Re: Let's say I break into your house 9, was: Good news for US -- Secure Fence Act of 2006

["Robert L Bass" <robertbass1@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Do you realize you're talking about an
> organization that is defending Nambla
> in Boston?...

This is an interesting case.  The ACLU routinely takes on cases where they believe that a First Amendment right is in jeopardy.
According to news reports about the case:

"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."

In their view the evidence presented by the plaintiff family does not condone or promote any illegal acts but promotes changing the
law.  While I disagree with their ideas, I can understand why the ACLU would defend their right to express them.

> If I was guilty as sin and caught red
> handed for heinous crimes then I'd
> want them in my corner...

They are not defending the perps in the crime.  They are defending an organisation's right to freedom of expression.  While what
that organisation expresses is beyond offensive, they still have a constitutional right to say it.

> but that's because they look out for the
> rights and interests of the moral and
> social deviants.

They looked out for the rights of people who were persecuted by our own government for expressing then unpopular views against the
Vietnam war.  The would defend your right to freedom of expression, too.

> They too have strayed from their original intention.

I don't think so.  It's just that in order to defend the Constitution one sometimes must hold one's nose at the people whose rights
are being violated.