COVID Economy

[Lennys Tap]

No, that's not my argument.
That's the ACLU's argument. Take it up with them, I guess?

II. A. Blocking traffic and entrances
Protesters do not have a First Amendment right to block pedestrian or vehicle traffic, or to prevent entry and exit from buildings. For example, a federal court recently held that the Chicago police did not violate the First Amendment by arresting protesters who were impeding a heavy flow of pedestrian traffic on sidewalks near Chicago’s Soldier Field, and who disobeyed a police order to step off the sidewalk and onto the immediately adjacent gravel. Likewise, a Chicago ordinance prohibits intentional obstruction of vehicle traffic.
Indeed, the general public has a right to freedom of movement that police must protect. For example, to address widespread unlawful blockades of the entrances to reproductive healthcare facilities, Congress enacted the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, which prohibits the use of force, threats, or obstructions to interfere with access to such facilities.

III. B. Harassment
Protesters do not have a First Amendment right to harass other members of the public. For example, there is no right to block another person’s freedom of movement in the public way, and then force them to listen to an unwanted message.

https://www.aclu-il.org/en/news/when-else-can-government-regulate-time-place-and-manner-protest

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html


I inadvertently quoted the wrong post of yours. This is in response to your post quoting an ACLU public relations/propaganda piece you found on Google showing that they throw an occasional bone to conservative operations. This is an actual NY Times article on the ACLU and what it’s become rather than a public relations piece. It was also found by a simple Google search.

[Lennys Tap]

LOL. No.

Pakuni”s ACLU press release vs all the (usually liberal) news that’s fit to print.

[Hards Alumni]

LOL. No.

Pakuni”s ACLU press release vs all the (usually liberal) news that’s fit to print.

"Guys, I got nothing, but I'm mad"

[MU82]

LOL. No.

Pakuni”s ACLU press release vs all the (usually liberal) news that’s fit to print.

That piece doesn't "prove" anything ... except that many in the ACLU knew how effed up we were as a country after the 2016 election.

[4everwarriors]

That piece doesn't "prove" anything ... except that many in the ACLU knew how effed up we were as a country after the 2020 election.

Damn straight, aina?

[Lennys Tap]

That piece doesn't "prove" anything ... except that many in the ACLU knew how effed up we were as a country after the 2016 election.

Here’s the $64,000 question. If someone (or some group) throws out their principles based on who wins an election did they really have any principles in the first place? “But Trump…” (or any other name) doesn’t change the honest answer to that question.

[Pakuni]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html


I inadvertently quoted the wrong post of yours. This is in response to your post quoting an ACLU public relations/propaganda piece you found on Google showing that they throw an occasional bone to conservative operations. This is an actual NY Times article on the ACLU and what it’s become rather than a public relations piece. It was also found by a simple Google search.

Just so we're clear ...
Lenny claims the ACLU doesn't do a thing.
I post 28 examples of the ACLU doing that thing in just that last five years.
Rather than be an actual grow up and admit he was mistaken (gasp!), Lenny dismisses these 28 things as a "press release" and then in "I want to be the new Cheeks" fashion, posts a NY Times story that doesn't say what he claims it says.

Would you feel better if I posted the ACLU briefs in all 28 of those cases? Would you admit you were wrong then?

[🏀]

Would you admit you were wrong then?

This isn’t in the American playbook anymore.

[Lennys Tap]

Just so we're clear ...
Lenny claims the ACLU doesn't do a thing.
I post 28 examples of the ACLU doing that thing in just that last five years.
Rather than be an actual grow up and admit he was mistaken (gasp!), Lenny dismisses these 28 things as a "press release" and then in "I want to be the new Cheeks" fashion, posts a NY Times story that doesn't say what he claims it says.

Would you feel better if I posted the ACLU briefs in all 28 of those cases? Would you admit you were wrong then?

Just so we’re clear. You posted from a piece written by a spokesman from the ACLU defending the organization against complaints and concerns from within the organization that they had lost their way and become mostly a left wing political advocacy group. The NY Times article contains those same criticisms. The exceptions the group defends itself with don’t mean the rule isn’t true.

[Hards Alumni]

Just so we’re clear. You posted from a piece written by a spokesman from the ACLU defending the organization against complaints and concerns from within the organization that they had lost their way and become mostly a left wing political advocacy group. The NY Times article contains those same criticisms. The exceptions the group defends itself with don’t mean the rule isn’t true.

LOL

[Pakuni]

Just so we’re clear. You posted from a piece written by a spokesman from the ACLU defending the organization against complaints and concerns from within the organization that they had lost their way and become mostly a left wing political advocacy group. The NY Times article contains those same criticisms. The exceptions the group defends itself with don’t mean the rule isn’t true.

John Wayne Gacy's 33 murders were just "exceptions" to the rule.
The vast majority of days he didn't kill anyone.

[MU82]

Here’s the $64,000 question. If someone (or some group) throws out their principles based on who wins an election did they really have any principles in the first place? “But Trump…” (or any other name) doesn’t change the honest answer to that question.

They actually defended Trump and his people, so there goes that argument.

[Lennys Tap]

John Wayne Gacy's 33 murders were just "exceptions" to the rule.
The vast majority of days he didn't kill anyone.

Congrats -worst (by far) analogy in Scoop history.

If you’re willing to take the word of a spokesman for the ACLU that their mission hasn’t changed, that they haven’t become an advocacy organization for left wing causes and that a handful of cases they take on every year “proves” that -well, fine. I find the arguments made by members of the organization (current and former) like those stated in The NY Times and other publications to the contrary more compelling.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

An opinion piece that confirms your bias is certainly more accurate than dozens of documented court cases. Indeed.

Never admit you're wrong, Cheeks Lenny.

[Pakuni]

Congrats -worst (by far) analogy in Scoop history.

If you’re willing to take the word of a spokesman for the ACLU that their mission hasn’t changed, that they haven’t become an advocacy organization for left wing causes and that a handful of cases they take on every year “proves” that -well, fine. I find the arguments made by members of the organization (current and former) like those stated in The NY Times and other publications to the contrary more compelling.

Guess that flew way over your head.

You're being willfully obtuse  - I hope willfully, because I fear the alternative for you.
Not only that, but you've entirely shifted the goalposts.
You started this by saying the ACLU doesn't take on certain causes like they used to. I've provided more than two dozen instances in the last five years alone that prove you wrong. These aren't "arguments," as if it's debatable that the ACLU is doing this. These are real cases. They're facts. And, as one right-wing hero likes to say, facts don't care about your feelings, Lenny.

I'm not going to argue any more with someone incapable of a good-faith discussion.

[Lennys Tap]

Never admit you're wrong, Cheeks Lenny.

A lie you know is a lie. If you need proof I’ll provide it for you.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

A lie you know is a lie. If you need proof I’ll provide it for you.

Attaboy, never admit it. That's Cheeks 101.

[jesmu84]

A lie you know is a lie. If you need proof I’ll provide it for you.

Is there any evidence that someone could provide in this situation to get you to change your mind/perspective/opinion?

[Lennys Tap]

Is there any evidence that someone could provide in this situation to get you to change your mind/perspective/opinion?

I’ve already conceded that the ACLU will still occasionally take a case defending speech tights for Conservatives. Occasionally.

To the larger point, that the ACLU has largely become an advocacy group for left wing causes - I think the evidence brought up by those in and out or the ACLU indicates that answer is yes.

This is kind of like the NRA. It used to be mostly a “gun safety” organization. Today they still are involved in gun safety but some claim that they’ve largely become part of the gun lobby. I guess that can’t be true (at least to logicians like Pakuni and Smitty) because they’re still involved with gun safety. I disagree.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Nice! Implying others have made statements that they haven't.

The Chicos is strong with this one (to paraphrase Vader).

[Lennys Tap]

Nice! Implying others have made statements that they haven't.

The Chicos is strong with this one (to paraphrase Vader).

Weak attempt to copy Rico.It’s embarrassing.

He’s funny. You’re not.

[jesmu84]

I’ve already conceded that the ACLU will still occasionally take a case defending speech tights for Conservatives. Occasionally.

To the larger point, that the ACLU has largely become an advocacy group for left wing causes - I think the evidence brought up by those in and out or the ACLU indicates that answer is yes.

This is kind of like the NRA. It used to be mostly a “gun safety” organization. Today they still are involved in gun safety but some claim that they’ve largely become part of the gun lobby. I guess that can’t be true (at least to logicians like Pakuni and Smitty) because they’re still involved with gun safety. I disagree.

Does that mean the answer to the question I asked you is "no"?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Weak attempt to copy Rico.It’s embarrassing.

He’s funny. You’re not.

Wut? Now you are just being old and confused.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Wut? Now you are just being old and confused.

Lenny is right.  You aren't funny or clever or witty or amusing at all.

[jesmu84]

Lenny is right.  You aren't funny or clever or witty or amusing at all.

Shocker that you'd meander by and pile on to this