All Hank, all the time.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It's too bad the ACLU stopped being a free speech advocate for anyone but a few scumbag liberals.

Yeah. Like this commie pinko.

And these psycho liberal bastards.

[SlaveNoMore]

baltassoc
Yeah. Like this commie pinko.

And these psycho liberal bastards.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why isn't this being viewed as a public declaration of war?

[other than that people want to stick their heads in the sand]

I don't know, but coupled with the statements this week about the enrichment progress, and I think Israel has just cause.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why isn't this being viewed as a public declaration of war?

[other than that people want to stick their heads in the sand]

War on Israel? Isn't that for them to decide?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
War on Israel? Isn't that for them to decide?

No. As the world's lone superpower, our police function gives us the right to decide who has declared war on whom. We also then have the right to intervene on neither, either or both sides. For more information, see http://www.newamericancentury.org.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Even a broken clock is right twice a day

Or representing Limbaugh. Or others. C'mon, Slave, you're too smart for this bumper-sticker shit.

Here. Read this from Volokh, who's clearly no fan of the ACLU, and who's responding to claims made by a site you may well have written, Stop the ACLU Blog.

• In fact, my sense is that most of the criticism that the ACLU faces comes because their arguments are too successful -- not only nonfrivolous, but actually ones that win in court...
  
  But in fact the ACLU often wins, and even when it doesn't, its arguments are generally quite plausible. For instance, the claim that random searches of people in subways are unconstitutional is an eminently plausible Fourth Amendment claim, perhaps even a winning one. Searches that aren't based on any individualized suspicion are usually unconstitutional; even some conservative Justices have said so. (See, e.g., City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting) ("I rather doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered 'reasonable' a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing."); Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring) (expressing "doubt" as to whether even suspicion-based searches for weapons are constitutional, unless the suspicion rises to the relatively high level of "probable cause": "I frankly doubt, moreover, whether the fiercely proud men who adopted our Fourth Amendment would have allowed themselves to be subjected, on mere suspicion of being armed and dangerous, to such indignity").
  
  There are some exceptions, including one for airport searches. Perhaps courts should extend this exception to subway searches, especially aimed at finding bombs. But given the current law, the ACLU's argument is eminently credible.
  
  If you don't like the Fourth Amendment rules that make it possible for the ACLU to sue, fault the Justices who have developed those rules. (In some situations, fault the Framers for setting up the constitutional provisions based on which these rules have been developed; while the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches doesn't clearly prohibit the New York searches, it doesn't clearly authorize them, either.) Or fault the Framers for maintaining the English system of justice, in which people have legal rights against the government, and are entitled to go to court to vindicate those rights, even when the majority believes (for good reason or bad) that the rights are dangerous to the common good. Or perhaps, at most, argue that while the ACLU has a legal right to do what it's doing, it ought to (presumably in highly unusual circumstances) refrain from exercising its rights.
  
  But stop calling them "criminal" for exercising their constitutional rights. Stop calling their lawsuits "frivolous" when the lawsuits bother you precisely because they may well prevail. Stop calling them "pro-terrorist" when there's absolutely no reason to think that they indeed favor terrorism, and lots of reason to think that they favor (whether soundly or misguidedly) legal rules -- such as limits on government power to search -- that unfortunately sometimes protect terrorists while at the same time protecting law-abiding citizens. (It's far from clear to me that random searches are going to do much good at stopping suicide bombers, or that bans on random searches will help terrorists; but I acknowledge that some constitutional rules that the ACLU defends do at times protect terrorists as well as protecting law-abiding citizens.)
  
  What is in question here, indeed, is "the definition of freedom." There is lots of room for good faith disagreement about the scope of our freedoms. But that some people have a broader view than you do -- whether it relates to the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to counsel, the right to spend one's money for political causes -- doesn't make them criminals, doesn't make them pro-criminal or pro-terrorist, and doesn't make their arguments frivolous.

Sure, Volokh's argument is largely directed at some twit claiming that the ACLU's arguments are often frivolous, but I thought the admonishments about calling them "pro-terrorist" were useful here. After all, it's only a short hop from "scumbag liberal."

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Or representing Limbaugh. Or others. C'mon, Slave, you're too smart for this bumper-sticker shit.

Here. Read this from Volokh, who's clearly no fan of the ACLU, and who's responding to claims made by a site you may well have written, Stop the ACLU Blog.


Sure, Volokh's argument is largely directed at some twit claiming that the ACLU's arguments are often frivolous, but I thought the admonishments about calling them "pro-terrorist" were useful here. After all, it's only a short hop from "scumbag liberal."

I thought pro-terrorist and liberal were synonyms?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I thought pro-terrorist and liberal were synonyms?

Used to be. Now it's "pro-terrorist" and "Halliburton shareholder".

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
No. As the world's lone superpower, our police function gives us the right to decide who has declared war on whom. We also then have the right to intervene on neither, either or both sides. For more information, see http://www.newamericancentury.org.

Whee! The people who signed onto their statement of principles:

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Used to be. Now it's "pro-terrorist" and "Halliburton shareholder".

Halliburton shareholders are patriots. Dick Cheney used to run it, or whatever. I think he masterminded their purchase of Brown & Root, or something. Brilliantly successful business move, by all accounts.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sexual Harassment Panda
No. As the world's lone superpower, our police function gives us the right to decide who has declared war on whom. We also then have the right to intervene on neither, either or both sides. For more information, see http://www.newamericancentury.org.

Besides, as SHP will tell you, the fascist neocon theocrats currently running the US government are merely puppets for the Zionist Israelis anyway - so it's all merely form over substance.

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
Or representing Limbaugh. Or others. C'mon, Slave, you're too smart for this bumper-sticker shit.

Here. Read this from Volokh, who's clearly no fan of the ACLU, and who's responding to claims made by a site you may well have written, Stop the ACLU Blog.

• In fact, my sense is that most of the criticism that the ACLU faces comes because their arguments are too successful -- not only nonfrivolous, but actually ones that win in court...
  
  But in fact the ACLU often wins, and even when it doesn't, its arguments are generally quite plausible. For instance, the claim that random searches of people in subways are unconstitutional is an eminently plausible Fourth Amendment claim, perhaps even a winning one. Searches that aren't based on any individualized suspicion are usually unconstitutional; even some conservative Justices have said so. (See, e.g., City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting) ("I rather doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered 'reasonable' a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing."); Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring) (expressing "doubt" as to whether even suspicion-based searches for weapons are constitutional, unless the suspicion rises to the relatively high level of "probable cause": "I frankly doubt, moreover, whether the fiercely proud men who adopted our Fourth Amendment would have allowed themselves to be subjected, on mere suspicion of being armed and dangerous, to such indignity").
  
  There are some exceptions, including one for airport searches. Perhaps courts should extend this exception to subway searches, especially aimed at finding bombs. But given the current law, the ACLU's argument is eminently credible.
  
  If you don't like the Fourth Amendment rules that make it possible for the ACLU to sue, fault the Justices who have developed those rules. (In some situations, fault the Framers for setting up the constitutional provisions based on which these rules have been developed; while the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches doesn't clearly prohibit the New York searches, it doesn't clearly authorize them, either.) Or fault the Framers for maintaining the English system of justice, in which people have legal rights against the government, and are entitled to go to court to vindicate those rights, even when the majority believes (for good reason or bad) that the rights are dangerous to the common good. Or perhaps, at most, argue that while the ACLU has a legal right to do what it's doing, it ought to (presumably in highly unusual circumstances) refrain from exercising its rights.
  
  But stop calling them "criminal" for exercising their constitutional rights. Stop calling their lawsuits "frivolous" when the lawsuits bother you precisely because they may well prevail. Stop calling them "pro-terrorist" when there's absolutely no reason to think that they indeed favor terrorism, and lots of reason to think that they favor (whether soundly or misguidedly) legal rules -- such as limits on government power to search -- that unfortunately sometimes protect terrorists while at the same time protecting law-abiding citizens. (It's far from clear to me that random searches are going to do much good at stopping suicide bombers, or that bans on random searches will help terrorists; but I acknowledge that some constitutional rules that the ACLU defends do at times protect terrorists as well as protecting law-abiding citizens.)
  
  What is in question here, indeed, is "the definition of freedom." There is lots of room for good faith disagreement about the scope of our freedoms. But that some people have a broader view than you do -- whether it relates to the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to counsel, the right to spend one's money for political causes -- doesn't make them criminals, doesn't make them pro-criminal or pro-terrorist, and doesn't make their arguments frivolous.

Sure, Volokh's argument is largely directed at some twit claiming that the ACLU's arguments are often frivolous, but I thought the admonishments about calling them "pro-terrorist" were useful here. After all, it's only a short hop from "scumbag liberal."

Volokh, eh?

Here's his take on OSU:

That's what Ohio State University (Mansfield) professors J.F. Buckley and Norman Jones are alleging, in a complaint that they have filed with the University. A conservative OSU reference librarian (Scott Savage) suggested that several books be included in the first-year reading program; one of the books -- The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian -- is apparently anti-gay.

The professors claim in a formal complaint filed with OSU that this suggestion, and the librarian's arguments in its defense (which were apparently not otherwise anti-gay, not that this should matter), create a "hostile environment" for them based on their sexual orientation. (The complaint has been referred to as a sexual harassment complaint, but it's really a sexual orientation harassment complaint, see the first paragraph on page 2 of the Ohio State harassment policy.)

Here are copies of the relevant documents, attached to an Alliance Defend Fund letter written on behalf of the librarian. (The ADF, as readers may know, is a public interest law firm that generally approaches things from a cultural/religious conservative perspective.) My summary above relies on the copies of the documents, not on the ADF's own accounts.

The university is now investigating the complaints. It's quite sad, I think, that these university professors are responding to offensive ideas not just by arguing against them, but by trying to coercively suppress them (apparently, according to the ADF's letter, with considerable support from their colleagues). I expect that the university will promptly dismiss the complaint, since even under the university's own policy such speech is not prohibited -- among other reasons, the speech wasn't "based on a person's protected status," since the statements weren't about the complainants, and weren't targeted towards the complainants because of their sexual orientation. But it reflects badly on the complainants that the complaint is even being filed.

Oh, and one related item, from a message during this debate written by another professor, Hannibal Hamlin (no, not the Hannibal Hamlin): "On the matter of homophobia, I think you should be rather careful, Scott. OSU's policy on discrimination is not simply a matter of academic orthodoxy, but a matter of human rights." Yes, reference librarians, professors, students, everyone: On matters of certain viewpoints that are prohibited by university policies, we think you should be rather careful

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Volokh, eh?

Here's his take on OSU:

Oooooh, Ohio. I thought they were talking about Oklahoma.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Volokh, eh?

Here's his take on OSU:

Well, it doesn't use the words "unfuckiungbelievable" or "scumbag liberal," but I'll grant you that Volokh supports you that the university professors are acting like twits.

I found this part of the Volokh quote interesting:

• I expect that the university will promptly dismiss the complaint, since even under the university's own policy such speech is not prohibited -- among other reasons, the speech wasn't "based on a person's protected status," since the statements weren't about the complainants, and weren't targeted towards the complainants because of their sexual orientation. But it reflects badly on the complainants that the complaint is even being filed.

So the university may not go full-out in its defense of some dumbass, liberalscumbagproterrorist professors, and this wound of political correctness on the body politic may not be the chronic bleeder that conservatives had hoped. Sad.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Besides, as SHP will tell you, the fascist neocon theocrats currently running the US government are merely puppets for the Zionist Israelis anyway - so it's all merely form over substance.

Not me. I'm just sittin' back, sipping Oban and watching the neocons implode with the greatest of amusement. Nobody is running the government these days - it's a rudderless ship.