you'll never hear about that on FOX news or Christian press. The ACLU helped the Rev. establish a church with all the rights of normal corporations, ending that form or religious discrimination.
3) The infamous veiled photo for driver's license case The most pressed argument is of course national security. But as is easily seen if anyone bothers to RTFA, 800,000 ID's have been given without a photo, so why worry about this one with an 'incomplete' photo.
4) The ACLU's efforts to keep government influence out of churches and in the hands of the peoples of the respective faiths
5) Keeping religious discrimination out of Head start

I found this in 30 seconds of searching. This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of cases where individual's religious preferences have been protected by the ACLU. If you were to go to each state's press archives, you'd find dozens of cases where the ACLU has helped to force schools to allow students to pray. The confusion comes in because most people (and apparently alot of people on Slashdot and school administrators) are entirely incapable of distinguishing between a state actor and an individual actor. When you've learned 4th grade civics, maybe you can speech more intelligibly about civic issues.

agreed. Probably the most controversial (controversial insofar as it perpetrates the myth that the ACLU is 'Weasly') point brought up is that the ACLU doesn't protect the free exercise of religion. Luckily, it is also the easiest to disspell.

1) Freedom of Religion Bill supported by the ACLU to protect the exercise of religion by individuals.
2) ACLU helps Falwell in VA I'm sure you'll never hear about that on FOX news or Christian press. The ACLU helped the Rev. establish a church with all the rights of normal corporations, ending that form or religious discrimination.
3) The infamous veiled photo for driver's license case The most pressed argument is of course national security. But as is easily seen if anyone bothers to RTFA, 800,000 ID's have been given without a photo, so why worry about this one with an 'incomplete' photo.
4) The ACLU's efforts to keep government influence out of churches and in the hands of the peoples of the respective faiths
5) Keeping religious discrimination out of Head start

I found this in 30 seconds of searching. This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of cases where individual's religious preferences have been protected by the ACLU. If you were to go to each state's press archives, you'd find dozens of cases where the ACLU has helped to force schools to allow students to pray. The confusion comes in because most people (and apparently alot of people on Slashdot and school administrators) are entirely incapable of distinguishing between a state actor and an individual actor. When you've learned 4th grade civics, maybe you can speech more intelligibly about civic issues.

If you haven't heard much about this lately, Salon.com recently ran an article detailing some of the injustices done by police at the instruction of the Secret Service. Saturday they posted some letters sent in by readers.

Note: you'll have to watch the brief commercial to get access to Salon, but once you do, you'll have full access to the premium content.

Additionally, the ACLU has filed motions (I believe that's the right term) on behalf of several protestors affected in this way, but I can't find a reference to the press release.