"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:19:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..


About the only group that has a good track record of defending
all types of free speech is the ACLU. :-)

And they have other issues......

What issues are those, Dave?

Look it up.

Dave



I have, for the past 30 years. They've defended people and ideas that even
YOU would agree with. YOU look it up, instead of focusing on the three
instances you're marginally aware of.

About the only group that has a good track record of defending
all types of free speech is the ACLU. :-)

Dave Hall wrote:
And they have other issues......


What issues are those, Dave?

Dave Hall wrote:
Look it up.


"Look it up".....

Translation- Dave Hall doesn't have a clue, but he has been programmed
to hate the ACLU and badmouth the organization, it's programs, and it's
supporters.

This is the kind"positive moral values" and "freedom" that our current
President & Vice President really like to encourage.

DSK

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:10:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:19:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


About the only group that has a good track record of defending
all types of free speech is the ACLU. :-)

And they have other issues......

What issues are those, Dave?

Look it up.

Dave



I have, for the past 30 years. They've defended people and ideas that even
YOU would agree with. YOU look it up, instead of focusing on the three
instances you're marginally aware of.

THAT is the problem. They'll defend the right of people to do just
about anything. I don't believe that certain things should be allowed
to be displayed in public out of respect. I don't want to see bare
chested women, (or men) walking around in public. I don't think the
KKK has a right to exist let along parading around in a public parade.
I don't want to see drag queens flaunting their abhorrent , deviant
behavior in a public parade that I want to take my 5 year old to.

That's the problem when you take on the role of public rights
advocate. You have to defend the most sleazy, despicable, and
abhorrent behavior, or come off as hypocritical. The end result is
that we have to "allow" bad behavior because the purveyors have a
"right" to do it.

I believe that the majority of society should decide what's acceptable
and appropriate behavior and appearance, not some "group" which
defends bad behavior on principle alone without any due consideration
for the effects that it has on society.

Dave

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:46:36 -0500, DSK wrote:

About the only group that has a good track record of defending
all types of free speech is the ACLU. :-)

Dave Hall wrote:
And they have other issues......


What issues are those, Dave?

Dave Hall wrote:
Look it up.


"Look it up".....

Translation- Dave Hall doesn't have a clue, but he has been programmed
to hate the ACLU and badmouth the organization, it's programs, and it's
supporters.

Better translation: Dave Hall doesn't want to get dragged into another
senseless "debate" with someone who is just looking to pick at nuances
while ignoring core principles.

If he were truly interested in seeing the truth, he would indeed "look
it up". But he just wants another excuse to make me go through the
pains of showing him how off-base he is. Just like I did when he tried
to claim that it was within his legal right to kill neighborhood
dogs.... But I'm getting tired of it.


This is the kind"positive moral values" and "freedom" that our current
President & Vice President really like to encourage.

Independent thinking? Yea, I'd say that's a positive value.

Dave

THAT is the problem. They'll defend the right of people to do just
about anything. I don't believe that certain things should be allowed
to be displayed in public out of respect. I don't want to see bare
chested women, (or men) walking around in public. I don't think the
KKK has a right to exist let along parading around in a public parade.
I don't want to see drag queens flaunting their abhorrent , deviant
behavior in a public parade that I want to take my 5 year old to.

In summary, you support the first amendment only as long as those exercising
freedom of speech confine that speech to something *you* think is appropriate.
Many people feel the same way, it's rare that someone will openly admit it.

I believe that the majority of society should decide what's acceptable
and appropriate behavior and appearance, not some "group" which
defends bad behavior on principle alone without any due consideration
for the effects that it has on society.

I believe that adults should think for themselves.

One of the most precious aspects of American liberty has apparently and sadly
been wasted on you.
We protect the non-criminal minority from the social tyrrany of the majority.

One reason America has been the home of so many inventions and innovations is
that we teach our children that it's OK to be non-conformist and to look for
new ways to consider things, even when the "majority" would disagree.

There must be some deep, dark, secret aspect of your life where you don't
perceive yourself to be in the "majority". Shall we all
prohibit you from lawfully and non-violently
practising those actions or thinking those thoughts?

How about this, Dave? Anything on this page you agree with?

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/...cticesMain.cfm

On 05 Jan 2005 16:18:39 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

THAT is the problem. They'll defend the right of people to do just
about anything. I don't believe that certain things should be allowed
to be displayed in public out of respect. I don't want to see bare
chested women, (or men) walking around in public. I don't think the
KKK has a right to exist let along parading around in a public parade.
I don't want to see drag queens flaunting their abhorrent , deviant
behavior in a public parade that I want to take my 5 year old to.

In summary, you support the first amendment only as long as those exercising
freedom of speech confine that speech to something *you* think is appropriate.

No, I believe that freedom of expression (speech is only one aspect of
it) should be limited to those activities which are deemed appropriate
by the majority of society. What *I* think is only relevant if it is
in agreement with what the majority wants.

You realize, of course, that the opposite to reasonable restriction is
a slippery slope chain of events which leads to anarchy. Unless you
support anarchy, the only difference between you and I, is where we
draw the line.

Many people feel the same way, it's rare that someone will openly admit it.

Why? It's not something any sane, rational person would be ashamed of.

I believe that the majority of society should decide what's acceptable
and appropriate behavior and appearance, not some "group" which
defends bad behavior on principle alone without any due consideration
for the effects that it has on society.

I believe that adults should think for themselves.

That's fine until one of those "free thinking adults" does something
which infringes on the rights of someone else. Then what?

It's funny that you seem to be advocating a free-for-all attitude with
respect to freedom, yet also seem to support the right of minority
people to be "offended" by the acts, customs, and traditions of the
majority. A curious duplicity if I must say.

One of the most precious aspects of American liberty has apparently and sadly
been wasted on you.
We protect the non-criminal minority from the social tyrrany of the majority.

By giving them unnatural power over the majority? The whole point of
being in the majority is that like minded people get to make the
rules. Those in the minority can either go with the flow, or find like
minded people of their own and create their own majority somewhere
else.


One reason America has been the home of so many inventions and innovations is
that we teach our children that it's OK to be non-conformist and to look for
new ways to consider things, even when the "majority" would disagree.

There's a difference between "innovative" creative thinking, and
espousing behavior which is considered deviant or abhorrent by the
majority of society.


There must be some deep, dark, secret aspect of your life where you don't
perceive yourself to be in the "majority". Shall we all
prohibit you from lawfully and non-violently
practising those actions or thinking those thoughts?

Why not? Some of you seem to have an intrinsic dislike of water
skiers, jetskiers and performance boaters, and think nothing of trying
to limit or ban their activities. Another duplicity?

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


No, I believe that freedom of expression (speech is only one aspect of
it) should be limited to those activities which are deemed appropriate
by the majority of society. What *I* think is only relevant if it is
in agreement with what the majority wants.

Based on THAT sort of nonsesnical thinking, you and the "majority" could
make it illegal for teens to wander around the mall with rings through their
noses or eyebrows.


You realize, of course, that the opposite to reasonable restriction is
a slippery slope chain of events which leads to anarchy. Unless you
support anarchy, the only difference between you and I, is where we
draw the line.

Define "anarchy".


I believe that adults should think for themselves.

That's fine until one of those "free thinking adults" does something
which infringes on the rights of someone else. Then what?

What's wrong with that? You advocate infringing on private property rights
all the time, remember?



It's funny that you seem to be advocating a free-for-all attitude with
respect to freedom, yet also seem to support the right of minority
people to be "offended" by the acts, customs, and traditions of the
majority. A curious duplicity if I must say.

Being offended is one thing. Physically stopping someone's actions is
another. I think nose, tongue and eyebrow rings are disgusting and that the
people who wear them are idiots. But, I have no intention of doing anything
to stop the behavior.

YOU would put a stop to certain actions for another, very common reason: You
have an abnormal need to control other people.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:05:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

How about this, Dave? Anything on this page you agree with?

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/...cticesMain.cfm


I agree that the cops should be allowed to do their jobs. Rodney King
should be in jail, and not the recipient of a large sum of money.

When people are told to freeze by the cops, they should do so.
Responding with any action which could be interpreted as resisting
arrest is an opening for the cops to use whatever force they deem
necessary to subdue you.

What I consider brutality is when the cops use more force than
necessary, or when they use force when the perpetrator is sufficiently
restrained.

If a cop needs 41 shots to kill his suspect, he needs to go back to
the range for some remedial firearms training and practice. It
shouldn't take more than two or three well placed shots to bring down
a scumbag. There's no need to waste good ammo.......

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
Better translation: Dave Hall doesn't want to get dragged into another
senseless "debate" with someone who is just looking to pick at nuances
while ignoring core principles.

You mean like the core principle that a gov't which deliberately uses
torture as an instrument of state cannot be good?



If he were truly interested in seeing the truth, he would indeed "look
it up".

Look up what, Dave? The fact that the ACLU has defended the civil
liberties of people you'd rather see locked up for life without trial...
maybe tortured?


Independent thinking? Yea, I'd say that's a positive value.


The problem is that your idea of "independent thinking" means
goose-stepping along with the current gov't... the most secretive, most
destructive of Constitutional rights... and coincidentally, heavily
profiting from the "war on terror"... of any in US history.

DSK