NEWS: ACLU to Defend Rush Limbaugh

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), once among the favorite targets of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, filed court papers Monday intending to defend his constitutional right to privacy. At the heart of the debate are the medical records of Limbaugh, seized by investigators seeking evidence of doctor shopping for prescription drugs.

Howard Simon, Executive Director of ACLU Florida, acknowledged "It may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh... But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view."
www.newsmax.com

Many Above Top Secret members have speculated that anti-terror efforts like the Patriot Act, and a general increase in investigative vigilance versus freedoms will make for strange times ahead. Perhaps these strange bedfellows of the ACLU and Limbaugh are a sign of things to come.





[Edited on 13-1-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

It's very interesting. Limbaugh needs all the help he can get. He's just lucky the ACLU isn't full of twits like him.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
He's just lucky the ACLU isn't full of twits like him.

That's debatable!!

BWAAHAHAHAHA!!!! "Oh please, won't you liberals - whom I've bashed repeatedly for as long as I've had a mouth - help me out of this horrible drug war trouble I'm in!?"

The ACLU needs to become more active in supporting conservatives as well as liberals. But the point is still that the ACLU has their own agenda and only does what is good for themselves and not what is good for America or the Bill of Rights (Constitution). Most of the ACLU's cases are utterly absurd and borderline on anti-americanism if you ask me. Any group that represents groups like NAMBLA is a joke if you ask me.

Originally posted by Dreamz
Any group that represents groups like NAMBLA is a joke if you ask me.

To be perfectly blunt. That issue was reported way out of context. They weren't defending the right to be a pedophile or commit any criminal activity. Just the right to print/possess material of a controversial nature. Not even porn, but material of a political nature more than anything.

NAMBLA, KKK, Rush Limbaugh... they defend you and I by defending nuts like those.

Originally posted by Dreamz
the ACLU has their own agenda and only does what is good for themselves and not what is good for America or the Bill of Rights (Constitution). Most of the ACLU's cases are utterly absurd and borderline on anti-americanism if you ask me.

I couldn't agree more

RANT, have you ever read any NAMBLA material. I have, I had to do a 20 minute debate on NAMBLA with my Professor last year. The material they spread is sent to convicted pedophiles who are in jail 90% of the time. Is it legal to have child pornagraphy in the US? No it isnt. Do you feel that convicted pedophiles need to be reading this kind of material instead of rehabing in our correctional facilities? Isnt that going against what our jail system is intended for?
They have the right to spread their agenda, as long as it doesnt promote child pornagraphy, which is exactly what they promote.

There's no doubt in my mind NAMBLA is wrong, and members are most likely insane or criminals in their own right... but again, the ACLU wasn't defending the tenants of NAMBLA, just their right to distribute free speech. I don't like it, but I understand why the ACLU takes on the worst of the worst in it's slippery slope efforts.

I'd RATHER they defend poor people everywhere of a non high profile nature, but that's not how non profits work. Believe it or not, being bashed nightly by Bill O'Reilly on the NAMBLA issue probably made the ACLU more press, and more money donations to keep fighting for EVERYONE's freedoms than they've had in years.

They DO pick and choose, but it's not about making policy, it's about making press. Such is the way of life. Don't you think Limbaugh could afford his own legal army? Why is a non-profit defending a millionaire that hates them? Press. Another question, why is a millionaire that hates the ACLU LETTING them defend him?

Press, as well? I seriously have no idea.

RANT, I understand your point and it (this situation) always comes down to the same issue that is debated with everyone. Does NAMLBA have the right to free speech even if it is sending out free speech that is promoting illegal activities?

Its the age old debate on freedom of speech, there are limitations. You cant scream "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater among others. You are correct, the ACLU is about media coverage and I have seen their leader on the democratic side of many debates at various universities, which goes to show you that their main agenda isnt for equal rights, but for protectionism of various groups/people that fit their mold of "high-profile media issues" and rights for their own personal beliefs.

I think anyone will have a hard time asserting the ACLU ONLY defends those that promote their personal beliefs considering THIS high profile case of Rush Limbaugh.

As for saying they ONLY pick high profile cases, I know that they do for publicity, but also have local chapters all over the country working for the little guy everyday that you and I never hear about on Rush or O'Reilly or any media outlet.

In my little rinky dink college town (15 years ago), they got two janitors reinstated for getting fired because the Dean didn't like their long hair. Silly, yes. But real. Happens every day. And the ACLU fights these battles everyday in obscurity. The press has more devious motives IMO than the ACLU. And that's the truth!

Let me just add, that even someone that screams FIRE in a theater has a right to a defense in this country. They don't deserve to WIN, but they deserve defense. The ACLU loses ALOT (as they should). But they do their job WELL.

Defending Rush proves that in many respects.

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by RANT]

Originally posted by Dreamz
The ACLU needs to become more active in supporting conservatives as well as liberals. But the point is still that the ACLU has their own agenda and only does what is good for themselves and not what is good for America or the Bill of Rights (Constitution). Most of the ACLU's cases are utterly absurd and borderline on anti-americanism if you ask me. Any group that represents groups like NAMBLA is a joke if you ask me.

Actually, I disagree. I may not even agree with everything they fight for or against, but that basically proves they're not biased. They defend the rights of anyone who should have legal rights. Yes, some may seem trivial to you, or me, but they stand for some very important issues in the US that are being violated daily.

I think that the ACLU is a necessary evil, which keeps our political system clean. BUt, I do think they are chock full of liberals who pick and choose what they want to defend. Has the ACLU ever defended a persons right to own and bear arms?

Rush must really be shaking his big, fat head right about now...