Suing School Because She is a Lesbo

[phreakwars]

typical......so anyone giving an opinion different than your own is automatically labelled a bigot?? hmmm....lolol ok! If u say so.....now I can go on knowing I'm a bigot from someone who doesn't even know me lolol.....very good! lmao.....smdh.

And I don't pretend to be an "all wise knowing" one but, I can see when an organization that used to live up to it's name in the past, merely plays on liberal sympathies to get public support in the present to reinforce that they are an organization that fights for "justice and equality", when in actuality it's the opposite.

The ACLU is supposed to defend the people's constitutional rights, not picking and choosing cases in which they see fit to their own advantage.

Did u even read the link I posted?? Nothing to say about that??....hmmm.......ok then.

Yeah, I do have something to say about that. Why would the ACLU defend the rights of someone or some group who don't want others to have the same rights as others... I.E. Nazi's?

Obviously they (neo-Nazi's) don't feel particular races or colors should have the same civil liberties as others. The ACLU defending neo nazi's would be an oxymoron to what the ACLU was intended for.
.
.

 

[Flo Ro]

lol wtf??? Apparently not anything worthwhile b/c apparently you can't READ!!!! I can tell u skimmed through the article and didn't read it.

It was about abortion rights not about neo-nazi's! They mentioned neo-nazi's demonstrating how much they would go defending someone's right to say what they wanted.......wtf.....smh.....

 

[phreakwars]

Actually, I never clicked on the link until just now. I was addressing your comment about defending Nazi's from earlier. So anyways, yeah the ACLU didn't defend anti abortionists, so what? That whole article can be summed up in just this line:

The right to choose abortion is constitutionally protected against governmental interference, not against interference by an activist. When Operation Rescue blocks entrances to abortion clinics, it is not violating the constitutional rights of patients; it is violating trespass law.

Therefore, the ACLU had no jurisdiction here. Silly is the person who thinks rights like "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" apply to anything NOT government related.
.
.

 

[Flo Ro]

]Actually, I never clicked on the link until just now. I was addressing your comment about defending Nazi's from earlier.

Right lol.....if that makes you feel better. But u already contradicted urself in relation to that but we won't get into that now will we. I'll just "let it go".

So anyways, yeah the ACLU didn't defend anti abortionists, so what? That whole article can be summed up in just this line:

Therefore, the ACLU had no jurisdiction here. Silly is the person who thinks rights like "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" apply to anything NOT government related.
.

WRONG

How about you put the rest of that paragrpah instead of taking a sentence out of context and try in using it to ur advantage when in actually does the opposite when reading the whole thing.

The right to choose abortion is constitutionally protected against governmental interference, not against interference by an activist. When Operation Rescue blocks entrances to abortion clinics, it is not violating the constitutional rights of patients; it is violating trespass law. The clash of interests at abortion clinics is between the First Amendment rights of protesters and the government's interest in protecting the public's health and safety. Throughout its history, the ACLU has routinely come out on the First Amendment side of that equation. Until now, that is.

I.e. This was not an issue about the right to choose or not in a court of law but anti-abortioners PROTESTING their right to FREE SPEECH outside the clinic which is right under the jurisdiction of the ACLU (i.e. the 1st amendment!).

And btw, the one sentence u posted from the article was talking about 1 of the many anti-abortion protesting cases in the article. Using that one sentence out of context that way you did to lump all the cases in the article is very misleading to the untrained eye.

hmmm....with that being said maybe u should join a poiltical media news channel since they seem to do that all the time! You would be perfect.

 

[phreakwars]

I.e. This was not an issue about the right to choose or not in a court of law but anti-abortioners PROTESTING their right to FREE SPEECH outside the clinic which is right under the jurisdiction of the ACLU (i.e. the 1st amendment!).

And btw, the one sentence u posted from the article was talking about 1 of the many anti-abortion protesting cases in the article. Using that one sentence out of context that way you did to lump all the cases in the article is very misleading to the untrained eye.

hmmm....with that being said maybe u should join a poiltical media news channel since they seem to do that all the time! You would be perfect.

Since when does the government own abortion clinics? Sorry, but the protesters DO NOT have a right to free speech in a NON GOVERNMENT OWNED ENTERPRISE like an abortion clinic.

I see your yet another one of those idiots who think when they hear we have "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" in America, it applies everywhere... this is simply not the case.

Lets look real close at the 1A

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

You obviously have NO FUKKING CLUE what that even means.

Simply put, your "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" clause is only there to protect you from one entity... THE GOVERNMENT, and nobody else but the government. Now explain to me how an ABORTION CLINIC falls under the jurisdiction of the ACLU, which is setup to protect the civil liberties of people from government entity's (like schools). If you tried that "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" excuse in a court of law, you'd get laughed at all the way up to SCOTUS. Again, the 1A only protects you from the GOVERNMENT and nothing more. This clause is the reason TV stations, radio, internet blogs, etc, are all subject to censorship by the owners.

EDIT: And to debunk your link some more, lets look at this line:

Before anti-abortion zealots started getting sued, the ACLU had much more tolerance for menacing speech. Few of the 20th century's great social movements were entirely peaceable. The labor, civil-rights, antiwar, environmental and black-power movements were an amalgam of violence, civil disobedience and highly charged rhetoric..

Well no shiit Sherlock, guess who all these movements were protesting... THE FUKKING GOVERNMENT.... DUH !! Which IS within the ACLU's jurisdiction.

Might explain THIS line:

That's why in 1969 the ACLU helped defend a Ku Klux Klan member who had called for violence against the president (GOVERNMENT),

That's why, when you said THIS bullshiit:

The ACLU said this was a violation for her "freedom expression". I wonder if they would be singing the same tune nand a couple wanted to show up to the prom with a big swastika planted on their backs. After all it's just a "freedom of expression".

Hmmmm.....something tells me they wouldn't....:/.

I said the ACLU WOULD defend them.
.
.

 

[Flo Ro]

Since when does the government own abortion clinics? Sorry, but the protesters DO NOT have a right to free speech in a NON GOVERNMENT OWNED ENTERPRISE like an abortion clinic.

DID YOU NOT READ THE FUCKING CASE!!! IT WAS ABOUT PROTESTING OUTSIDE OF ABORTION CLINICS!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._Pro-Choice_Network_of_Western_New_York

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1065.ZS.html

This was about whether they were constitutionally protected when protesting 15 feet away from the clinic!! And they found that they were constitutionally protected.......

Lets look real close at the 1A

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
You obviously have NO FUKKING CLUE what that even means.

Funny I was about to say the same to you!

Simply put, your "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" clause is only there to protect you from one entity... THE GOVERNMENT, and nobody else but the government. Now explain to me how an ABORTION CLINIC falls under the jurisdiction of the ACLU, which is setup to protect the civil liberties of people from government entity's (like schools). If you tried that "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" excuse in a court of law, you'd get laughed at all the way up to SCOTUS. Again, the 1A only protects you from the GOVERNMENT and nothing more. This clause is the reason TV stations, radio, internet blogs, etc, are all subject to censorship by the owners.

I would like you to point out where I SAID abortion clinics are protected under the aclu. I said the CASE in question which happend to take outside the abortion clinic (where their constitutional rights WERE violated) was under the jurisdiction of aclu since they are the "protectors" of constitutional rights.

AND I would like you to point out where it says the clause only protects from entity of the government. "petition the Government for a redress of grievances " means that when the governemnt is exceedingly using their authority given to them by the constitution the people have a right to PETITION a complaint and the government has to respond! Not that freedom of speech is only protected from government entities and if so PROVE IT!

Might explain THIS line:


That's why in 1969 the ACLU helped defend a Ku Klux Klan member who had called for violence against the president (GOVERNMENT),
.

According to your "only defending freedom of speech from the government" it doesn't explain this one:

This is ugly, scary stuff. But it is no worse than neo-Nazi calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people, or a college student posting his rape fantasies about a fellow coed on the Web, both of which the ACLU has defended in the past.

or

The organization that once defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to demonstrate in heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill.,

or this one...

The ACLU also applauded a 1982 Supreme Court decision that found that speeches promising violent reprisals were protected by the First Amendment. During the civil-rights movement, a leader of the NAACP called for "breaking the necks" of blacks who violated a boycott of white-owned businesses in Mississippi, and published a list of those who did. Some of the boycott violators were beaten. The court ruled that despite the atmosphere of fear, all the speeches and lists were part of a debate on a public issue that needed to be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

was that againist the government to?.....hmmmm

I said the ACLU WOULD defend them.

And if you read what I said in my OTHER response to you I said while they may have in the past I did not think they would in the future.

 

[phreakwars]

DID YOU NOT READ THE FUCKING CASE!!! IT WAS ABOUT PROTESTING OUTSIDE OF ABORTION CLINICS!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._Pro-Choice_Network_of_Western_New_York

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1065.ZS.html

This was about whether they were constitutionally protected when protesting 15 feet away from the clinic!! And they found that they were constitutionally protected.......

Again, it doesn't matter, that was NOT a government owned entity

I would like you to point out where I SAID abortion clinics are protected under the aclu. I said the CASE in question which happend to take outside the abortion clinic (where their constitutional rights WERE violated) was under the jurisdiction of aclu since they are the "protectors" of constitutional rights.

Sure, you said:

I.e. This was not an issue about the right to choose or not in a court of law but anti-abortioners PROTESTING their right to FREE SPEECH outside the clinic which is right under the jurisdiction of the ACLU (i.e. the 1st amendment!).

Or did you NOT type that?

Sorry, but 15 feet across the street, is STILL not government, thus NOT PROTECTED.

AND I would like you to point out where it says the clause only protects from entity of the government. "petition the Government for a redress of grievances " means that when the governemnt is exceedingly using their authority given to them by the constitution the people have a right to PETITION a complaint and the government has to respond! Not that freedom of speech is only protected from government entities and if so PROVE IT!

Boy, that's only been the law for a few hundred years now, guess you missed that lesson in 5th grade history class. For a quick lesson... the Bill of rights was formed by people to protect themselves against the abuses of government, all of the Amendments are specifically targeted to protect individuals from government takeover or exclusion. Not 1 of the original amendments is made to tell people what they can or can not do, each one was designed to tell the government what it can and can not do.

If you want more info, visit http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html

Take note:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The First Amendment applies only when Congress passes a law abridging speech. Suppressions of speech are not violations of the First Amendment unless the State (government) does the suppressing[/FONT]

According to your "only defending freedom of speech from the government" it doesn't explain this one:

This is ugly, scary stuff. But it is no worse than neo-Nazi calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people, or a college student posting his rape fantasies about a fellow coed on the Web, both of which the ACLU has defended in the past.

or

The organization that once defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to demonstrate in heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill.,

or this one...

The ACLU also applauded a 1982 Supreme Court decision that found that speeches promising violent reprisals were protected by the First Amendment. During the civil-rights movement, a leader of the NAACP called for "breaking the necks" of blacks who violated a boycott of white-owned businesses in Mississippi, and published a list of those who did. Some of the boycott violators were beaten. The court ruled that despite the atmosphere of fear, all the speeches and lists were part of a debate on a public issue that needed to be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

was that againist the government to?.....hmmmm

Simply put, the ACLU is NOT obligated to ONLY defend government suppression, it can, if it wants, defend freedom of speech from other entity's if it so chooses. But of course, it is NOT obligated to defend just anyones, the ACLU has the right to pick and choose too.

And if you read what I said in my OTHER response to you I said while they may have in the past I did not think they would in the future.

And why not? Like I said, the ACLU can pick and choose. You have to understand the presidence they would follow in their picking and choosing, among other things,Defamation, Causing panic, Fighting words, Incitement to crime, Sedition, & Obscenity would not be defended. If this was shown to be the case in a previous case, then the ACLU at their discretion, could then refuse to defend that freedom of speech for an individual or group. If this isn't shown to be the case, then yes, the ACLU would absolutely defend those types of groups. I mean, think about it... would the ACLU defend the Westboro Baptist Church? If their message wasn't in any of the precidence they had before, then, yes, they probably would, but the WBC has shown itself to be a group devoted to things like defamation.

See, this is why I said the ACLU gets a bad rap from bigots and only bigots. Always bitching and moaning "well why don't they defend this, why don't they defend that", when chances are, the reason is because of the defamation, inciting violence, etc...

Sure, your all for the ACLU defending that crap, but if it's something you don't agree with, then it's "DAMN THE ACLU"

.
.

 

[fish_surf]

The ACLU Should.

[Loco]

 

[fish_surf]

The ACLU are a bunch of jerks waiting for some stupid shit like this to pop off so they can try and get their fair share.

Was it really necessary to wear a tux? Follow the damned rules plz! Fricken attention whore......can't stand people who want a handout bc people don't cater to them or their "lifestyle".

Applause! Applause!

 

[fish_surf]

wow!

Okay...first of all i am all for rules, regs and policies..since there must be some order...

However it is a prom folks! It is a rite of passage of sorts and every student should be able to wear what they wish.......a tux? Big deal..really?


And there are many students who go stag, in groups..and just because this girl wanted to take her love interest whom happens to be female, the school is going to be so petty as to cancel the prom altogether? Who is doing what to whom?

This person just wanted to attend a function with the person of there choice...so again who fawked up? Over reacted? Geeez!

bravo! Bravo!

 

[fish_surf]

Where is Jesse Jackson? Jesse? Jesse?

"Iamaoverhereyonder." Guess what Jesse Jackson said.

 

[TheTruthIs]

Rules, we often don't like them, but we obey them.

 

[Flo Ro]

Again, it doesn't matter, that was NOT a government owned entity

WRONG again. If you read the case you would see it WAS on government property, i.e. ?sidewalks? (government owned) and the restriction of free speech was from the government. If that wasn?t true then this case wouldn?t have been CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED.
Yet the ACLU was initially against it, a case the ACLU should have been protecting from the 1st place.

Sure, you said:
Quote:

I.e. This was not an issue about the right to choose or not in a court of law but anti-abortioners PROTESTING their right to FREE SPEECH outside the clinic which is right under the jurisdiction of the ACLU (i.e. the 1st amendment!).
Or did you NOT type that?

Did you read where ?anti?abortioners? proesting their right to free speech OUTSIDE the clinic. No where did I say Abortion Clinics are protected under the ACLU. That wasn?t even part of the argument. I?ve been saying throughout this whole thing?..IF the ACLU were true to what they stood for (i.e. protecting constitutional rights) then they would have seen that this case was in their jurisdiction. Understand?

Sorry, but 15 feet across the street, is STILL not government, thus NOT PROTECTED.

Sidewalks are government property. Read above.

Boy, that's only been the law for a few hundred years now, guess you missed that lesson in 5th grade history class. For a quick lesson... the Bill of rights was formed by people to protect themselves against the abuses of government, all of the Amendments are specifically targeted to protect individuals from government takeover or exclusion. Not 1 of the original amendments is made to tell people what they can or can not do, each one was designed to tell the government what it can and can not do.

If you want more info, visit [URL="http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html"]http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html[/URL]

That site is SPECIFICALLY talking about ?freedom of expression? in relation to the National Endowment of Arts Program, a program dedicated for art, music, literature, etc. Yes but rather freedom of speech is rather protected if it?s in the government interest?.I was thinking something else.

If you want a real site of Freedom of Speech here, check it out. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf.

But yes I see what you mean and only reinforces my point in the case.

Simply put, the ACLU is NOT obligated to ONLY defend government suppression, it can, if it wants, defend freedom of speech from other entity's if it so chooses. But of course, it is NOT obligated to defend just anyones, the ACLU has the right to pick and choose too.

Pick and choose cases from government suppression or other entities? You were saying earlier they didn't take on the case bc it wasn't a government entity (when it actually is).......and yet they were againist the case (they didn't just "pick and choose" but they were AGAINST IT).
And I never said they were obligated but if you are going to pride yourself for being an organization for ALL Civil Liberties then be consistent about it. Don?t just use the guise when it?s only to your advantage.

This is from the ACLU website:

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

Makes it oh so hypocritical.

And why not?

B/c they used to uphold the belief IN THE PAST that they fight for people?s right (liberal and conservative agenda), now it?s only one.

Like I said, the ACLU can pick and choose.

It is only in this response that you mentioned the ACLU can pick and choose. And yea your right they can do whatever the hell they want but makes them HIGHLY hypocritical IMO specifically picking what cases they want to take on to cater to their agenda and then proclaiming ?we protect EVERYONE?S civil liberties? .

You have to understand the presidence they would follow in their picking and choosing, among other things,Defamation, Causing panic, Fighting words, Incitement to crime, Sedition, & Obscenity would not be defended.

I?m not talking about them taking a case that in the ?constitutionalist? POV would not even be considered b/c of the lack of government interest. I?m talking about CASES (ex: as in the abortion one, where in fell into the realm of violating ?free speech? and they went against it REAGARDLESS!). Yea what a trustworthy group that is?.

If this was shown to be the case in a previous case, then the ACLU at their discretion, could then refuse to defend that freedom of speech for an individual or group. If this isn't shown to be the case, then yes, the ACLU would absolutely defend those types of groups.

Which it was shown in that case and they DID NOT DEFEND THEM. That was my whole point. Their HYPOCRISY.

I mean, think about it... would the ACLU defend the Westboro Baptist Church? If their message wasn't in any of the precidence they had before, then, yes, they probably would, but the WBC has shown itself to be a group devoted to things like defamation.

If they had a legitimate claim they would be in the realm to defend but if defamation then no.

See, this is why I said the ACLU gets a bad rap from bigots and only bigots. Always bitching and moaning "well why don't they defend this, why don't they defend that", when chances are, the reason is because of the defamation, inciting violence, etc...

Ok and that might have truth to it. But I?m not talking (or was) about that instance. I?m talking about when rights are specifically violated not if someone gets their feelings hurt because someone said something they didn?t like.

Sure, your all for the ACLU defending that crap, but if it's something you don't agree with, then it's "DAMN THE ACLU"

Um no READ AGAIN and stop assuming about what u think I'm saying as opposed to what I'm really saying.

 

[Right Wing]

Wow!

Okay...First of all I am all for rules, regs and policies..since there must be some order...

As long as they don't pertain to immigration that is....

 

[Right Wing]

typical......so anyone giving an opinion different than your own is automatically labelled a bigot??

Of course....get used to that on this forum