Corsi Just Plain Lies About the ACLU


Jerome Corsi, the Worldnutdaily’s “investigative reporter,” has a new book out about the ACLU that is little more than a tired rehash of all the old lies about the group. But now he’s adding a few new lies of his own. On the Janet Mefferd show he claimed that the ACLU wants to normalize pedophilia and lock pastors up for speaking out against homosexuality:

Corsi: The ACLU has championed same-sex marriage, and along with same-sex marriage advocates, got a very effective public relations campaign arguing, you know, ‘How would you deny these two men who are in love or two women the ability to be happy,’ emotional issues. But now the ACLU is doing two things. One, they’re pushing the envelope, they’re arguing that pedophilia should be accepted next, as the next sexual horizon that is just a sexual orientation, and we should accept it as natural.

Mefferd: That’s sick.

Corsi: And they’re also arguing that any of the, the clergy, silencing the Church and ministers so that anybody who speaks out on a moral issue, objecting to, say, same-sex marriage on a moral or scriptural basis from Judeo-Christian principles, that’s hate speech and the person’s committing a crime. I mean, the left is not going to be tolerant when the window is fully pushed open and anyone who objects to their agenda is going to be suspect and silenced.

An absolute lie. The ACLU has repeatedly defended the right to speak out against homosexuality. They did it, for instance, in Harper v Poway. Corsi is simply lying.

Comments

  1. Abby Normal says

    Psst, Corsi. Those frightening images you see when you close your eyes at night are called dreams, not the news. I hope this clears things up for you.

  2. davefitz says

    “An absolute lie. The ACLU has repeatedly defended the right to speak out against homosexuality. They did it, for instance, in Harper v Poway. Corsi is simply lying.”

    I see you didn’t deny that they want pedophilia to be accepted. Truth comes out! Corsi FTW!!!

  3. doublereed says

    Whenever the right-wing rail against the ACLU, all I can think about is how much they really hate civil liberties.

  4. grumpyoldfart says

    None of his listeners would believe a word of it.

    Well some might.

    Quite a few of them perhaps.

    Maybe the majority.

  5. hexidecima says

    golly, a Christian lying? whodathunk! Alas, I am sad, for hell will be so crammed full of these assholes that an honest atheist won’t be able to get a seat at the Starbuck’s in Dis.

  6. abb3w says

    I wonder if the ACLU would be inclined to feed Corsi’s persecution complex with a libel lawsuit? While I Am Not A Lawyer, the statements seem lacking in substantial truth to the point of being materially false (the ACLU does not appear to have anywhere argued that pedophilia should be accepted, nor argued that anybody who speaks out objecting to same-sex marriage is committing a crime) and in reckless disregard for the truth, seem potentially damaging to the reputation of the organization, and were made on broadcast media.

    One difficulty might be convincing a jury that a reasonable person could believe that Corsi’s claims describe actual facts, however. Probably not worth the trouble.

  7. matty1 says

    Did he just list clergy and paedophillia as opposed?

    Pope Francis to the white courtesy phone please.

  8. says

    The pedophilia bullshit probably comes from the ACLU’s defense of NAMBLA in Curley v. NAMBLA, which was a wrongful death suit in a case where one of the accused killers of a 10-year-old boy was supposedly “incited” to the killing by the NAMBLA website.

    “For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case,” John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU, told Boston Globe Wednesday. “It has to do with communications on a website, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever.”

    http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/08/38540

    The suit against NAMBLA was dismissed. The plaintiffs continued the suit as a wrongful death action against individual NAMBLA members but eventually dropped the case when their only witness as to any incitement was barred from testifying:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curley_v._NAMBLA

    But, on the planet Wingnuttia, anything less than lynching a pedophile is trying to “normalize” the practice.

  9. Ben P says

    “For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case,” John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU, told Boston Globe Wednesday. “It has to do with communications on a website, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever.”

    I’ve been vaguely aware of that case but never read about it in detail. The ACLU’s position makes sense, but.thinking as a defense lawyer….that’s a tough case…. it wouldn’t have taken much bias in favor of the Plaintiffs to turn that the other way.

    The Plaintiff’s theory of liability was that NAMBLA literature incited the men to molest and kill the Plaintiffs’ child. Remember in the civil arena, it’s not “beyond a reasonable doubt” but “preponderance of the evidence,” and the cause of something doesn’t have to be “the only cause” but only a “substantial contributing cause.”

    Warranty and failure to warn cases are subtly different, but I’ve defended cases where I felt the Plaintiffs theories were thinner than that “i.e. Plaintiff did something really dumb with the product, it malfunctioned and hurt him, he claims we should have specifically warned him not to do that dumb thing.” Those go to trial and even get won.

  10. says

    but.thinking as a defense lawyer….that’s a tough case….

    Sure, and if I was defending them, I’d want to shower two or three times a day. But that’s part of the job, especially if you are defending the constitutional rights not just of NAMBLA but of any unpopular group. After all, if the political majority can successfully violate rights just because a group is (even justly) despised then it can deny rights to any group that is despised unfairly.

    As for the merits of the case, particularly against the individual defendants, I don;t really know enough to make a judgment.

  11. says

    “One difficulty might be convincing a jury that a reasonable person could believe that Corsi’s claims describe actual facts, however. Probably not worth the trouble.”

    I think that we might be in need of another demoneologism to cover what Corsi and his ilk do. See, to their conspiracy theorist audience they’re just spreadin’ the news. When they get sued, however, if all other avenues of defense are non-starters, they can always try to use the “I’m a comedian” defense. In Corsi’s case all of the humor is unintentional, but still.

    My newly coined word is “disInfotaintruthiness”. I realize that it is a rather unwieldy word but it is the shortest way I know of to decsribe the work of bek and his fellow yammerers.

    @15:

    Are you talking to whom I think you’re talking to?

  12. thumper1990 says

    I like the way he’s railing against paedophilia being defined as “just a sexual orientation”. It is just a sexual orientation; specifically a sexual prediliction for pre-pubescent children. That’s not a redefinition, that’s acknowledgement of a fact. Natural… well that depends what you mean by “natural”. It certainly isn’t artificially induced. It’s effects are patently different from those of other sexual orientations though, because acting on your desire to sleep with pre-pubescent children necessarily involves some level of deception or force, and often both. So acting on it causes demonstrable harm, and that’s why it’s bad.

    Not that they think it through that far, of course. This is why to their minds it makes perfect sense to compare homosexuals to paedophiles; it is “different” and therefore it is “wrong”. It’s why they think their slippery slope argument is valid. It’s the byproduct of stupid absolutist morals. It never occurrs to them to analyse the morality of something by the harm it causes; which is obviously the only sensible way to do it and which is why acting on heterosexual and homosexual desires are both fine, while acting on paedophillic desires is bad.

  13. alanb says

    Corsi: they’re arguing that pedophilia should be accepted next, as the next sexual horizon that is just a sexual orientation, and we should accept it as natural.

    That’s a lie. Turtle sex is the sexual horizon.

Leave a Reply