ACLU Comes to Rush Limbaugh's Defense

[SLCPUNK]

So, for all you right wing ACLU haters, this one cracks me up.

ACLU coming to the defense of one of the biggest right-wing blowhards out there: Rush Limbaugh.

Just goes to show you what the ACLU is for. Not what you'd like to think it was for.


*************


WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. ? Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh (search) probably never expected the American Civil Liberties Union (search) to become one of his staunch supporters.

But the privacy rights group was on his side Monday when its Florida branch filed a "friend-of-court" motion on behalf of Limbaugh arguing state officials were wrong in seizing his medical records for their drug probe.

"For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon said in a released statement.

"But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights, and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view," Simon said.

The ACLU contends that state law enforcement officers violated Limbaugh's privacy rights by taking possession of his medical records as part of their criminal investigation into the commentator's alleged "doctor-shopping" to feed his prescription-drug addiction.

"While this case involves the right of Rush Limbaugh to maintain the privacy of his medical records, the precedent set in this case will impact the security of medical records and the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship of every person in Florida," Simon said in his statement.

The motion, filed with the Fourth District Court of Appeal (search), claims the state encroached upon the Florida constitution's right to privacy when law enforcement officials confiscated Limbaugh's medical files.

The ACLU said it was trying to "to vindicate every Floridian's fundamental right to privacy by ensuring that the state be required to comply" with the law.

Its motion comes a week after a judge ruled that Limbaugh's medical records were to stay out of prosecutors' hands for at least 15 days more while his lawyers worked on an appeal to permanently seal them.

Limbaugh's attorneys asked for the extension while they appealed the judge's earlier decision allowing prosecutors to examine the files for evidence that the commentator illegally purchased painkillers.

The records included "the most private conversations between doctor and patient," the radio host's lawyer, Mark Shapiro, said last week.

Investigators seized the records last month after discovering that Limbaugh received more than 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors, at a pharmacy near his Palm Beach mansion.

Limbaugh's former maid told investigators she had been supplying him prescription painkillers for years.

Limbaugh admitted his addiction to prescription painkillers in October, saying it stemmed from severe back pain. He took a five-week leave from his afternoon radio show to enter a rehabilitation program.

Prosecutors have not filed charges against Limbaugh and their investigation will be delayed until the court decides whether to keep the records sealed past the new deadline.

The radio host and his legal team have criticized Palm Beach State Attorney Barry Krischer (search), a Democrat, for opening the records and accused prosecutors of pursuing Limbaugh for political reasons.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[BigCombo]

oh the irony...

[Drew]

I say FUCK THE ACLU!!!!!!

Anyone or any group who wants to stand up and fight for child molestors rights deserves no place on this earth imo. People who support this group and their efforts is beyond my understanding. They can ALL go to hell!


ACLU defends child-molester group
Asks judge to throw out lawsuit against NAMBLA for 10-year-old's murder

By Julie Foster
? 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

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.

The $200 million civil lawsuit, which charges the North American Man-Boy Love Association with wrongful death, was originally filed in Massachusetts Federal District Court on May 16.

As reported in WorldNetDaily, Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes picked up fifth-grader Jeffrey Curley and took the boy to the Boston Public Library where Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website. Later, the men attempted to sexually assault Curley, but the boy fought back. Attempting to restrain him, Jaynes gagged the 10-year-old with a gasoline-soaked rag, eventually killing him. The men put Jeffrey's body in a tub with concrete and threw it in a river.

According to Curley family attorney Larry Frisoli, Jaynes kept a diary in which he wrote that he turned to NAMBLA's website in order to gain psychological comfort for what he was about to do. The killer had been stalking Curley prior to the boy's murder and possessed various materials from the clandestine group.

The ACLU argues that the newsletters and other NAMBLA materials in Jaynes' possession, which contain ''photographs of boys of various ages and nude drawings of boys,'' are protected speech under the Constitution. The material does not ''urge, promote, advocate or even condone torture, mutilation or murder,'' ACLU attorneys wrote. ''Examination of the materials that have been identified by the plaintiffs will show that they simply do not advocate violation of the law,'' the dismissal motion states. ''But even if that were the case, speech is not deprived of the protection of the First Amendment simply because it advocates an unlawful act."

Both killers are now serving life sentences. The family filed the lawsuit against NAMBLA and the Internet service provider that hosted its site, arguing their son might still be alive were it not for the group and its website.

But the ACLU believes NAMBLA is being unconstitutionally ''sued for their ideas.'' According to court documents from the ACLU, the case raises ''profoundly important questions under the First Amendment,'' because NAMBLA is not being sued for making any particular statements, but simply for creating an ''environment'' that encourages sexual abuse.

''What they don't like is what NAMBLA stands for,'' said John Reinstein, legal director of the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU. ''They don't like their ideas or the notion that someone else would have accepted them,'' he told the Boston Globe.

The Curleys won a $328 million wrongful death case against their son's killers earlier this year, but since both men are penniless, Frisoli called it largely a moral victory. WND reported in July that Frisoli was preparing a class-action lawsuit against NAMBLA. If NAMBLA loses the class-action suit, individuals and parents of children who were involved in sexual relationships with members will be able to collect damages.

According to Frisoli, NAMBLA has anywhere from 300 to 1,300 members, depending on which time period is selected for the lawsuit, translating to thousands of children that would constitute the class in the suit.

http://w114.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029

[Mal Brossard]

Anyone or any group who wants to stand up and fight for child molestors rights deserves no place on this earth imo.

The point is they're standing up for the RIGHTS, in this case the right to free speech, not the ACTIONS of child molestation-- big difference here.

Voltaire once said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

The moment we limit unpopular speech, such as this, is the moment we limit what democracy truly stands for-- where ALL people have a voice, regardless of their opinions.

[2NaFish]

without unpopular speech, democracy is just everyone agreeing.

[SLCPUNK]

Anyone or any group who wants to stand up and fight for child molestors rights deserves no place on this earth imo.

The point is they're standing up for the RIGHTS, in this case the right to free speech, not the ACTIONS of child molestation-- big difference here.

Voltaire once said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

The moment we limit unpopular speech, such as this, is the moment we limit what democracy truly stands for-- where ALL people have a voice, regardless of their opinions.

Thank you.

I thought the point was entirely missed for a moment.

[sandman]

i think everyone knows exactly what the ACLU stands for. and there's more important things in this world than worrying about some fucking drug addicted loser and his rights.

The ACLU argues that the newsletters and other NAMBLA materials in Jaynes' possession, which contain ''photographs of boys of various ages and nude drawings of boys,'' are protected speech under the Constitution.

yeah, that's an organization i'd be proud to support. 

[loretian]

I used to not believe in the ACLU at all.  I thought all they cared about was liberal "values" and not the actual constitution.    This does impress me and raises my opinion of them.  I still think it might be a poltical stunt, but their other bullshit also still pisses me off.  Regardless, my opinion of them has improved a little.

I'd love to see you Rush-haters actually try to disprove what he has said......  I e-mailed the guys at FAIR and they actually agreed with me on most things.

[Walk]

The ACLU are arrogant hypocrites. They seem to forget that it's not the first amendment, but the second, that gives us our freedom. They also don't like the 10th amendment either, instead abusing the civil war amendments, which were designed for freeing the slaves, to stomp on states' rights. The bill of rights is for restricting federal power, that's why it was added to the constitution as a compromise. The ACLU thinks it's for forcing rural Alabama counties to not have the 10 commandments displayed in public. 

By the way, religion does NOT need a deity. Look at Buddism. It's an atheistic religion. The important thing is that it has a code of morals and wants moralism in society. If you look at moralism as infringing on one's rights, then lots of government is unconstitutional (FCC, I'm looking right at you), but moralism is ok as long as there is no deity involved. 

I don't even watch television anymore, but I'm forced to pay for the FCC to enforce moralism. The first amendment is worthless now. We need to focus on the 2nd instead.

[SLCPUNK]

i think everyone knows exactly what the ACLU stands for. and there's more important things in this world than worrying about some fucking drug addicted loser and his rights.

The ACLU argues that the newsletters and other NAMBLA materials in Jaynes' possession, which contain ''photographs of boys of various ages and nude drawings of boys,'' are protected speech under the Constitution.

yeah, that's an organization i'd be proud to support. 

NAMBLA was  being held resposible for the boys murder. No matter how disguisting of a group they are, they can not be held responsible for the death of that child.

It would be like holding the publisher of the book Lolita (Middle age man's affair with a 12 yr old girl) accountable if Ted Bundy had read that book prior to going on his rampage.

The case has to do with freedom of speech and association.

No matter how low life the group is, it still has the rights given all of us in this country. That is why I am pointing out the defense of Rush Limbaugh. You are missing the point entirely by bringing up the NAMBLA case. I don't like NAMBLA or their views, and although I would like to throw their Amendment rights out the window, I can't, that is how America works.

Anyway....They also defended Rush Limbaugh too...I know you guys don't want to acknowledge that...but they did. 
You know, the guy (that like you) slammed them for defending the Consitutional rights of Nambla, but when his rights and freedoms were being ignored, the ACLU stepped in. You also didn't see ole Limbaugh turn 'em down either.

[sandman]

i totally understand what the ACLU is about and am not at all surprised they are defending rush.

but i disagree that nude pictures of 4 year old boys should be protected by our "freedom of speech". i think people need to use some common sense when interpreting laws.

if i hold a sign that says "praise jesus", the ACLU will make me take it down.
if i hold a sign that says "fuck jesus", the ACLU will fight to support my freedom of speech. 

[SLCPUNK]

i totally understand what the ACLU is about and am not at all surprised they are defending rush.

but i disagree that nude pictures of 4 year old boys should be protected by our "freedom of speech". i think people need to use some common sense when interpreting laws.

if i hold a sign that says "praise jesus", the ACLU will make me take it down.
if i hold a sign that says "fuck jesus", the ACLU will fight to support my freedom of speech. 

The scummy group defended themselves, they only reffered to the ACLU. Again, the ACLU advised them on their rights.

The ACLU will not make you take down a "praise Jesus" sign. Put in front of your home, walk down the street with it, nobody is going to arrest you. Wear it on your shirt.

"Fuck Jesus" t-shirt  is also protected by our Consitution, like it or not.

[sandman]

my point is that the ACLU is too narrow-minded. here's a perfect example provided by bill o'reilly....


The Senate Slaps the ACLU
Thursday, July 28, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
 
The Senate slaps the ACLU. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".

In the reporting of this story tomorrow, you will hear little about how the Senate has voted 98 to 0 to allow U.S. military bases to host Boy Scout (search) events. ? That means even the most liberal senators in the country oppose the ACLU, which want the Boy Scouts banned from all federal property and has sued to make that happen.

This is a stunning rejection of the extremist group and a huge victory for fair play in America. The ACLU (search) has been trying to destroy the Boy Scouts ever since that organization decided to ban openly gay Scout leaders and require an allegiance to a higher power.

As a private organization, the Scouts have a perfect right to do that, as no one is forced to join. The ACLU contends that the Scouts are discriminatory, therefore have no place using any public facility for anything.

Now clear-thinking people know a vendetta when they see it. And that's exactly what this ACLU jihad against the Scouts is. So the U.S. Senate has made a statement. And we should all applaud that statement.

It's obvious the Boy Scouts help society and give children an opportunity to have fun and develop character. The greater good is served by helping the Scouts, even if you don't subscribe to their philosophy.

When people like Ted Kennedy (search) and Barbara Boxer (search) vote against the ACLU, you know that organization has gone mental. Only extremists, like columnist Molly Ivins (search), continue to support the dangerous group.

In a recent column, Ivins wrote, "I know that sludge for brains like Bill O'Reilly attack the ACLU for being 'un-American,' but when Bill O'Reilly's constitutional rights are violated, the ACLU will stand up for him."

Well, Ms. Ivins must be very proud of the "sludge for brains" line. That indicates a very deep thinker, and once again illustrates the immaturity of the far left.

You have an open invitation, madam, to debate me about the ACLU. You shouldn't have any trouble defeating a moron like me. We await your call.

Summing up, "Talking Points" feels very good about the Senate helping out the Boy Scouts and unanimously rejecting the ACLU. Things may be turning around.

 

[SLCPUNK]

I must wonder how you would react if I posted an article in favor of the ACLU written by Michael Moore?

Bill O'reilly...the guy who made dirty sex phone calls to the lady that worked for him? Then paid her off when she had tapes to burn him with. Bill O'reilly who has about a half a dozen fact check type sites that report his inaccurate reporting on almost a daily basis. The man who claims "no spin zone" yet does nothing but spin. That Bill O'reilly?

Please, give me more than that to take down the ACLU. I'm too tired to look at it fully now. But I'm sure tomorrow I can take the spin off that "memo" and get it more straight. Just like the spin on the ACLU "defending" Nambla in the murder trial. It was not as black and white as that, and you know it. I expect the same from O'reilly, ie black and white, with lots of spin.

[SLCPUNK]

With spin filter on, here is the case against the boyscouts.

"The ACLU says the Boy Scouts' policy violates the religious freedoms of those who don't wish to swear to a religious oath. And, the government's relationship with the Boy Scouts directly links it with the Boy Scouts' discrimination.

"If our Constitution's promise of religious liberty is to be a reality, the government should not be administering religious oaths or discriminating based upon religious beliefs," said Adam Schwartz, from the Illinois ACLU. "This agreement removes the Pentagon from direct sponsorship of Scout troops that engage in religious discrimination." "

That's it.

[sandman]

you accuse bill o'reilly of using spin, but you failed to actually point it out.

and the key part of this article is this....

"Ted Kennedy (search) and Barbara Boxer (search) voted against the ACLU"

[SLCPUNK]

you accuse bill o'reilly of using spin, but you failed to actually point it out.

and the key part of this article is this....

"Ted Kennedy (search) and Barbara Boxer (search) voted against the ACLU"

uh......so.