Conservative hating ACLU strikes again

[hgc]

Quick update on the basis of the Florida branch of ACLU's reasoning in its filing: Florida's constitution provides for privacy, including of medical records. There is a law providing the procedure by which those records may be obtained by authorities, and it includes the right of the person whose records are being pursued to be heard before the seizure of the records. This procedure was not followed, as the records were seized without Rush having a chance to argue against it. Not any big constitutional cause being fought in this particular case. As a matter of fact, they explicitly state in the filing that they are not concerned with whether the state ultimately prevails in getting access to the medical records, but rather that, "... we seek to vindicate every Floridian's fundemental right to privacy by ensuring that the State be required to comply with sections ... of the Florida Statutes when it wishes to obtain patient records."

Document at The Smoking Gun.

 

[Zero]

And Bill O'Reilly calls the ACLU fascist and the most dangerous organization in the world. I think he's blown a gasket.

You mean it isn't the terrorists they caught in Texas last May who were armed to the teeth with machine guns and explosives? Its a bunch of lawyers with pens and legal pads that are dangerous?

 

[hgc]

You mean it isn't the terrorists they caught in Texas last May who were armed to the teeth with machine guns and explosives? Its a bunch of lawyers with pens and legal pads that are dangerous?

I don't dismiss out-of-hand that an advocacy group who works through the courts can be more dangerous than a group of loons with weopons. But of course BO'R's particular problem with the ACLU is that they're vigorously trying to stop religious expression, officially sanctioned, on government property by claiming that they are "at war with religion." Judging by that behavior, I consider Fox News to be a more dangerous organization than the ACLU.

 

[Nasarius]

You mean it isn't the terrorists they caught in Texas last May who were armed to the teeth with machine guns and explosives? Its a bunch of lawyers with pens and legal pads that are dangerous?

Of course. Those ACLU commie-terrorists have the nerve to question the legality of the decisions of the all-knowing US government.

 

[DavidJames]

"I consider Fox News to be a more dangerous organization than the ACLU."

- I watched the end his show one day last week (I think) and he read part of an email that made that exact point. His reply, it's dangerous only if you don't like the truth

 

[Nasarius]

"I consider Fox News to be a more dangerous organization than the ACLU."

- I watched the end his show one day last week (I think) and he read part of an email that made that exact point. His reply, it's dangerous only if you don't like the truth

You sure you're talking about Bill O'Reilly?

http://www.billoreilly.com/

Scroll all the way to the bottom:

Best in ACLU-nacy:
1. Cuddling up with NAMBLA
2. Bashing Boy Scouts
3. Helping alleged dirty bomb planner
4. Getting lawyers for alleged terrorists
5. Waging war on Christmas
6. Attacking Pledge of Allegiance
7. Threatening the U.S. Postal Service
8. Trying to stop faith-based treatment programs for drug addicts
9. Fighting for lady's right to booty-shake in public
10. Suing so student can wear "Bush is a terrorist" t-shirt
11. Protecting kid's "Bong Hits for Jesus" display

And:

ACLU's INTELLECTUAL FASCISM: "The ACLU is the most fascist organization I have seen in decades. They want to tell you how to live. They don't want to abide by the Constitution. They want to go AROUND the Constitution. They're intellectual fascists. And they use the courts as their Panzer divisions."

http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/community/radioshow.jsp#20040109-21

This guy is not ACLU-friendly.

 

[pgwenthold]

Bill OReilly's problem with the ACLU

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best in ACLU-nacy:
1. Cuddling up with NAMBLA
2. Bashing Boy Scouts
3. Helping alleged dirty bomb planner
4. Getting lawyers for alleged terrorists
5. Waging war on Christmas
6. Attacking Pledge of Allegiance
7. Threatening the U.S. Postal Service
8. Trying to stop faith-based treatment programs for drug addicts
9. Fighting for lady's right to booty-shake in public
10. Suing so student can wear "Bush is a terrorist" t-shirt
11. Protecting kid's "Bong Hits for Jesus" display
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's see:

1) Don't know the details, but I am assuming the ACLU's position is that it is wrong to legislate against thoughts
2) An issue of public money for religious discrimination
3) Helping the alleged planner get a fair trial
4) Hey, if they are guilty, what's the problem? Again, get a fair trial
5) Only government endorsement of it.
6) Only the religious aspect of it
7) ??? Probably something with not using government funding for religious activity
8) Only the government support of faith based activities
9) So? It's easy to protect speech and acts everyone likes. The beauty of the constitution is that it protects the unpopular
10) See above
11) See above

Good thing Bill OReilly has a "No Spin" zone. I'd hate to see his pitch if he was spinning these in any way.

Fox News: "We distort, you decide (what we tell you to)"

 

[Upchurch]

1) Don't know the details, but I am assuming the ACLU's position is that it is wrong to legislate against thoughts

From the ACLU's website

In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

{snip}

The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

 

[pgwenthold]

The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

If that is the case, then I am not surprised about OReilly's opposition. He is really good at passing blame. He is big on blaming the entertainment industry for problems. It's all because of those evil rap lyrics or bad movies.

He went on a tirade one night against The Cat in the Hat because it claimed to be a kid's movie but had fart jokes in it and apparently the car referred to a butt in some way (never saw it myself).

Fart jokes are inappropriate in a kid's movie? Well, it may not be exactly what everyone wants, but apparently OReilly doesn't know too many kids. Kids like fart jokes. They think they are funny. OReilly is just a little out of touch with reality.

BTW, the movie was rated PG. From USAToday: Rating: MPAA PG: mild crude humor and double entendres

So it's rated PG but OReilly complains that some material is not appropriate for their kids?