Posted on 11/28/2004 12:21:56 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Actually, the ACLU itself it not a non-profit. There is the ACLU Foundation which is the non-profit branch of the organization. The ACLU is a lobbying organization and therefore cannot be tax-exempt.
Your arguments have degenerated into straw man stuff. I can't argue with someone who doesn't follow the regular rules of debate.
As one example you state:
"Then why do you need to work so hard to convince girls to become stay-at-home moms? Why are you afraid they will choose professional careers over raising large families, or choose lesbianism?"
You're the one who brought up the theoretical future homemakers' club, not me.
You're nuts. Find a fellow fantasy believer to play act with. I like nothing better than to sensibly discuss differing points of view.
What you're doing is presenting an argument that I DIDN'T MAKE and then "defeating" it.
Another thing you did was use my "natural law" phrase and then turn it into "common law" which are entirely different.
You basically say that any viewpoint is equal to every other viewpoint. If you really held that view, you wouldn't argue with me.
Well, I don't say that every viewpoint is equal. Mine is right, and yours is wrong.
And until you grow up and learn how to debate like an adult, I'm not going to waste my precious time with you. I've got a lot more interesting people to debate with.
It was big news here when the ACLU opened an office. And the only reaction I heard ANYwhere was, "Geez, oh GREAT..."
Well, I don't say that every viewpoint is equal. Mine is right, and yours is wrong.
That's not what I've said. Views are not all equal--of course your views are worse than mine, which you fail to comprehend. There is a difference between individuals making speech and government suppressing it, that is what you fail to see.
Free speech (which students do have some minimal right to) can only be suppressed by viewpoint-neutral tests (such as: "all speech is allowed unless it is defamatory, fraudulent, obscene, incitement to a crime, or in a time/place/manner that is inappropriate"). Schools can obviously impose greater restrictions on speech than exist for adults in the "real world," but the additional restrictions must be viewpoint-neutral.
If Texas decides it wants to tell young people that homosexuality is bad and wrong that's fine--but Texas can't stop young people from spreading the opposite idea. If Texas wants to tell young people that we took the territory from Mexico fair and square, that's fine--but Texas can't stop young people from spreading the opposite idea.
If liberals want to tell young people that evolution is the best explanation for the world around us (and it is), that's fine--but the schools can't stop young people from spreading ignorant ideas about creationism. If liberals want to tell young people that it's wrong to look down on homosexuality and homosexuals (and it is), that's fine--but schools can't stop hateful young people from spreading the opposite opinion.
See, that's the difference: individuals get to have political opinions, governments can have political opinions, but governments cannot suppress speech on a political basis.
tolerance for the intolerant is suicide
Just one more post on the dictionary.... I found Merriam-Webster Online http://www.m-w.com/ The definition there was identical to the one you posted (and alot faster than thumbing through a 3-inch thick volume :)
The fact that you think that the ACLU + "gay" radicals (but I repeat myself) forcing an entire school district full of kids to watch a pro-homosexual video is free speech, proves you're worse off than I can even imagine.
agreed.
Considering the source of this, I have to wonder. I have almost decided not to trust any media at all, ESPECIALLY if it is biased one way or the other.
Them are *fighting* words...
I wasn't referring at all to the video, I was referring to the formation of a pro-gay club at the school. Whether or not the video should be shown is more complex.
The school district agreed to present the video when it settled the case. The school district itself agreed to show the film. So the question is whether the settlement is in fact binding. Why would a legal settlement (agreed to by both parties) not be? This seems to me to be a matter of contract law or whatever, not free speech.
The question here is whether the school district has the right to go back on its word. A radical Muslim would agree with you, because us infidels are subhuman and can be lied to/cheated/etc. But I'm not seeing support for breaking contracts in Christian or Jewish traditions. What sort of a "conservative" are you? The idea that any party should be able to break a contract just for the heck of it is not conservative, it's radical.
I thought the question was whether children could be forced to view the film.
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.