Jump to content

ACLU Opposes DISCLOSE Act


Recommended Posts

ACLU Opposes DISCLOSE Act
 

Quote

 

...

But even with all the good H.R. 1 would do, if enacted in its current form, it would unconstitutionally infringe on the speech and associational rights of many public interest organizations and American citizens. It is incumbent upon the drafters of H.R. 1 to correct these issues.  

Take for instance the DISCLOSE Act, which is part of H.R. 1 and is intended to create fairer elections through a more informed electorate. We applaud this goal and support requiring organizations to report spending for public communications, such as TV ads, that expressly call for the election or defeat of a candidate for office. 

But, as currently drafted, the DISCLOSE Act would go beyond that. It would regulate communications that merely mention a candidate for office if the election is near. It would also regulate communications that “support, promote, attack, or oppose” the election of a candidate. These standards are unclear and entirely subjective, which will lead to confusion and, ultimately, less speech.

...

 

So if a non-profit, non-pre$$ corporation like, for example, Citizens United Inc (or ACLU Inc or NAACP Inc) decided to broadcast some propaganda mentioning a candidate, the law would make that illegal. And for some reason, the ACLU has a problem with this.

I do too and applaud them for saying so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You support the ACLU now, Normy?

Welcome to the lefty journalist clusterfuck, Normy. I can show you around. Take it easy with the chocolate almond milk, it tastes good, but it might give you wicked indigestion if you have too much of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mikewof said:

You support the ACLU now, Normy?

Welcome to the lefty journalist clusterfuck, Normy. I can show you around.

OK, start by replying to my post supporting them on foreign policy.

Move on to my comments about their support for the NRA against Governor Cuomo.

Then get back to my comments on their support for arming crazy people.

Or back to my 2015 comments on their support for arming terrorists.

A non sarcastic answer to your question would be: I have been a supporter for a lot longer than I have been here and don't really need you to get around to showing me the light on posts I've been making for years.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

OK, start by replying to my post supporting them on foreign policy.

Move on to my comments about their support for the NRA against Governor Cuomo.

Then get back to my comments on their support for arming crazy people.

Or back to my 2015 comments on their support for arming terrorists.

A non sarcastic answer to your question would be: I have been a supporter for a lot longer than I have been here and don't really need you to get around to showing me the light on posts I've been making for years.

Jeez, even cataloging your posts Normy!

You might think you're a Libertarian, your customers might think you're a Libertarian, and your fiends might think you're a Libertarian.

But to the Libertarians, you're no Libertarian Normy. You're a lefty. Wait here for a bit, I'll bring you a bagel and grapefruit half. Us lefties love a good bagel and grapefruit. It's our morning crack.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Importunate Tom said:

Do you support the ACLU's defense of corporate $peech now, on this issue, Cliffy?

I know it's not as interesting as I am, but it is the thread topic and I'm not.

I rarely find anything on which I don't support the ACLU.

Asking an ex-journalist if he or she supports an ACLU project is like asking a housecat if he supports the consumption of canned tunafish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

Jeez, even cataloging your posts Normy!

Scot's database does that for me. I just know how to search for ACLU and NRA in posts by me.

Another fun one: search for the phrase "disclose act" in posts by me. Yes, it's still a major reason I'm not an NRA member.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

So if a non-profit, non-pre$$ corporation like, for example, Citizens United Inc (or ACLU Inc or NAACP Inc) decided to broadcast some propaganda mentioning a candidate, the law would make that illegal.

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DISCLOSE Act of 2018 For Intro.pdf

Text of the bill.

My statement is incorrect in two ways: the contributions wouldn't necessarily be illegal if reported properly.

But the funny way is: the law specifically exempts 501c(3) corporations. With such an exemption Citizens United Inc could have broadcast their propaganda within the limits of that section.

NOT exempt: pre$$ corporations. And a whole lot of what they do looks a lot like it falls within the "electioneering communications" described by this version of the act.

Basically, pre$$ corporations would have to file a report prior to most broadcasts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ACLU press release on the topic

Quote

In addition to voting rights, we also support a voluntary system of public campaign financing that would provide sufficient support for all eligible candidates to mount viable campaigns. H.R. 1 would take important steps to creating just that, including by matching small dollar contributions to federal candidates’ campaigns at 600 percent. The ACLU has long championed and fought for these reforms, and we will continue to work with Congress to design legislation that achieves them. 

There's nothing voluntary about tax dollars financing something.
 

Quote

 

This is further compounded by another provision, the Stand by Every Ad Act. This provision would require certain organizations to display their top five donors on every “campaign-related” video ad and to state their top two donors with every “campaign-related” audio ad. 

Let’s play this one out.

Consider a multi-issue organization like the ACLU. Our work, like the work of other multi-issue organizations, often brings together odd bedfellows. 

For example, someone who might donate to the ACLU because of our advocacy on criminal justice reform, an issue that appeals to both conservative- and liberal-leaning reformers, may not necessarily support our work on other issues. However, if that individual’s donation were sizable enough to earn them a spot on ACLU’s top five donors’ list, their name would, by law, need to be prominently displayed on every “campaign-related” ad regardless of whether they are aware of the ad — or even support it.

The DISCLOSE Act and Stand by Every Ad Act together will have one of two pernicious effects on affected organizations. First, donors could choose not to give to organizations, even if they support their messages, or could be forced to give less than they otherwise might. Second, labor unions and advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood may choose to self-censor out of fear of crossing the DISCLOSE Act’s vaguely-defined line between what constitutes "campaign-related" communications and pure issue advocacy that refers to candidates for office.

If organizations do choose to speak, they may find themselves subject to onerous and intrusive disclosure requirements, including publishing the names and addresses of donors regardless of whether that donor supported or even knew about the communications that triggered the publication of their name. This could be especially burdensome for small organizations that cannot afford the compliance costs. 

Other organizations may simply refuse to breach the trust that donors expecting anonymity have placed in them. Under either of these results, our public discourse is less vibrant, less diverse, and less informed. In short, the First Amendment loses.

 

The bolded bit is true of all cen$or$hip and other campaign regulations. The Duopoly parties and organizations have teams of lawyers and accountants to devote to compliance. Libertarians typically have someone's nephew who is pretty good at math. They face the same reporting requirements, because that's a level playing field.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ACLU Letter To Congress

Quote

The upshot of the DISCLOSE Act, and the essence of why we oppose it, is that it would chill the speech of issue advocacy groups and non-profits such as the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, or the NRA that is essential to our public discourse and protected by the First Amendment.

As I keep saying, acquiring the ACLU was one of the smartest things the NRA ever did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More from the letter to Congress:

Quote

The Constitution requires a healthy respect for associational privacy. In NAACP v. Alabama, the Supreme Court recognized that nviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.” For that reason alone, we should be very cautious when contemplating invasions of that privacy.

Hmmm... back to Scot's database...

Quote

Showing results for 'naacp alabama' in content posted in Political Anarchy and posted by Importunate Tom.

On 10/24/2017 at 12:18 PM, Importunate Tom said:

We have lots of rules about disclosure. That's where sites like Open Secrets get the info in the topic post.

I remain a fan but not as YUGE a fan as I once was. Two reasons: more rules just create a larger industry dedicated to getting around those rules for the Duopoly and make competition that much harder for my elk.

The other reason I came across when looking at precedent cases for Citizens United. Specifically, NAACP v Alabama.

An interesting case, decided based on the idea that revealing that you were an NAACP member could be extremely hazardous to your health in 1950's Alabama. 

 

The bolded bits are expressing the same concern, they're just less blunt about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More from the letter...

Does anyone there think that Sean Hannity's show is made

Quote

in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of a candidate?

Seems that way to me.

Quote

Under the bill, entities might be deemed to have coordinated when their communications merely refer to a candidate or an opponent of a candidate 120 days before a general election or 60 days before a primary or caucus. The problems with this language are similar to those we have already expressed about electioneering communications in the context of the DISCLOSE Act; however, in this context, the consequences are far more severe. If communications that merely refer to a candidate can be deemed to be coordinated, they are treated as donations and subject to restrictive speech limitations that go beyond donor disclosure.

So I should un-correct my previous correction. There are cen$or$hip provisions in addition to the di$clo$ure ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Toward the end of the letter to Congress:

Quote

Lobbying is another word for petitioning the government to effect changes in law and policy and the Supreme Court has held that such speech is fully-protected by the First Amendment.

Another synonym: $peaking. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

ACLU Letter To Congress

As I keep saying, acquiring the ACLU was one of the smartest things the NRA ever did.

Do you actually believe that, or are you making a joke? I can't tell with you sometimes, and you refuse to use the purple font.

You are obviously not a lefty, that is now obvious. If you were a lefty you would understand why the ACLU does things like defend the NRA. It's not the message, it's the act of making a message.

That's what you Second Amendment ladies and gentlemen may never really understand about why us First Amendment folks do the things we do. We treasure the process of dissent, of disagreement, or not really knowing the right answer all the time, of trying and failing. That's a fundamental lefty approach that that righties may never understand. We fully understand that we don't have all the answers, and we're endlessly amused by people who think they do have the answers ... but even more than being amused, we want to make sure that you have the right and inclination to keep exploring ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikewof said:

why us First Amendment folks do the things we do. We treasure the process of dissent, of disagreement, or not really knowing the right answer all the time, of trying and failing.

How about the freedom of association, as in NAACP vs Alabama?

That's a First Amendment thingy too, isn't it?

You seem to have lots of thoughts (baseless, of course) about what I might think.

Do you have any thoughts at all on things unrelated to me, like the ACLU's position on the DISCLOSE Act and other parts of HR 1? Or even NAACP v Button?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonus first amendment content:

The author of an article on another topic I was just reading has this at the end of his articles:

Quote

Contributing Editor Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, is a criminal defense attorney and First Amendment litigator at Brown White & Osborn LLP in Los Angeles. He writes at Popehat and recently launched a First Amendment podcast, Make No Law.

Hah! That's the greatest podcast name ever.

For those who don't know, the First Amendment begins:

Quote

The Congreff shall make no law...

They were short of "s's" back then.

I don't listen to podcasts because they're new and strange and should probably get off my lawn but I may have to learn to do it just because "Make No Law" is such a great name.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

How about the freedom of association, as in NAACP vs Alabama?

That's a First Amendment thingy too, isn't it?

You seem to have lots of thoughts (baseless, of course) about what I might think.

Do you have any thoughts at all on things unrelated to me, like the ACLU's position on the DISCLOSE Act and other parts of HR 1? Or even NAACP v Button?

I'm interested in the ACLU's defense of the NRA, and the internal stress that caused, but they pushed ahead anyway. It's why I support the ACLU, because they often find their ideals between a rock and a hard place and go ahead anyway, regardless that guys like you claim that the NRA took them over.

The DISCLOSE Act died, it might get a second chance, but I don't see the point of doing a Normy word marathon with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mikewof said:

The DISCLOSE Act died

Hah! Yes, it has, many times.

But cen$or$hip lives in the hearts of men and can't be killed, so it will return again and again, frequently with the same name as before but sometimes with different provisions.

I enjoy commenting on those provisions and happen to agree with the ACLU.

And no, I don't really believe that the KKK or the NRA has actually acquired the ACLU. Sheesh. Just having a bit of fun with all the people who object to "arming crazy people" or "arming terrorists" as NRA nuttiness then run away when I ask them whether they agree with the ACLU on the same issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Importunate Tom said:

Hah! Yes, it has, many times.

But cen$or$hip lives in the hearts of men and can't be killed, so it will return again and again, frequently with the same name as before but sometimes with different provisions.

I enjoy commenting on those provisions and happen to agree with the ACLU.

And no, I don't really believe that the KKK or the NRA has actually acquired the ACLU. Sheesh. Just having a bit of fun with all the people who object to "arming crazy people" or "arming terrorists" as NRA nuttiness then run away when I ask them whether they agree with the ACLU on the same issue.

I get the joke now. When I mention my general support of the ACLU, I've heard some who equate with a kind of latent communism. And then the ACLU supports the NRA, and all hell breaks loose with the lefties.

The 2nd Amm is easier I think, there are people generally for, and against. But the 1st is harder, to really support it, because to do so, means giving your opponent the means to tell everyone what idiots we are.

We know full well that we're giving them the rope that they will use to try to hang us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikewof said:

I get the joke now. When I mention my general support of the ACLU, I've heard some who equate with a kind of latent communism. And then the ACLU supports the NRA, and all hell breaks loose with the lefties.

I'll remember not to go to any lefty parties.

"All hell breaking loose" and "stony silence" are the same things?

I haven't seen a single response to the ACLU's support of the NRA.

Kind of like the ACLU's opposition to HR 1.

All these lefty defenders of free expression around here, and who starts a thread about it? Me. And what do lefties want to discuss? Me.

Avoid, deflect, be silent. Sounds like a blast! Count me out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Importunate Tom said:

I'll remember not to go to any lefty parties.

"All hell breaking loose" and "stony silence" are the same things?

I haven't seen a single response to the ACLU's support of the NRA.

Kind of like the ACLU's opposition to HR 1.

All these lefty defenders of free expression around here, and who starts a thread about it? Me. And what do lefties want to discuss? Me.

Avoid, deflect, be silent. Sounds like a blast! Count me out.

I'm a lefty, and the only consistent memory I have of you is that you have a good stable of sailing kayaks, or maybe just that Adventure Island?

I doubt that the ACLU would have the public showdown that you want regarding the NRA, that doesn't mean it didn't cause dissent there though. There are ACLU supporters who don't understand the real challenges.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2019 at 7:36 AM, mikewof said:

I'm a lefty, and the only consistent memory I have of you is that you have a good stable of sailing kayaks, or maybe just that Adventure Island?

But the stable actually has more powerboats than any other kind. There's an extra aluminum skiff hiding in the back corner where you can't see it.

Cleaned out a bunch of scraps from my wood shed and made them into a high shelf for my boat stands yesterday.

BoatStandShelf.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Yeah, and get rid of that damned piece of weathered plywood fercrissakes.

Hah! It's almost gone. I was thinking of taking a pic of the remains yesterday.

By the way, if I can still see over the grass it doesn't need cutting.

Edit: now that I think about it, the shelf holding my boat stands is also part of the Grand Plywood experiment. The piece on the left was a scrap we were using as a hard version of a drop cloth when working on my friend's whale boats in 2011. That piece has been in my shed ever since and is fine. The hardened resin spills make boat stands slide easily.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
1 minute ago, Navig8tor said:

The dissemination of hate under the guise of freedom of speech is a really fucked up notion, hate is divisive, seldom productive and for most socially unacceptable.

You lament free speech, I lament hatred  something endorsed by your own President, but we all know he was always a divide and conquer kinda guy right?


It's not just the President.

Noted NRA subsidiary the ACLU has a long history of supporting hatred.

Come to think of it, so do I!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
59 minutes ago, mad said:

This copy and pasting comments from other threads is about as dull and productive as your 22 rants.


Hmmm...

Perhaps, but like my posts on guns, it's more likely to get a response than if I do something boring like post a link from the ACLU and comment on it.

As Eva Dent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dropped by aclu.org to see their comments on Assange and got this welcome mat at the door.

ACLUDonate.jpg

Keep in mind, The ACLU is nonprofit and nonpartisan.

Anyway, on Assange,
 

Quote

 

In response to the unsealed indictement, Wizner added:

"Criminally prosecuting a publisher for the publication of truthful information would be a first in American history, and unconstitutional. The government did not cross that Rubicon with today’s indictment, but the worst case scenario cannot yet be ruled out. We have no assurance that these are the only charges the government plans to bring against Mr. Assange. Further, while there is no First Amendment right to crack a government password, this indictment characterizes as ‘part of’ a criminal conspiracy the routine and protected activities journalists often engage in as part of their daily jobs, such as encouraging a source to provide more information. Given President Trump’s and his administration’s well-documented attacks on the freedom of the press, such characterizations are especially worrisome.”

 

Journalists encourage and enable illegal leaks of information that is embarrassing to government officials and then make money by printing the stolen information.

And it's a GOOD thing they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Given President Trump’s and his administration’s well-documented attacks on the freedom of the press, such characterizations are especially worrisome.

Wizner is certainly right about that, but in light of the topic post it should really read like this:

Quote

Given President Trump’s and his administration’s well-documented attacks on the freedom of the press and given that the number one priority in the House of Representatives is restricting press freedoms, such characterizations are especially worrisome.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
9 hours ago, Olsonist said:

That why you need to donate. Won't you help the NRA to help Wayne help America? Give generously.


Nope. And as long as noted subsidiary the ACLU continues to buck the NRA on the first amendment, I'll be on the ACLU's side.

The NRA ripped it with me by throwing SAF and other useful organizations under the bus years ago on this issue. I don't forget quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

And those staff salaries ain't much.

https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/American-Civil-Liberties-Union-Salaries-E16157.htm

Tom, Wayne needs support from patriots like you to protect America from liberals like me. Won't you give generously?

https://donate.nra.org/donate


Still no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The root of our yuge terror problem has been found.

From the article she linked:

Quote

But some current and former law enforcement agents have pushed back against the idea of a new domestic terrorism statute, for fear of infringing on Americans' First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
...
But he, Gomez and McCord all agree that the First Amendment issue is a serious one, in part because limits on expression could potentially be misused against a range of activist groups.

The bolded part is a nice summary of the ACLU's concern about HR1.

I like it when the ACLU acts like evil libertarians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

And now for (what might be) some first amendment-protected corporate expre$$ion:

hero-shot-1500x600.jpg
 

Quote

 

Wednesday afternoon, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order to protect the mural of a North Dakota saloon, Lonesome Dove, from immediate removal. Lonesome Dove filed a lawsuit against the city on Monday after the city ordered the bar to either remove the mural by May 23 or suffer thousands in fines. In issuing the order, the judge found that the city’s enforcement against the mural had likely violated Lonesome Dove’s free speech rights. Lonesome Dove is represented by the national nonprofit law firm, the Institute for Justice.

...

Brian and Augie hired an artist to paint the mural to improve the appearance of their building last summer. The mural shows a sun setting over the mountains, with a ranch and cowboys scattered across the landscape. Artistically rendered across the top of the mural are the words, “Lonesome Dove.” The mural brought in new customers and many compliments. Everyone seemed to like it.

Everyone but city officials, that is. Over the years, Mandan has developed a litany of arbitrary regulations that allow the city to carefully control the content of murals. The city bans any mural with a “commercial message,” including any mural that contains the name of a business. Mandan also bans murals on the front of buildings, because—as the city admitted—it wants to hide murals that may be “political,” “controversial,” or “provoke thought.” Finally, the city requires all murals to apply for a permit, a process the city uses to play art critic, ordering changes to planned murals to suit the city’s liking. The city has enforced these regulations against multiple local businesses, with Lonesome Dove as the latest victim.

“We are pleased that for now, our clients will be able to exercise their First Amendment rights and keep up their mural,” said Institute for Justice attorney Erica Smith. “Murals are a form of free speech and the First Amendment doesn’t let the government say what speech is OK and what isn’t.”

In ordering the injunction, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Hovland seemed to agree. The Court said that Mandan’s ban on commercial murals is “clearly not content neutral,” noting that the Supreme Court has struck down multiple restrictions that discriminated against commercial speech. “Commercial speech is valuable and serves an important public function,” the order continued. “Such a content-based restriction on speech as Mandan has enacted is unlikely to survive constitutional muster.”

 

I think Judge Hovland has that right but the case is far from over so we'll see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

This question about me from another anonymous troll is funny:

1 minute ago, random said:

Do you think he is , ahh, that new NRA sock whatever his name is?

No, my real name is in my screen name history. And my main problem with the NRA is made plain in this thread. I'm an ACLU guy all the way on free expression, and even on expensive expre$$ion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Importunate Tom said:

This question about me from another anonymous troll is funny:

No, my real name is in my screen name history. And my main problem with the NRA is made plain in this thread. I'm an ACLU guy all the way on free expression, and even on expensive expre$$ion.

You up early or been up all night shit posting threads that are not about gunZ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are a shill for the ACLU?  Fucking looks like it to me ... see all the keywords that Tom has been using below.

These guys?  Seriously?

Besides individual memberships, the ACLU has also taken or solicited funds from various organizations. Some anti-tobacco activists have criticized the organization for quietly taking funds from the tobacco industry. It was a major supporter of the tobacco industry's right to advertise cigarette, and it's chief lobbyist Barry W Lynn supported the industry under the guise of protecting their "Freedom of Speech". Another ACLU stalwart, Burton Neuborne, was the legal director who went over to run the tobacco Industry's Freedom to Advertise Coalition (FAC)

According to Lynn and Neuborne, a corporation had the same rights of speech as an American citizen -- except that the citizen was prohibited by law from advising people to engage in conduct that was likely to kill or seriously harm them. The famous Saturday Review editor, Norman Cousins resigned from the ACLU on the grounds that it was being funded to do the work of the tobacco industry.

In tobacco industry parlance the Freedom of Speech theme became the Freedom to Advertise Coalition (FAC) followed by a whole raft of other similar organisations (many from the newspaper and broadcasting world) willing to support them.

giphy.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, random said:

These guys?  Seriously?

I thought a link to sourcenotpayingattention would be appropriate, so I added it to your sourceless post.

But the answer to your question is yes. And I was just doing it again yesterday.

Quote

The ACLU has been strongly criticized by corporate accountability activists for using its resources to advance corporate claims to enjoy Bill of Rights protections. Its advocacy for the Nike Corporation in the Kasky vs Nike lawsuit is a recent example.

Hooray for Nike's corporate first amendment rights!

21 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Arizona Governor Threatens Nike's Corporate First Amendment Rights

Quote

...the First Amendment generally forbids the government from retaliating against government contractors based on the contractors' protected First Amendment activity (which would include either deciding to release a shoe with a particular flag design, or deciding not to release it);

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ACLU Supports the NRA ... looks like it's all falling into place for our mate Tom.

Who Does the ACLU Fight For?

An internal clash over the civil-liberty group’s decision to defend the NRA shows how te organization is transforming.

Shortly before the American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief in support of the National Rifle Association on Friday, David Cole, the ACLU’s national legal director, sent out a short email to staff. Cole explained that he felt that New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo had “explicitly target[ed] the NRA” based on its “constitutionally protected political advocacy” by advising banks and insurers not to do business with the pro-gun group.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:
5 minutes ago, random said:

 

That wasn't made obvious by the topic post linking to their website? How much more clear can I make it?

Why doesn't you ACLU handlers do the honest thing and take out an ad?

This is the best example of how fucked up the world is, an entire economy of liars for hire.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, random said:

ACLU Supports the NRA ... looks like it's all falling into place for our mate Tom.

Old news. Almost a year old at this point, in fact.

On 8/27/2018 at 12:42 PM, Importunate Tom said:

The associated ACLU press release:

New York State Can’t Be Allowed to Stifle the NRA’s Political Speech

By David Cole, ACLU Legal Director

Quote

In the ACLU’s view, targeting a nonprofit advocacy group and seeking to deny it financial services because it promotes a lawful activity (the use of guns) violates the First Amendment. Because we believe the governor’s actions, as alleged, threaten the First Amendment rights of all advocacy organizations, the ACLU on Friday filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the NRA’s right to have its day in court.

The state has asked the court to dismiss the case without even permitting discovery into the administration’s actions. Our brief supports the NRA’s right to discovery on its First Amendment claims. To be clear, the ACLU does not oppose reasonable restrictions on guns (you can read more about that here). Our position in this case has nothing to do with our opinions on the NRA’s policies — it’s about the First Amendment rights of all organizations to engage in political advocacy without fear that the state will use its regulatory authority to penalize them for doing so.

Political advocacy organizations like the NRA (or the ACLU or Planned Parenthood) need basic business services, like insurance and banking, to operate. The NRA says that the state, using its regulatory powers over those industries, is threatening financial companies that do business with the NRA.

The NRA points to both public and non-public actions taken by the Cuomo administration to penalize it for its views. State officials issued press releases and sent threatening letters to banks and insurance companies, and also allegedly communicated “backchannel threats” to companies with ties to the NRA, warning that they would face regulatory action if they failed to end their relationships with the organization.

If the NRA’s charges are true, the state’s actions would clearly violate the First Amendment.

I'm glad the ACLU is still willing to defend first amendment rights, even if exercised by people who want to do deplorable things like own guns.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

And my main problem with the NRA is made plain in this thread. I'm an ACLU guy all the way on free expression

 

1 minute ago, Importunate Tom said:
7 minutes ago, random said:

ACLU Supports the NRA ... looks like it's all falling into place for our mate Tom.

Old news. Almost a year old at this point, in fact.

Nice work Tom, deception personified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You see there is the problem Tommy-boi, you are posting for $'s, not necessarily what you really think.  You have no credibility at all mate.

ACLU defends NRA -- yes, you read that right

The American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief in federal court in defense of the National Rifle Association’s legal right to do business in New York — and in opposition to Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s pressure on insurance and financial organizations to cut ties with those who do business with the firearms group.

The ACLU defending the NRA? Yes, you read that right.

Even a clock’s right twice a day.

As the Daily Caller noted: “The NRA filed a lawsuit against Cuomo and the state’s financial regulatory bureau in July, contending that the agency instituted a ‘blacklisting campaign’ by threatening insurers and financial institutions that associate with the organization. The bureau warned that by continuing to work with the NRA, banks and insurance companies could face regulatory action.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, random said:

 

Nice work Tom, deception personified.

I don't see the problem. Just because the ACLU repeatedly supports the NRA doesn't mean the NRA supports the ACLU. On cen$or$hip, the NRA hasn't supported the ACLU.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, random said:

You see there is the problem Tommy-boi, you are posting for $'s, not necessarily what you really think.

This is one of your funnier delusions. Not as funny as nanothermite, but a riot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to Defend Civil Liberties? Don’t Look to the ACLU.

Last summer, the ACLU took up the case of white supremacists who wished to hold a rally at a public park in Charlottesville, Va., after city officials tried to shut down the event. The ACLU prevailed legally, as they should have under the First Amendment, but the rally took a tragic turn. Angry counterprotesters descended on the town, police mismanaged the event, and a white supremacist drove a car through the crowd, killing a woman and injuring 19 others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Importunate Tom, even when you are right, the air smells bad. Your creds get shot to shit (like a television set in your nice back yard, in the swamps), every week.

Yesterday I asked you for the 2017 gun murder stats for your home state. You responded with coyness, superiority, and a link. The link covered a dozen types of crime, but not gun homicide.

 

Clean up your act some day. You will be held accountable for the deficient bits as long as hardy sailors are around.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

@Importunate Tom, even when you are right, the air smells bad. Your creds get shot to shit (like a television set in your nice back yard, in the swamps), every week.

Yesterday I asked you for the 2017 gun murder stats for your home state. You responded with coyness, superiority, and a link. The link covered a dozen types of crime, but not gun homicide.

 

Clean up your act some day. You will be held accountable for the deficient bits as long as hardy sailors are around.

 

 

So Joe, what do you think about Tom admitting the obvious, that he is an ACLU shill?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, random said:

Want to Defend Civil Liberties? Don’t Look to the ACLU.

Last summer, the ACLU took up the case of white supremacists who wished to hold a rally at a public park in Charlottesville, Va., after city officials tried to shut down the event. The ACLU prevailed legally, as they should have under the First Amendment, but the rally took a tragic turn. Angry counterprotesters descended on the town, police mismanaged the event, and a white supremacist drove a car through the crowd, killing a woman and injuring 19 others.

We already know that your version of "free speech" includes jailing anyone who disagrees with you, random..

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, random said:

So Joe, what do you think about Tom admitting the obvious, that he is an ACLU shill?

That's an NRA/ACLU shill! Get it right!

I've been joking for years about the NRA's acquisition of the ACLU. Coming across someone dumb enough to take it seriously is why I love this place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Importunate Tom said:

That's an NRA/ACLU shill! Get it right!

I've been joking for years about the NRA's acquisition of the ACLU. Coming across someone dumb enough to take it seriously is why I love this place.

I just pasted linksTommy-boi.  None of them were about the NRA taking over.  Making up bullshit yet again, as always.

But I'm not dumb enough to take your shit.  I fucking hate shills.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Coming across someone dumb enough to take it seriously is why I love this place.

You play dumb, quite a bit, yes. But in some ways you are dense, evidently.

On the pretend-to-be-dumb side, we have

--dogballs as someone dumb enough to mention suicide and Japan, year after year, without ever grasping the inherent connection.

--dogballs feigning to be dumb enough to deny the federal ban on gun violence research, over a twenty year period.

On the actually dumb or ignorant side, we have

--dogballs is stumped why an ethnic minority would go all violent with gunz in the USA.

--the dogballs is dumb enough to race-bait for five years, in public, in a variety of ways.

--a person who gets silly, tediuos, and even perverted, and thinks it passes for clever. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2019 at 2:35 PM, random said:

So Joe, what do you think about Tom admitting the obvious, that he is an ACLU shill?

Tom is Larry Pratt's shill, and reason.com's shill, and the Kremlin's little water boy with guns and racial divisiveness galore.

Tom cherry picks the ACLU (and the NAACP and the life of MLK, and the positions of Henry Winkler) at will, to smell a bit better. 

 

Hmmm. About  the dogballs, generally. 

The protection of liberty is neither a simple matter, nor a black-and-white issue... we find that Tom heaps on the confusion.

I am now very wary of any direction suggested by Tom. He loudly presented Miller as something it was not, on Political Anarchy, without retraction.

IMO this is pollution, it has become a norm in his case.

From Tom, we accept the daily dismissal of mass shootings. He peddles doing nothing, the stream of it has become background noise.

MLK becomes the wronged one, without his permit for gunz. A steady hum of this, for five years?

Daily race-baiting, in a half-dozen forms, becomes background noise.

 

I think this ACLU re-branding is on the upscale side for Tom.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ACLU Free Speech Victory

It's OK to call a cop a "stupid sum bitch" on Facebook, at least in the USA. I think that's a good thing.

Quote

 

The Adams County Sheriff's Office charged that Jon had posted something "threatening" because he called Dorsey "a fucking pile of shit" and a "stupid sum bitch" and because of his comment that "when you get shit canned I'll hire you to walk my dog and pick up his shit."
 
In addition, Jon’s post had criticized Deputy Dorsey for using excessive force in body slamming a festival attendant, and in engaging in an unconstitutional stop and search using a drug dog.

 

 

 

That's mildly offensive and not threatening at all.

Glad the ACLU and the court agreed.

Quote

 

The court also issued a permanent injunction that orders the Adams County Sheriff’s Office to stop criminally charging people who criticize its law enforcement officers. (The lawsuit details two other incidents of deputies arresting people for exercising free speech.) This court order was agreed to by the sheriff’s office as part of the settlement agreement.
 
Also as part of the agreement, the sheriff's office must provide its officers training approved by the ACLU on free speech rights and must adopt a social media policy, also to be approved by the ACLU. Finally, it has agreed to pay the ACLU’s attorney fees.

 

As always, I love it when a corporation like the ACLU exercises its first amendment protected right to expre$$ itself by filing civil rights lawsuits and am glad we had activist corporations like the NAACP to blaze that legal trail a long time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ACLU Wins Again

Much like displaying an I EAT ASS bumper sticker on your Vespa, having this sign on your property is free expression protected by the first amendment.

TrumpMural_1161x652_1161x653.jpg
 

Quote

 

... the City of New Orleans started sending letters to Morris, telling him the mural violated city zoning laws and threatening him with fines and possible jail time. With the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Morris fought back, arguing that the mural was protected free speech and that the city's review process for getting a mural approved amounted to inadmissible content-based prior restraint.

Reason first noted the lawsuit in March 2018. In the past year, the City of New Orleans has attempted to amend its regulations to separate artistic expression from commercial speech and advertising. But the new rules still obligated people to submit their mural plans to the city, which would determine if the proposal was actually a "work of art." Morris and the ACLU argued that these new regulations still counted as prior restraint and were unconstitutionally vague about what counted as artistic expression, thus violating Morris' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman of the Eastern District of Louisiana agreed, granting Morris' motion for a judgment declaring the city's mural ordinance unconstitutional and blocking them from enforcing it.

 

I applaud the ACLU's corporate expre$$ion as usual and think Judge Feldman is right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, random said:

Jeeeaus Tom, you on shift work?  Tag teaming shills or do you just have to get your post numbers up to get paid?

You get up at 4:00 a.m.?


Two of those questions would really be more appropriate in the main thread devoted to gossip about me, or at least the secondary one BJ Porter started when he saw there was not enough gossip about me.

But this one is funnier so I'll address the on-topic one here.

The ACLU/NRA conglomerate is very strict about how they pay me to say things. The immense value created by my sharing my thoughts with a dozen people, many of whom are foreigners, is the kind of thing that can tip an election. No fooling around with something as important as my propaganda output.

You know there's a thread where I basically do nothing but cheer for Trump, right? Check it out!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joy Behar Has No Idea What the ACLU Does or That Hate Speech Is Protected Under the First Amendment
 

Quote

 

There are many, many ways a concerned American could respond to the repulsively racist and nativist "Send her back!" chant at President Donald Trump's rally last night in Greenville, N.C., during which the crowd cheered for the forceful removal from the U.S. of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D–Minn.), a Somali-born American citizen.

Joy Behar of The View, who is in many ways a professional journalist, somehow managed to articulate one of the least informed responses.

The ladies of The View started their show today by unanimously expressing contempt for the behavior at Trump's rally. Then Behar asks, "Why can't he be brought up on charges of hate speech? Why can't he be sued by the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] for hate speech? I don't get it. How does he get away with this?"

 

In fairness to Behar, I bolded the accurate part of what she said. I suppose I should offer the usual apology for posting such Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading. I am as sorry as usual.

For anyone who might be as confused as she is, here's what my bosses at the NRA/ACLU conglomerate actually say:

Quote

The ACLU opposes laws against hate speech. In the free speech position paper on their site, the ACLU explains that "we should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is 'the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country.'"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/10/2019 at 6:40 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

And now for (what might be) some first amendment-protected corporate expre$$ion:

hero-shot-1500x600.jpg
 

I think Judge Hovland has that right but the case is far from over so we'll see.

Good news here. The city agreed with the nutjob libertarians at IJ that Lonesome Dove is not the only business that has first amendment rights.
 

Quote

 

Recognizing that Mandan’s mural code “is unlikely to survive constitutional muster,” U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Hovland approved a temporary restraining order protecting Lonesome Dove’s mural from destruction just two days after Lonesome Dove filed its lawsuit. At a settlement conference in July, the city agreed to extend and expand that temporary restraining order by refraining from enforcing its mural ordinance against anyone in the city.

“I’m happy that we and other businesses here can have murals now, but we’ll keep fighting until the ordinance is gone for good,” Brian Berube said.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

your gun nut buddys are the ones who think the mentally incompetent should get guns. gunghoul thinks his incompetent mother should be able to murder people "self defend"

Making shit up about my family won't shake my support for the ACLU. They were right to submit their letter in support of arming crazy and incompetent people to the House, as I said at the time.

On 5/16/2018 at 7:24 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

I remember when Obama did that! That was when we learned that the NRA had bought the ACLU.
 

Quote

 

In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases. We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental  disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent.

There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.

The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In paint job censorship news, the Emoji House is bullying

EmojiHouse.jpg
 

Quote

 

Susan Wieland, one of the neighbors who complained about the house to the city council on Tuesday night, tells the Times that Los Angeles officials are not doing enough to protect residents from the house's silly faces.

"And we really feel it is our city's responsibility to have these regulations in place because people can do anything," Wieland said. "That's the most frightening thing. I feel like we're not being protected against bullying."

Puh-lease. 

Painting your house—even doing so in a way that's deliberately intended to get under a neighbor's skin—is hardly an act of bullying.

It also happens to be protected by the First Amendment.

"I think it's scary when a small group of people thinks they can use the coercive power of government to get rid of anything they don't like," says Jeremy Talcott, a property rights attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation. "The homeowners here seem convinced that their distaste of a particular choice of paint is enough to justify government action, and that's just not so."

Talcott should know. He was the lead attorney in a case that bears more than a passing resemblance to the "emoji house" situation. In 2016, the town of Mount Dora, Florida, imposed more than $10,000 in fines against a couple who painted their house to resemble Vincent van Gogh's masterpiece Starry Night. The town ended up on the receiving end of a legal butt-kicking—the mayor made a public apology and the town paid $15,000 to the homeowners. This settlement was reached after a judge made it clear the town wasn't likely to get the First Amendment overturned just so it could continue its overzealous code enforcement.

 

For those who don't know about the Pacific Legal Foundation, they're more nutjob libertarians with that nasty habit of winning in court. I hope they deliver another butt kicking in that case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On 7/11/2019 at 5:38 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

Much like displaying an I EAT ASS bumper sticker on your Vespa, having this sign on your property is free expression protected by the first amendment.

Hah! Also permissible expression: A PB4WEGO license plate.

PB4WEGO-Vanity-Plate.jpg

She has had it for 15 years and can, it seems, keep it for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, phillysailor said:

I wonder if these posters who profess love for "freedom of speech" are donating to the ACLU? We've given several hundred since Trump started jailing kids and banning Muslims.


That's great news. I support them more for their opposition to censorship but your reason is good too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

The Case Against Free Speech
 

Quote

 

When a book entitled The Case Against Free Speech opens with the claim that "This book is not anti-free-speech. It is anti-the-concept-of-free-speech," you know you're in for some verbal gymnastics. When it offers a howler like "There is relatively little literature and philosophy on free speech," you prepare for some pratfalls.

P.E. Moskowitz (who prefers to go by theythem, and their pronouns) is are unburdened by an educated understanding of free speech debates or an effort to present a new perspective on them. Moskowitz relies on the familiar illiberal view that free speech is mainly an instrument of the powerful right-wing few, irrelevant at best to the marginalized and powerless many.

 

In an effort to burnish my "woke" cred, I changed the verb above in light of the fact that he's a they.

Quote

 

...With little regard for law and history, it asserts that "the First Amendment has rarely been enforced to protect speech." Moskowitz tries substantiating this jaw-dropping factoid with a selective look at First Amendment cases, stressing the successful prosecutions of leftists for political speech during 20th century red scares. They then note that when the Supreme Court finally recognized First Amendment protections for unpopular advocacy, distinguishing it from incitement to violence, it did so in a case, 1969's Brandenburg v. Ohio, involving a speech by a Ku Klux Klan leader. Moskowitz imagines that this ruling was simply "an attempt to defend the rights of virulent racists."

In fact, Brandenburg reflected social changes, political upheaval, and the development of First Amendment law after decades of hard-fought cases, not any particular sympathy for the Klan. Other cases from the Brandenburg era explicitly protected the rights of left-wing protesters. In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the Court recognized students' right to wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. Street v. New York (1969) struck down the conviction of a World War II veteran who publicly burned his flag to protest the shooting of civil rights activist James Meredith. Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham (1969) struck down the conviction of a minister who led a civil rights march on a public street without a permit. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) held that a nonviolent civil rights boycott of local merchants was protected by the First Amendment and that the boycotters could not be held liable for damages, reversing a ruling by the Mississippi Supreme Court.

And no case for or against free speech should omit the Court's earlier ruling in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943). An eloquent defense of First Amendment freedoms, it recognized the fundamental right not to salute the flag, a right I exercised with impunity in the seventh grade.

This book doesn't just ignore particular cases that undermine its narrative. It ignores the general importance of the First Amendment and broader concepts of free speech to modern civil rights movements. Individuals who don't own media companies make themselves heard, sometimes to great effect, by speaking collectively.

 

By speaking collectively through corporations like the NAACP, ACLU, and Citizens United.

By the way, the nonsense of the whole "they, them" thing appeals to me so I want everyone to use those pronouns for me from now on.

Wait, for us from now on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2019 at 9:35 PM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

The Case Against Free Speech
 

In an effort to burnish my "woke" cred, I changed the verb above in light of the fact that he's a they.

By speaking collectively through corporations like the NAACP, ACLU, and Citizens United.

By the way, the nonsense of the whole "they, them" thing appeals to me so I want everyone to use those pronouns for me from now on.

Wait, for us from now on.

We are not amused.....

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

ACLU Expre$$e$ It$elf Again
 

Quote

 

Two years after a cellphone video showed a white sheriff's deputy in Madison County, Mississippi, putting his hands around a handcuffed black man's neck, a federal judge has approved a settlement agreement between the county and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Mississippi that aims to end what community activists say is a generations-long history of unconstitutional and biased policing against minority residents in the rural county.

...

The consent decree is the result of a class-action civil rights lawsuit filed in 2017 by the ACLU of Mississippi and the law firm of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.

The lawsuit alleged that Madison County police targeted black residents with unconstitutional checkpoints and warrantless searches, violating their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically, the lawsuit accused the MCSD of setting up illegal roadblocks and pedestrian "checkpoints" outside of majority-black housing complexes, conducting warrantless home invasions, and running aggressive "jump out" squads that targeted young black men doing nothing more than walking down the street.

...

During the course of the lawsuit, the ACLU uncovered a 2009 chain email, subject line "'White' Pride," that Tucker, who was elected in 2012, forwarded to several of his Madison County colleagues. The chain email contains such tropes as "How come there's no White History Month?"

The MSCD also handed over data showing that, on average, the per capita rate of police roadblocks in predominantly black census tracts in Madison County was double the rate in predominantly white census tracts. Despite making up 38 percent of the population of the county, black residents accounted for 77 percent of all arrests, 76 percent of all arrests at roadblocks, and 72 percent of all citations.

One of the other documents turned over to the ACLU and Simpson Thacher was the template case sheet for the MCSD's narcotics unit. All of the fields on the form were blank, except three that were automatically filled in: "black," "male," and "arrested."...

 

I'm happy as usual to see a non-profit, non-pre$$ corporation like the ACLU engage in first amendment-protected activities like filing civil rights lawsuits.

There is a certain efficiency reflected by automatically filling in "black, male, and arrested" in stupid drug war case sheets. And a certain honesty. Put me down as "anti-efficiency" and "anti-honesty" in this instance.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
10 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

You didn't mean to spam multiple threads with the same link, did ya Tom?  

Well, yes, actually, because Mr. Biden's plan is pretty comprehensive and touched on several issues about which there are threads here.

In the morning I'll start a Biden Gun Control thread so it will all be in one thread, but I did not think we really needed yet another gun thread and figured my posts were on topic in the threads where I put them.

I did not mean to be a problem but now that I know this isn't permitted I'll be sure to report it next time badlat finds some gungrabby propaganda and puts it in several threads again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Journalists Sue Federal Government to Defend Free Press in ACLU Lawsuit
 

Quote

 

Five journalists who were tracked, detained, and interrogated by the Department of Homeland Security in an unprecedented, coordinated attack on the freedom of the press are suing to defend the First Amendment. The journalists were all reporting on conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border. On multiple separate occasions in 2018 and 2019, U.S. border officers targeted the journalists for secondary screening at the border, com