oddly, enough - ACLU again, on the right side


PDA






roscoe
February 13, 2004, 08:10 PM
ACLU defends boy who uses forbidden word 'gun':
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001857097_threat13m.html

If you enjoyed reading about "oddly, enough - ACLU again, on the right side" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
George Hill
February 13, 2004, 09:02 PM
Now that is interesting.

geekWithA.45
February 13, 2004, 10:31 PM
So they'll defend the right to use the word, but not to possess the the object.

How perverse is that?


{The DoublePlusUnPC School Choir: merrily, to the tune of "jingle bells"}


gun, gun gun!
gun, gun, gun!
gun, gun, gun, gun, gun!
gun gun gun, gun gun gun gun, gun gun gun gun gun,.....gun!

Sven
February 14, 2004, 12:09 AM
LOL

Michigander
February 14, 2004, 12:13 AM
geekWithA.45,

:eek:Aaawwwwwww, you said a bad wooord!

Hkmp5sd
February 14, 2004, 12:16 AM
Right side, wrong reason.

Mulliga
February 14, 2004, 12:18 AM
"I'm going to bring a gun to school tomorrow and shoot everyone and start with you ... maybe not you first."

I'm all for freedom of speech, but if you say something like that, even in a joking manner, you're kind of asking for somebody to punish you. Post-Columbine, people are sensitive, and for good reason.

True story: A boy my friends and I teased for a while in high school became so depressed (not just because of us, but because a lot of other things, too) that he brought a bottle of vodka, two knives, and two loaded Beretta 92s to school...thankfully he bragged about it before he could do anything, but sometimes I wonder if he would have come after me...

Of course, if such a thing were to happen now, the offender would get a faceful of lead...:(

Andrew Rothman
February 14, 2004, 03:53 AM
I'm a big ACLU booster -- well, not as big as I used to be, but still believe they do little harm and much good -- theirs sins are sins of omission, not comission.

But this case -- sheesh.

The state Supreme Court yesterday overturned a felony conviction against a now-16-year-old South King County boy who, in March 2001, told an eighth-grade classmate: "I'm going to bring a gun to school tomorrow and shoot everyone and start with you ... maybe not you first."

That's a terroristic threat. You don't joke about bombs at the airport, and you don't joke about taking a gun to school and killing people.

The little brat got a $100 slap on the wrist -- looks like an excellent life lesson in not screwing around about these things.

And it got appealed to the Supreme Court?

What a joke.

c_yeager
February 14, 2004, 04:33 AM
Right side, wrong reason.

whats the reason?

HunterGatherer
February 14, 2004, 05:22 AM
The A.C.L.U. only defends those civil liberties which advance their marxist agenda. Here we have an example of what the A.C.L.U. delights in. A warped little nit who threatens his classmates. I'm sure the A.C.L.U.'s only disappointment is that the little rat didn't actually kill anyone.

In this case, they are as usual, completely wrong. The little scumbag threatened his classmates, and subsequently recieved an absurdly light sentence.

The American Criminal Liberties Union once again shows the stripes of its marxist beginings. Standing for all that is wrong in order to advance the "through the looking glass" paradigm shift that will allow them to dupe the American people with impunity.

The commie rats at the A.C.L.U. might have as much as 60% of the American public buffaloed, an astounding feat really. One would think that people blessed with the gift of freedom at birth would know better. Go figure... :scrutiny: :barf:

MicroBalrog
February 14, 2004, 05:25 AM
Here we have an example of what the A.C.L.U. delights in. A warped little nit who threatens his classmates

SCOTUS just decided nobody was threatened.

c_yeager
February 14, 2004, 05:46 AM
While i DONT agree with the ACLU's selective defense of the constitution. Not to mention their downright ANTI view of the 2nd amendment. i really dont see how defending freedom of speech is somehow furthering a "marxist agenda".

Geech
February 14, 2004, 05:57 AM
I'm siding with the ACLU on this case.

You can't hold determine intent with just words, you have to examine the context: what the conversation was about at that time or what expressions and tones were being used. It doesn't even have to be a joke, either. How many times have you heard someone say something along the lines of "I could just kill him" when they're angry at someone? How many times have you said it? It's virtually never meant as a real threat and most people don't take it that way.

Look at what the girl said, she even knew it was a joke. She didn't think he was threatening to shoot her; if she felt threatened at all, then it was because of that naughty G-word. "[I]t freaked me out, 'cause we know that we're not supposed to say anything about bringing a gun or even say the word gun at school." How wicked of the boy to use such a term.

If you disagree with the case, think long and hard about why. It seems like some of these might just be knee-jerk reactions to the involvement of the ACLU.

Hkmp5sd
February 14, 2004, 11:34 AM
whats the reason?
If they would defend the Second Amendment even half as much as they defend the others, "gun" would not be a dirty word and this case would be a non-issue. The only reason this case made the news media was the word "gun" used with the word "school".

Sippenhaft
February 14, 2004, 12:11 PM
I'm a big ACLU booster -- well, not as big as I used to be, but still believe they do little harm and much good -- theirs sins are sins of omission, not comission.I would agree, except for the "collective right" BS they pimp on their website:
http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25
Thats not "gun neutral" or "leaving it to other, better funded rights organizations" as many of their fanboys say; thats anti-gun propaganda, and the fact it comes from one of the most prestigious defenders of the Bill of Rights it gives that position a lot of weight.

I think they do a lot of good work too (including here- reading the article, I don't see anything particularly Marxist in this outcome; if anything, the complete taboo of a word, regardless of context, seems a lot more in line with totalitarianships), but on the second amendment, they do more than "omit;" they do not protect a right that is under attack (while claiming on their website "Defending the Bill of Rights," not "Defending the parts of the Bill of Rights that will garner us more liberal donations") while actively parroting the anti-gun rights position and letting their prestige give that position merit.

HunterGatherer
February 14, 2004, 01:30 PM
If you disagree with the case, think long and hard about why. It seems like some of these might just be knee-jerk reactions to the involvement of the ACLU.I disagree with the case because A) I live in close proximity to this little rat B) I'm sick and tired of little rats like him C) I'm sick and tired of punks who threaten people with guns D) Did I mention that I'm sick and tired of these punks?

Maybe you think that the sheeple will stand for another 2-3 thousand Columbines. I happen to think not. Maybe you think that it's cute for a punk to say things like "I'm going to bring a gun to school tomorrow and shoot everyone and start with you ... maybe not you first." I think not. Nor do I believe, not even for a moment, that the little rat was joking. SCOTUS notwithstanding.

i really dont see how defending freedom of speech is somehow furthering a "marxist agenda".Try thinking about it this way. Selective defense of civil rights that will subsequently result in social upheaval, and the requisite crackdown by the state, is what marxists delight in. Ask yourself 'What is the one item that I possess that really helps to assure my freedom?' Then ask yourself 'Which civil right is it again that the American Criminal Liberties Union does not defend, and which item(s) does that civil right specifically speak to?'


The A.C.L.U. was founded by an avowed marxist. In the entirety of their existence I have never seen, or heard of, them making a political shift from their foundation.

It's really quite this simple. If the A.C.L.U. is what they claim to be (and what some of you seem to think they are) why then do they stand on established case law for their supposed "neutral" position on the 2nd Amendment??? Why is it that they - the self-described warriors for civil rights - do not recognize that "the People" (not the state) are specifically ascribed the "right to keep and bear arms"? The A.C.L.U. says that the courts have held the 2nd A to be a collective (state) right. And yet the 2nd A says "the people". Does that then mean that those self-same "people" mentioned in the 1st A are afforded only a collective right to free speech? No A.C.L.U. attorney would ever suggest such an absurdity. And should SCOTUS find that right to be a collective one, do you think that the A.C.L.U. would then frame their position with regard to the 1st A as being 'the courts have found the First Amendment to be a collective right'?

HAH! Ya right! They would be challenging a finding like that everyday in the courts all over this land.

For that matter, if the marxist scum in this country had the guts to arm themselves in meaningful numbers, the A.C.L.U. would do a 180 on the 2nd A that would make your heads spin. They'd do it before you could blink.

SAG0282
February 14, 2004, 02:20 PM
I wouldn't say they were on the right side, and I certainly wouldn't say that their side is OUR side.

Do we responsible gun owners threaten people?? Nope. Now, had he been engaged in discussion about the relative virtues of SIGs and Glocks in a non-threatenting manner, that is one thing. But as others have noted, this is fairly described as a "terroristic threat".

We responsible gun owners should repudiate his actions and support the sanctions against him.

Bill Hook
February 14, 2004, 02:45 PM
This is a felony??????????

It should've been up to the school to deal with it, via expulsion. I'm with the ACLU on this too.

BenW
February 14, 2004, 03:26 PM
Has the ACLU ever jumped into any of the cases involving kids being suspended or expelled for GI Joe guns or drawing pictures of guns? If not, it's a little strange for them to jump into defending someone for using the word "gun" in a threat, but ignoring something as innocent as drawing a picture of one.

Geech
February 14, 2004, 06:17 PM
I disagree with the case because A) I live in close proximity to this little rat B) I'm sick and tired of little rats like him C) I'm sick and tired of punks who threaten people with guns D) Did I mention that I'm sick and tired of these punks?

Maybe you think that the sheeple will stand for another 2-3 thousand Columbines. I happen to think not. Maybe you think that it's cute for a punk to say things like "I'm going to bring a gun to school tomorrow and shoot everyone and start with you ... maybe not you first." I think not. Nor do I believe, not even for a moment, that the little rat was joking. SCOTUS notwithstanding.

Maybe you think context is irrelevant. I don't.

HunterGatherer
February 14, 2004, 06:48 PM
Maybe you think context is irrelevant. I don't.Context is perfectly relevant.

If the kid said "I'm going to bring a gun to school tomorrow and show everyone how cool it is." I would find that to be perfectly understandable.

However, when he says "I'm going to bring a gun to school tomorrow and shoot everyone and start with you ... maybe not you first." It's game over for him. Perhaps you buy the BS about it being a joke. I don't. Maybe I don't because I live in the area, and I know that the BS about it having been a joke, was cooked up long after the incident.

If you enjoyed reading about "oddly, enough - ACLU again, on the right side" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!