TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- USA - New York
-- Fight against discrimination; FOR your right to enjoy EDM!!!
Fight against discrimination; FOR your right to enjoy EDM!!!
After I read this today, I joined the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) right away:
http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices...m?ID=14471&c=25
| quote: |
| Michigan Court Strikes Down Breathalyzer Tests for Pedestrians as Unconstitutional November 25, 2003 ACLU Praises Ruling as Major Civil Liberties Victory for Young Adults FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DETROIT - In a ruling that will impact young adults throughout the state, a federal judge ruled that Bay City police may no longer force pedestrians under age 21 to take a Breathalyzer test without obtaining a search warrant, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan announced today. "This is a tremendous victory for the civil liberties of young adults," said Kary Moss, Executive Director of the ACLU of Michigan. "For years, police officers throughout Michigan have violated the rights of countless college students and others under the age of 21 by forcing them to submit to breathalyzers without a warrant. We expect other law enforcement jurisdictions to heed the Bay City ruling." The case stems from an encounter involving Jamie Spencer, a Bay City resident, with the Bay City police in August 2001, when she was 19 years old. She, her husband and some friends were leaving a city park after rollerblading, when two officers approached Mrs. Spencer and demanded that she blow into a Breathalyzer machine. She told the officers that she had not been drinking and did not want to take the test. However, when the officers threatened her with a $100 fine, she felt she had no choice. The test indicated that she had not been drinking. "Even though I had done nothing wrong, the police invaded my privacy," said Mrs. Spencer. "I am glad that because of this decision, the police will not harass innocent young people in the future by forcing them into such a demeaning situation." In a 23-page opinion, U.S. District Court Judge David M. Lawson struck down the Bay City ordinance that makes it illegal for people under age 21 to refuse to consent to a Breathalyzer test. The ruling does not apply to drivers of motor vehicles. Judge Lawson held that the ordinance violates the Fourth Amendment because (1) a breath test is a search, (2) the Fourth Amendment ordinarily prohibits searches without search warrants, and (3) no exceptions to the search warrant requirement apply. Judge Lawson further emphasized that "the right to be left alone in public places ranks high on the hierarchy of entitlements that citizens in a free society have come to expect - at least in the context of citizen-police encounters." Since the Bay City ordinance is identical to a statewide law, the decision will bring welcome relief to college students across the state, according to Jonathan Knapp, president of the Central Michigan University Chapter of the ACLU. "It is a well-known and common procedure on campuses across the state for the police to stop students walking across campus on weekend nights and force them to take Breathalyzers whether or not they have been drinking," said Knapp. "This is a great student rights decision." David Moran, an ACLU cooperating attorney, noted that Michigan is the only state in the nation to make it illegal for a minor walking down the street to refuse a Breathalyzer test when the police do not have a search warrant. "We are gratified that the federal court has recognized that the state cannot take away the privacy rights of people just because they are under 21." In addition to Moran, Mrs. Spencer is represented by Michael J. Steinberg, Legal Director of the ACLU of Michigan and William T. Street, a volunteer ACLU lawyer from Saginaw. |
I will write them (ACLU) a thank you letter to let them know that we appreciate all that they do for the rights and free expression of young people (and all people living in this land both citizen or immigrant), but we also have to in-turn show them our support! By becoming a card-carrying member of the ACLU, you can refuse to be a victim of the government's attempts to wipe out our right to free expression! You can do something!
This is proof that the ACLU is fighting for us!
After ACLU Action, Police Dismiss Citations Against Hundreds of Electronic Music Concertgoers in Wisconsin
January 16, 2003
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MILWAUKEE -- The City of Racine today agreed to drop all charges against 442 people who were ticketed at a benefit electronic music concert simply for being in proximity to a drug arrest on the premises -- a prosecution the American Civil Liberties Union called a first in the "war on drugs."
"The ACLU urges the City of Racine to respect the First Amendment rights of electronic music attendees in the future," said Micabil Diaz, Legal Director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, which represented the concertgoers. "We also applaud the hundreds of attendees who defended their constitutional rights. The ACLU will continue to remain vigilant in the defense of the rights of individuals to exercise their freedom to attend and perform in electronic music events.
Graham Boyd, Director of the national ACLU�s Drug Policy Litigation Project, said the raid marked a first in the so-called war on drugs. "Recently, the ACLU successfully challenged the arrest of innocent business owners simply for promoting electronic music concerts, but this is the first time that an audience was targeted. We sincerely hope it will be the last. However," he noted, "with the reintroduction in Congress of an anti-Rave bill that targets music promoters, we are likely to see more, not fewer, unconstitutional attempts at prosecution of innocent people."
"Electronic music concerts are a legitimate cultural event just like rock concerts, art exhibitions and film screenings, and are an important outlet for youth culture today," Boyd said. "This kind of raid is tantamount to targeting rock concerts in the 1960s or jazz clubs in the 1920s because some people were using drugs or drinking liquor."
Last November, the Racine police raided an electronic music concert held by the Uptown Theater Group, Inc. to aid its efforts to restore an historic landmark theater in downtown Racine. The police department had claimed that the mere presence of these concertgoers in a location in which four persons were arrested on drug charges violated the city�s "inmates of a disorderly house" ordinance. The citations were originally issued with fines of $968 each.
The ACLU of Wisconsin, with the assistance of volunteer attorney Erik R. Guenther, an associate in the Racine firm of Hostak, Henzl & Bichler, S.C., challenged the citations. The ACLU charged that ordinance violated the First Amendment right to freedom of association since it was imposed on individuals whose only actions were peaceably assembling to hear electronic music.
"The ACLU and I welcome the city's decision to dismiss these citations, and their commitment to amend this ordinance to ensure that an incident like this does not occur again," said Guenther. "The city's decision to provide guidelines to police officers in future enforcement of this ordinance will help ensure that the Constitutional rights of attendees and performers at electronic music events are respected in the future."
The ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project and volunteer attorney James Shellows of Milwaukee provided additional support in this matter.
For more information on the government�s war on raves, go to http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicylist.cfm?c=185
DEA Must Not Be Allowed to Chill Speech or Shut Down Electronic Music Events.
September 11, 2003
WHAT THE RAVE ACT MEANS FOR YOU
What is the RAVE Act? The RAVE Act makes it easier for prosecutors to fine and imprison business owners, property owners, and rave promoters not for their own wrong doing, but for failing to prevent drug-related offenses committed by customers, employees, tenants, or other persons on their property. When the law was first proposed, the electronic music community organized sustained opposition to the bill and it died in Congress. Then in April 2003, the RAVE Act, renamed the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003, snuck through Congress as an attachment to the Amber Alert Bill. While the official name has changed, it's still the same old RAVE Act, with the same original problems.
What's Wrong with the RAVE Act?
*The RAVE Act unfairly punishes businesses for the crimes of their customers. Businesses can be prosecuted even if they were not involved in drugs in any way - and even if they took steps to stop drug use on their property. The RAVE Act allows the government to impose a quarter million dollar fine by showing merely a "preponderance of the evidence" instead of the familiar, and much more protective, "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that applies in criminal cases. The government can't even keep drugs out of its own prisons, yet it's seeking to punish business owners that can't stop their customers from using drugs.
*The RAVE Act threatens musical expression, free speech and the right to dance. Property owners, promoters, and event coordinators can be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars or face up to twenty years in federal prison if they hold raves or other events on their property. The RAVE Act chills free speech because promoters and venue-owners may cancel events for fear of prosecution. This has already happened in Billings, Montana, and reports of similar incidents have come from Alabama, California, Florida and New Mexico. Because of the RAVE Act, promoters and venue-owners may hesitate to hold hemp festivals, all-night dance parties, rock or Hip-Hop concerts, or any other event perceived as attracting drug users.
* The RAVE Act harms the very people it's meant to help. Fear of massive fines and prison sentences will drive raves and other musical events underground and away from public health and safety regulations. If selling bottled water and offering "cool off" rooms becomes proof that owners and promoters know drug use is occurring at their events, the RAVE Act will discourage harm-reduction measures, and the safety of our nation's youth will suffer.
Is the RAVE Act Just About Ecstasy and Raves?
No. While proponents of the RAVE Act target Ecstasy and raves, the Act allows federal prosecutors to target other events, such as Hip-Hop concerts, hemp festivals - even country music events could be targeted. The law applies to hotel and motel owners, cruise ship operators, stadium owners, landlords, real estate managers, and event promoters. Anyone who throws an event (such as a party or barbecue) in which they know or anticipate that one or more of their guests uses drugs could potentially face a $250,000 fine and up to twenty years in federal prison. In reality, however, the electronic music community faces the greatest immediate threat because the law's sponsors, and the DEA, have singled out electronic music as a "threat" to young people.
Doesn't the RAVE Act Help Target Drug Dealers?
No. Existing law already makes it a crime to sell drugs or to help other people sell drugs. The federal government has the ability under existing law to imprison nightclub owners or their employees who sell or distribute drugs or who hold events for the purpose of selling or using drugs. The RAVE Act is a political overreaction to the tragic, yet relatively small number of deaths among young people either at raves or after using ecstasy. The law is so broad it's like banning cars because some teenagers get in traffic accidents.
Aren't Raves Just Havens for Drug Use?
Some people use drugs at some raves, just like some people use drugs at rock concerts, sporting events, and state fairs. Singling out one type of event and one type of music is unfair and un-American. We haven't banned all rock concerts just because some people use drugs at them, and we shouldn't ban raves just because we think that people use drugs at them. The question is not whether people should use drugs; the question is whether business owners should be punished for the crimes of their customers and whether an entire music genre and culture should be suppressed because of the offenses of a few.
Hasn't DEA backed off enforcement of the RAVE Act?
The good news is that the political public education efforts of the electronic music and drug reform communities made the Billings incident a major public relations disaster for DEA and Senator Biden. In response, DEA has changed their tune on the RAVE Act. DEA has stated on their web site that, "legitimate property owners and event promoters are not in violation of the law just because a patron engages in illegal drug activity on their property." The bad news is that DEA's credibility is very low. DEA promised when the RAVE Act was first proposed not to threaten legitimate property owners. They promised the same thing when the RAVE Act passed. Then, less than a month after the Act became law, a DEA agent was out threatening a legitimate property owner.
What Can I Do?
DEA must be held to their promises not to target legitimate business owners. DEA must not be allowed to chill speech. DEA must not be allowed to shut down electronic music events. But given DEA's track record, the electronic music community must use all the tools at its disposal - public education, community organizing, political lobbying, and litigation, to insure that DEA does not - and cannot - back down from its promise.
People must stand up for their rights and continue to hold raves and keep electronic music culture alive. Before you can stand for your rights, your must know your rights. If someone mentions the RAVE Act, be ready to explain that the DEA has stated it does not apply to legitimate business owners. If you are threatened, contact the ACLU, EmDef, the Drug Policy Alliance, or your attorney.
Use the resources below to educate yourself on the Rave Act and your rights:
* American Civil Liberties Union, Drug Policy Litigation Project
www.aclu.org/drugpolicy
* EMEF
www.emdef.org
* Drug Policy Alliance
www.drugpolicy.org
* Drug Enforcement Agency
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/an...ration_act.html
oh and by the way the ACLU supports NAMBA..
NAMBA or North American Man Boy Association. This is a group of men who are pedifiles, and the aclu has defended these guys.
From NAMBLA website: "We support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies." "Our membership is open to everyone sympathetic to man/boy love and personal freedom."
Translation: Man/Boy Love = Child Molestation
The ACLUE never met a Nazi, a Communist, a child molestor, a drug dealer, a murderer, or a dangerous violent mental patient they didn't like.
So if you guys wanna support a group like the ACLU that protects the rights of people like NAMBLA, who advocate child molestation, then go for it.....
the ACLU obviously doesn't support pedophilia -- the only 'support' it offered NAMBLA was in the form of filing an amicus curiae brief in order to help them keep their website operational (which court orders tried to shut down). The website in question was primarily focused on NAMBLA's efforts to legally overturn child-sex laws.
the ACLU abhors pedophilia but they will fight for the right of NAMBLA freaks to voice their repugnant views under the rights afforded them by the first amendment. The ACLU has 'supported' the Ku Klux Klan, as well as other unpopular organizations, in a similar capacity on many occasions in the past
defending someone's right to free speech isn't the same as endorsing their opinions -- if you start making exceptions to the free-speech rule you start down a slippery slope that will surely hasten the erosion of civil liberties
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Konijn Island the ACLU obviously doesn't support pedophilia -- the only 'support' it offered NAMBLA was in the form of filing an amicus curiae brief in order to help them keep their website operational (which court orders tried to shut down). The website in question was primarily focused on NAMBLA's efforts to legally overturn child-sex laws. the ACLU abhors pedophilia but they will fight for the right of NAMBLA freaks to voice their repugnant views under the rights afforded them by the first amendment. The ACLU has 'supported' the Ku Klux Klan, as well as other unpopular organizations, in a similar capacity on many occasions in the past defending someone's right to free speech isn't the same as endorsing their opinions -- if you start making exceptions to the free-speech rule you start down a slippery slope that will surely hasten the erosion of civil liberties |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 Sorry but to ME..if you give ANY aid to a group like NAMBLA then you condone it...they DID help NAMBLA....so in my book they think it is ok for these sick bastards to preach about changing sex laws in their favor...sick sick sick.... ACLU sucks if you ask me...a bunch of liberal fucks who protect the scum of the earth in the name of rights....hate to break it to you but some people do not deserve rights!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NYGblue If you want to disregard an organization that has done so much to protect your rights over the past 40 years over one issue... Then you are a complete and utter idiot. Don't bother giving some smartass remark either, it won't help you. I am just pointing out the obvious. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 Yes i do disregard anything that helps child molestors....and watch who you are calling an idiot....this is MY opinion....i think the ACLU are lefty pigs who only know how to sue people...they protect racists, pedifiles, rapists, and countless other degenrate types.... You have pointed out nothing...except for that fact that YOU will disregard the little boys that NAMBRA wants to have sex with....so long as the ACLU keeps up their good work.... Did you also know the ACLU is behind LOWERING the legal sexual age to have sex from 18 to 13 in many states?...so that means a 60 year old man can have sex with a 13 year old boy or girl...but hey the ACLU are SUCH a good org........ please they are anti everything...except free speach....but wait they find it ok for the KKK to speak their minds...but not for elemetrary schools to be able to have Christmas plays, Christmas songs etc etc...because they feel it is wrong....give me a break...these people are no better then scumbag defense attornys. When your [13-year-old] daughter walks out the door and says, �I�m going to meet my 40-year-old boyfriend,� and you try to guide her, parent her, and say, �No that�s not going to happen,� and she holds up an ACLU card and says, �Call my attorney,� then we are living in a different type of America.� I am just stunned that the ACLU is saying that a child of 13 or 14 has a constitutional right to make a decision to have sex with an adult. And you are a New Yorker right?...well the days shortly after 9.11. the nation was in shock, and millions turned to God in prayer for comfort in their time of need. One public school in Northern California posted a large banner with the national motto, "God Bless America." However, the aclu attempted to have the banner removed. They sent a letter to the school district, claiming "God Bless America" to be a "hurtful and divisive message." hhhmmm another scumbag move by the ACLU.... In 2000, ten-year-old Jeffrey Curley was kidnapped, raped, and murdered by two homosexual pedophiles. These two men, who have been convicted and are serving life sentences, solicited propaganda from the pro-pedophile North American Man Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA. According to Larry Frisoli, the attorney who represents Jeffrey Curley's parents, "NAMBLA advocates that it's their right, if they can convince a six-year-old or seven-year-old child to do a sexual act with them, when the children knows nothing about sex, in exchange for a candy bar, then that is consensual sex, and it is okay. And that's what they advocate and preach to their membership." The more the Curley's learned about NAMBLA, the more they believed this organization contributed to the death of their child. They sued NAMBLA in an attempt to shut them down. But guess who came in to represent the pedophile defendants in court? The ACLU. "The American Civil Liberties Union's argument, initially, in the case was that whatever happened between [Jeffrey Curley's killers] and NAMBLA was, in fact, free speech," said Frisoli. "I do think Jeffrey Curley would be alive today if it wasn't for NAMBLA." As proof, he cited one of the murderer's diaries, which credited NAMBLA with sexual attraction for boys. The American Civil Liberties Union may want to rethink the continuing defense of this organization and the people who train others to rape little children. Dont get me wrong there is SOME things i think that they have done that are good...but for the most part they are shit....if they had their ways our homeland security would be more of a joke then it is now....screw the ACLU |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NYGblue Still think it is stupid to hate on an organization for this sole reason. I guess there are plenty of other organizations out there fighting for our rights against a govt. that wants to curtail them... As for God Bless America... I agree with the ACLU... I don't think people should be putting that up in a public institution... you wanna do it at your house... fine.. not where ppl. who don't believe in god may go to school, pay taxes for... etc. etc. The ACLU has done too much to just toss them for something like that. It also seems to me that you are basing your argument purely on the fact that this organization believes in pedophilia. Maybe the ACLU has a legitimate argument in fighting for their right to exist. As for the KKK, yeah I don't like them either but this is America and they are supposed to have a right to say what they want. Do I agree, of course not, I am hispanic, but they still have a right to say it. As for being Liberal, I am a liberal so FUCK OFF! |
Who likes EDM anyway?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by galdamez Who likes EDM anyway? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 oh and by the way the ACLU supports NAMBA.. NAMBA or North American Man Boy Association. This is a group of men who are pedifiles, and the aclu has defended these guys. From NAMBLA website: "We support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies." "Our membership is open to everyone sympathetic to man/boy love and personal freedom." Translation: Man/Boy Love = Child Molestation The ACLUE never met a Nazi, a Communist, a child molestor, a drug dealer, a murderer, or a dangerous violent mental patient they didn't like. So if you guys wanna support a group like the ACLU that protects the rights of people like NAMBLA, who advocate child molestation, then go for it..... |
| quote: |
| ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, August 31, 2000 NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSaenz You're trying to equate supporting the right to free speech and expression of unpopular organizations with advocacy of said speech and expression. Perhaps this logic works with the average Fox News viewer, but I know in my heart that most reasonable people are objective enough to see through that smokescreen. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSaenz You're trying to equate supporting the right to free speech and expression of unpopular organizations with advocacy of said speech and expression. Perhaps this logic works with the average Fox News viewer, but I know in my heart that most reasonable people are objective enough to see through that smokescreen. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 ACLU sucks if you ask me...a bunch of liberal fucks who protect the scum of the earth in the name of rights....hate to break it to you but some people do not deserve rights!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 You are so quick to stereotype me as just a Fox news watcher...which simply is not the case...i read and watch ALL news agencies - gather all the info - then make my OWN opinion on the matter....this is called forming an opinion...which is something most of you lefty pinko's don;t do. I AM reasonable...but not when it comes to the welfare of children...that is one area that free speecg, rights, the constitution and everything else has zero effect, atleast in my opinion....people like NAMBRA should be shut down, not heard and be locked away for all eternity...they are sick sick sick individuals that deserve zero rights....You can try to justify them and their free speech or the ACLUs defense for them and people of their nature...but sorry when it comes to children all that shit flys out the window...maybe you have to have your own children to understand where i am coming from. This is not to say the ACLU is all bad...they have done many good things...but with this, they lost all credibility with ME! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NYGblue If you want to disregard an organization that has done so much to protect your rights over the past 40 years over one issue... Then you are a complete and utter idiot. Don't bother giving some smartass remark either, it won't help you. I am just pointing out the obvious. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSaenz The leader of a certain Justice Department feels the same way! There are Arab-American citizens who were arrested after 9/11 and held (some are still being held) for long periods with no formal charges filed in the name of "the war on terror." IS THAT AMERICAN? You tell me. Better yet just keep quiet like you said you would, because you have nothing constructive to add (as usual) to my thread, intended to support those who support our scene, other than insults. |
another beauty
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Can you say Civil Asset Forfeiture?
http://www.americalivefree.org/rights.html
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.