ACLU files brief in support of conservative blog vs NAACP (1 Viewer)

[SacramentoBob]

I expect some heads to explode soon.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/eff-court-trademark-not-censorship-tool

 

[TobiasFunke]

The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis before. Not sure why anyone would find this surprising.

 

[SacramentoBob]

The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis before. Not sure why anyone would find this surprising.

You don't?

 

[Cjw_55106]

Count me among those not surprised.

 

[jon_mx]

The ACLU has independant branches in each state. Most branches would have looked the other way on this case for idealogical reasons. Good to see the Virginia branch actually stood up for principles of Free Speech here. Terrible ruling by the judge by the way.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis before. Not sure why anyone would find this surprising.

You don't?

Do conservatives paint the ACLU as the enemy or something? That seems like a weird thing to do. They probably have more in common with Rand Paul than Barack Obama.

 

[jon_mx]

The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis before. Not sure why anyone would find this surprising.

Well yeah. NAZIs were big-government pro-union leftists.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Do conservatives paint the ACLU as the enemy or something?

Conservatives don't. But Republicans do.

 

[dutch]

The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis before. Not sure why anyone would find this surprising.

You don't?

Do conservatives paint the ACLU as the enemy or something? That seems like a weird thing to do. They probably have more in common with Rand Paul than Barack Obama.

How long were you under that rock??

 

[dutch]

The ACLU has independant branches in each state. Most branches would have looked the other way on this case for idealogical reasons. Good to see the Virginia branch actually stood up for principles of Free Speech here. Terrible ruling by the judge by the way.

Tobias, example 1.

 

[jon_mx]

The ACLU has independant branches in each state. Most branches would have looked the other way on this case for idealogical reasons. Good to see the Virginia branch actually stood up for principles of Free Speech here. Terrible ruling by the judge by the way.

Tobias, example 1.

I would be a lot more supportive of the ACLU if more branches acted like this. But this is the exception rather than the rule. For instance, the ACLU supporting the use of RICO against abortion groups is a prime example of the ACLU letting its leftist bent getting in the way of the principles they are suppose to be standing for.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis before. Not sure why anyone would find this surprising.

You don't?

Do conservatives paint the ACLU as the enemy or something? That seems like a weird thing to do. They probably have more in common with Rand Paul than Barack Obama.

How long were you under that rock??

Now that I think about it I kind of remember someone being accused of being a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" as if that was a bad thing in a campaign, but it was a long time ago. Maybe Dukakis? Haven't heard a lot lately, especially with a Dem in the White House pushing NSA surveillance and a lot of speech in need of protection coming from the right. Like I said they seem to have more in common with Rand Paul than Obama. Do the Rush Limbaugh types villainize them or something? That kind of sound familiar.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Now that I think about it I kind of remember someone being accused of being a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" as if that was a bad thing in a campaign, but it was a long time ago.

I most remember that phrase being lobbed as an "insult" by some guardian angel doofus on the episode of Geraldo where he got his snotbox busted by the skinhead throwing the chair.

 

[bigbottom]

The ACLU has independant branches in each state. Most branches would have looked the other way on this case for idealogical reasons. Good to see the Virginia branch actually stood up for principles of Free Speech here. Terrible ruling by the judge by the way.

Tobias, example 1.

I would be a lot more supportive of the ACLU if more branches acted like this. But this is the exception rather than the rule. For instance, the ACLU supporting the use of RICO against abortion groups is a prime example of the ACLU letting its leftist bent getting in the way of the principles they are suppose to be standing for.

Wasn't that just one branch?

 

[jon_mx]

The ACLU has independant branches in each state. Most branches would have looked the other way on this case for idealogical reasons. Good to see the Virginia branch actually stood up for principles of Free Speech here. Terrible ruling by the judge by the way.

Tobias, example 1.

I would be a lot more supportive of the ACLU if more branches acted like this. But this is the exception rather than the rule. For instance, the ACLU supporting the use of RICO against abortion groups is a prime example of the ACLU letting its leftist bent getting in the way of the principles they are suppose to be standing for.

Wasn't that just one branch?

The national ACLU has a liberal bias in its judgment when it comes to abortion.

Robyn E. Blumner, JD, Columnist , wrote in his Feb. 10, 1999 editorial titled "ACLU Backs Free Speech for All - Except Pro-Lifers," for the Wall Street Journal that:

In 1995, the national ACLU joined its New York affiliate in defending an injunction against anti-abortion protesters, arguing that the imposition of a moving buffer zone that kept protesters 15 feet away from people entering and leaving abortion clinics did not violate the First Amendment.

When the issue reached the Supreme Court, three ACLU affiliates (including the Florida affiliate, where I was executive director), were so appalled by the national organization's stance that we filed a brief opposing it.... The Supreme Court agreed the floating buffer zone violated free speech and struck it down....

 

[squistion]

The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis before. Not sure why anyone would find this surprising.

Well yeah. NAZIs were big-government pro-union leftists.

Oh yes, the NAZIs were liberals. Surprised you didn't mention they had Socialist in the name.

 

[rockaction]

The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis before. Not sure why anyone would find this surprising.

You don't?

Do conservatives paint the ACLU as the enemy or something? That seems like a weird thing to do. They probably have more in common with Rand Paul than Barack Obama.

How long were you under that rock??

Now that I think about it I kind of remember someone being accused of being a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" as if that was a bad thing in a campaign, but it was a long time ago. Maybe Dukakis? Haven't heard a lot lately, especially with a Dem in the White House pushing NSA surveillance and a lot of speech in need of protection coming from the right. Like I said they seem to have more in common with Rand Paul than Obama. Do the Rush Limbaugh types villainize them or something? That kind of sound familiar.

Yeah, it was Dukakis.

There's been plenty of stuff with the ACLU over the years from both the left and the right. I don't think they necessarily have more in common with Rand Paul than Obama (if that's a shorthand) because of school prayer, gun control, and other issues.

They just are.

 

[CBusAlex]

The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis before. Not sure why anyone would find this surprising.

You don't?

Do conservatives paint the ACLU as the enemy or something? That seems like a weird thing to do. They probably have more in common with Rand Paul than Barack Obama.

They're pretty much the antithesis of everything mainstream (i.e. not Ron Paul) conservatives stand for. The issues where the ACLU and Obama clash, like domestic surveillance, are the issues where conservatives actually agree with Obama.

 

[jon_mx]

The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis before. Not sure why anyone would find this surprising.

Well yeah. NAZIs were big-government pro-union leftists.

Oh yes, the NAZIs were liberals. Surprised you didn't mention they had Socialist in the name.

well, they certainly weren't conservative as was being implied.

 

[jon_mx]

The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis before. Not sure why anyone would find this surprising.

You don't?

Do conservatives paint the ACLU as the enemy or something? That seems like a weird thing to do. They probably have more in common with Rand Paul than Barack Obama.

They're pretty much the antithesis of everything mainstream (i.e. not Ron Paul) conservatives stand for. The issues where the ACLU and Obama clash, like domestic surveillance, are the issues where conservatives actually agree with Obama.

Like opposing the Democrats Campaign Finance Reform...........

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Meanwhile, not to stop the usual suspects and usual tangents.... this is a really important case.

 

[rockaction]

Meanwhile, not to stop the usual suspects and usual tangents.... this is a really important case.

Nice touch.

eta* avatar considering...

 

[jon_mx]

Meanwhile, not to stop the usual suspects and usual tangents.... this is a really important case.

It is not really an important case. It is a terrible ruling that will be overturned on appeal.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis before. Not sure why anyone would find this surprising.

Well yeah. NAZIs were big-government pro-union leftists.

Oh yes, the NAZIs were liberals. Surprised you didn't mention they had Socialist in the name.

well, they certainly weren't conservative as was being implied.

I think you're being a little oversensitive here, my friend. Nothing was being implied. I was pointing out that the ACLU generally concerns itself with the issues at stake in litigation, not the ideology of the parties doing the litigating.

 

[timschochet]

I try to give money to the ACLU every year. I don't always agree with everything they do, but they fight the good fight.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Meanwhile, not to stop the usual suspects and usual tangents.... this is a really important case.

It is not really an important case. It is a terrible ruling that will be overturned on appeal.

You are your own worst enemy sometimes. IT should be overturned. That is why its important. Because the lower court order can't stand.

 

[jon_mx]

The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis before. Not sure why anyone would find this surprising.

Well yeah. NAZIs were big-government pro-union leftists.

Oh yes, the NAZIs were liberals. Surprised you didn't mention they had Socialist in the name.

well, they certainly weren't conservative as was being implied.

I think you're being a little oversensitive here, my friend. Nothing was being implied. I was pointing out that the ACLU generally concerns itself with the issues at stake in litigation, not the ideology of the parties doing the litigating.

OK...I put in more meaning to your analogy than intended. My bad.

 

[jon_mx]

I try to give money to the ACLU every year. I don't always agree with everything they do, but they fight the good fight.

That would be impossible, since you don't even agree with yourself on most issues.

 

[Slapdash]

I try to give money to the ACLU every year. I don't always agree with everything they do, but they fight the good fight.

Wow, this is shocking! I've never read this before! Covering new ground here.

 

[Slapdash]

There are 3 million chicken recipes on the internet. We’re here to show you the good ones. Win, win.

Today: A one-pot classic to get fall off to a cozy start.

Chicken Cacciatore Recipe

I’m going to tell you a little behind-the-scenes Food52 secret. Know what our number one recipe search term is? It’s chicken. It beats out all the other greatest hits — cake, kale, quinoa, salmon — handily. But like anything that’s popular, it’s awfully easy for chicken to get a bad rap — it’s boring, bland, basic.

But that’s bad chicken. Good chicken is a beautiful thing. It’s roasted simply with salt till the skin snaps and juices spill out. It’s a crispy, herbed cutlet; or a pickled, pulled salad on toast; or a reason to drink broth from a bowl. To make good chicken, we just need to know the best ways to treat it, and keep finding dependable recipes to add to our files. That’s where our new column Winner Winner Chicken Dinner comes in — every week we’ll be surfacing another stellar chicken recipe from the Food52 community, so we never have to suffer bad chicken again.

This week, it’s inpatskitchen's take on a classic chicken cacciatore. You'll dredge and brown chicken thighs in seasoned flour, stir together a tomatoey stew in the same pot, then add the chicken back to finish braising. Get some pasta or polenta (or farro, or potatoes, or whatever speaks to you) ready at the same time, and dinner — good, chicken, dinner — is done.

Chicken Cacciatore by inpatskitchen

Makes 4 servings

1 cup all-purpose flour seasoned with 1 teaspoon salt and 1/2 teaspoon black pepper

4 bone-in, skin-on chicken thighs

Olive oil to lightly coat the bottom of a large skillet with a lid

2 slices bacon, chopped

1 green bell pepper, seeded, cored, and sliced

1 red bell pepper, seeded, cored, and sliced

1 large onion, halved and thinly sliced

4 ounces white or brown button mushrooms, sliced

4 cloves garlic, thinly sliced

1 teaspoon dried basil

1 teaspoon dried oregano

1/2 teaspoon ground fennel seed

1/4 teaspoon crushed red pepper flakes

1 teaspoon salt

One 14- to 15-ounce can whole plum tomatoes

8 ounces tomato sauce

8 ounces chicken broth

1/4 cup torn fresh basil leaves

1/4 cup torn fresh oregano leaves

Grated parmesan for serving

Cooked pasta or soft polenta for serving

Coat the skillet with olive oil, up the sides of the pan about 1/4 inch, and heat. Dredge the chicken thighs in the seasoned flour and brown each side until golden. Remove the thighs and set aside.

Drain the oil from the skillet and add the chopped bacon. Cook until almost crisp and then add the 2 peppers, onions, garlic, and mushrooms. Sauté for a few minutes.

Stir in the dried basil, dried oregano, ground fennel, red pepper flakes, and salt. Continue to sauté until you can smell the garlic, another few minutes.

Crush the plum tomatoes with your clean hands to break them up and add to the skillet along with the juices from the can. Add the tomato sauce and chicken broth.

Return the chicken thighs to the skillet, skin side up, and bathe the sauce over the pieces. Bring everything up to a simmer and continue to simmer, partially covered, for 30 to 40 minutes.

After the 30 to 40 minute simmer, stir in the fresh basil and oregano. Serve a chicken thigh and some of the sauce with peppers over spaghetti or some soft polenta. Shower a little Parmesan over the top and enjoy!

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I try to give money to the ACLU every year. I don't always agree with everything they do, but they fight the good fight.

You mean fighting for civil liberties...All civil liberties?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

There are 3 million chicken recipes on the internet. We’re here to show you the good ones. Win, win.

Today: A one-pot classic to get fall off to a cozy start.

Chicken Cacciatore Recipe

I’m going to tell you a little behind-the-scenes Food52 secret. Know what our number one recipe search term is? It’s chicken. It beats out all the other greatest hits — cake, kale, quinoa, salmon — handily. But like anything that’s popular, it’s awfully easy for chicken to get a bad rap — it’s boring, bland, basic.

But that’s bad chicken. Good chicken is a beautiful thing. It’s roasted simply with salt till the skin snaps and juices spill out. It’s a crispy, herbed cutlet; or a pickled, pulled salad on toast; or a reason to drink broth from a bowl. To make good chicken, we just need to know the best ways to treat it, and keep finding dependable recipes to add to our files. That’s where our new column Winner Winner Chicken Dinner comes in — every week we’ll be surfacing another stellar chicken recipe from the Food52 community, so we never have to suffer bad chicken again.

This week, it’s inpatskitchen's take on a classic chicken cacciatore. You'll dredge and brown chicken thighs in seasoned flour, stir together a tomatoey stew in the same pot, then add the chicken back to finish braising. Get some pasta or polenta (or farro, or potatoes, or whatever speaks to you) ready at the same time, and dinner — good, chicken, dinner — is done.

Chicken Cacciatore by inpatskitchen

Makes 4 servings

1 cup all-purpose flour seasoned with 1 teaspoon salt and 1/2 teaspoon black pepper

4 bone-in, skin-on chicken thighs

Olive oil to lightly coat the bottom of a large skillet with a lid

2 slices bacon, chopped

1 green bell pepper, seeded, cored, and sliced

1 red bell pepper, seeded, cored, and sliced

1 large onion, halved and thinly sliced

4 ounces white or brown button mushrooms, sliced

4 cloves garlic, thinly sliced

1 teaspoon dried basil

1 teaspoon dried oregano

1/2 teaspoon ground fennel seed

1/4 teaspoon crushed red pepper flakes

1 teaspoon salt

One 14- to 15-ounce can whole plum tomatoes

8 ounces tomato sauce

8 ounces chicken broth

1/4 cup torn fresh basil leaves

1/4 cup torn fresh oregano leaves

Grated parmesan for serving

Cooked pasta or soft polenta for serving

Coat the skillet with olive oil, up the sides of the pan about 1/4 inch, and heat. Dredge the chicken thighs in the seasoned flour and brown each side until golden. Remove the thighs and set aside.

Drain the oil from the skillet and add the chopped bacon. Cook until almost crisp and then add the 2 peppers, onions, garlic, and mushrooms. Sauté for a few minutes.

Stir in the dried basil, dried oregano, ground fennel, red pepper flakes, and salt. Continue to sauté until you can smell the garlic, another few minutes.

Crush the plum tomatoes with your clean hands to break them up and add to the skillet along with the juices from the can. Add the tomato sauce and chicken broth.

Return the chicken thighs to the skillet, skin side up, and bathe the sauce over the pieces. Bring everything up to a simmer and continue to simmer, partially covered, for 30 to 40 minutes.

After the 30 to 40 minute simmer, stir in the fresh basil and oregano. Serve a chicken thigh and some of the sauce with peppers over spaghetti or some soft polenta. Shower a little Parmesan over the top and enjoy!

The ACLU supports your right to post Chicken Cacciatore Recipes.

 

[Slapdash]

I try to give money to the ACLU every year. I don't always agree with everything they do, but they fight the good fight.

You mean fighting for civil liberties...All civil liberties?

Tim doesn't believe in a lot of civil liberties.

 

[jon_mx]

Meanwhile, not to stop the usual suspects and usual tangents.... this is a really important case.

It is not really an important case. It is a terrible ruling that will be overturned on appeal.

You are your own worst enemy sometimes. IT should be overturned. That is why its important. Because the lower court order can't stand.

It would be an important case if it set a precedent, but it won't because the judge ignored precedent. There is very little chance this ruling will stand. As is, it is just a terrible lower court ruling.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Now that I think about it I kind of remember someone being accused of being a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" as if that was a bad thing in a campaign, but it was a long time ago.

I most remember that phrase being lobbed as an "insult" by some guardian angel doofus on the episode of Geraldo where he got his snotbox busted by the skinhead throwing the chair.

I think you're confusing John Metzger (WAR) with Curtis Sliwa (GA).

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Meanwhile, not to stop the usual suspects and usual tangents.... this is a really important case.

It is not really an important case. It is a terrible ruling that will be overturned on appeal.

You are your own worst enemy sometimes. IT should be overturned. That is why its important. Because the lower court order can't stand.

It would be an important case if it set a precedent, but it won't because the judge ignored precedent. There is very little chance this ruling will stand. As is, it is just a terrible lower court ruling.

You're right of course. Lower court rulings get overturned every single time they are appealed without question. I remember that in law school. Made years 2 and 3 rather easy.

 

[Hilts]

I try to give money to the ACLU every year. I don't always agree with everything they do, but they fight the good fight.

You mean fighting for civil liberties...All civil liberties?

Tim doesn't believe in a lot of civil liberties.

Fictitious things tim doesn't believe in...

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Now that I think about it I kind of remember someone being accused of being a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" as if that was a bad thing in a campaign, but it was a long time ago.

I most remember that phrase being lobbed as an "insult" by some guardian angel doofus on the episode of Geraldo where he got his snotbox busted by the skinhead throwing the chair.

I think you're confusing John Metzger (WAR) with Curtis Sliwa (GA).

It may not have been the chair episode , but I specifically remember some ACLU slamming coming out of one of the GA guys on a Geraldo/Morton Downey Jr era talk show.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Now that I think about it I kind of remember someone being accused of being a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" as if that was a bad thing in a campaign, but it was a long time ago.

I most remember that phrase being lobbed as an "insult" by some guardian angel doofus on the episode of Geraldo where he got his snotbox busted by the skinhead throwing the chair.

I think you're confusing John Metzger (WAR) with Curtis Sliwa (GA).

It may not have been the chair episode , but I specifically remember some ACLU slamming coming out of one of the GA guys on a Geraldo/Morton Downey Jr era talk show.

Guardian Angels were mostly full of #### but they wore cool hats.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Now that I think about it I kind of remember someone being accused of being a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" as if that was a bad thing in a campaign, but it was a long time ago.

I most remember that phrase being lobbed as an "insult" by some guardian angel doofus on the episode of Geraldo where he got his snotbox busted by the skinhead throwing the chair.

I think you're confusing John Metzger (WAR) with Curtis Sliwa (GA).

It may not have been the chair episode , but I specifically remember some ACLU slamming coming out of one of the GA guys on a Geraldo/Morton Downey Jr era talk show.

Guardian Angels were mostly full of #### but they wore cool hats.

I remember that episode of Morton Downey, Jr when they had guardian angel in there yelling at Ron Paul because he wanted to legalize marijuana.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Meanwhile, not to stop the usual suspects and usual tangents.... this is a really important case.

It is not really an important case. It is a terrible ruling that will be overturned on appeal.

You are your own worst enemy sometimes. IT should be overturned. That is why its important. Because the lower court order can't stand.

It would be an important case if it set a precedent, but it won't because the judge ignored precedent. There is very little chance this ruling will stand. As is, it is just a terrible lower court ruling.

You're right of course. Lower court rulings get overturned every single time they are appealed without question. I remember that in law school. Made years 2 and 3 rather easy.

I don't often agree with jonmx, but I'd place the likelihood of the Fourth Circuit overruling this decision north of 90%. The district court's decision is a neat example of how a little legal craftsmanship can camouflage lousy legal reasoning. Its cited so as to seem more reasonable than it really is, but there's absolutely no way to affirm the decision without finding that trademark fair use can't exist on the internet (or at least that organizations that solicit donations over the internet can't engage in trademark fair use).

Some of the factual findings are really goofy. For instance, the judge finds that a Google search for NAACP pulls up a link to the Plaintiff's website (these were counterclaims, so the Plaintiff is really the Defendant for the purposes of the ruling). But the court doesn't find whether the link came up first in the Google search. When I search in Google, NAACP.org is the first link shown, so the assertion that people looking for the NAACP's website might be frustrated and give up the search seems pretty implausible to me.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Meanwhile, not to stop the usual suspects and usual tangents.... this is a really important case.

It is not really an important case. It is a terrible ruling that will be overturned on appeal.

You are your own worst enemy sometimes. IT should be overturned. That is why its important. Because the lower court order can't stand.

It would be an important case if it set a precedent, but it won't because the judge ignored precedent. There is very little chance this ruling will stand. As is, it is just a terrible lower court ruling.

You're right of course. Lower court rulings get overturned every single time they are appealed without question. I remember that in law school. Made years 2 and 3 rather easy.

I don't often agree with jonmx, but I'd place the likelihood of the Fourth Circuit overruling this decision north of 90%. The district court's decision is a neat example of how a little legal craftsmanship can camouflage lousy legal reasoning. Its cited so as to seem more reasonable than it really is, but there's absolutely no way to affirm the decision without finding that trademark fair use can't exist on the internet (or at least that organizations that solicit donations over the internet can't engage in trademark fair use).

Some of the factual findings are really goofy. For instance, the judge finds that a Google search for NAACP pulls up a link to the Plaintiff's website (these were counterclaims, so the Plaintiff is really the Defendant for the purposes of the ruling). But the court doesn't find whether the link came up first in the Google search. When I search in Google, NAACP.org is the first link shown, so the assertion that people looking for the NAACP's website might be frustrated and give up the search seems pretty implausible to me.

I think it's higher than 90%. I would never say it's 100%. And it's important for stuff like to get appealed and killed before it does create any precedent. I don't disagree with you at all really.

And I really don't feel like working today so a little ifight is a good way to pass time.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I expect some heads to explode soon.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/eff-court-trademark-not-censorship-tool

Man this stuff is scarey.

Judges are supposed to protect our rights but oftentimes they just come from the same hack, self-interested political class over whome they are suppoed to adjudicate.

Really the decision is outrageous and I'm glad they're filing an appeal. As far as I'm concerned judges like this should be disbarred.