The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon has ruled (5 to 1)that live sex shows are permitted in that state. The ACLU was the major proponent of the right to have live sex shows and filed briefs in support of the ruling.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there are limits to free expression. There have to be certain boundaries, or you have chaos. You can’t have sex on your front lawn, for example, even though its free expression on private property. The Supremes have ruled that community standards and public safety trump freedom of expression.
The ACLU does not believe that. The organization has moved so far left, that now anything goes.
• Item: The ACLU is defending the North American Man Boy Love Association, saying that although the organization champions the criminal rape of children, it has a right to do that under free expression.
• Item: The ACLU endorses virtual child pornography and has defended the right of people to obtain real child porn.
• Item: the ACLU opposed the Minutemen protests at the border, obviously, a legitimate form of expression.
The ACLU simply wants a different country, a nation where conduct it approves of, public sexual displays, child molestation literature is allowed. But the ACLU wants to inhibit conduct it disagrees with, like protecting the border and celebrating the birth of Jesus.
The ACLU wants to impose a radical secular progressive agenda on a country that has traditionally voted on public policy issues. If the live sex act initiative was put on the Oregon ballot, it’d be voted down big. Remember, Oregonians voted against gay marriage.
The ACLU is one of the most anti-American subversive organizations in this country. They must be stopped.
Linked to Sunday Trackbacks at Stop the ACLU
BEAR TO THE RIGHT 
The ACLU is one of the finest examples of a decaying society. In fact, they are one of the largest catalysts to the decay.They should be sued properly by anyone affected by their deviant legal actions.
LikeLike
I absolutely abhor the ACLU. They are so evil.
LikeLike
Hi Anna and starfish destroyer,Can you guys read? What does the first sentence of the article say? Let me assist you. It says, “The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon has ruled (5 to 1) that live sex shows are permitted in that state.”Why are you blaming the ACLU? The ACLU didn’t legalize live sex shows. The Supreme Court in Oregon did.Get your act together.I know, you just don’t like us ACLUers and you blame us for the things the courts do. How typical. Isn’t that like blaming the cigarette companies for making a smoker sick?
LikeLike
Howard, you gotta read more than the first sentence. How about the second sentence: “The ACLU was the major proponent of the right to have live sex shows and filed briefs in support of the ruling.”Does that answer your question?
LikeLike
Hi Gary,I read the entire article. So the ACLU defended the live sex show and filed a friendly brief. Big deal.The Supreme Court made the decision. Take your beef to the Oregon Supremes. They agreed with the ACLU.
LikeLike
Howard,Can you read? I did not blame the ACLU for anything. I said that I abhor them and that they are evil. There was no blame assigned except through your own preception. That is my opinion and I stated it and you need to get over it.
LikeLike
Hi Anna,I stand corrected.But I’d like to know why you are filled with such vitriol for an organization that comes to the defense of Americans expressing their First Amendment guarantees? If you don’t support the First Amendment, that’s rather, um, un-American. Wouldn’t you agree?
LikeLike
Howard,I fully support the first amendment, and oppose the ACLU. Those are not inconsistent positions. The ACLU is amoral, in the literal meaning of that word. It is the proponent of organizations and acts which tend to demoralize the country. Our country has developed its sense of morality and right and wrong from the judeo-christian value system, as much as you would like to deny that. Supporting public sex acts and championing the cause of the North American Man/Boy Love Association are contrary to judeo-christian values, hence they undermine the moral fabric of the country.The First Amendment has its limits. Community standards and public safety have to be considered when applying the First Amendment.
LikeLike
Hi Gary,Since I doubt very seriously that anyone from the ACLU will read anything on BEAR TO THE RIGHT, it looks like I’m the un-elected spokesman (I’m a card-carrying member, as you know).To say the ACLU is amoral is like saying the NRA is amoral. Or moral, for that matter. The organization itself isn’t anything. But its people are. And to reduce a group of committed, dedicated, passionate Americans to the level of amorality is to refuse to acknowledge what they care about.I abhor some of the things that funadmentalist religious groups advocate and believe in, but I respect their right to hold an opinion.The ACLU speaks for people and groups who have no voice in society, and if you don’t like the man-boy group, that’s your right. If you disagree with that group’s objectives, that’s your right, too. I think if you asked any member of the ACLU whether they supported the aims of the m/b group, to a person they would cringe.But that’s not the point.The point is, objectionable opinions are protected in this country. Thank God. The ACLU defends people who express those opinions. And I pray that you do not fall victim to some objectionable law that thwarts your freedom to express your opinion, as a man, a Californian, a Jew, a Republican and whatever else that constitutes the citizen named Gary Aminoff. However, you can be comforted knowing that the ACLU will be there to defend you, which I know brings you no solace.I’m sure my fellow ACLUers would be eager for me to relinquish the microphone now. I doubt I did the group justice.The other thing that bothers me, Gary, is your return to this “judeo-christian” thing. We’re a pluralist society, which means no one philosophy rules. I know that’s hard for you to accept. But the ACLU defends your right to believe that and speak about it.
LikeLike
Howard,I disagree that no one philosophy rules. People in their communities or in their families can follow any philosophy or customs they want. But in the community-at-large, known as the United States, we have an overriding philosophy that guides our nation. That is the philosophy stated in the Declaration of Independence and developed in the American society over these past 230 years. It is based on the Judeo-Christian value system – not on Buddism, Taoism, Hinduism or Islam.Howard, I appreciate your concern for those who “don’t have a voice” and I understand your commendation of the ACLU for representing them. I still, exercising my First Amendment rights, oppose the ACLU for doing so where the institutions or individuals they represent undermine the values of America. Also, Howard, if you don’t think the ACLU has a hidden political agenda, you are naive.
LikeLike
Hi Gary,Please educate me. What is the ACLU’s “hidden political agenda” and how were you able to uncover it?
LikeLike
Howard, rather than saying “hidden” political agenda, I should have said “real” political agenda because it isn’t that hidden. I suggest you read < HREF="http://www.claremont.org/writings/040609palm_kran.html" REL="nofollow">this<> article at the Claremont Institute. If that doesn’t satisfy you I have several other references. The ACLU wants to create a secular socialist/communist government in the US. That has been its objective since its founding by Roger Baldwin, an avowed Communist, in 1920.
LikeLike
Gary,Thanks for sharing that editorial from a partisan web site. I hardly think it constitutes proof of anything other than the writer’s point of view. He’s entitled.To hold today’s ACLU leadership to the political leanings of the founder is like saying that Ronald Reagan was an avowed Democrat. True enough, but no longer relevant.Nice try.
LikeLike
Howard,Ronald Reagan was an avowed Democrat, but through his later actions and words he showed that he had changed course.The ACLU continues on the same course. I understand that in many cases the ACLU does good work in protecting the rights of certain individuals, and I have no complaint about that. It is its actions with respect to religious symbols in the public square and its actions with respect to supporting social activities which undermine community social standards that I object to.
LikeLike
Gary,A guy named Anthony D. Romero is the current executive director (I think that’s his title) of the ACLU. I can’t speak with any authority about his political background, but I’ll go out on a limb and say he’s probably not a communist. I doubt the board would choose someone who’s an open communist because of the PR nightmare that would cause. But who knows. I certainly don’t.But I do appreciate the gesture you made by acknowledging the good work the ACLU does. I, too, object to some of the groups doings, but on the whole I’m glad they fight the good fights.Here’s something that may interest you, which I learned about in their recent e-newsletter:The second episode of the ACLU’s television series, The ACLU Freedom Files, focuses on the Supreme Court and tells the story of a teenage girl from Oklahoma and her family, who stood up for something they believed in only to find themselves in the highest court in the country. Lindsay Earls was a sophomore at Tecumseh High School, a member of the debate team and performed with the choir, when a mandatory drug-testing policy was instituted for anyone participating in extracurricular activities. With the help of the ACLU she set out to fight the order as an invasion of her privacy. The Earls family faced a town full of resistance and nine Supreme Court justices who remain illusive to most Americans. The show does more than follow a principle through the court system. It also gives an insider’s view of the high court and the justices who serve on it. As told by many ACLU attorneys who have argued cases before them, we hear about rituals of preparing for the big day and anecdotes like the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s habit of pacing behind his fellow justice’s chairs during oral arguments. But ultimately, we learn the importance of one vote and why the makeup of the Supreme Court is as vital to our civil liberties as the Constitution itself. To view the episode, go to: http://www.aclu.tvI’d advise caution about going to this site and watching the episode, Gary. If you and I start agreeing on too many things, visiting this blog won’t be nearly as much fun.
LikeLike