Isn't that sort of thing right up the aclu's alley? They defend nambla publications, defend nudist camps for teens, and other similar things. Why wouldn't they consider what foley did free speach?
http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/003583.html
2006-10-09 08:57:59 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
anthony, there is a difference in a mispelling, and a typo.
2006-10-09 09:08:52 · update #1
You misspelled the word liberals.
Foley is a pervert, and the ACLU doesn't defend pedophiles.
2006-10-09 09:01:21 · answer #1 · answered by Villain 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
ACLU assertion on protecting loose Speech of Unpopular businesses (8/31/2000) for instantaneous launch long island--contained in united statesa. splendid courtroom for the duration of the previous few years, the yank Civil Liberties Union has taken the component of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the international Society for Krishna understanding. In celebrated circumstances, the ACLU has stood up for each individual from Oliver North to the nationwide Socialist social gathering. regardless of all that, the ACLU has by no potential endorsed Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, paying for and advertising palms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA right this moment, our Massachusetts associate would not recommend sexual relationships between adults and little ones. What the ACLU does recommend is powerful freedom of speech for each individual. The lawsuit in touch right here, have been it to be triumphant, could strike on the midsection of freedom of speech. The case is in line with a surprising homicide. however the lawsuit says the crime is the accountability no longer of people who dedicated the homicide, yet of somebody who published vile cloth on the cyber web. the assumption is so easy because it truly is critical to actual freedom of speech: people who do incorrect are in charge for what they do; people who communicate approximately it are no longer. it truly is easy to shelter freedom of speech while the message is a few thing a lot of people locate a minimum of lifelike. however the protection of freedom of speech is maximum serious while the message is one maximum persons locate repulsive. That develop into actual while the Nazis marched in Skokie. It maintains to be actual right this moment.
2016-10-02 03:11:14 · answer #2 · answered by bugenhagen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They defended Rush Limbaugh. They are a guard dog group, and no one can agree with all they do.
David V - typical uninformed con statement "The ACLU cannot support or defend Foley. He's a Republican and they are sworn to never, never, never, never, ever support a republican in anything"
2006-10-09 09:03:08 · answer #3 · answered by TxSup 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In the messages, Republican Foley - Maf54 described how years earlier, he had looked to see whether the former page had an erection in his tight white pants while the then-teenager was working near the congressman. Maf54 also speculated about the sexual attributes of other males in the same page class, including the observation that one young man was "well hung."
Sick.
2006-10-09 09:00:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The ACLU cannot support or defend Foley. He's a Republican and they are sworn to never, never, never, never, ever support a republican in anything, no matter what. Besides, they're way too busy trying to get the word GOD removed from everything.
2006-10-09 09:01:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If there is an issue of his constitutional rights being violated, they'll be the first to step up to defend them, as they did for Rush. The ACLU is not political contrary to popular sound bite wisdom.
2006-10-09 09:07:06 · answer #6 · answered by notme 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the only person or people that should be defending foley are his attorneys. Why are you trying to deflect attention from the real issue which is that you are upset that a republican is in the spotlight for being a perv.
2006-10-09 09:03:18 · answer #7 · answered by Klawed Klawson 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course they should and they probably will. They defend unpopular people and causes in the interest of protecting civil liberties which can easily be lost to the "tyranny of the majority."
2006-10-09 09:15:14 · answer #8 · answered by Lleh 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ughhh no one should defend that perv! if it was any old joe on the street trying to talk sex online to children that got busted theyd get fried! Why not do it to him .... oh yah our country has some priorities mixed up ... they let "famous" people off on anything!
2006-10-09 09:01:52 · answer #9 · answered by johnnys_angel_82 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't forget Rush! They defended him too!
2006-10-09 09:00:19 · answer #10 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋