Judge strikes down part of Patriot Act

[Heracles 417]

i don't see anything wrong with it. perhaps you can explain why you think it's wrong.

I think it's wrong that a person has to register annually and carry this stigma

for the rest of his life, even though he might have done something as harmless

as sleeping with his 17-year-old girlfriend when he was 21.

I'd be ok with it if the registration was mandatory for, say, 5 or 10 years - to

make sure the person does not reoffend, but there has to be a limit.

It's one of the reasons for the vicious circle of persistent offending. A person

who is stigmatized, segregated or excluded is more likely to engage in further

deviant activity or join subcultural groups of similarly stigmatized outcasts than

someone who is allowed to reenter society.

and what if it is not a case like that you cite above - 17 yo girl 21 yo guy? specifically, expand the difference in ages a bit or more and you'd still be ok with that?

if you had kids, would you want to know if your next door neighbor was a convicted pedophile?

even if you don't have kids, do you not consider it to be your civic duty to know where they are so you'd be more aware of things in your neighborhood - such as a neighbor not watching their kids very well and meanwhile, those same kids are playing in that person's yard?

That is the oldest left wing trick in the book. They always have some sort of extreme case. If I where to mention someone 35 and convicted multiple times, as an example, they would claim that is the extreme. Everything is an anecdotal hearsay extremity; well until it comes to their examples.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Do you consider it your civic duty to know where every repeat offending criminal is living in your neighbourhood?

yes, i do. and no, there are no child molesters within 10 miles of here. and yes, i've checked and i do so recently.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i don't see anything wrong with it. perhaps you can explain why you think it's wrong.

I think it's wrong that a person has to register annually and carry this stigma

for the rest of his life, even though he might have done something as harmless

as sleeping with his 17-year-old girlfriend when he was 21.

I'd be ok with it if the registration was mandatory for, say, 5 or 10 years - to

make sure the person does not reoffend, but there has to be a limit.

It's one of the reasons for the vicious circle of persistent offending. A person

who is stigmatized, segregated or excluded is more likely to engage in further

deviant activity or join subcultural groups of similarly stigmatized outcasts than

someone who is allowed to reenter society.

and what if it is not a case like that you cite above - 17 yo girl 21 yo guy? specifically, expand the difference in ages a bit or more and you'd still be ok with that?

if you had kids, would you want to know if your next door neighbor was a convicted pedophile?

even if you don't have kids, do you not consider it to be your civic duty to know where they are so you'd be more aware of things in your neighborhood - such as a neighbor not watching their kids very well and meanwhile, those same kids are playing in that person's yard?

That is the oldest left wing trick in the book. They always have some sort of extreme case. If I where to mention someone 35 and convicted multiple times, as an example, they would claim that is the extreme. Everything is an anecdotal hearsay extremity; well until it comes to their examples.

Actually I'd say that mawilson's example is far from 'extreme' to be honest. Those laws aren't very discriminating - that whole 'statutory' thing is probably the most common way a person would end up on a list like that.

[Caladan 19]

Do you consider it your civic duty to know where every repeat offending criminal is living in your neighbourhood?

yes, i do. and no, there are no child molesters within 10 miles of here. and yes, i've checked and i do so recently.

And how does that change your behavior? I'm asking honestly, if one moves into your town or the town next door tomorrow, what are you going to do differently to protect the children?

[Heracles 417]

i don't see anything wrong with it. perhaps you can explain why you think it's wrong.

I think it's wrong that a person has to register annually and carry this stigma

for the rest of his life, even though he might have done something as harmless

as sleeping with his 17-year-old girlfriend when he was 21.

I'd be ok with it if the registration was mandatory for, say, 5 or 10 years - to

make sure the person does not reoffend, but there has to be a limit.

It's one of the reasons for the vicious circle of persistent offending. A person

who is stigmatized, segregated or excluded is more likely to engage in further

deviant activity or join subcultural groups of similarly stigmatized outcasts than

someone who is allowed to reenter society.

and what if it is not a case like that you cite above - 17 yo girl 21 yo guy? specifically, expand the difference in ages a bit or more and you'd still be ok with that?

if you had kids, would you want to know if your next door neighbor was a convicted pedophile?

even if you don't have kids, do you not consider it to be your civic duty to know where they are so you'd be more aware of things in your neighborhood - such as a neighbor not watching their kids very well and meanwhile, those same kids are playing in that person's yard?

That is the oldest left wing trick in the book. They always have some sort of extreme case. If I where to mention someone 35 and convicted multiple times, as an example, they would claim that is the extreme. Everything is an anecdotal hearsay extremity; well until it comes to their examples.

Actually I'd say that mawilson's example is far from 'extreme' to be honest. Those laws aren't very discriminating - that whole 'statutory' thing is probably the most common way a person would end up on a list like that.

I like how you guys dodged this one. And seriously that is all many of you do. Any piece of information, article or research presented, which does not conform to your views, is always disregarded. This forum is full of proof of that. You guys ask for proof then shrug it off absolutely every single time.. I don't mean you in particular

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to dismiss what it calls an "unconstitutional" lawsuit against a national pedophile organization being sued in a wrongful death case after two of the group's members brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy.

Another extremity??

Edited September 6, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Do you consider it your civic duty to know where every repeat offending criminal is living in your neighbourhood?

yes, i do. and no, there are no child molesters within 10 miles of here. and yes, i've checked and i do so recently.

And how does that change your behavior? I'm asking honestly, if one moves into your town or the town next door tomorrow, what are you going to do differently to protect the children?

obviously be more on the lookout for kids hanging around that particular house, along with letting a select few of my neighbors know about it so they can pass on that information. isn't that what you'd do? or would you prefer i stuck my head in the sand?

[Caladan 19]

The ACLU defends civil liberties. Sometimes that means the civil liberties of people that I don't personally like. It's very easy to say 'they heart child molesters!!!11!', but if you actually look at some of their cases, you'll find, shock gasp lurch awe, that they often defend people persecuted for religious expression, too.

I don't know about this case you keep citing, Boo-Yah, but on a first glance it does seem wrong to prosecute a group because a murderer belonged to it if they didn't facilitate the crime. It would be like suing the NRA because a card-carrying member shot his wife.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I like how you guys dodged this one. And seriously that is all many of you do. Any piece of information, article or research presented, which does not conform to your views, is always disregarded. This forum is full of proof of that. You guys ask for proof then shrug it off absolutely every single time.. I don't mean you in particular

Which 'proof' did you present? Would this be like how a few news articles shows across an across the board degeneration in parenting standards? From where I stand - that's not proof, that's a wild conclusion.

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to dismiss what it calls an "unconstitutional" lawsuit against a national pedophile organization being sued in a wrongful death case after two of the group's members brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy.

Another extremity??

I believe I addressed that on the preceding pages. Perhaps you missed it?

[Caladan 19]

Do you consider it your civic duty to know where every repeat offending criminal is living in your neighbourhood?

yes, i do. and no, there are no child molesters within 10 miles of here. and yes, i've checked and i do so recently.

And how does that change your behavior? I'm asking honestly, if one moves into your town or the town next door tomorrow, what are you going to do differently to protect the children?

obviously be more on the lookout for kids hanging around that particular house, along with letting a select few of my neighbors know about it so they can pass on that information. isn't that what you'd do? or would you prefer i stuck my head in the sand?

You said towns within a 10 mile radius. Perhaps your area of the country is different, but I don't know the children of people who live ten miles away, and I'm not going to be staking out someone's house miles away from where I live to make sure children are warned. (In practice, this probably gets you arrested for being an out of towner stalking the kids to make sure they're safe.)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The ACLU defends civil liberties. Sometimes that means the civil liberties of people that I don't personally like. It's very easy to say 'they heart child molesters!!!11!', but if you actually look at some of their cases, you'll find, shock gasp lurch awe, that they often defend people persecuted for religious expression, too.

I don't know about this case you keep citing, Boo-Yah, but on a first glance it does seem wrong to prosecute a group because a murderer belonged to it if they didn't facilitate the crime. It would be like suing the NRA because a card-carrying member shot his wife.

More specifically, it was a 'civil' law suit made against an organisation whose only connection to the crime of an individual was that the perpetrator possessed some literature and materials. On balance, if you're going to sue a person, you have to make sure that you sue the right one. The determination that was made was essentially that the organisation had no legal liability for what an individual chose to do.

Secondly, it was the judge who made the ruling, so I'm not sure I understand why all the criticism is laid at the door of the advocate and not the person who actually made the decision.

[Heracles 417]

I like how you guys dodged this one. And seriously that is all many of you do. Any piece of information, article or research presented, which does not conform to your views, is always disregarded. This forum is full of proof of that. You guys ask for proof then shrug it off absolutely every single time.. I don't mean you in particular

Which 'proof' did you present? Would this be like how a few news articles shows across an across the board degeneration in parenting standards? From where I stand - that's not proof, that's a wild conclusion.

There are 6 links to back our points posted in this thread.

The other thread you mentioned had 15 links to back the thread.

[Heracles 417]

The ACLU defends civil liberties. Sometimes that means the civil liberties of people that I don't personally like. It's very easy to say 'they heart child molesters!!!11!', but if you actually look at some of their cases, you'll find, shock gasp lurch awe, that they often defend people persecuted for religious expression, too.

I don't know about this case you keep citing, Boo-Yah, but on a first glance it does seem wrong to prosecute a group because a murderer belonged to it if they didn't facilitate the crime. It would be like suing the NRA because a card-carrying member shot his wife.

More specifically, it was a 'civil' law suit made against an organisation whose only connection to the crime of an individual was that the perpetrator possessed some literature and materials. On balance, if you're going to sue a person, you have to make sure that you sue the right one. The determination that was made was essentially that the organisation had no legal liability for what an individual chose to do.

Secondly, it was the judge who made the ruling, so I'm not sure I understand why all the criticism is laid at the door of the advocate and not the person who actually made the decision.

I never realized the NRA is pretty much the same as a 'National Pedophile Organization'..

Edited September 6, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I like how you guys dodged this one. And seriously that is all many of you do. Any piece of information, article or research presented, which does not conform to your views, is always disregarded. This forum is full of proof of that. You guys ask for proof then shrug it off absolutely every single time.. I don't mean you in particular

Which 'proof' did you present? Would this be like how a few news articles shows across an across the board degeneration in parenting standards? From where I stand - that's not proof, that's a wild conclusion.

There are 6 links to back our points posted in this thread.

The other thread you mentioned had 15 links to back the thread.

Someone pointed out to you in the other thread - that picking news articles about child neglect doesn't indicate a general downturn in parenting standards. That's not something that can be easily quantified.

That said - I'm having a hard time understanding the point you are trying to make in this thread, other than ACLU = bad.

Again - I point out that the ACLU doesn't make legal decisions; but in the cases cited its not all that difficult to see their specific, legal rationale.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The ACLU defends civil liberties. Sometimes that means the civil liberties of people that I don't personally like. It's very easy to say 'they heart child molesters!!!11!', but if you actually look at some of their cases, you'll find, shock gasp lurch awe, that they often defend people persecuted for religious expression, too.

I don't know about this case you keep citing, Boo-Yah, but on a first glance it does seem wrong to prosecute a group because a murderer belonged to it if they didn't facilitate the crime. It would be like suing the NRA because a card-carrying member shot his wife.

More specifically, it was a 'civil' law suit made against an organisation whose only connection to the crime of an individual was that the perpetrator possessed some literature and materials. On balance, if you're going to sue a person, you have to make sure that you sue the right one. The determination that was made was essentially that the organisation had no legal liability for what an individual chose to do.

Secondly, it was the judge who made the ruling, so I'm not sure I understand why all the criticism is laid at the door of the advocate and not the person who actually made the decision.

I never realized the NRA is pretty much the same as a 'National Pedophile Organization'..

The general principle is the same - suing an organization for complicity in the crime of an individual when no direct connection exists. That is the point. In principle, if the person who say carried out the Virginia shootings had a tonne of NRA literature in his car - would it be right to sue the NRA for damages as a result?

[Caladan 19]

The ACLU defends civil liberties. Sometimes that means the civil liberties of people that I don't personally like. It's very easy to say 'they heart child molesters!!!11!', but if you actually look at some of their cases, you'll find, shock gasp lurch awe, that they often defend people persecuted for religious expression, too.

I don't know about this case you keep citing, Boo-Yah, but on a first glance it does seem wrong to prosecute a group because a murderer belonged to it if they didn't facilitate the crime. It would be like suing the NRA because a card-carrying member shot his wife.

More specifically, it was a 'civil' law suit made against an organisation whose only connection to the crime of an individual was that the perpetrator possessed some literature and materials. On balance, if you're going to sue a person, you have to make sure that you sue the right one. The determination that was made was essentially that the organisation had no legal liability for what an individual chose to do.

Secondly, it was the judge who made the ruling, so I'm not sure I understand why all the criticism is laid at the door of the advocate and not the person who actually made the decision.

I never realized the NRA is pretty much the same as a 'National Pedophile Organization'..

But that's just the point, isn't it? Whether you like or dislike the group doesn't change their relationship to the crime (here: having a leaflet in the person's home.) The ACLU said 'we don't think you can sue someone for wrongful death based on a pamphlet they published being in the home of the killer.' The judge agreed.

If you want the judge to establish the precedent that being the author of some literature means that you can be held responsible for someone else's criminal actions just because they possessed your writings, I have to say that that I think that's an awful precedent even though NAMBLA is despicable.