Jump to content

ACLU To Sue Kearny


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
NAMBLA does not deserve Constitutional rights because child molestation is illegal. The ACLU also defended that the distribution of child pornography be legal (New York Vs Ferber). They said the production is criminal but not the distribution, however requiring movie producers to keep a record of the performer’s ages was a violation of privacy. The ACLU also defended Jay Bennish, a 10th grade geography teacher from Colorado. He was recorded ranting in class comparing George Bush and the United States to Adolph Hitler. He also made anti Semitic remarks about Israel and justified the 911 attacks. The ACLU defended him that it was his right to free speech and his right to privacy was violated. Liberal hypocrisy. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bennish

Be careful what you ask for.

Did Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy or Richard Ramirez deserve any Constitutional rights? It's not a question of what kind of people they are but that they are in fact, people. What happens when we decide that this guy or that guy doesn't get any protection under the constitution? Where does it end and just exactly who decides? That's the ultimate irony in our system of freedom. Our Constitutional rights are like free speech in that it's easy to defend that which we agree with but it is more important to defend those same rights for those that we don't agree with. Once one person has lost those rights, we've all those those rights.

I ask you to think about that for a bit before you reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
NAMBLA does not deserve Constitutional rights because child molestation is illegal. The ACLU also defended that the distribution of child pornography be legal (New York Vs Ferber). They said the production is criminal but not the distribution, however requiring movie producers to keep a record of the performer’s ages was a violation of privacy. The ACLU also defended Jay Bennish, a 10th grade geography teacher from Colorado. He was recorded ranting in class comparing George Bush and the United States to Adolph Hitler. He also made anti Semitic remarks about Israel and justified the 911 attacks. The ACLU defended him that it was his right to free speech and his right to privacy was violated. Liberal hypocrisy. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bennish

One more thing, no one is saying that what NAMBLA does should be legal. Far from it. However when the time comes thought that those indivduals do face legal prosectution it is in all of our best interests to insist that thier constitutional rights be observed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So close! You're almost there, "patriot." You've said that NAMBLA deserves to be in prison for their positions, and you put their "rights" in sarcastic quotes.

Just oooone more tiny step... go ahead and say that "NAMBLA doesn't deserve any Constitutional rights because I don't like 'em." Say it! Go ahead and spit on the Constitution you claim to love and reveal your sick hypocrisy for all to see!

Just answer the question, "patriot:" Does NAMBLA have Constitutional rights, or don't they?

Calybos, are you referring to their Constitutionally protected right to corrupt underage boys? I would suggest that the extent of their "rights" ends where the right of minor children to be protected from predators begins. Unfortunately, I imagine that not everyone in the organization would agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NAMBLA does not deserve Constitutional rights because child molestation is illegal. The ACLU also defended that the distribution of child pornography be legal (New York Vs Ferber). They said the production is criminal but not the distribution, however requiring movie producers to keep a record of the performer’s ages was a violation of privacy. The ACLU also defended Jay Bennish, a 10th grade geography teacher from Colorado. He was recorded ranting in class comparing George Bush and the United States to Adolph Hitler. He also made anti Semitic remarks about Israel and justified the 911 attacks. The ACLU defended him that it was his right to free speech and his right to privacy was violated. Liberal hypocrisy. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bennish

Wow - I forgot about that. Thanks for bringing it up. So it's okay to compare George Bush to Hitler, but not scientists and Al Gore. Check. And it's okay to be anti-religion, but not pro-religion. Check.

Well, at least they don't have any political or religious biases ...

The shame of it is, that whatever legitimate points the LaClair family has to make, the points are going to be hijacked by the ACLU if they are allowed anywhere near this issue.

This whole mess is about to spiral out of control and, I suspect, that at the end of it, neither party is going to be happy. Then again ... that's an alternative definition of a compromise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
So close! You're almost there, "patriot." You've said that NAMBLA deserves to be in prison for their positions, and you put their "rights" in sarcastic quotes.

Just oooone more tiny step... go ahead and say that "NAMBLA doesn't deserve any Constitutional rights because I don't like 'em." Say it! Go ahead and spit on the Constitution you claim to love and reveal your sick hypocrisy for all to see!

Just answer the question, "patriot:" Does NAMBLA have Constitutional rights, or don't they?

"For their positions" ?? Raping children is known as "positions" in liberal circles ??

Yes, I believe rapists and organizations who advocate the rape of children should be in prison. And yes, they should receive certain "rights" while in prison, 3 meals a day and a cot. (call me crazy).

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what most people are complaining about here is that the BoE simply tried to sweep it under the rug. This is a very serious infraction and deserves more than a slap on the wrist even for a "tenured" teacher. I can't claim to know how all the bureaucracy works, but a lot of people would like the impression that the BoE WANTS to uphold the law, instead of trying to see, hear, and speak no evil.

I think that's right, and just to add another dimension to it: The Board's actions generate a general sense of how the matter is being handled. The general sense I have, and that I think many have, is that the focus was on doing as little as they thought they could get away with (sweep it under the rug). They should have been focused on the educational and legal significance of what happened, and responded accordingly. They did not. Moreover, they were wrong about what they could get away with, and should have seen that coming. "You belong in hell" is a story that won't go away any time soon. The vast majority of people, Christian and non-Christian, are outraged by Mr. Paszkiewicz making that statement to captive students who may be of other faiths.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NAMBLA does not deserve Constitutional rights because child molestation is illegal. The ACLU also defended that the distribution of child pornography be legal (New York Vs Ferber). They said the production is criminal but not the distribution, however requiring movie producers to keep a record of the performer’s ages was a violation of privacy. The ACLU also defended Jay Bennish, a 10th grade geography teacher from Colorado. He was recorded ranting in class comparing George Bush and the United States to Adolph Hitler. He also made anti Semitic remarks about Israel and justified the 911 attacks. The ACLU defended him that it was his right to free speech and his right to privacy was violated. Liberal hypocrisy. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bennish

Are you saying that the comparison to Adolf Hitler should have resulted in Bennish being punished? If so, what of Paszkiewicz's comparison of the media to Hitler in his remarks about global warming. Why shouldn't that result in punishment by your standards?

What you don't seem to understand is that the law operates from principles, not personalities or even individual persons. We are a nation of laws, not men. That commitment is breaking down. If it continues to break down, we will cease to be a nation of laws, and the great 200+ year experiment with democracy under a system of laws will be swept onto the garbage heap of history. Is that what you want?

Link to post
Share on other sites
NAMBLA does not deserve Constitutional rights because child molestation is illegal. The ACLU also defended that the distribution of child pornography be legal (New York Vs Ferber). They said the production is criminal but not the distribution, however requiring movie producers to keep a record of the performer’s ages was a violation of privacy. The ACLU also defended Jay Bennish, a 10th grade geography teacher from Colorado. He was recorded ranting in class comparing George Bush and the United States to Adolph Hitler. He also made anti Semitic remarks about Israel and justified the 911 attacks. The ACLU defended him that it was his right to free speech and his right to privacy was violated. Liberal hypocrisy. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bennish

Guest obviously knows little or nothing about the law. Constitutional rights are guaranteed to every citizen, no matter what they do. Even convicted criminals who are sentenced to death have constitutional rights --- against cruel and unusual punishment in the manner of their execution, for example.

Guest, if you want to use Jesus as an example, didn't he keep company with some very unsavory people? By your standards vis-a-vis ACLU's representation of NAMBLA in one case, Christians would have to disavow themselves of Jesus. Maybe you should think this through more carefully and objectively, if you're capable of doing that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
What are you so afraid of? The ACLU does nothing but defend Constitutional rights. Why do you oppose liberty and justice for all?

"liberty and justice" ?? For NAMBLA ?? The "North American Man Boy Organization", an organization that openly advocates the rape of children, deserves "liberty and justice"?? Well, the ACLU agrees with you, the ACLU believes that NAMBLA's "rights" are more important than the children that would be harmed for life by these sick people.

How ironic that Paul would choose the ACLU to represent Matthew. How ironic that Matthew's name will be on the ACLU's client list alongside NAMBLA and other "wholesome, All-American" organizations.

If I were Paul, I would reconsider the decision to hire the ACLU to represent my son. I would pay a few bucks and hire an attorney that isn't tainted by NAMBLA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NAMBLA does not deserve Constitutional rights because child molestation is illegal.

There we go! Too bad you didn't have the guts to give even a screen name.

NAMBLA does have (and deserve) Constitutional rights, even aside from the fact that, as an organization, they do not molest children. They talk about sex with children; they publish, demonstrate, and speak about the subject. None of those are crimes. (Of course, many people who hate freedom think they SHOULD be crimes.)

But the even bigger point is that even criminals have Constitutional rights. Those rights don't go away when you commit a crime... in fact, they become even more important.

Any person who says "X doesn't deserve Constitutional rights" is spitting on the Constitution and knows nothing about America. And he certainly doesn't deserve the title "patriot."

Class dismissed!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curious in VA
They can, and they should, put together school-wide assemblies (1) to educate students on the First Amendment and (2) to correct Mr. Paszkiewicz's mis-statements regarding the science of evolution and the big bang. I've said that from the beginning. This is a wonderful opportunity for teaching and learning. A problem is also an opportunity for growth.

They should also stand behind their student, as well as their teacher.

Thank you Paul for addressing my questions. The school wide assembly to address the First Amendment makes sense to me, this day in age it is always a good idea to make sure the next generation understands their rights as United States citizens or visitors. I would hope such an assembly would cover not just the first amendment, but other amendments as well. This does not sound like a "pre-canned" assembly that has been done before. Perhaps the BOE is determining how, who, and when this would take place? I don't think I have seen anything suggesting that, but if this assembly were to take place it may take several months of planning before it could occur.

I'm curious about your second point suggested assembly topic. Is it necessary to address the science issues to the whole school or to just the class that was told the mis-information? Would another solution be to audit the science department curriculum to ensure that all of the material is addressed throughout the school year? The statements that were made covered some broad topics that are not typically mentioned together in a single 40 minute class.

It appears that there are a variety of ways that the BOE could address the issue, but each solution seems to take time to develop prior to rolling it out to the student body. Is it possible that these wheels are in motion but the BOE cannot publically state it at this time? I imagine that with the level of scrutiny the BOE is under they may be hesitant to publically announce how the issue will be addressed in the future, how is an assembly normally announced to the town of Kearny parents and students prior to its implimentation?

I do agree that the BOE should support their teachers and their student body, but I do not know how publically they can support either by the laws that dictate the board's actions. Is there a document somewhere that describes the rules/regulations/processes of the Kearny BOE?

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to this since this thread is evolving into something other than the orginal discussion posed with the orginal post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
One more thing, no one is saying that what NAMBLA does should be legal. Far from it. However when the time comes thought that those indivduals do face legal prosectution it is in all of our best interests to insist that thier constitutional rights be observed.

Quickly, I would be inclined to say that just because they want to legalize something, does not necessarily mean that they are already involved with it. I'm sure there are at least a few NAMBLA members/supporters out there who do not wish to risk going to jail, so they're 'holding out' for their cause.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calybos, are you referring to their Constitutionally protected right to corrupt underage boys?

What do you think? Seriously. Will you honestly declare that that is what you perceive Calybos to have said?

I would suggest that the extent of their "rights" ends where the right of minor children to be protected from predators begins.  Unfortunately, I imagine that not everyone in the organization would agree.

But the rights that the ACLU defended did not go anywhere near that line. If I remember correctly, they defended the group's right to free speech.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow - I forgot about that.  Thanks for bringing it up.  So it's okay to compare George Bush to Hitler, but not scientists and Al Gore.  Check.  And it's okay to be anti-religion, but not pro-religion.  Check. 

Well, at least they don't have any political or religious biases ...

The shame of it is, that whatever legitimate points the LaClair family has to make, the points are going to be hijacked by the ACLU if they are allowed anywhere near this issue.

This whole mess is about to spiral out of control and, I suspect, that at the end of it, neither party is going to be happy.  Then again ... that's an alternative definition of a compromise.

I can assure you that neither ACLU, nor People for the American Way, who are also supporting us, will hijack anything. They will not try, and if they did, we would not allow it. Moreover, they are not lead counsel. Lead counsel from from Willkie Farr & Gallagher, a major international law firm based in New York City (Willkie was the Republican presidential candidate in 1940) and Riker Danzig, et. al., of Morristown. As usual, Paszkiewicz's defenders have nothing of substance to offer so they stoop to personal attacks on unrelated matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"liberty and justice"  ??  For NAMBLA ??  The "North American Man Boy Organization", an organization that openly advocates the rape of children, deserves "liberty and justice"??

Yes. Did you forget already? It's "liberty and justice for all."

Well, the ACLU agrees with you, the ACLU believes that NAMBLA's "rights" are more important than the children that would be harmed for life by these sick people.

The ACLU defended NAMBLA's right to free speech and nothing else. So you're either a moron for going on about stuff you clearly don't understand, or you're a dishonest punk who would gladly twist anything as long as it involves a person or group you don't like. I'm guessing it's a little from both columns.

How ironic that Paul would choose the ACLU to represent Matthew.  How ironic that Matthew's name will be on the ACLU's client list alongside NAMBLA

and Rush Limbaugh, and Fred Phelps. Do you feel the same way about them?

If I were Paul, I would reconsider the decision to hire the ACLU to represent my son.  I would pay a few bucks and hire an attorney that isn't tainted by NAMBLA.

As if NAMBLA is a contagious disease. Listen, if you honestly believe one can be tainted just by being exposed to a viewpoint they don't agree with, then I must pity your incredibly weak resolve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curious in VA
I think what most people are complaining about here is that the BoE simply tried to sweep it under the rug. This is a very serious infraction and deserves more than a slap on the wrist even for a "tenured" teacher. I can't claim to know how all the bureaucracy works, but a lot of people would like the impression that the BoE WANTS to uphold the law, instead of trying to see, hear, and speak no evil.

Thank you Guest for replying. I am trying to figure out if the BOE is trying to "sweep it under the rug" or if they are bound by something to follow a process when addressing an issue of this magnitude. Is the public seeing a slow reaction from the BOE due to the laws that they must follow as a publicly chosen entity or is the public seeing no reaction due to the BOE doing something inappropriately? Since we are dealing with such a politically charged issue I can understand the BOE making sure they are following whatever their documented process may be, but I am looking to understand what the process is. Specifically:

1. Can the BOE speak publicly about the actions they have taken thus far with the teacher?

2. Can the BOE publicly say what actions they are preparing to take to address the student body in response to the situation?

3. Can the BOE present the public with what their internal processes are today?

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you Paul for addressing my questions.  The school wide assembly to address the First Amendment makes sense to me, this day in age it is always a good idea to make sure the next generation understands their rights as United States citizens or visitors.  I would hope such an assembly would cover not just the first amendment, but other amendments as well.  This does not sound like a "pre-canned" assembly that has been done before.  Perhaps the BOE is determining how, who, and when this would take place?  I don't think I have seen anything suggesting that, but if this assembly were to take place it may take several months of planning before it could occur.

I'm curious about your second point suggested assembly topic.  Is it necessary to address the science issues to the whole school or to just the class that was told the mis-information?  Would another solution be to audit the science department curriculum to ensure that all of the material is addressed throughout the school year?  The statements that were made covered some broad topics that are not typically mentioned together in a single 40 minute class. 

It appears that there are a variety of ways that the BOE could address the issue, but each solution seems to take time to develop prior to rolling it out to the student body.  Is it possible that these wheels are in motion but the BOE cannot publically state it at this time?  I imagine that with the level of scrutiny the BOE is under they may be hesitant to publically announce how the issue will be addressed in the future, how is an assembly normally announced to the town of Kearny parents and students prior to its implimentation?

I do agree that the BOE should support their teachers and their student body, but I do not know how publically they can support either by the laws that dictate the board's actions.  Is there a document somewhere that describes the rules/regulations/processes of the Kearny BOE?

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to this since this thread is evolving into something other than the orginal discussion posed with the orginal post.

You're welcome. I appreciate your bringing the discussion back on topic.

If the BOE was heading in this direction, I would know about it. Our repsective attorneys are in contact with each other.

Correcting the misinformation about science in Mr. Paszkiewicz's classroom alone was the remedy we requested initially. Now that the story has gone far beyond the classroom, we believe the remedy should be school-wide. The science department isn't necessarily the problem. The problem here was a history teacher who knows virtually nothing about science stepping outside his bounds to promote his religious agenda.

The support I'm referring to is mainly a statement insisting on respect for all involved. Matthew hasn't even gotten that from this Board, and that is absolutely disgraceful. The Board and administration should also have stated publicly that Matthew acted within his rights at all times, which he did. Such a statement would not prejudice their legal or other rights in any way. That statement should have come in November, when this went public, but more to the point, it shouldn't have gone public. They should have dealt with it before that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
Be careful what you ask for.

Did Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy or Richard Ramirez deserve any Constitutional rights? It's not a question of what kind of people they are but that they are in fact, people. What happens when we decide that this guy or that guy doesn't get any protection under the constitution? Where does it end and just exactly who decides? That's the ultimate irony in our system of freedom. Our Constitutional rights are like free speech in that it's easy to defend that which we agree with but it is more important to defend those same rights for those that we don't agree with. Once one person has lost those rights, we've all those those rights.

I ask you to think about that for a bit before you reply.

The only constitutional right they deserved was the right to a speedy trial. And then smoke their ass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
Oh, okay. So if I were to say that I was for the legalization of driving without seat belts, I would no longer deserve Constitutional rights because driving without seat belts is illegal? How stupid can you be, seriously? Do you read what you type?

Brilliant analogy !! Driving unbuckeled and raping children. Do you read what you type ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brilliant analogy !!  Driving unbuckeled and raping children.

Both are illegal. Did you forget what you wrote? You said, "NAMBLA does not deserve Constitutional rights because child molestation is illegal." (emphasis added)

Do you read what you type ?

I could ask you the same question, except about both what you and I type. I just showed you how retarded your logic is and you didn't even notice. You stated that NAMBLA members do not deserve Constitutional rights because their 'cause' is illegal. Idiot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you Guest for replying.  I am trying to figure out if the BOE is trying to "sweep it under the rug" or if they are bound by something to follow a process when addressing an issue of this magnitude.  Is the public seeing a slow reaction from the BOE due to the laws that they must follow as a publicly chosen entity or is the public seeing no reaction due to the BOE doing something inappropriately?  Since we are dealing with such a politically charged issue I can understand the BOE making sure they are following whatever their documented process may be, but I am looking to understand what the process is.  Specifically:

1.  Can the BOE speak publicly about the actions they have taken thus far with the teacher?

2.  Can the BOE publicly say what actions they are preparing to take to address the student body in response to the situation?

3.  Can the BOE present the public with what their internal processes are today?

Thank you

1. No.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brilliant analogy !!  Driving unbuckeled and raping children. Do you read what you type ?

The more apt question is: Do you think at all, "Patriot"? Are you completely unable to understand that the law is based on principles, which remain the same from situation to situation? It does not appear that you are. The analogy was entirely correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curious in VA
You're welcome. I appreciate your bringing the discussion back on topic.

If the BOE was heading in this direction, I would know about it. Our repsective attorneys are in contact with each other.

Correcting the misinformation about science in Mr. Paszkiewicz's classroom alone was the remedy we requested initially. Now that the story has gone far beyond the classroom, we believe the remedy should be school-wide. The science department isn't necessarily the problem. The problem here was a history teacher who knows virtually nothing about science stepping outside his bounds to promote his religious agenda.

The support I'm referring to is mainly a statement insisting on respect for all involved. Matthew hasn't even gotten that from this Board, and that is absolutely disgraceful. The Board and administration should also have stated publicly that Matthew acted within his rights at all times, which he did. Such a statement would not prejudice their legal or other rights in any way. That statement should have come in November, when this went public, but more to the point, it shouldn't have gone public. They should have dealt with it before that.

Fair enough. I was not aware of the conversations between the lawyers. I appreciate your candor and insight.

Sitting through many a high school class, as well as many biology courses in college as a Biology Major, my concern is that it would be difficult to debunk all of the science related comments you've mentioned in a single 40 minute assembly. Assuming that the science department at Kearny High School covered those topics during the school year, I thought the corrections may have more impact when emphasized during the normal curriculum. I apologize if my comment insinuated an issue with the science department.

It is unfortunate that through all of this that the BOE has not issued any statements supporting Matthew, but I am not sure if that responsibility lies with the BOE or the high school administration. I would think that both bodies would have issued a statement with the BOE following the administrators lead to show that the high school and the entire education system was in line with their support. As usual I am not aware of the BOE processes, but is it possible that initially they did not respond due to the sensitive nature of the issue? From what I have read and listened to, this did not start out with the public involved. If the BOE issued a statement in October it may have brought more animosity to Matthew. I do not know why they still remain silent other than now it is bigger then a simple statement supporting the student.

It appears that this situation has mushroomed very quickly over the past several months, from a student raising an issue about a teacher to a national/worldwide debate on religion and education. The issue itself is not a debate, but it has certainly spawned many debates due to its content. Unfortunately at this point there is no easy solution with the high profile of the case.

If a letter were published tomorrow with the BOE stance defining its actions up to this point and supporting the student; and the assembly about Constitutional Rights did not take place for months, I believe we would still be chatting on this board 6 months from now. It seems that this issue is now bigger than the student, the teacher, the administration and the BOE. I suspect that a year or two from now we'll be reading quotes on KOTW from the Supreme Court case. Hopefully the local piece of this national issue will be addressed long before that takes place so all parties involved can return to relative normalcy with the lessons learned.

Thank you again for your response on this thread which seems to be gaining speed on the NAMBLA/ACLU issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you Guest for replying.  I am trying to figure out if the BOE is trying to "sweep it under the rug" or if they are bound by something to follow a process when addressing an issue of this magnitude.  Is the public seeing a slow reaction from the BOE due to the laws that they must follow as a publicly chosen entity or is the public seeing no reaction due to the BOE doing something inappropriately?  Since we are dealing with such a politically charged issue I can understand the BOE making sure they are following whatever their documented process may be, but I am looking to understand what the process is.  Specifically:

1.  Can the BOE speak publicly about the actions they have taken thus far with the teacher?

2.  Can the BOE publicly say what actions they are preparing to take to address the student body in response to the situation?

3.  Can the BOE present the public with what their internal processes are today?

Thank you

Hi VA, I am the guest to whom you are responding. (I finally decided to register <_< )

anyway, here is one thing that I found, although not all that helpful.

http://www.kearnyschools.com/BOE/POLICIES%...0Discipline.htm

From what I have seen, there is nothing to indicate what, if anything, must be kept secret when dealing with a discipline case. Also, I would expect the BoE to explain why they aren't saying something if they indeed cant. What I mean is I have never heard of the Board saying something to the effect that they are not allowed, by regulation, to say.

What bothers me more though, is this.

http://www.kearnyschools.com/BOE/POLICIES%...g%20Devices.htm

The BoE clearly was able to take action to ensure that another teacher could not be proven to be violating the law. Without recording devices, its a teacher's word vs the student, and we know who would win (no necessarily unfairly) in that situation.

In other words, they quickly made sure that another Matthew wouldn't be allowed to bother them with "laws" and silly things like the separation of church and state. They did not, however, take swift corrective action after Mr. P did something wrong.

In fact I believe he first denied the allegations before being confronted with the tapes. Apparently honesty is not all that valued in the Kearny school district either.

Anyway, my long winded rant is simply to say that if the BoE's hands were tied by section blahbidy blah of article 8 billion in some obscure code, why wouldn't they say so? And even if it was, I would still expect to see some RESULTS, even if they couldn't talk about it. (After all they took the time to ban recorders, so I think we can assume they could address the problem of Mr. P if they felt like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brilliant analogy !!  Driving unbuckeled and raping children. Do you read what you type ?

"Patriot," you are either stupid or mean spirited. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say the latter. First off, NAMBLA is totally irrelevant to the case at hand, you have to be a very intellectually dishonest person to think otherwise. In addition, as others have said, the ACLU defends their right to FREE SPEECH, not their personal sexual habits, illegal as they may be. How would you feel if I said you did not deserve free speech because you are defending Mr. P's violation of the separation of church and state? I certainly would be at least closer to the subject, although just as diametrically opposed to the Constitution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...