ACLU says sex offenders' computers protected

Why can't people understand that this is not about protecting or defending a child molester or a sex offender? 0ur government can not be allowed to pass laws and then go back to people 15 or 20 years later and say the law has now changed so you have to do this not because you re-offended but because you offended 15 or 20 years ago. It is absurd to think that would be okay to do to anyone whether it be a sex offender, a drunk driver, a murderer or a person getting a speeding ticket. I still do not understand why our government would treat only sex offenders in this way also. Why not DWI's who actually pose a great threat of killing people on our highways? Why not have a registry for them? Liquor stores and bars already are suppose to card people so why not one step further? People on the DUI registry should not be allowed to buy alcohol for so many years because they have shown that they are at risk of harming others. We could take it one step further and not allow drunk drivers to live near a bar or a liquor store because that would be too tempting for them. We should change the laws and go back and make it apply to everyone who has ever been arrested for DUI. If the way we are handling sex offenders is so great and justified then why not handle other criminals this way? Is it because there is big money involved with alcohol sales and taxes? Or is it because then you good old rednecks would yell foul- CAN'T TAKE AWAY MY RIGHT TO DRINK. It's certainly not because we do not find drunk drivers as a risk to society. So why should government be allowed to do this to anyone?

Gauss wrote:

<quoted text>
No. Very few news agencies covered the story. Here you can find further info:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rust-Tie...
Sorry to tarnish your precious American Criminal Liberties Union.

You didn't tarnish anything. Notice how the ACLU had nothing to do with him having child pornography? That's right, because he's an individual who worked for the ACLU. The union didn't advocate him to do anything like this.

The constitutionality of child pornography has pretty well been established; the ACLU had no ducks in the water on this one.

The question is, why are you trolling the internet for stories about child porn? Is that how you get your jollies?

SnoopyTerre Haute wrote:

<quoted text>
thanks for the links I hadn't read that or heard it He will more then likely "pay his dues" in prison, inmatrd don't like child molesters -that encluds porn of kids. Question where were his buddies from the aclu? fighting for his rights???

Since you are obviously the same person, I bet they would...

Purl wrote:

Oops Sorry I wasn't logged in PoopyTerre Haute; it was I, Purl who made the last statement; although Hello out there would probably agree with me.

read your statement purlyou can't imagine how people can suggest death and torture and other ilegal activities because someone done something ilegal...I suppose you think those nice men on that ranch that was busted and 416 children were rescued should start a day care center! I haven't heard a word of the aclu stepping in for those sicko's rights. Don't they have the right to molest their own children? starting at 10 yrs of age. death toture yes I could agree with that after what they have done and covered in the name of religion. No birth certificates or death certificates so people could disappear and no one on the outside knows.An entire community built on the basics of pervertion think that's ok?

SnoopyTerre Haute wrote:

read your statement purlyou can't imagine how people can suggest death and torture and other ilegal activities because someone done something ilegal...I suppose you think those nice men on that ranch that was busted and 416 children were rescued should start a day care center! I haven't heard a word of the aclu stepping in for those sicko's rights. Don't they have the right to molest their own children? starting at 10 yrs of age. death toture yes I could agree with that after what they have done and covered in the name of religion. No birth certificates or death certificates so people could disappear and no one on the outside knows.An entire community built on the basics of pervertion think that's ok?

I never agree with torture or murder whether it is in the form of child molesting or self righteous justice.

death to molestors wrote:

<quoted text>I have to agree. I also think the death penalty is appropriate for child molestors. Actually its too easy. We should torture them slowly as they did their victims, then kill the no good pieces of s**t.

Let's say you have a kid and someone molests that kid. It will not be a stranger but someone you know. Then after he molests your kid he remembers what you have said here. Then, in order to escape your rath, he kills your kid and hid the witness.

Think this is a good idea now?

SnoopyTerre Haute wrote:

read your statement purlyou can't imagine how people can suggest death and torture and other ilegal activities because someone done something ilegal...I suppose you think those nice men on that ranch that was busted and 416 children were rescued should start a day care center! I haven't heard a word of the aclu stepping in for those sicko's rights. Don't they have the right to molest their own children? starting at 10 yrs of age. death toture yes I could agree with that after what they have done and covered in the name of religion. No birth certificates or death certificates so people could disappear and no one on the outside knows.An entire community built on the basics of pervertion think that's ok?

I think it would be ok for someone to lock you away for being an idiot and a potential danger to society

The politicians don't care about your kids. They only care about getting elected and re-elected. The only care about scaring people and then telling them only they can protect them. Politicians would sell their own kids to the devil if it meant some votes

This is the same ACLU that provided over 2 million in legal protection to two members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association who were eventually found guilty of the rape and murder of a 15 year old boy.
Anyone who lends ANY credibility to the ACLU is equally culpable.

The NAMBLA case involved the right to express their opinions; it had nothing to do with their actions. They have also defended Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell.

The ACLU only works from the context of the constitution; state legal cases don't interest them.

OlSchooler wrote:

This is the same ACLU that provided over 2 million in legal protection to two members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association who were eventually found guilty of the rape and murder of a 15 year old boy.
Anyone who lends ANY credibility to the ACLU is equally culpable.