InterruptorJones wrote: Despite their agenda (and I do not agree that it is "liberalist") I do not believe any long-term harm can come of defending the civil liberties of all Americans.
Quote: ACLU to Attack Florida Sex Offender Laws
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Printer Friendly Version
By Sam Kastensmidt
On pace with an organization that would object to a Virginia law requiring parental attendance at a nudist camp designed for 11-year-olds, the ACLU has announced that it plans to challenge Florida laws requiring sexual predators to steer clear of schools, parks, day-care centers, libraries, and playgrounds.
Alessandra Meetze, communications director for the ACLU, announced that the organization is considering legal challenges against dozens of city ordinances aimed at protecting children from sexual predators. “We have about forty of these ordinances that are under review,” she said. “Sooner or later, the constitutionality of these ordinances will have to be tested in court.”
These comments came in response to an ordinance passed by Daytona Beach Shores banning convicted sex offenders who have assaulted children younger than 16 from living within 2,500 feet from the nearest school or park.
Quote: ACLU Wants Lawsuit Reinstated in Teenage Nudist Case
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Printer Friendly Version
By A. Urti
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is urging a federal appeals court to reinstate a lawsuit which challenges the Virginia law used to ban child nudist camps, calling the law unconstitutional. The ACLU argues that the law violates the children’s right to privacy.
In August 2004, federal judge Richard L. Williams upheld the law in the case, saying that it simply requires a parent, grandparent, or legal guardian to supervise their 11-to 17-year-old children while at the White Tail Park nudist camp.
ACLU Says Williams Erred
According to the ACLU, Judge Williams erred in his August ruling.
“Because of the statute, they [White Tail Park] can’t sponsor any nudist camps for juveniles,” said Rebecca Glenberg of the ACLU before a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “That’s injury.”
Glenberg claims that the 2004 camp was cancelled because only a small fraction of the kids signed up for the nudist camp would have been able to have an appropriate adult accompany them.
State Against Nudity
At the time of Williams’ August ruling, Tim Murtaugh, spokesman for Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, told the Associated Press, “Virginia has an absolute responsibility to see to the safety of its citizens, particularly its children. We know that pedophiles tend to congregate where children are accessible… and we just think this law is common sense.”
John Byrum of the Attorney General’s office recently reiterated that point, saying, “There is no constitutional parental right to send your child to a juvenile nudist camp.” He also stated that the plaintiffs lack standing because, “The Supreme Court has found that nudity is not a protected form of expression by itself.”
The ACLU filed the complaint on behalf of White Tail, the American Association of Nude Recreation-East, three couples who are White Tail members, and their five children.
Quote: ACLU Targets Louisiana Abstinence Program, Again
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Printer Friendly Version
By Anthony Urti
The ACLU is claiming that Louisiana is acting in violation of a 2002 court settlement over the administration of a statewide abstinence-education program. Saying that the program “promotes religion,” the ACLU wants the court to hold the state in contempt. In the settlement, the state agreed to tightly monitor spending to ensure that no money would go to “promote religion.”
In November, the ACLU threatened a lawsuit, against the state of Louisiana because a state-run website promoting abstinence mentions God. The ACLU’s threat was that unless the Governor’s Program on Abstinence removes the religious references from its website within 30 days, a lawsuit will be filed in federal court.
The ACLU now claims, that in spite of the agreement, the website continues to feature “religious” material.
Linking Does Not Violate Agreement
In December, Governor Kathleen Blanco and her attorney, Terry Ryder, issued a statement in which they announced that merely linking to other abstinence-related websites with religious content is not a violation of the settlement.
2002 Ruling
U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Porteous Jr. found in July 2002 that some public grants from the abstinence program under former Governor Mike Foster, were being used to purchase Bibles and religious tapes, thus “promoting religion,” according to the ACLU.
A spokesman for Governor Blanco, Roderick Hawkins, said that in spite of believing that they are in full compliance with the settlement, state attorney’s are reviewing the ACLU’s claim.
Quote: Phoenix Requires Porn Filters in Libraries, ACLU Up In Arms
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Printer Friendly Version
By Sam Kastensmidt
After experiencing the tragic effects of pornography, the city of Phoenix, Arizona, has issued a ban on internet pornography in the city’s public libraries. Not surprisingly, the ACLU is planning to challenge the ban.
In Response to Tragedy
Phoenix libraries will now be forced to install pornography filters on their computers, which will prevent perverts from accessing child pornography at the taxpayer’s expense. Last month, a convicted child molester was arrested, and he admitted that he had been downloading sexually provocative images of young children at the public library.
As a result, city officials decided to implement the nation’s toughest law prohibiting pornography in public libraries. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon believes that this law will help to eliminate much of the “filth” that has gone unnoticed for too long. “All porn should be filtered out and this policy does that. The convicted child molester was simply the last straw… I have been working on this since I was a city councilman five years ago, and it is fair to ask what took us so long. I assumed, out of ignorance, that we were already adequately filtering. With all the media attention, this thing moved like light speed.”
ACLU Plans to Fight the New Ban
Of course, the morally bankrupt American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has already announced plans to challenge the new law. “We have heard from people who are concerned about this,” said Eleanor Eisenberg, executive director of the ACLU of Phoenix. “We have several possible plaintiffs. This will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Protecting Children vs. Catering to Perverts
Legal scholars are already noting that the ban may face difficulties in light of the Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 decision, which struck down the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). COPA would not have banned online pornography; rather, it sought to punish anyone aiming to distribute pornographic material to children. This law would have required adults to use some form of online registration or access codes to enter websites with pornographic content, and it would have slapped violators with fines up to $50,000 if they purposefully provided children with pornographic material deemed easily accessible and “harmful to minors.”
Phoenix Mayor Depending on “Library Filters” Precedent
Only one year earlier, the Supreme Court issued a 6-2 decision in the case of United States v. American Library Association that allowed the federal government to require pornography filters in public libraries. In the June 2003 decision, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, “Congress has wide latitude to attach conditions to the receipt of federal assistance in order to further its policy objectives.”
Mayor Gordon believes this precedent will protect the city’s new law. “The (U.S.) Supreme Court ruling reaffirmed that porn is protected speech under the First Amendment, but it didn’t rule that city libraries must provide access to porn,” he said. “You don’t see pornographic books and magazines on library shelves. We’re confident we will win any court challenge to the new policy. It is the right thing to do and our attorneys agree, so we will prevail in court.”
Civil liberties?
|
