My point is look who they are protecting, NAMBLA and KKK while going against the Boy Scouts. And in the end the taxpayers paid for it. I would not encourage anyone to support them, unless you also support NAMBLA and KKK. This is not protecting free speech its protecting criminal activity.
On 5/9/05, Dana wrote: > what is your point exactly? NAMBLA are bad people? Maybe... doesn't > change a thing though. Freedom of speech *has* to apply to even > unpopular speech. Ward Churchill, for example. Now if the book you > cite is as reported then this may be deemed by the courts to be the > equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. Which woud be fine > with me. The point is though that this will have been done after due > process, and, it looks like, in a civil proceeding. > > And none of this changes the fact that the ACLU is not spending tax > dollars. Even your own rabidly-anti-ACLU souce calls that award court > costs and attorney fees, which can hardly deepen its pockets, since > they are already spent. > > Dana ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:156853 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
