Apostle:
Expression of an opinion by a private body. That’s the important part. These “little legal “the government endorses them” loopholes” is then entire issue. It’s also the issue of this debate, so its hardly something that can be out of hand discarded just because you don’t agree with it. Basically, all you’ve done here is bring up another disputed example of exactly what we’re already discussing and using it as undisputed fact.

So my one biggest requirement in that little “challenge” is in feverish dispute in your example. Regardless of whether or not the ACLU is ‘right’ in that case, it clearly can’t be used as an example here.

“It is perfectly valid and legal to suggest overthrowing the government violently, in fact.”

“Apparently its not.”

Interesting. Speaking specifically to my comment, I was observing legal reality in its actual execution, rather than codified law. Regardless of any discussion, I have seen and can easily reproduce a figure publicly advocating violent overthrow of the government.

This same figure has been, and continues to be confronted by law enforcement, and isn’t prosecuted under this code.

Right, wrong? I don’t know. I was referring to an actual, current case. Perhaps in the future Mr. Turner will be prosecuted for his advocation. I guess that’s a debate for those circumstances. Under the information you’ve brought to light, though, I obviously need to revoke the statement that it is perfectly legal. Apparently, it is not. Perhaps this is a code reserved for the effective collection of an anit-government militia. I honestly don’t know. Something I’m not afraid to say.

“Then how about the governments use of campaigns to discourage the use of tobacco and alcohol?”
The government has an obligation in its role of regulation to publish findings regarding the health implications of the use of tobacco, alcohol and really, any other dangerous or adaptive substance. I would expect, and not argue against a similar scientific discovery which suggested that fetuses of some arbitrary age showed signs of consciousness, self-awareness or other quantifiable properties.

These kinds of declarations do not equate to overarching and sweeping statements of moral implications associated with abortion.

Regardless, as interesting and thought provoking as your statements might be, they don’t address the most simplistic comparison. Does the government reserve the right to block discussion suggesting that tobacco and alcohol are not dangerous. Also, realistically, does the government hold the right to campaign against the use of alcohol and tobacco usage? I’ll make sure to point out that publishing scientifically performed studies as to the effect of a certain thing does not in any way equal the arbitrary advocation of a principal.

Or, to put into the context of our current debate, does the government reserve the right to allow license plates which contain the phrase ‘Smoking Kills’ and simultaneously block the plates which say ‘I Luv 2 Smoke’?

I don’t think it does. But I think that’s closer to our question at hand.

Then how about the governments use of campaigns to discourage the use of tobacco and alcohol?
Had the ACLU won in this case, what would government warnings against tobacco and alcohol look like?

“It is perfectly valid and legal to suggest overthrowing the government violently, in fact.”

Apparently its not.

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so;
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2385

Just so I understand, ideas are now protected under the umbrella of civil rights? An elected legislative body can’t pass legislation expressing the political views of their constituents unless they also express the opposing view? Why this is a concern of the Anti-Civil Liberties Union is interesting. Once again, the ACLU is infringing on people’s rights and opposing the democratic process. It does kinda suck.

Ahhh, that’s the government/ private body trap again. No one (sane), including the ACLU is trying to stop people from expressing themselves at Christmas. I would challenge you to find a case where the ACLU is trying to stop a private body from expressing any opinion at any time.

Stores that choose “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” do because their PR firms decide it is a good idea, not because of legal pressure. If it is because of legal pressure I would stake a great deal on the fact that the ACLU would defend them. Believe it or not the ACLU has a history of defending Christians expressing themselves as well as a history of fighting government expressing Christian beliefs. That isn’t schizophrenic. Just like everything else in life it is a matter of context. Something which often becomes more contentious then the message itself. See: my complaints at th beginning of this thread.

BUT! Stopping the government, NOT government officials, from expressing pro-Christian views at Christmas or any other time is a totally different can of worms. Politicians are absolutely allowed to express themselves to the outer extent of free speech laws as private bodies. Where they speak for the government however that advocation reaches a wall. That’s why it causes backs to go up when there is a Christian display on state property during Christmas. In most cases you won’t find any such display during Hanukkah, or any other fringe (contextually fringe) religion’s holiday. The obvious impracticality of doing so makes the safe (right?) course to disallow any religious display in an official, governmental capacity.

See the government as a referee of a game. The Ref isn’t allowed to wear either team’s jersey during a game he officiates. No one (should) complain if he does in an unofficial role, but during a game, no way.

However, the ACLU would argue that if some athiest is simply offended that a government allow people to express themselves at Christmas time, that this is enough harm to outlaw it.

Another example is in a post above. Protesting at a funeral. Your rights end when they infringe upon another person’s rights. In that case, the protesters are infringing upon the rights of those that want to assemble peacefully to mourn. And the right to assemble peacefully is a protected Constitutional right. This is the tightrope you speak of, and which this blog brings debate about. I think these people have crossed the line. Perhaps you think they are still on the tightrope?