Our daily roundup of the absurdity at StopTheACLU starts with this post about the ACLU filing suit to stop government censorship of a book in school libraries.
While I cannot disagree with the Simon's anti-censorship position, I also cannot keep from enjoying the irony in light of their own internal censorship scandal. The Miami lawsuit comes just days after Jay commented on the ACLU censoring their directors from publicly disagreeing with national board members and staff...
If the ACLU really practiced what they preached, the directors would not only be criticizing board members, but they would also be filing weekly lawsuits against the national organization. That is -- after all -- what the ACLU really means when they say "free speech."
This is nonsense. While it's perfectly reasonable to say this is hypocritical of the ACLU - and I have said so myself - it is absolutely false to claim that they would be filing suit against the ACLU for this internal policy. Do the STACLU halfwits really not understand the difference between government censorship, which the first amendment forbids, and a private association setting its own rules? The first is unconstitutional, the second is constitutionally protected. It's not exactly a subtle difference.
And it probably goes without saying that they swallowed hook, line and sinker Santorum's fake story about finding WMDs. They crow and say things like "Liberals are desperately trying to downplay this." Uh, no. Liberals don't have to because the Bush administration is doing it for them. The Pentagon itself says that these shells are nothing but remnants from pre-1991 munitions that long ago degraded (chemical and biological weapons don't have a long shelf-life, if they aren't used they become unusable):
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
Those damn liberals at the Department of Defense! They must be part of that blasted reality-based community! You can almost see Santorum muttering to himself, "And I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those pesky Pentagon spokesmen."
- Log in to post comments
I really think many (perhaps most) people have forgotten that the Bill of Rights enumerates protections from the government; not other people.
Yes, yes. In your daily job it's always a great idea to publicly disagree with the boss. It does wonders for the organization and especially your career. Every company should encourage this type of behaviour.
What a bunch of half-wits.
Well, I fully agree with the argument that the ACLU should allow public disagreement among their board. First of all, it's not a boss-employee circumstance; the board of directors is not subservient to the executive director. Second of all, it's an organization that argues for maximum dissent and discussion and they should follow that. But to equate that with government censorship is absurd, and to claim that the ACLU would be suing another private group that did that is even more absurd.
Do the STACLU halfwits really not understand the difference between government censorship, which the first amendment forbids, and a private association setting its own rules?
Yep.
Apparently the nitwits at STACLU are unaware of the apparent fact that Santorum is in a tough re-election battle, and it is likely that he made this announcement in hopes that it might help his re-election chances. It probably backfired.
No, they don't -- just as they fail to distinguish between different meanings of the word "public" when used in the context of religion. Saying that there should be no taxpayer-funded, government-endorsed "public" promotion of religion does not mean that individuals can't express their religious beliefs "out in public," where everyone can see. They trade on that little equivocation all the time.