Changes
== "Rare example" and other problems ==
:::::::Posted a list of Free Speech cases with the proper 5:1 'obscene/whatever' ratio. Hopes this meets with approval. Deleted the item on Tyler Chase for violating Conservapedia guidelines. --Jimmy 14:35, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::No, it doesn't meet our approval. Don't delete Aschlafly's edits while inserting your own. You do NOT decide if someone is violating Conservapedia guidelines. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:53, 14 February 2008 (EST)
== Harper v. Poway Unified School District... ==
...seems relevant to me...why take it out? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
: It was misleading. I've added the info in an accurate way now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:25, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::I'm no lawyer, but aren't all amicus briefs carefully worded? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:30, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: Oh, [[liberals]] are sooooooooo literal. HelpJazz, the phrase "carefully worded" has meaning beyond its literal interpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::First let me say that I love being called a liberal yet again. I just don't see the harm, in an encyclopedia, to say what we mean. If we don't literally mean "carefully worded", then wouldn't the encyclopedia be better off with whatever we really mean? For us literal "liberals"? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: No, HelpJazz, because good writing does not restrain itself with overly literal -- and obviously inapplicable -- interpretations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::Encyclopedic writing lends itself to clarity, though, I would hope. In the context, I don't know what you are trying to imply by "carefully worded". If I don't know, then likely other users who are trying to learn from this encyclopedia don't know, and then the encyclopedia is failing at its only job, which is to teach. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:47, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::: HelpJazz, I don't see any credible complaints of confusion but, if you think this is so important, then please suggest a succinct substitute that does not dilute the obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::First I'm a liberal, and now I'm not a credible witness. I'm falling down rungs much faster than I can climb them, I guess. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:56, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::Just popping in to say that I'm rather confused that carefully worded does not mean carefully worded. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Wow, [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. Just suggest a succinct substitute that makes the same point. (Or pretend after all these messages that you still cannot grasp the point.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: 'scuse me for providing proof that people can be confused by impercise doublespeak. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:12, 6 March 2008 (EST)
For those interested in this case, here are some more documents:
[http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/HarperPetition.pdf Alliance Defense Fund's cert. brief to SCOTUS]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2D4CBF690CD61A6882571560001FEBD/$file/0457037.pdf?openelement 9th circuit opinion]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/3BC4CBC4E3F50F418825715600022D4D/$file/0457037d.pdf Kozinski's dissent]
[[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)
==Free Speech section==
This section jumbles together the alleged times when the ACLU has defended free speech and times when they have not. I plan on in the future shifting these into two sections for ease of parsing.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 18:31, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
: Not sure what you have in mind, but [[liberal]] [[placement bias]] is not allowed here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
== Free Speech Issues ==
The article claims that the American Civil Liberties Union "virtually never defends speech that is critical of homosexuality." This is, however, false; as the ACLU defended Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of the anti-homosexual Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/26265prs20060721.html (ACLU press release)
Therefore I believe this portion of the article should be taken down so Conservapedia can remain as accurate as possible. {{unsigned|Adg2011}}
:So, one example out of thousands of contrary ones, makes a logical argument? --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 21:47, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::TK: Thousands of "contrary ones"? This claim and many like it have been made about the ACLU by Iduan, Aschlafly, etc., but no one has ever even posted the slightest bit of evidence that this is so. Any chance that you can be the exception to the rule and provide the evidence that backs up your assertion? --Jimmy 22:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, I will be happy to, Jimmy. Please keep in mind that my usual hours preclude me being on line here during the day, and my time being able to edit is very limited being on the West Coast, okay? --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 23:43, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0201-29.htm
http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html
http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2006/03/aclu-and-religious-liberty.html
http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1769031#post24424698
I have found many more reasons why I believe this piece of the article should be taked down. This contradicts the statement "virtually never" as stated in the article. Therefore, unless I have missed something, I will take down that segment of the article. {{unsigned|Adg2011}}
== Same-Sex Marriage Section ==
The article states "The ACLU sues schools when a student alleges encountering "anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation." [18] The ACLU holds the school (and hence the taxpayers) liable for actions based on conduct by some students towards others."
I'm sure that the the readers and editors of Conservapedia would be against racist or sexist harassment and bullying, so why would it not be same case with LGBT students. The Constitution of the United States' 14th Amendment provides equal protection "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Thus I believe that this section should be deleted or altered so that Conservapedia's tone remains neutral. {{unsigned|Adg2011}}
:You do realize that Conservapedia is officially a Christian & Conservative - friendly encyclopedia, and therefore does not strive, like Wikipedia for neutrality? --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 18:55, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
::Because I believe there is a difference between conservatism and anti-constitutional thinking. One of the core values of the conservatism is the infallibility of the constitution. I do edit Wikipedia, by the way. Do you have an opinion on the subject, user ₮K? {{unsigned|Adg2011}}
:::I noted that CP does not strive for neutrality, as you suggested it do. I have no idea where the Constitution and WP references connect. Happy editing! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 21:33, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
== 'Conspicuously Absent' section ==
I previously commented on this section of the article and I think TK did amend it, but both must have been lost with the recent crash. This section is poorly construction and too opinionated, and needs a lot of work. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:44, 15 February 2009 (EST)
== Privacy Rights Section ==
Is there any chance an explanation could be given for the removal of the Privacy Rights section? TK posted a threat on my talk page not to post 'liberal deceit' or I wouldn't be taken seriously. I was under the impression that the ACLU did do the three things indicated in the offending section. If there is any information that would indicate they did not support 'Joe the Plumber' with an open letter, file a friend of the court brief in support of Limbaugh, or join a broad coalition of civil rights groups to oppose the national ID card, please let me know or post it in the article. I thought the references provided were of the required quality, or is Fox News a source of 'liberal deceit'? --[[User:JohnnyBB|JohnnyBB]] 13:58, 18 February 2009 (EST)
:Look, without a longer track record your contributions could very well be [[liberal deceit]]. Perhaps these additions are along the lines of Satan quoting Psalm 91:11-12 when he/she (...could Satan be female?) made an attempt to tempt Christ. Or perhaps these additions are okay. In either case, it's too difficult to tell. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 21:13, 18 February 2009 (EST)
::Well said, RickD.
::JohnnyBB, you are well on your way to proving my point. I don't make threats, what I posted on your talk page, take it as a promise. Either discuss your plans for changes to articles on the talk pages, or we can just not waste your time, or anyone else's here as well, and block you immediately. This isn't whatever liberal wiki you might be used to. Time wasters, especially those trying to prove the unprovable, namely that the ACLU is anything other than biased against conservative thought, and a radical leftist organization, with a demonstrable track record of being that, will be a one-way ticket to oblivion here. But please, don't take my word for it! Go post on the [[user talk:aschlafly|Owner's page]], and tell him about my "threats", and your thoughts about how the ACLU is interested in protecting everyone's privacy, including conservatives. You might also want to be prepared to answer some questions from him about the tens of thousands of babies the ACLU has helped kill. Just saying..... --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 03:12, 19 February 2009 (EST)
:::RickD: Comparing my edits to Satan? Are you serious or is this a form of subtle humor?
:::TK: I read the Commandments, guidelines, and etiquette links you thoughtfully provided. Thank-you very much. Nowhere did I see a prohibition against editing an article without starting a discussion on the talk page. Was I mistaken? If so, could you point me in the right direction please? There is however a rule that suggests, ''Favour improving another person's edits over deleting them.'' I wonder who ignored this concept? By the way, in America, ''favour'' is spelled without the ''u''. The ''u'' is used in Britain. Thank the first Roosevelt administration for the change.
:::You claimed I was trying to prove the ''unprovable'' (sic). Yet I am the one that posted references to my edit that even included a conservative source. Are you actually trying to deny that the ACLU has supported the privacy rights of at least some Americans even when they don't believe in such a concept themselves? Limbaugh denied the existence of a constitutional right to privacy, yet that didn't stop him from accepting the ACLU's brief nor did he stop his attorney from making the same claims in his defense against the doctor shopping charges.
:::If the owner of this page wants to start a dialog with me about the alleged distain for privacy rights you are alleging about the ACLU, I would be glad to do so. I will not contact him on his personal page because the etiquette page states any discussion concerning the content of an article should take place on the article's talk page and not an editor's page. I don't want to give you any additional reasons to make any more ''promises'' in reference to the factual and referenced edits I have made.
:::I suppose we could discuss the issue of the ACLU's alleged baby killing, but I prefer that we stick to the issue at hand, you know, the idea that the ACLU may actually support privacy rights of certain Americans. Would this be an issue you care to discuss? Can we have a rational discussion on the stated topic without wandering over to other areas like baby killing? Would you be willing to provide primary or secondary sources to your claims instead of just saying things like the ''ACLU is anything other than biased against conservative thought, and a radical leftist organization''? If your assertion is the unmitigated and unquestionable fact that you seem to insist it is, then you should have no problem providing numerous references.
:::Once again, thank-you for your responses concerning my alleged ''liberal deceit''. I'm kind of blown away that editing this encyclopedia in a way that abides by the Commandments, guidelines and rules of etiquette is somehow ''liberal deceit''. Do I have your permission to follow the example set by yourself when editing articles? If so would you kindly tell me so? That way I won't have to worry about things like ''liberal deceit'' accusations. --[[User:JohnnyBB|JohnnyBB]] 20:50, 19 February 2009 (EST)
*Gods speed to you, JohnnyB. Bye. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 21:15, 19 February 2009 (EST)
::::What TK is saying is that you are inserting liberalism into pages. While a liberal is not prevented from editing here, this is not a liberal wiki. TK wants the changes on the talk page first because you want to add liberalism into articles and these need reviewed first. It is not written that way in the commandments. Your work has been reverted several times, it is a reasonable request (temporary) until you have a track record of contributions. --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 21:28, 19 February 2009 (EST)
::::: What's not been explained is how it is "liberalism" to insert ''factual'' information, and nobody's argued that it was not factual. So therefore nobody has explained just what he did wrong. In fact, he was, as he said, abiding by the commandments and guidelines, and it was TK who hasn't followed editing etiquette in reverting him. There is no ''absolute requirement'' to discuss proposed changes on talk pages first, yet he has been hauled over the coals for not doing so, and banned for rightly protesting his innocence. Worse, after being threatened and told that he should discuss his edits, he ''did'' try and discuss his edits here, only to have said discussion ignored, and further threats issued. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:50, 19 February 2009 (EST)
:::::: OK, so the ACLU edit is not liberalism, just a defense of liberals (ACLU). But in doing so, claiming that they were very concerned which in fact is not factual. You and me both know that the ACLU is no stranger to defending privacy in the courts. Joe the Plumber did not make concern enough to pursue. The Campos edit was liberalism. He was in fact trying to discredit the GOP with a references that only the GOP want mandatory sentencing, not liberals and that the GOP feels it as the ONLY solution, when they don't. When it is in fact not exclusive to the GOP (Ca. democrats enacted the same law) and is not the only solution in the national platform. He wanted me to add the Ca. info but I feel the mandatory min. info didn't belong their in the first place. So JohnnyBB is a liberal with a non-Conservative agenda, that has a beef with administrators. PJR, if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler! I give credit to Greg Gutfeld's 'Red-eye' for that fancy statement. --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 22:18, 19 February 2009 (EST)
::::::: Jpatt, I was not claiming that the edit was totally acceptable. I was claiming that it was reverted without explanation, the user inappropriately threatened, told to discuss the edit, then blocked when he ''did'' discuss the edit, because he dared to question his treatment. There is nothing wrong with defending liberals ''per se''; if they have been falsely accused, for example, then they deserved to be defended as much as anybody else. And just because someone does defend a liberal doesn't mean that they themselves are liberal. That is illogical. So yes, I do disagree with you, and therefore calling me names ("worse than Hitler") is arrogant and rude, and especially inappropriate for a fellow administrator. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 20 February 2009 (EST)
{{cquote|Administrators and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. '''Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed.'''}} [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Administrators#Duties_and_Authority]
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 22:58, 19 February 2009 (EST)
: That does not give you carte blanche to inappropriately threaten editors. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 20 February 2009 (EST)
The Privacy Section was inappropriate. Two referenced inconsequential letters, which have no legal effect, and the third item at best merited a footnote. Placing such a Privacy Section above far more important issues was an obvious distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 19 February 2009 (EST)
: Perhaps it was inappropriate. My point is not whether the edit was appropriate in that sense, but the inappropriate ''handling'' of it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 20 February 2009 (EST)
== Leftist ==
The ACLU is not leftist. Left wing refers primarily to economic policies. The ACLU does not have an economic agenda. Liberal would be far more accurate, especially since a lot of libertarians support the ACLU in many cases. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] 13:31, 28 September 2009 (EDT)
