Jay Stephenson, the nice man who thinks that lynching is a joking matter, makes the claim that:
Yes, the ACLU has a current policy advocating the legalization of child porn distribution and possession.Yet if you read his article carefully, the only evidence he cites for this claim is other people making the same claim. He never once cites an ACLU document that explicitly sets out this alleged “policy”.
This, folks, is the kind of sloppy, transparent defamation that the far right is known for. Truly pathetic — and Jay Stephenson is among the most pathetic practitioners of this kind of smear.
UPDATE 04/27/06 20:42 EST: Jay has sent an Acrobat file to me in email, claiming that it is "plain evidence" for his claim. Note the high quality of the evidence:
- No indication of who published this document
- No indication of the date of publication
- No context
- In short, no way to compare it to any original document
If, as I suspect, this is supposed to be a partial transcript of Barry Lynn’s testimony before the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography, then it’s clear that Jay still doesn’t understand what he himself said: “the ACLU has a current policy advocating the legalization of child porn distribution and possession”. Does Jay have any facts relevant to the ACLU’s current policy? It would seem not. And of course, Jay is utterly oblivious to the fact that the transcript he provided completely destroys his claim that the ACLU “work[s] to protect pedophiles”:
We do think that where there is abuse of children, with or without those pictures taken, that criminal and civil liability ought to attach to those perpetrators of abuse… Again, the distinction I am trying to draw is abuse, whether it is of children in the home, with or without pictures, commercially with or without pictures. That’s what we would like to have stopped — to be prosecuted criminally, to provide civil remedies; but not the distribution of a picture.
(emphasis mine)
You might want to read for comprehension next time, Jay.
23 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 27th, 2006 at 7:04 am
Jay
Why don’t you call the ACLU and ask them for their policy guide?
April 27th, 2006 at 7:14 am
Jay
If it were not the truth, they would deny it.
April 27th, 2006 at 8:11 am
meatbrain
Have you called the ACLU and asked for their policy guide, Jay?
And perhaps you need to check the dictionary for the definition of ‘responsibility’. When you make a charge, Jay, it is your responsibility to produce the facts that support it.
April 27th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Jay
Yes, I have called the ACLU for their policy guide. You can see the entire conversation here
April 27th, 2006 at 8:32 am
Jay
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/07/23/calling-the-aclu/
April 27th, 2006 at 8:41 am
Jay
I am quoting reliable and trustworthy sources,and have added to my post stating so. I tell you what, if you can prove that the ACLU do not have a policy to what I have stated, I will retract and apologize.
April 27th, 2006 at 8:46 am
meatbrain
Get it through your head, Jay: No one is required to prove you wrong. You are required to prove yourself right. So far, you are failing miserably.
Where is the documentary evidence from the ACLU itself that they hold the position you claim they hold? Don’t have it? Don’t make the claim. It’s just that simple.
April 27th, 2006 at 9:12 am
Jay
Notice this: http://www.aclu-de.org/tentoughquestions.htm
The ACLU says they support the government’s ability to prosecute the “makers” of child pornography, but oppose all forms of censorship, and find it difficult to draw any definitive line when it comes to pornography.
3. Why does the ACLU support pornography? Why are you in favor of child porn?
The ACLU does not support pornography or child porn. However, we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing certain books or films, even pornographic ones, should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring “bad or offensive” ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. As the saying goes, “one man’s art is another man’s pornography.” As for child pornography, the ACLU supports the right of the government to prosecute the makers of child pornography for exploiting minors.
April 27th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Jay
Previously, the ACLU has defended child pornography. In a quietly prosecuted case in 1981, People v. Ferber, the ACLU won a 5-2 decision in the New York Court of Appeals that for a short time “legalized simulated intercourse, real intercourse, lewd conduct … with children,” says Reisman, author of the soon-to-be-released, “Kinsey’s Attic: How One Man’s Psychopathology Changed the World.” Fortunately, says Reisman, the Ferber case was later appealed by the New York attorney general and ultimately reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Oregon cases, like Ferber, just demonstrate how far the ACLU will go in defending pornographers, adds Reisman.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46985
Don’t deny this case in which they fought for child porn distribution and possession to be legal.
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0458_0747_ZS.html
April 27th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Beaming Visionary
If you’re expecting Jay to do any of his own research, don’t hold your breath. In the past I’ve pointed out where he’s gone astray, particularly with regards to evolution and “Intelligent Design” issues, and he just waffles and stammers and eventually makes another post along exactly the same lines as the previous, grossly errant one The reason he’s able to generate such a prodigious amount of verbal garbage on that site is because he simply cuts and pastes articles from Wingnut Daily and similarly unreliable “news” sources, then throws in a few token misspelled words of assent. If you send him evidence that he’s wrong about something involving the ACLU, he just dismisses it and accuses it of some other malfeasance. Make no mistake—thickheaded, uninformed people can be very persistent if nothing else.
April 27th, 2006 at 9:59 am
Beaming Visionary
“In a quietly prosecuted case in 1981, People v. Ferber, the ACLU won a 5-2 decision in the New York Court of Appeals that for a short time “legalized simulated intercourse, real intercourse, lewd conduct … with children…”
Simulated, eh? So if I whack off to mental images of Angelina Jolie, or pleasure myself to literal images of her on my screen, or even get a blow-up Angie G doll and boff its nonexistent brains out, can I be tried for celebrity rape?
Regardless, your efforts to show that the ACLU eagerly endorses kiddie porn are a dismal failure—just one more eddy in a steady stream of straw men, hyperbole, and bald-faced lies from that august group of illiterates and Elmer Fudd clones that make up StoptheACLU.com.
April 27th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
meatbrain
Jay wrote:
Notice this: http://www.aclu-de.org/tentoughquestions.htm
Did you make your original accusation against the national ACLU, or just the Delaware section, Jay?
Previously, the ACLU has defended child pornography.
What’s their policy now, Jay? Where is your documentary evidence of the ACLU’s national policy now, Jay?
Why do you constantly need to be reminded that your accusations have to be documented to have any credibility, Jay?
April 27th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Beaming Visionary
Credibility is not an issue. Jay’s site is a monument to raging hypocrisy. Since dissenters are summarily drummed off the site and there’s always an ample supply of like-minded nutjob sycophants equally ignorant of basic realities, he can easily maintain the illusion that his clumsy and misinformed screeds have merit. These assholes think that by simply screaming about how much they love America and its freedoms (many of which they’d love to destroy) and calling the othe guy a commie, they’re taking an honorable stance. Hard as it is to conceive of, the Kender ape is several keys down the scale from Jay when it comes to blind intolerance and unfettered hate. Yeah, these guys are exactly the kind of citizens Jefferson et al. envisioned populating America a couple centuries down the road.
April 27th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
kender
April 27th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
meatbrain
Hi, Kender!
Arrest any immigrants yet?
No?
Gee, why is no one surprised?
April 28th, 2006 at 6:23 am
Beaming Visionary
I’ve noticed that people like Jay and Kender and their bloodthirsty Elmer-Fudd-clone friends—people who canot spell to save their lives and couldn’t match a subject to a verb even if you promised to blow up the ACLU national headquarters—are notably fond of calling others stupid. This is one of the reasons I keep returning to read the garbage they churn out: I can’t help but get a huge charge out of the various levels of irony they and their screeds occupy. Jay and Kender, you can’t tell me that you’re unaware of being borderline illiterate. You can admit this while still maintaining a deathgrip on your untenable world views, if that helps.
This is relevant because, like as not, poor writing skills are a nearly universal indicator of low intellectual wattage across the board, and you guys are no exception. Watching Jay try to back-pedal in the face of meatbrain’s indictment of his pro-lynching cartoon and his unsupported accusations about the ACLU vis-a-vis kiddie porn is like watching a blind, drunk donkey try to outrun a cheetah, only funnier.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:25 am
Beaming Visionary
”...people who canot spell to save their lives…”
Ahem…”cannot.”
April 28th, 2006 at 6:46 am
meatbrain
BV, I would note that there is little difference between Jay and Kender’s ad hominem tactics, and your own references to them as “borderline illiterate” and “thickheaded”. While I have certainly been guilty of making personal attacks on occasion, I try hard to focus on the facts, and whether those who make claims have the facts to support their assertions.
May 2nd, 2006 at 9:52 pm
kender
May 2nd, 2006 at 9:57 pm
meatbrain
You lack the courage to assault anyone physically, Kender.
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:22 pm
kender
You just keep believing what you wanna believe, and I will keep knowing what I know, and the earth will continue to turn, you will stay stupid and water will still run downhill.
May 6th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Beaming Visionary
“BV, I would note that there is little difference between Jay and Kender’s ad hominem tactics, and your own references to them as ‘borderline illiterate’ and ‘thickheaded’.”
While I agree that issues and facts are far more relevant than aimless one-upmanship, I respectfully submit that Jay et al. have provided ample evidence of both a lack of facility with English and a marked inability to comprehend the very things they rail against.
I see kender is back to the subject of lynching those who disagree with him. It doesn’t take much to get these guys waxing homicidal even when they’re just been called on it.
June 6th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Eli
While I fully don’t know many of the facts it seems that the ACLU is not as transparent with their positions on important matters. This is a huge red flag to me and should be to anyone wanting to get a straight answer. Is it true that in order to get a written policy statement from the ACLU national office that they require you physically go to their offices? This is hard to believe and maybe someone from the pro –ACLU side can help by providing us some type of official documentation since statements on websites can be altered are not enough.
I see that someone cites a case > In a quietly prosecuted case in 1981, People v. Ferber, the ACLU won a 5-2 decision in the New York Court of Appeals. Can someone explain so I can understand what happened? I have seen that it is claimed the ACLU filed a brief siding with child pornographers. I found something mentioning that an ACLU former national counsel’s testimony supporting porn “rights” in Washington D.C. before the Pornography Commission was delivered after a slide show of such photos depicting in frightening detail the sexual abuse and then murder of a small boy.
Is this accurate and if so what was the ACLU doing in this case?
Finally does anyone know the name of the child that was sexually abused and murdered? I would like to know. Because it’s very important.