Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux
In fact, Merc's reliable source and "facts" took the ACLU's association with NAMBLA in an related case completely out of context.
Putting aside the fact that NAMBLA is a despicable organization promoting sex with minors....
The ACLU represented a man associated with NAMBA in a case involving sodomy with a minor. In the state where the crime (and yes, the ACLU called it a crime) occurred, the penalties for anal intercourse with a minor boy were much harsher than vaginal intercourse with a minor girl.
That disparity in sentencing was the point of law raised by the ACLU. Never did the ACLU defend the act itself, defend MABLA's organizational "mission" or argue that sex with a minor, of any nature, should not be a crime.
The ACLU often represents despicable organizations and sleezy individuals ...whether its the Nazi party's right to free speech or Limbaugh's right to privacy regarding his medical records.
Its important to look beyond the defendant to the points of law that the ACLU raises.
|
Any time you have a group dedicated to impartial law, people who hate impartial law will attack that group based on the most egregious cases they have handled.
Likewise, when you have someone brainwashed to hate civil liberties, that person will distort facts, cite irrelevant or out of context cases, etc, to slam anyone who defends rights.