You are ignoring the trees for the forest.

Funny. My point was that the ACLU only defends free speech when it is speech with which they agree. I cited two examples supporting my argument. You proceeded to claim (using what I consider flawed logic) that my examples were not free speech issues. No matter. There are many more examples where the ACLU has failed to defend free speech. Proving the negative is of course difficult. Clearly there are many free speech issues that the ACLU does not take on for whatever reason. I submit that reason is oftentimes because they disagree with the speech being censored, but of course I cannot prove it. Somehow I doubt that it is just *coincidence* that when the censored speech is conservative in nature they choose to remain quiet.

Fortunately for my argument, there are also times when the ACLU actively *opposes* free speech. One such case that comes quickly to mind is the ACLU's support of the "moving buffer zones" around abortion clinics. As you no doubt know, people who protest abortions are required to stay a certain distance away from anyone entering or leaving an abortion clinic. This clearly infringes on their free speech, and for some reason (ideology?) the ACLU has filed multiple injunctions aimed at silencing these protesters.

the point is the lady sleeping at the homeless shelter should have the same rights as my (sadly, late) uncle.

And she does. She has the RIGHT to stand on the corner with a sign advocating whatever candidate or legislation that she supports. She has the RIGHT to donate money to any candidate she chooses. Unfortunately she probably doesn't have much money. So, by your "logic", rich people should be constrained on how much they can donate because there are poor people who cannot donate much. Won't you please admit the obvious -- that is censorship. Now, you may feel due to your own ideology that it is justified censorship, but it is clearly an impingement of the rich person's free speech. And for the ACLU to stand by and allow the 2 high profile free speech cases I cited to go unchallenged, it tells me their actions are driven more by ideology than by some unquestioning belief in free speech.

BTW, I am sorry I called you a liberal. You used the phrase I cited that triggered my statement. I have found that most liberals believe that the rich usually get there through means other than hard work or intelligence. This is a core belief, and they use it to justify all manner of abuse, including censorship.

PS I am sorry to hear of your Uncle's demise. He sounds like "my kind of guy".

but some men are created rich

Ahhh, the liberal core belief - if one is successful or wealthy they got there by a) heredity (ie being created rich) b) cheating c) luck. Therefore it follows that it is perfectly fine to take away their wealth (tax the rich into the stone age) and their rights (you can't broadcast your own views on your own radio station) in the name of "fairness".

Again, can I get a TV station?

Of course you can. You can buy one. ;-)

Your money isn't speech, and if you have to pay for speech, it isn't free speech.

What a pathetic argument. Nice slogan though. You know very well that "free speech" refers to being able to say what you believe without the government throwing you in jail for saying it. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with guaranteeing that everyone gets the same megaphone or audience. To contort the first amendment in that way is a classic liberal gambit. This country is founded on equal OPPORTUNITY, not equal OUTCOMES. Some people are smarter than others. Some work harder. Yes, some are luckier and some are "born on third base". Get over it. Stop trying to use the Constitution to make everything "FAIR" (a liberal's favorite 4 letter word that begins with "F"). It won't work. It can't work. And it totally screws up the country.

Fortunately for the proponents of net neutrality, there's never been a case of a government using its regulatory power to curtail free speech.

Huh? I can think of 2 instances without even breaking a sweat: McCain-Feingold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act and the "Fairness Doctrine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine.

I wonder why the ACLU didn't fight those free-speech abrogations? Don't answer, that was a rhetorical question. The ACLU is only pro-free-speech when it's "their kind of speech", just like everybody else on both sides that claims to support the first amendment.

Actually, though, I am glad the ACLU came out in favor of net neutrality. They are a good litmus test for me. I have been torn on the issue, but now that they have taken a side I now know which position I support.

Don't be dragging facts into this discussion! This is about religion. Access bashing may now resume ...

If it was a *clever* way then a dolt like you wouldn't have figured out that's what they were up to!

When UPS can deliver an envelope from New York to San Francisco for under 50 cents, I might re-evaluate.

Very funny. The fact is they (the USPS) can't either, which is exactly why they are projected to lose hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.

You must live near one of the few crappy local post offices in the US.

Huh. You must live near one of the few good local post offices in the US. Everywhere I have lived the USPS has been a distant 3rd. Really distant, as in not even playing the same game. They behave like a monopoly that could care less what its customers think. Oh wait ...

While is truth to your statement that unfettered capitalism can result in problems, it is certainly clear that government oversight is not the solution. From my perspective, government regulation does not guarantee anything other than a lack of innovation, an increase in price, shortages, and lots of do-nothing patronage "jobs" for the well-connected. See MMS, SEC, US Post Office, etc.

I work in a highly regulated industry (medical devices) and I can tell you based on multiple decades of experience that the effect of that regulation is largely detrimental. I have seen many products which could have been extremely beneficial be delayed or de-featured due to regulatory silliness. Further, the cost of our products are dramatically increased due to the need to provide adequate "documentation" (I am convinced they weigh it to decide when you have done enough). We are forced to maintain a regulatory department that is as big as our R&D department. Everything we do has regulatory implications. When an engineer comes up with a bright idea, the first question asked is "how long will it take and how much will it cost to get it through the FDA?" Often the answers to those questions kill the project.

BTW, did it escape your notice that this particular problem was caught by a concerned citizen, not our benevolent, nanny-state government? They were probably too busy surfing the web watching porn I suppose.

I should hasten to add, however, that government isn't always completely incompetent. I have had personal experience with one extremely efficient government agency. They are always on top of things, have the latest in equipment, and don't miss a beat. This of course would be the IRS. Based on your signature this no doubt pleases you.

sometimes I'll also illegally (depending on jurisdiction) download stuff, because there is an upper limit to what I can afford to spend

And there in a nutshell is a perfect example of the root cause of the "financial crisis". The mindset nowadays is that we should all have everything we want just because we want it. The mere fact that we cannot afford it does not enter into the equation. We borrow money we can never pay back (often we have no intention of paying it back -- see student loan mess), or we download stuff we can't afford to buy, simply because we feel entitled. Clearly this attitude is not sustainable (the current buzzword of the left) and we are now seeing the consequences play out. Sadly, it will be those who shunned this entitlement mentality, worked hard, saved, lived within their means, and played by the rules, who will be hurt the most as they are forced to pay the bills for everyone else.

Coincidentally, these "cold" places you speak of also have fairly homogeneous populations. Perhaps this is due to the climate which makes that geography less appealing to people from other climates? Regardless, I think homogeneity of the populace is the better predictor of low crime rates and non-violent societies. Of course I have no hard data to back this up; it's just something that I have noticed. If you think about it, this makes sense since most people are usually more tolerant of others who are like them than they are of people who are different.