ASMP and ACLU gathering data on police harassment of photographers

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...


Good point, but I did assume that "ACLU" has more global recognition
than "ASMP". The American Civil Liberties Union often takes on
unpopular cases that become high-profile because the general public,
in these cases, doesn't want the ACLU's client to win.

For example, they might represent a convicted child molester who has
been denied rights not taken away by his/her conviction on that
charge. The ACLU take on cases that other attorneys shun because they
don't want to be associated with the plaintiff. The ACLU also takes
on cases where the public would be in support of the plaintiff, but
these don't tend to make the news.

I'm not sure, but I think the Liberty group, or the National Council
for Civil Liberties, in the UK is a similar organization.

That's kind of strange to this American because the word "Liberty" in
association with a group of attorneys in the US means the "Liberty
Counsel": a group that represents the religious right and the
self-apppointed guardians of our morals and behavior. They are the
arch-enemies of the ACLU because the two groups are constantly
battling over prayers in school and religious groups sponsored somehow
by schools.


Usually when the ACLU takes such a case it is not really defending the
accused. It is defending the people against the potential tyranny of the
state.

--
Peter

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:11:36 -0500, "Peter"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
.. .


Good point, but I did assume that "ACLU" has more global recognition
than "ASMP". The American Civil Liberties Union often takes on
unpopular cases that become high-profile because the general public,
in these cases, doesn't want the ACLU's client to win.

For example, they might represent a convicted child molester who has
been denied rights not taken away by his/her conviction on that
charge. The ACLU take on cases that other attorneys shun because they
don't want to be associated with the plaintiff. The ACLU also takes
on cases where the public would be in support of the plaintiff, but
these don't tend to make the news.

I'm not sure, but I think the Liberty group, or the National Council
for Civil Liberties, in the UK is a similar organization.

That's kind of strange to this American because the word "Liberty" in
association with a group of attorneys in the US means the "Liberty
Counsel": a group that represents the religious right and the
self-apppointed guardians of our morals and behavior. They are the
arch-enemies of the ACLU because the two groups are constantly
battling over prayers in school and religious groups sponsored somehow
by schools.


Usually when the ACLU takes such a case it is not really defending the
accused. It is defending the people against the potential tyranny of the
state.

I understand that. In the child molester example, the child molester
is the plaintiff, not the defendant. He was the defendant in the
child molestation case, but the plaintiff in the current case. He may
be, for example, fighting some local law about where he can reside.

A city may have a law that a convicted child molester cannot live
within X distance of a school. If X is prohibitively large, that may
prevent the person from living anywhere in the city. The ACLU may
represent the person to apply for a variance that allows the person to
find accommodation.

No one wants to see a child molester benefit from a lawsuit, so the
ACLU is viewed as doing something detrimental to society. In fact,
the ACLU is providing the basic right of legal representation to all.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:11:36 -0500, "Peter"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...


Good point, but I did assume that "ACLU" has more global recognition
than "ASMP". The American Civil Liberties Union often takes on
unpopular cases that become high-profile because the general public,
in these cases, doesn't want the ACLU's client to win.

For example, they might represent a convicted child molester who has
been denied rights not taken away by his/her conviction on that
charge. The ACLU take on cases that other attorneys shun because
they don't want to be associated with the plaintiff. The ACLU also
takes on cases where the public would be in support of the
plaintiff, but these don't tend to make the news.

I'm not sure, but I think the Liberty group, or the National Council
for Civil Liberties, in the UK is a similar organization.

That's kind of strange to this American because the word "Liberty"
in association with a group of attorneys in the US means the
"Liberty Counsel": a group that represents the religious right and
the self-apppointed guardians of our morals and behavior. They are
the arch-enemies of the ACLU because the two groups are constantly
battling over prayers in school and religious groups sponsored
somehow by schools.


Usually when the ACLU takes such a case it is not really defending
the accused. It is defending the people against the potential
tyranny of the state.

I understand that. In the child molester example, the child molester
is the plaintiff, not the defendant. He was the defendant in the
child molestation case, but the plaintiff in the current case. He may
be, for example, fighting some local law about where he can reside.

A city may have a law that a convicted child molester cannot live
within X distance of a school. If X is prohibitively large, that may
prevent the person from living anywhere in the city. The ACLU may
represent the person to apply for a variance that allows the person to
find accommodation.

No one wants to see a child molester benefit from a lawsuit, so the
ACLU is viewed as doing something detrimental to society. In fact,
the ACLU is providing the basic right of legal representation to all.

Which particular ACLU action do you have in mind?

On 2010-02-11 09:24:15 -0800, tony cooper said:

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:11:36 -0500, "Peter"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...


Good point, but I did assume that "ACLU" has more global recognition
than "ASMP". The American Civil Liberties Union often takes on
unpopular cases that become high-profile because the general public,
in these cases, doesn't want the ACLU's client to win.

For example, they might represent a convicted child molester who has
been denied rights not taken away by his/her conviction on that
charge. The ACLU take on cases that other attorneys shun because they
don't want to be associated with the plaintiff. The ACLU also takes
on cases where the public would be in support of the plaintiff, but
these don't tend to make the news.

I'm not sure, but I think the Liberty group, or the National Council
for Civil Liberties, in the UK is a similar organization.

That's kind of strange to this American because the word "Liberty" in
association with a group of attorneys in the US means the "Liberty
Counsel": a group that represents the religious right and the
self-apppointed guardians of our morals and behavior. They are the
arch-enemies of the ACLU because the two groups are constantly
battling over prayers in school and religious groups sponsored somehow
by schools.


Usually when the ACLU takes such a case it is not really defending the
accused. It is defending the people against the potential tyranny of the
state.

I understand that. In the child molester example, the child molester
is the plaintiff, not the defendant. He was the defendant in the
child molestation case, but the plaintiff in the current case. He may
be, for example, fighting some local law about where he can reside.

A city may have a law that a convicted child molester cannot live
within X distance of a school. If X is prohibitively large, that may
prevent the person from living anywhere in the city. The ACLU may
represent the person to apply for a variance that allows the person to
find accommodation.

No one wants to see a child molester benefit from a lawsuit, so the
ACLU is viewed as doing something detrimental to society. In fact,
the ACLU is providing the basic right of legal representation to all.

That is the situation in California, it is not just the "child
molester" per se. Conditions of parole for those having to register for
PC290 offenses, will have residential restrictions on proximity to
schools, regardless of the age of the victim.

California requires the offender to be paroled to the County he/she was
convicted in. On parole the parole agent and region HQ can approve
reassigning the parolee to a town in another region where he would find
it easier to comply with the residential restrictions.
This results in some rural towns and others with poor services and work
prospects ending up with clusters of registered sex offender parolees.
This was the issue with Phillip Garrido, who was able to hide in plain
sight with his victim Jaycee Dugard for 18 years. His El Dorado County
home near Antioch was in an area with a high density of parolees
compelled to live in an area where monitoring was low. All to keep them
1000 ft from a school, and the usual, and understandable NIMBY attitude.

Now we have the ACLU case fighting arguing against those residential
restrictions.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:51:15 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:11:36 -0500, "Peter"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...


Good point, but I did assume that "ACLU" has more global recognition
than "ASMP". The American Civil Liberties Union often takes on
unpopular cases that become high-profile because the general public,
in these cases, doesn't want the ACLU's client to win.

For example, they might represent a convicted child molester who has
been denied rights not taken away by his/her conviction on that
charge. The ACLU take on cases that other attorneys shun because
they don't want to be associated with the plaintiff. The ACLU also
takes on cases where the public would be in support of the
plaintiff, but these don't tend to make the news.

I'm not sure, but I think the Liberty group, or the National Council
for Civil Liberties, in the UK is a similar organization.

That's kind of strange to this American because the word "Liberty"
in association with a group of attorneys in the US means the
"Liberty Counsel": a group that represents the religious right and
the self-apppointed guardians of our morals and behavior. They are
the arch-enemies of the ACLU because the two groups are constantly
battling over prayers in school and religious groups sponsored
somehow by schools.


Usually when the ACLU takes such a case it is not really defending
the accused. It is defending the people against the potential
tyranny of the state.

I understand that. In the child molester example, the child molester
is the plaintiff, not the defendant. He was the defendant in the
child molestation case, but the plaintiff in the current case. He may
be, for example, fighting some local law about where he can reside.

A city may have a law that a convicted child molester cannot live
within X distance of a school. If X is prohibitively large, that may
prevent the person from living anywhere in the city. The ACLU may
represent the person to apply for a variance that allows the person to
find accommodation.

No one wants to see a child molester benefit from a lawsuit, so the
ACLU is viewed as doing something detrimental to society. In fact,
the ACLU is providing the basic right of legal representation to all.

Which particular ACLU action do you have in mind?

I have no idea what you are questioning.

Do you not ken what an "example" is?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida