Slashdot Mirror

As a card-carrying member of the ACLU, I'm having a hard time seeing what its mission has to do with Gawker. Even free-speech fundamentalists like us acknowledge limits, and one of those limits is the right to privacy. The only exception to that is if the speech is something newsworthy about a public figure, and that sex tape was decidedly not newsworthy.

https://aclum.org/civil-liberties-minute/did-gawker-have-a-first-amendment-right-to-publish-hulk-hogans-sex-tape/

With gawker out of the way, they're moving onto defending a clear scammer [wsj.com] against deadspin.

Who's "they"? Certainly not Peter Thiel, the guy who you and this documentary are blaming for the death of freedom of the press in this country. He has nothing to do with that lawsuit.

Rob

I guess what the ACLU got their panties in a bunch about is that the organization also acts as a central point of contact for SWAT training/ purchases in the region.

So... a group of police, are setting their training calendars together so they can have a training session with more people at one time so they can save money on instructor costs. And they are buying stuff in bulk to reduce their costs.

You seem very intent on minimizing NEMLEC's role. Perhaps you are under the impression that the council is a mere social club organizing get togethers, banquets, golf outings, and dinner dances for men with guns.

The ACLMU's complaint suggests that this is not the case.
For instance:

46. For example, NEMLEC has purchased or otherwise acquired a Lenco BearCat, an armored personnel carrier that is designed for military or law enforcement use. See https://twitter.com/NEMLEC/sta... & https://twitter.com/NEMLEC/sta... (Exhibit M).

But if you are correct, and NEMLEC is simply brokering fleet purchases of armored vehicles, enabling the smaller police departments to militarize just as quickly as the Boston Police Department, but with the added savings of buying in bulk, we have nothing to worry about.

Here it is:

http://aclum.org/sites/all/files/legal/re_david_house/fong_robles_vincent_re_david_House_12-21-10.pdf

Double-checking even your most vehement claims, especially in a time when that check only requires brief use of a search engine, is a basic way to avoid being publicly and obviously wrong.

A more difficult step towards intellectual growth is to learn to admit when you've been wrong and to apologize when you insult someone wrongly; you've got a good opportunity to practice with dkleinsc today.

If pride doesn't prevent you from acknowledging your mistakes, you may even be ready to start preemptively avoiding them. When your internal beliefs and logic lead you to obviously incorrect conclusions, it's not enough to just change those conclusions - to prevent similar failures in the future you need to re-evaluate and find the flaws in the thought processes that lead you there. Best of luck to you.