Three little dots mark the hole in the American Civil Liberties Union's head.
You can find this statement at the top of the ACLU's web page:
It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Constitution's framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society. [Emphasis added]Now I... love... a ... good ... elision... as much as the next writer. Those three little dots ... make it easy to leave out things that don't really buttress the case you are trying to make. But to try and slip a fast one over on people when it comes to the First Amendment is so low and craven and stupid you might think you were dealing with an organization like... well... the ACLU.
For the record, the actual text reads, in toto:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.So, using the ACLU's own metric the accurate statement would be: "It is probably no accident that freedom of religion is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment...." Then again, that might run against the ACLU's current message. Yes, just a tad.
One would hope that with the huge volumes of money siphoned from the credulous this year to try and put the right Democrat, with more money incinerated to try and make the wrong Democrat win, that there would not be a lot of sucker money left over for pumping into this long-running scam of an organization. But evidently they are still making enough of a payroll to continue in their disgusting little efforts to make life that much less free for anyone whose opinions they don't like. Well... okay.
But it occurs to me that a standard ACLU tactic is to both threaten and commence litigation that threatens to bankrupt organizations and communities and thus gain compliance with their demands through the kind of legal extortion that has become all too common a blight on our society. Indeed, you could say with some accuracy that the ACLU pioneered legal extortion in the United States.
That being the case, I occurs to me that somewhere there must be a group of lawyers with enough resources and time to start taking the ACLU to court. Yes, a full-court press on the ACLU. At the best, they could be denied resources they would otherwise use to advance their odious agenda. At the very least we would see how good their defense is. I think it is long past the time of trying to reason with these spiritually bankrupt bozos. Let's just bankrupt them ... period.
[HT: OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today]
Posted by Vanderleun at January 12, 2005 2:34 PM | TrackBack
That is...unbelievable.
Posted by: Solomon at January 12, 2005 3:21 PMIf Maureen Dowd could get away with it, why not others?
Posted by: P.A. Breault at January 12, 2005 3:25 PMI'd like to take those sons of bitches and tie them up to a tree and then I'd give them ...
thanks for all the great work.
In late 2001, I wrote to a lawyer friend:
"I have had the following idea, and would like to hear your comment on it if you are willing. It appears that, in today's legal system, the greatest financial rewards are in gold-digging: searching for some long chain of cause-and-effect which connects a wealthy defendant to a large pool of damages. The cigarette cases are so far the perfect example; I hear people are now trying the same trick with slavery. I wondered if this system could be made to cannibalize itself. Here are two examples of my thinking:
"1) If a minority-shareholder suit is found to be without merit, but still causes a company to move its headquarters, then the town formerly containing the headquarters has been damaged _by the plaintiffs in the original suit_.
"2) If anyone has been injured by new-style breast implants, when old-style breast implants were withdrawn from the market as a result of lawsuits despite the lack of evidence that they were injurious, then they have been injured _by the plaintiffs in the original suit_."
His response:
"The law abhors anything that dis-incentives lawsuits. So, unless you file a lawsuit based upon a lie, or file a suit with absolutely no legal basis whatsoever (i.e. you make a claim that the Supreme Court has said cannot ever be supported), there is generally an absolute privilege from liability for filing a lawsuit. This prevents the kind of meta-litigation that you contemplate."
I have no reason to distrust his facility with the law (he is now a partner at a top national firm), so I fear the game is structured to prevent your idea from working.
It appears that the ACLU has now changed the opening paragraph to more accurately represent the actual content of the First Amendment. Good work!
Posted by: Paul Poshusta at March 15, 2005 3:16 PMWe are being deprived of our right to enjoy our country the way that it was intended. We are “offended” by the the ACLU and their ilk, who are trying to indoctrinate their agenda into our daily lives.
Posted by: Carl Beels at August 20, 2005 8:28 AMSo, if we cannot sue the ACLU for damages, what can we sue them for?
Posted by: Charles at September 6, 2006 7:17 AMYou should be able to sue the ACLU for libel and slander. The ACLU and others of its ilk have tried to destroy the Boy Scouts for years. The ACLU has slandered and libeled the Boy Scouts by calling them a hate group. The ACLU has done this obviously to cause financial and other types of hardship to the Boy Scouts. This scenario fits the definition of libel and/or slander. Sue the ACLU and individual members of the ACLU until they explode.
Posted by: Jerry5847 at April 8, 2007 7:20 PM"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.