I should, like most civil libertarians, support the ACLU, however I find that I can't.
They have supported and defended both Nazi's and Communist's over the years. I know everyone's knee-jerk reaction is to holler about the 1st amendment, however if you really look at those beliefs and at the constitution, I think the claim that advocating them is treasonous or at least seditions and should be viewed as incitement, should be considered. What does the constitution define treason as, giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. Communism and National Social could not work with in our constitutional framework. The only way to achieve either of those systems inside the US would be through violent confrontation, and ignoring the constitution. I have sworn my life to defend the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. I feel that followers of these systems fall in that class. Also giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the united states, many white power groups have begun using the anti-war movement to become close to small terrorist groups around the world. As have communist and socialist organizations within the US. I don't think that this should be protected speech. It is not political speech, is its violent speech. > -----Original Message----- > From: Chesty Puller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:07 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Fight-back Friday > > Yeah, the ACLU is just there for effect. The rules must be > enforced fairly. > > - Matt > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:11 AM > Subject: Re: Fight-back Friday > > > > Right, which is why i don't see any need for the ACLU. > > > > But it is important that if there is a rule on the books, > it is getting > > enforced fairly. Seems like she's been unfairly singled out. > > > > (unless no other person in the school has a nose piercing? > I guess we > > don't > > really have all those facts) > > > > > >> Actually, the Supreme Court says that schools can regulate > clothing and > >> hair, but not forms of political expression. > >> > >> - Matt > >> > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:193519 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=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
