Well, here's one way to unite the left- and right-wing blogs:
In just a few months, [Bradley Smith] warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.
Bradley Smith is one of the members of the Federal Election Commission, so it's to be taken seriously. To add insult to injury, the Democratic members of the FEC are the ones who have blocked an appeal of the court ruling that extends McCain-Feingold to the Internet.
The ACLU has been challenging McCain-Feingold from the very outset, because they recognize the tremendous danger to core political speech that this law represents. If you want to do something now to help, joining the ACLU would be a good use of your money and time.
(Via Xeni Jardin at BoingBoing.)
I wonder how they'll view candidate bashing on blogs.
Posted by: Alexa | March 03, 2005 at 06:32 PM
IOKIYAR. Otherwise, get fined.
Posted by: paperwight | March 03, 2005 at 07:11 PM
That's horrible.
OT: paperwight, what does IOKIYAR mean?
Posted by: billy-jay | March 03, 2005 at 09:13 PM
It's Okay If You're A Republican - generally used to indicate the situation where behavior that is permitted by Republicans will be condemned in Democrats.
Posted by: Mithras | March 04, 2005 at 09:12 AM
Do you really think you will get republicans to join the ACLU?
Fat chance. Even moderates dispise that organization.
Posted by: lokester | March 04, 2005 at 10:17 AM
Huh. And here I thought ACLU membership had skyrocketed since 9/11. Silly me.
Posted by: Mithras | March 04, 2005 at 10:27 AM
Thanks, Mithras.
The ACLU once sued a tattoo artist who refused to tattoo a young man with AIDS (he also had some skin condition, IIRC, so I don't know why the guy wanted a tattoo in the first place). That's left a black mark on their name in my mind for quite some time.
I like the Institute for Justice, but they mainly fight eminent domain abuse and the like. They have nowhere near the reach of the ACLU.
Posted by: billy-jay | March 04, 2005 at 11:24 PM
The ACLU once sued a tattoo artist who refused to tattoo a young man with AIDS
They did? Are you sure of your memory of the incident? I don't know of any cases of the ACLU suing a non-governmental actor. It's just not in the mission statement. I am not saying it can't happen, but it seems unlikely.
Posted by: Mithras | March 04, 2005 at 11:26 PM
The ACLU also defends NAMBLA... Reason enough for me to never support them.
Posted by: Lokester | March 05, 2005 at 12:48 PM
Mithras, that particular case would've been about ten or fifteen years ago, I think. I searched for it, but couldn't come up with any hits, so maybe my memory is faulty. Take that for what it's worth.
Posted by: billy-jay | March 06, 2005 at 08:04 AM
The ACLU also defends NAMBLA.
Well, the ACLU of Mass has defended the free speech rights of NAMBLA. You have a problem with free speech, Lokester?
billy-jay-
The ACLU usually only sues governments and government officials. Do you remember where this happened? If I can narrow it down to a particular city or state, I might be able to dig up the info.
Posted by: Mithras | March 06, 2005 at 11:01 AM
Mithras, I read it in a tattoo magazine a long time ago. I couldn't remember any more than what I posted, so it's possible that I confused it with another organization.
Posted by: billy-jay | March 06, 2005 at 10:45 PM
Billy-jay-
I found a copy of a story from 1997 that mentions that the ACLU sued a Columbus, OH tatoo artist for refusing to tattoo an HIV-positive person. I will follow up with the Ohio ACLU and see if they have any info. I can't find any other place that mentions the story; it sounds like a hoax to me.
Here are the only other links I can find involving ACLU & tattooing:
ACLU fights for right to get/give tattoos in Cleveland, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.
Posted by: Mithras | March 06, 2005 at 11:26 PM
Thanks, Mithras. That sounds like it refers to the story I read.
Posted by: billy-jay | March 07, 2005 at 07:04 AM
Mithras,
I have a problem with the ACLU defending the free speech rigths of a group that supports sick and criminal acts that hurt children. NABLA's mission is the abolition of age-of-consent laws that classify sex with children as rape.
The case you refered to the ACLU represented NAMBLA in a lawsuit brought by the family of a slain 10-year-old.
Posted by: Lokester | March 08, 2005 at 01:04 PM
NABLA's mission is the abolition of age-of-consent laws that classify sex with children as rape.
The case you refered to the ACLU represented NAMBLA in a lawsuit brought by the family of a slain 10-year-old.
Loke, I am familiar with the case. Do I like NAMBLA? No. Do I like you? No. Would I litigate on behalf of your free speech rights to advocate for a change in the laws? Yes. NAMBLA? Yes.
NAMBLA didn't kill the kid. Two guys, one of whom was a NAMBLA member, killed the kid. They're in jail. A clever lawyer sued NAMBLA on behalf of a grieving family. But NAMBLA didn't do it. You can't have a rule that protects free speech unless it's yucky. Yucky is surely only in the eye of the beholder.
Posted by: Mithras | March 08, 2005 at 01:25 PM
You can have a rule that limits free speech from promoting felonies...
I support free speech in almost every other form, but the ACLU crossed the line when it supported a group that’s purpose is to help pedophilia become legal. Protecting children from molestation is more important than protecting the free speech of molesters. Criminals have limited rights and aiding and abetting a pedophile is a crime in my book.
The difference between me and you…Do I like NAMBLA? No. Do I like you? No. Would I litigate on behalf of your free speech rights to advocate for a change in the laws? Yes. NAMBLA? No.
Posted by: Lokester | March 08, 2005 at 02:04 PM
You can have a rule that limits free speech from promoting felonies...
So, say, you would punish speech that promoted repealing criminal laws making it a felony to possess quantities of drugs for personal consumption?
Criminals have limited rights and aiding and abetting a pedophile is a crime in my book.
"Aiding and abetting" has a specific legal definition. Arguing that something should not be illegal is not it.
Posted by: Mithras | March 08, 2005 at 02:10 PM
"So, say, you would punish speech that promoted repealing criminal laws making it a felony to possess quantities of drugs for personal consumption?"
No. But if they were actively aiding people acquire quantities of drugs, then Yes. NAMBLA has published books helping pedophiles learn how to approach young boys. They have also helped organized networks of pedophiles to collaborate. This qualifies as aiding and abetting.
--Can I tell you, it feels dam good to be on this side of the argument.
Posted by: Lokester | March 08, 2005 at 03:45 PM
NAMBLA has published books helping pedophiles learn how to approach young boys.
So I hear. And people have published books on how to grow marijuana. And other people have published books on how to build pipebombs. And all of them are constitutionally protected under the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
Can I tell you, it feels dam good to be on this side of the argument.
Of course. Conservatives just feel things and act on the feelings. Liberals think.
Posted by: Mithras | March 08, 2005 at 08:07 PM
I don't remember saying I was a conservative. Does it make me conservative just because I disagree with you?
Posted by: Lokester | March 09, 2005 at 07:59 AM
It was a joke, dude. But you sure aren't a liberal.
Posted by: Mithras | March 09, 2005 at 08:25 AM