Conference taveng::bagels

       re .0:
       
       The ACLU will not sue you for your opinion.  The ACLU stands up
       for the right of every person to voice his or her opinion,
       whatever that opinion might be, and however unpopular that opinion
       might be, or however odious the opinion might be.  Because the
       ACLU figures that if its ok to stifle some opinions, it opens the
       door to stifling others.
       
       The ACLU does more than stick up for Nazis and skinheads. I don't
       especially agree with all the the ACLU does, and it nauseates me
       to hear of Nazis in this (or any) country.  But the ideas of Nazis
       and other vicious bigots can be brought down only by puclic
       derision, not by laws that prevent free speech.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    "The only remedy for bad ideas is better ideas."
--Thomas Jefferson

    The ACLU  fights  for  freedom  of  speech for everyone, including
    people  who  would  limit freedom of speech. I sometimes wonder if
    they go overboard, but most of the time I believe that free speech
    must  be defended everywhere. I give more money to "People for the
    American Way" because I think they're a little more effective, and
    pick  their  battles  better,  but  I will continue to support the
    ACLU.

--David Wittenberg

    The author brings out some good points. The ACLU had made their
    decision on who to defend and who not to defend, now they have to
    live with their decisions. The Skokie case cost them large amounts
    of Jewish contributions, and rightly so. If they want to fight for
    the rights of any street slime that crawls out of a sewer, let them,
    but don't expect me to donate to your cause! Before I'll dig into
    my pocket, I want to know what the organization believes in, and
    if its Nazi's rights, don't waste my time.
    
    Eric

re: .-1

	What is this "Nazi's rights"?

	HOW DARE YOU!

	As Americans, everyone has the same rights, unless they abridge others'
	rights. As much as these people are loathsome, they deserve the same 
	rights as other Americans, especially since, although they espouse the
	same garbage as Hitler & Co., *they* are not guilty of crimes against
	humanity. We do not punish before the fact.

	And this from people who bitch and moan that noone listens to a Jew's
	cry...

V'im l'aztmi, mah ani?

--eric--

    Since they are in America, they do have the right to present their
    viewpoint (regardless to how detestable it may be), its guaranteed
    under the constitution, but I have just as much right not to fund
    ANY organization which backs them!!! That's my right, and if the
    ACLU falls into that catagory, so be it. My hard earned dollars
    will never support any group which supports Hatemongers, be it Nazi's,
    KKK, or any of the variety of racist organizations out there.
    
    Eric
    
    

re: < Note 479.7 by NAAD::REITER >

I'm not going to let you get away with that unchallenged...

The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms. The wording states "in order
to maintain a ... militia". I am not abridging anyone's 2nd Amendment rights -
I don't believe they exist in the first place. If the wording of the amendment
was different, you're right - I shouldn't (and wouldn't) object to people
owning guns, other than disapproving of the choice, or supporting a movement
to repeal it.

>What ACLU protects us against him, he who DARES to abridge others' rights? 

	The ACLU usually steps in when other lawyers will not defend or 
	will not adequately defend a client on a civil rights issue.

>I do question the propriety of a Jew advocating the giving of money to an
>organization that consistently provides free legal aid to people who express
>THEIR right to openly advocate the extermination of Jews.  

	OK. I see it differently - as supporting an organization which defends
	and champions the most basic of American rights for *all* Americans.

>Are American Nazis indigent? Can't they afford their own lawyers?  

	They can afford them, I guess. But very few lawyers will defend a 
	Nazi, and *all* Americans are entitled to the best defense they can
	get - and, in civil rights cases, that is the ACLU

And as for your reference, I disagree with him - but that is what makes America
great - the right to disagree!

	as I stated elsewhere:

		when thoughts are censored, thinking dies

--axe--

    
    > What a hypocrite you are!
    
    Mr./Ms. Reiter:  Please see our moderator's note, 478.12, which
    states: "Dragging a discussion into personal attack is not welcome."
    
    Thank you.

    Shalom,

>re .9   I reply only out of courtesy to you:
>I think the moderators can decide for THEMSELVES what is appropriate.

    SET MODERATOR

    We agree with Fern.  However, the attack was not so violent as
    to warrent note deletion.  Just keep it under control.

    SET NOMODERATOR

>>	I am not abridging anyone's 2nd Amendment rights -
>>	I don't believe they exist in the first place.
>   This bears repetition.  YOUR words, exactly:
>>	I am not abridging anyone's 2nd Amendment rights -
>>	I don't believe they exist in the first place.

>OK, ok, I understand you now.  If YOU don't believe some HAS a right, it's
>all right to abridge it.  Zoom.  It's gone.  Painless... 
>                   what an idea!  the U.S. Constitution with Menu Options! 
>Suddenly, I don't CARE what you believe or don't believe.

    I think that the point here was that his interpretation of the
    wording was that the right to bear arms for personal reasons does
    not exist, only the right to bear arms in support of a militia.
    I don't agree with that interpretation but interpretation is
    ALWAYS the name of the game in Consitutional law.

>You have demonstrated that you are more mindful of neo-Nazis' rights than of
>mine.  If you want to be supporter of, or an apologist for, the Neo-Nazis and
>their ACLU lawyers, it's your money, your time, your opinion, and our country.
>That much we can agree on? 

    I want to make sure I get your point.  You claim that the ACLU defends
    only neo-Nazis and groups to which you object (and to which you believe
    all Jews should object) and never defends groups which you find favorable.

    I don't buy it.  The ACLU will help defend on alledged any civil rights
    violation.  They don't care who you are and that's the point.  You
    protect all of ours rights when you protect their rights.

    Gavriel

re:< Note 479.11 by IAGO::SCHOELLER "Dick (Gavriel ben Avraham) Schoeller" >

>    I think that the point here was that his interpretation of the
>    wording was that the right to bear arms for personal reasons does
>    not exist, only the right to bear arms in support of a militia.
>    I don't agree with that interpretation but interpretation is
>    ALWAYS the name of the game in Consitutional law.

	Exactly. My interpretation is not the law of the land, but I am not
	alone in believeing in it. Since SOAPBOX is for philosophical dis-
	cussions, I am free to argue that mine is correct, and, based on it,
	to draw the requisite conclusions.

>    I don't buy it.  The ACLU will help defend on alledged any civil rights
>    violation.  They don't care who you are and that's the point.  You
>    protect all of ours rights when you protect their rights.

	Exactly. Thanks, Gavriel

--axe--

re: < Note 479.10 by NAAD::REITER >

>We're not going to go off in to anti-gun diatribes.  This is ::BAGELS.

If that is so, why did *you* bring the issue up? Once you attacked me for my
"hypocrisy", I *had* to explain my position to dispute your argument.

kiss and make up? 8`)

--axe--

What a group!

For the last half year or so, we've been carrying on a lively, but courteous,
debate on Palestinian issues without name calling.

One note on the ACLU and Nazi's, and one mention (possibly accidental) of
the Second Amendment, and we're at each other's throats.

C'mon folks, let's discuss the issues, please.

The basenote discusses a situation where people wanted to wear Nazi
paraphenalia in a restaurant.  The ACLU aided them in their defense.

The ACLU also aided Jews who wanted to wear visible symbols of their
belief in, for example, the military.

There may well be a difference (and the ACLU "lost" both suits), but
is the difference really that great?


Martin.

    Hi,
    
    There is a difference between inciting racial hatred 
    and a freedom to keep ones faith.
    
    The first  affects others, the second only the individual.
    
    But then armys don't operate on individuality. :-)
    
    As for the right to bear arms, as an ignorant Englishman, I wonder if
    there are any limits upon the arms that an individual may hold. Does
    the right to bear arms include such weapons as  a grenade, missile,
    tank, or nuclear bomb? If not, why a gun? 
    
    Malcolm

    ref .15, on your question first, the BATF (Fed. gov't) classifies
    such things as granades, bazooka's, mines, etc as destructive devices
    and as such are not usually in the "right to bear arms" debate,
    with usually covers handguns and longarms. On your first point,
    you hit it on the nose. Any group that espouses hatred, be it racial,
    ethnic, etc. does not deserve my support, and neither will any group
    that supports them!!
    
    Eric

    The ACLU is probably the most hated/loved legal organization in
    the country. They can't win no matter what they do. If they don't
    take a stand there will be people that will accuse them of ignoring
    an issue and if they do, there are many others who will deride them
    for aiding(or worse promoting) the views of the basest parts of
    our society. While I too was upset by the Skokie and other cases,
    and also complained about the ACLU part in it, I am glad that they
    did represent those animals(I had to get that in). When laws and
    actions of public figures restrict the activities and if I may use
    the term rights of any minority, no matter how small and vile they 
    may be, society will eventually pay the price.
    
    In Germany the sterilization laws and laws to restrict movement
    were viewed by many as necessary, although regretable. When you
    poke a hole in a balloon, it breaks, it doesn't just leak. If we
    as a society allow the rights(there's that word again) of even the
    most detestable among us to be taken away, we take a big risk. IT
    CAN HAPPEN HERE.
    
    Now that I have said my peace defendeing the ACLU, let me voice
    a complaint that I have about the issue they have ignored. There
    is a "small" group whose rights are constantly trampled on and the
    ACLU has never to my knowledge lifted a finger to help them. I am
    refering to VICTIMS. It seems to me that only criminals and vermin
    have any rights within our legal system. There is noone to represent
    the victim, the prosecutor represents the STATE not the victim.
    If a family member is killed or attacked try and get information
    about the investigation or about the prosecution (if a plea bargain
    isn't entered into) of the case in court. Noone wants to deal with
    or bother with the victims, they have their own agenda and that
    is it. 
    
    The ACLU should be there forcing the system to aid victims as well
    as being there for those accused of crimes or denied due process. Victims
    are also accused and denied due process.

    Of late, it seems the ACLU takes on cases that can buy them the
    most publicity. As per .17, the abuses heaped on to gun owners by
    government agencies (just an example, I'm not looking to get into
    a gun/anti-gun debate, soapbox has a good one going now) is another
    area that the ACLU won't touch. Freedom of speech is one thing (and
    I'm all for that), but inciting a riot or trying to incite trouble
    for trouble's sake is something else. If you want to stand on your
    soapbox and preach, go ahead; but don't come crying to the ACLU
    because you were looking for trouble and found it.
    
    Eric