Does the ACLU rape children?

[sangh0]

According to the posters in one DU thread (link below), people who oppose VT's S 151 Enhance AMBER Alert bill are child molesters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=264738#265782

IMO, it seems that the "candidate wars" have gotten so bad, that people who criticize another's person's preferred candidate are subject to, what is IMO, one of the most vicious sorts of attacks.

Congratulation DUers! You've even outdone the Freepers.

[MoonAndSun]

1. We truly are our own worst enemies.

eom

[quinnox]

2. I saw that post

and it was one of the worst, most despicable and disgusting posts I have ever seen on DU. I tend to be unforgiving when it comes to this kind of trash, and if I happened to be an admin, I would have taken strong (permanent) action against the originator. On edit: I am talking about post #19, not the original post.

[Booberdawg]

3. I didn't see anything in that post

suggesting "people who oppose VT's S 151 Enhance AMBER Alert bill are child molesters" :shrug:

[sangh0]

4. Try

posts 16, 13 and 19

[sfecap]

5. Gee...you didn't even get the legislation right...

It was US Senate Bill S. 151, (not Vermont legislation...)

[Trajan]

6. THIS post is the most AWFUL post ever posted on the DU forum ? ....

Eloriel (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-02-03 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #12

19. Careful, sandnsea


You sound dangerously close to tipping your hand there.

I don't THINK you want to be on the side of child molesters. And you are on the verge of sounding like you support them.

Eloriel


-snip-

THIS is the post that has the world falling off its heels ? ...

THESE are the HEINOUS words that made you insult ALL of DU today ? ....

"Congratulation DUers! You've even outdone the Freepers."

THAT is an overly broad condemnation of a whole class for the imagined transgression of a singular poster ....

Get a grip ....

[rucky]

7. In Their Defense...

...Now I'm not saying that I know for sure, and I myself haven't, but there's a darn good chance that there are some victims of molestation here on DU. Now considering the damage that molestation can do to a person, I'm thinking there are some victims here who cannot look at the issue with the same objectivity as you and I.

I'm not saying that these people need to justify their opinions by admitting that they were molested. I'm just saying that us critics need to keep in the backs of our minds that we are talking to victims of molestation and can't possibly imagine the shit they've been through - nor can we judge.

There's no shortage of strong opinions here in DU, but in the case of molestation, we should all agree to handle with kid gloves.

[TahitiNut]

9. It's a virtual certainty that ....

... "there are some victims of molestation here on DU." Studies indicate that 27% of women and 16% of men have been victims of sexual abuse. Approximately 1/5th were as children below the age of 13. Many professionals believe these reports to be understated. :shrug:

[Blue_Chill]

8. I don't see what you are seeing

I agree that the arguments against this bill benifit child molesters and if you oppose it you are either misinformed about our rights or you simply want to aid child molesters.

Also to your 'does the ACLU rape children' comment, no they don't but they go out of their way to aid those that do.

[Bandit]

10. The ACLU tries to protect "Everyone's" rights

Everyone even "accused" child molesters. Everyone. I expect they would even try and protect your rights and Republicans. They don't protect the crime just the people being charged of such. Everyone should have certain rights even child molesters.

[Blue_Chill]

15. Yes everyone should

but some people aren't worth helping.

[Dookus]

19. You're wrong...

somebody falsely accused of any crime, especially one as heinous as child molestation, deserves help.

[Blue_Chill]

24. I'm not wrong

Because I was not speaking of those wrongly accused. But those that openly support a crime "as heinous as child molestation" don't deserve to be helped.

[Dookus]

26. ok....

I see your mental shield is impervious to reason.

You still haven't shown HOW the ACLU is supporting child molestors. But I can tell that the mere accusation or suspicion of being a child molester is enough for you to lock them away for life without even TRYING to determine the truth of the accusation.

How very... um... Soviet of you.

[DrWeird]

30. pretty ironic.

given your choice of avatars.

[Dookus]

11. No...

it's more accurate to say they go out of their way to aid those ACCUSED of child molestation.

not the same thing.

[LiberalBushFan]

12. yup

and those who oppose the Patriot Act lean toward supporting terrorists

[Blue_Chill]

14. Nice spin

But the people the ACLU are helping are not those that are accused, it's those that support the lifestyle of screwing kids.

[Blue_Chill]

13. No....

They support things like NAMBLA that support sick freaks. They aren't accused they freely admit that it is a lifestyle that should be accepted.

[Dookus]

17. Then

it should be easy for you to cite a published ACLU position that "supports" child molestation. I'll await your response.

[Blue_Chill]

20. That's not what I'm saying at all

They have defended NAMBLA or do you deny that? Now they are opposing another law aimed at child molesters.

Parhaps they should stop helping child molestors or is that too much to ask?

[Dookus]

21. I don't deny anything...

I asked you to tell me HOW they supported NAMBLA.

In this country, we punish crimes, not beliefs. That is why the KKK was "supported" by the ACLU. The racist bastards do, in fact, enjoy a 1st Amendment right to peaceful assembly. This does NOT in any way mean that the ACLU endorses their agenda.

I don't see why that's so hard to understand. If a NAMBLA member molests a child, put him jail for life. I'm fine with that. If he merely expresses a view on the subject without acting on it, then that's legal. You may not like it, but your beef is with the founding fathers, not the ACLU.

[Blue_Chill]

25. I'm not saying they can't express a view

I'm just saying I wouldn't help them, period. Nor will I give a dollar to a organization that does.

[Dookus]

27. well good luck

when Patriot Act III or IV outlaws "criticism of the commander in chief".

You'd wish the ACLU was there to protect you.

[sandnsea]

31. This isn't about NAMBLA

This is about criminal law and due process. First child molestors, then who's next? What about the Patriot Act and the violation of rights in that thing? What's next?

If you don't protect civil rights among the worst of us, then those civil rights won't be available when YOU are wrongly accused.

I support lifelong sentences for child molestors, AFTER they've gotten a fair trial.

That's all.

[Blue_Chill]

36. due process is not threatened at all by this

No bail? No threat there, this happens all the time for people considered a danger or flight risk. Remember this is for a second conviction, so this does not deal with completely innocent people, this is for a 1 time loser faing his 2nd offense.

Life in Jail? Good.

[leftyandproud]

16. N.A.M.B.L.A.

I heard the ACLU is defending this organization pro-bono.

Do a net search and check their website if you aren't aware who they are.

disgusting..

this is definately a black mark on the ACLU if true.

[Dookus]

18. Again....

just HOW are they supporting NAMBLA? On what issue?

The ACLU has defended the KKK, too. And all sorts of unpopular groups. It doesn't mean they support racism or lynching. It means they support the Bill of Rights.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

22. I believe the point of the post was...

that a Kerry supporter had posted an article (that in itself was biased and misleading) in a misleading way and tried to make it sound like Dean had supported preventing websites from informing shildren on sexual health issues.

The law in question was struck down by a federal court, in total, as being unconstitutional. The appeals court however found that the law would only be unconstitutional is used against such sites, but not if used against the types of site it was intended to target.

As was made clear by a thorough, unbiased, reading of the article, the fact is that the law had NOT been used against the kinds of sites it would be unconsitutional to use it against, but that the ACLU and I believe it was the Sexual Health Network (or a similar name) believed that the wording of the law made it possible that at some time in the future the law could be applied that way.

Let me make it clear IT WAS NEVER ACTUALLY APPLIED THAT WAY.

So what we have is the standard case of a law being open to misinterpretation that was corrected by an legal ruling making it clear that the law did not apply in such cases - this is what the courts are for!

At worst, Dean signed a badly worded bill, but that was not how the article and the poster tried to spin it - they tried to make it sound as though Dean had INTENTIONALLY gone after sites such as the ACLU's and Sexual Health Networks - which it hadn't, as was proved by the fact that no action was taken against those sites using this law as justification.

This other thread, is similarly misleading. It also takes a bill that is badly worded and tries to say that by not voting for it, Kerry was trying to weaken the prevention of child molestation. This of course is bullshit, but I can understand why this person felt that he had to fight fire with fire.

As for the post you are refering to, I sure don't read it the way you do. I read the post that it was a reply to, and that poster sure did spound like he was skirting along the edge of supporting child molestors. This sentence especially:

I can't imagine why anyone would have two child sexual offenses on them, but taking somebody's life out of the hands of the judge and putting mandates on sentences has already proven to be a bad way of administering justice.

He can't imagine why someone would have two child sexual offenses on them? Perhaps because the person is a recidivist child molestor?

You see what I mean. He didn't argue his case very well in this first post (although in later posts he clarifies his argument and I must say I agree with him), but the post you are refering to was a reply to the first post.

[sandnsea]

32. Well no,

a Dean supporter posted the article to say that Kerry supporters were unfairly bashing Dean and then took the opportunity to also bash Kerry for not supporting Amber Alert. Without knowing what that particular bill really was all about. So it wasn't a Dean bashing thread at all. Weird how people interpret everything to be against poor old Dean.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

34. You obviously never saw the thread the poster was refering to...

Here is a link if you actually want to see why this anti-Kerry post occured:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=113&topic_id=1472

The thread you replied on was a response to the above thread.

[dsc]

23. I have cut and paste

the post your link took me too (you linked one post not the entire thread). I would like you to tell me in plain English, sans double talk, where this post says the opponents of that law are child molesters or rapists of children. Here is the post in question (I didn't cut the subject line but it wasn't there either.)

Nor am I confused.
Read it again. I said there are many instances in which bail is denied.

Perhaps I should have added after an arraignment in front of a judge. (To even clarify THAT further...it's after an arraignment AND a bail hearing.)
The denial of bail is not, nor has it ever been, unconstitutional. If an accused individual poses a potential risk of flight or risk to the community, after a hearing, bail may be denied.

Child molestors present an unusually high risk to the community. Their offend/reoffend rate is extraordinarily high. The State has an obligation to remove them from the community pending trial, if the evidence is sufficent to bind them over.

It is unfortunate that people have had their lives ruined by overzealous prosecutors in molestation cases. The Los Angeles case a few years ago is an egregious example. However, that case should NEVER have gone to trial based on the evidence presented in pre trial. The system isn't perfect. That does not mean that we should ever relax laws that protect our children from predatory scum like child molesters.

end of quote.

Now again, in plain English, show me where this post, which is where YOUR LINK LEADS, says what you claim it does. I have read it three times and can't find it.

[sangh0]

33. Not that post

I made a mistake posting the link. I meant to link to the entire thread, and not to a particular post. The post which I mistakenly linked to does not call those who oppose this law "child molesters". I was referring to some of the other posts in that thread. I'm surprised you didn't see them, since you seem so interested in understanding what I was talking about

[Forkboy]

28. "You've even outdone the Freepers."

speak for yourself.

[sandnsea]

29. S 151 is US LAW

That's the most important thing here. Trying to clarify the reason Kerry didn't vote for the Senate Amber Alert. There was more to it than just Amber Alert. I didn't care a hoot about whatever went on in Vermont.

And as to me supporting child molestors, yeah, sure. Me that supports lifelong sentences of child molestors and rapists, provided they have had the same access to due process that is in the Constitution and has been our basis of law for as long as I know. Anyway, I say ignore the poster, that's what I did.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

35. That's funny, because you said:

I can't imagine why anyone would have two child sexual offenses on them, but taking somebody's life out of the hands of the judge and putting mandates on sentences has already proven to be a bad way of administering justice.

In reference to the part of the law that creates a mandatory life sentence for people convicted of a SECOND child molestation offense.

I posted that I thought you didn't actually mean what you said, and from this latest post it seems I am right, but can you just clarify:

Do you support mandatory life sentences for people convicted of a second child molestation offense?

[newyawker99]

37. I am locking this thread.

Please read the rules:


PERSONAL ATTACKS, CIVILITY, AND RESPECT

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, many of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules don't forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other members of this discussion board.

If you are going to disagree with someone, please stick to the message rather than the messenger. For example, if someone posts factually incorrect information, it is appropriate to say, "your facts are wrong," but it is not appropriate to say "you are a liar."

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper. Do not try to come up with cute ways of skirting around the spirit of this rule. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post so the moderators can deal with it. Unfortunately, it has become all too common for members of this message board to label anyone with a slightly different point of view as a disruptor. We disapprove of this behavior because its intent is to stifle discussion, enforce a particular "party line," and pre-emptively label a particular point of view as inappropriate or unwelcome. This makes thoughtful and open debate virtually impossible.

Democratic Underground is a "big tent" message board which welcomes a broad range of progressive opinions. As such, you are likely to disagree strongly with many of the comments you see expressed here. Please do not take these differences of opinion personally. The simple fact that someone disagrees with you does not give you the right to lash out and break the rules of this message board. A thick skin is usually required to participate on this or any message board.

Please note that, strictly speaking, sweeping statements about entire groups of fellow progressives are not considered personal attacks. However, they are often inflammatory and counterproductive and the moderators have broad discretion to remove such posts in the interests of keeping the peace on the message board.

There is a difference between forceful advocacy for a particular issue (which is allowed), and personally attacking people (which is forbidden). If you can't tell the difference, you are likely to get into trouble here.

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not start a new discussion thread with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

If you just don't like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click on the appropriate icon on one of that person's posts.

We do not typically delete threads which many members may consider to be "flamebait." However, the administrators will occasionally remove threads which we arbitrarily consider too rhetorically hot or too inflammatory. Please use good judgment when starting threads; inflammatory rhetoric does not normally lead to productive discussion.

If you are the type of person who just can't get along with other people, and if you seem to repeatedly cause trouble, eventually we will decide that your presence is a disruption and we will ban you. It doesn't matter if you are a progressive or a long-term member of this board.

There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.

For detailed information about how we enforce our personal attacks rule, please read "What is a Personal Attack?"

NYer99
DU Moderator