Kindergarten and the Kafkaesque

[_Droopy]

Robert Bork believed that speech that was not explicitly political was not protected by the first amendment and advocated for a extensive range of censorship of speech he considered immoral.

I'm well aware of that as I've read both his major books in which he articulated this position. Your misrepresentation of this position is also noted (he did not advocate an "extensive range" of censorship but only asserted that in certain areas (such as pornography) certain kinds of limitations would be constitutionally allowable and feasible).

I also agree with Bork that, specifically, pornography is not speech and its not as such protected by the First Amendment on the grounds of its original intent and meaning.

He felt those kung-fu movies you like to watch should be illegal for their depiction of violent content.

CFR. His own personal video collection contained a number of John Wayne films (which always sends the Left into spasms of pique). He did discuss the control of violent, gory video games regarding minors, but that's another issue.

I know of no position he took regarding films such as this:

Bork was widely considered to be among the most prominent legal eminences of the 20th century,

Lol. By who?

By many of his peers and colleagues in his profession and academic specialty. Do your own homework. The fact that you are unaware of this is hardly surprising.

Robert Bork could not be more antithetical to the classic liberal tradition if he was a monarchist.

Yet another clear indication that you have no idea whatsoever what that tradition even is.

[_Darth J]

Bork was widely considered to be among the most prominent legal eminences of the 20th century,

Lol. By who?

By many of his peers and colleagues in his profession and academic specialty. Do your own homework. The fact that you are unaware of this is hardly surprising.

So, Droopy, will you be elaborating on his specific influence on American jurisprudence, or does this vague assertion represent the extent of your ability to explain his eminence as a jurist?

Robert Bork could not be more antithetical to the classic liberal tradition if he was a monarchist.

Yet another clear indication that you have no idea whatsoever what that tradition even is.

Droopy, can you please show me where the text of the Constitution says how the Constitution is supposed to be construed by future generations? Thanks in advance for your answer.

[_Darth J]

Droopy, why are films that portray sex not speech within the purview of the First Amendment, but films portraying graphic violence are speech within the purview of the First Amendment?

As always, thanks in advance for your answer.

[_Darth J]

I know of no position he took regarding films such as this:

Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, page 140

I am suggesting that censorship be considered for the most violent and sexually explicit material now on offer, starting with the obscene prose and pictures available on the Internet, motion pictures that are mere rhapsodies to violence, and the more degenerate lyrics of rap music. Censorship is a subject that few people want to discuss, not because it has been tried and found dangerous or oppressive but because the ethos of modern liberalism has made any interference with the individual's self-gratification seem shamefully reactionary.

[_ldsfaqs]

I would like to learn more about the factual basis for the assertion that the ACLU is a liberal ideological group. Thanks in advance for giving me some links.

Just a reminder, Droopy: I do not accept your unsupported premise that opposing the religious right's efforts to impose Sharia Lite on American society makes a person a "liberal."

DarthJ.... Why do you keep attacking a strawman?

There are two important facts that debunk your claim.

1. If the ACLU was simply concerned about "civil liberties" as you claim, they wouldn't engage in Liberal Causes and cases which are clearly AGAINST civil liberties.

2. We've never claimed that they don't engage in causes that support a conservative civil liberty case.

Bottom line, the fact that they go against civil liberties makes clear their "primary" ideology.

[_Darth J]

I would like to learn more about the factual basis for the assertion that the ACLU is a liberal ideological group. Thanks in advance for giving me some links.

Just a reminder, Droopy: I do not accept your unsupported premise that opposing the religious right's efforts to impose Sharia Lite on American society makes a person a "liberal."

DarthJ.... Why do you keep attacking a strawman?

Much like what a "liberal" is, you do not appear to have any understanding of what a "straw man" is.

There are two important facts that debunk your claim.

1. If the ACLU was simply concerned about "civil liberties" as you claim, they wouldn't engage in Liberal Causes and cases which are clearly AGAINST civil liberties.

You are again begging the question, and I will reiterate that I do not accept the premise that opposing the religious right's desires to impose Sharia Lite within the United States is "liberalism."

Anyway, thou stalwart knight Templar of ACTUAL "TRUTH"!!!!!!!, would you like to give some specific examples of the American Civil Liberties Union opposing civil rights?

2. We've never claimed that they don't engage in causes that support a conservative civil liberty case.

Who is this "we"? Who are you purporting to speak for?

Also, have you come up with an explanation yet as to why the ACLU would litigate to establish case law that is contrary to their Marxist liberal leftist socialist communist leftist liberal agenda?

Bottom line, the fact that they go against civil liberties makes clear their "primary" ideology.

And I bet you have any number of examples of this that you stand ready to share. I'm so excited to see them!

[_Darth J]

While we're waiting for ldsfaqs to share some of his favorite examples of the ACLU opposing civil liberties, I thought it might be fun to share some examples of what the ACLU has done about the Second Amendment. The national ACLU has traditionally voiced the opinion that the Second Amendment protects a "collective" right for states to form militias---that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to own a firearm. That is a plausible reading of the Second Amendment, but the protection of an individual right to bear arms is also a plausible reading, which is one of the problems with the amendment's unclear language. And it was not until D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago that the Supreme Court ever actually addressed whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

However, individual affiliates of the ACLU determine their own stance on issues like this. So here are some examples of ACLU affiliates advocating on behalf of the Second Amendment rights of their clients:

ACLU in Florida petitions for sheriff's office to return man's guns

ACLU of Nevada supports individual right to bear arms

ACLU in Texas fights law prohibiting people from traveling with guns in their cars

ACLU opposes Harry Reid's gun control proposals

ACLU of Arizona supports individual right to bear arms

ACLU of Louisiana sues New Orleans' District Attorney and Chief of Police to have man's gun returned

This is exactly what one would expect from a bunch of liberal Marxist socialist leftist communist liberals who want to destroy freedom.

[_EAllusion]

Yet another clear indication that you have no idea whatsoever what that tradition even is.

1) Who was John Stuart Mill? What was his relationship to classic liberalism?

2) Has Robert Bork every commented on this figure? If so, what did he have to say about him and the political philosophy he represents?

[_Darth J]

Who was John Stuart Mill?

Of his own free will, on a half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

[_Darth J]

Robert Bork could not be more antithetical to the classic liberal tradition if he was a monarchist.

Yet another clear indication that you have no idea whatsoever what that tradition even is.

Droopy, as the advocate for the Austrian School that you are, will you please comment on the Ludwig Von Mises Institute's review of Slouching Towards Gomorrah? Here is the introduction:

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=22

With ample reason, Robert Bork indicts contemporary American culture. But he in part misidentifies what is responsible for our current predicament; and as a result, he grossly misunderstands classical liberalism. His rejection of classical liberalism leads him to embrace dangerous doctrine.