Rep. John Doolittle's attack is based on a Massachusetts wrongful-death suit. Challenger Charlie Brown, right, says he doesn't always like the cases the ACLU takes on.
Posted on 10/22/2006 8:26:50 AM PDT by SmithL
The Massachusetts case giving rise to the congressman's indignation -- and that of many others -- is serving as exhibit A as Doolittle seeks to make the argument that Brown is too liberal to represent his district.
The issue raised in the Massachusetts civil lawsuit is about the right to publish and read controversial material, regardless of how unpopular and despicable the content might be, the ACLU says.
These are the facts: In October 1997, 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley was lured into a car in Cambridge by Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari. He fought back for as long as 20 minutes before he was suffocated with a gas-soaked rag. His body was sexually molested before it was finally packed in a container and dumped into the Great Works River in Maine.
Sicari was later convicted of first-degree murder and Jaynes was convicted of second-degree murder and kidnapping. Both are in prison on life sentences, Sicari without chance of parole.
Sicari and Jaynes were members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), although Jaynes' membership check had apparently bounced.
Curley's family filed a federal wrongful death suit in 2000 against NAMBLA in Massachusetts, seeking $200 million on allegations that the organization had turned Jaynes from a timid and confused soul into an aggressive pervert.
NAMBLA has since been dismissed from the case, but several of its members who were responsible for its Web site and published materials remain as ACLU clients.
Among the allegations is that Jaynes read material he obtained on NAMBLA's
. . . The ACLU of Massachusetts is defending the case
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Funny how the ACLU is always ready to defend unpopular ideas, but just try and get them to help conservative college students whose positions are belittled in class.
A few years ago at the University of Penna a conservative editorial was not allowed to be distributed by black students. Papers were confiscated by a black faternity, university administrators did nothing. When the conservatives went to the ACLU, they were told there was nothing they would do.
Kinda depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it?
I have been getting all this campaign literature from Charlie Brown that would make you swear that he was a conservative. Even got a phony little newspaper called something like the "Placer County Republican" endorsing Charlie Brown.
This is like getting those mortgage offers in envelopes that make it look like your getting a tax refund. Why would you want to do business with someone that misleads you right up front?
We filled out our ballots yesterday and I double checked to make sure we voted for Dolittle :)
Or maybe it depends on whether the institution is public or private. UPenn is a private university, and so the ACLU has nothing to do with it.
From the ACLU's position statement on "speech codes" on college campuses:
"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society."
I don't know why they don't try to sue for infringing on their civil rights. Seems to me if a group or person prevents someone from speaking, unlawfully, that should be unconstitutional.
Nope. The constitution only restricts the actions of the government and government officials.
In short, private individual says "You! shut up!" - no constitutional issue.
Public official says "You! shut up!" - constitutional violation.
Hillsdale College is the only college that refuses to accept any federal aid, even indirectly for this very reason. So the ACLU is being disingenuous when it fails to support free speech on private universities.
Not quite. Private institutions, even ones that indirectly receive federal funds, are not constitutionally prohibited from restricting speech rights on campus (and, for that matter, 4th amendment rights, due process rights, things like that). There are certain statutory restrictions (in things like hiring, discrimination, etc) that can be tied to federal funding (and so, Congress could theoretically pass a law applying free speech rights on campus), but there is no constitutionally protected right to free speech on a private campus.
That's not to say that it's a good idea for private institutions to restrict free speech (I think it's terrible). Only that it's not technically a constitutional/"civil liberties" issue, and so it's outside of the scope of ACLU activities.
Well then, maybe I should have been more precise. I was referring to civil rights laws which say what private orgs may do (companies etc).
I would like to see you cite court cases that agree with what you say FreedomFighter78. The assertion you make is popularly accepted, especially in Libertarian circles, but I am not aware that the Supremes decided that a private college that accepts federal funds may ignore or contradict Constitutional rights.
But assuming for a moment that you are correct, the ACLU is not an organization that simply follows precedent, it helps create precedent. Roe vs. Wade (for example) established a precedent based on premises that even most legal scholars consider ridiculous. The court position that a prayer by school students was an impermissible establishment of religion was precedent setting. The list of ACLU precedents is virtually endless. To suggest, as you do, that the ACLU would not find a reason to defend free speech in an institution that had part of its budget paid for by the federal government simply because of precedent is ludicrous.
And finally, to suggest that free speech is not a constitutional/civil liberties issue is so far off that you may not have been thinking when you wrote it.
I live in Massachusetts, although I'm bolting for the exit by the end of the year. The ACLU here is fully supportive of NAMBLA up to and including murdering kids. ACLU supports the entire NAMBLA line, including zeroing out the age of consent and releasing all incarcerated perverts.
They (ACLU) routinely also oppose prison sentences for pedophiles. On top of that they are fighting to prevent disclosure of pedophiles (including murderers, who are all paroled in under twenty years in Mass, even if sentenced to "no parole") and fighting to oppose sex offender registration.
The leading candidate for Governor here, Deval Patrick, wants to release rapists from prison and, again, keep their history as sex offenders a secret -- to protect them from their potential victims. Naturally he supports ACLU and ACLU supports him, just like they both support the murderers of the Curley kid.
Anyone who supports ACLU as it exists today, supports child rape and murder, however much he may deny it. I don't know if the ACLU lawyers who push this radical pedophile agenda are pederasts themselves, just hate kids, or have some other reason, but they're not normal civilised human beings.
ACLU = Atheist Criminal Lovers Union
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
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.