"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
om...
> "Vox Humana" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "The Ranger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Vox Humana > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > [snip]
> > > > I think the ACLU should have stepped in to defend some
> > > > lower profile case much earlier if they had a problem with
> > > > this law. I believe it has been on the books for a decade.
> > >
> > > Which case do you think has a higher probability of success: The
> > > Celebrity with money to burn and enough media channels to sway the
vast
> > > republic or Joe Schlubb that is being taken to task for the exact same
> > > set of circumstances?
> > >
> > > Since there have already been many Joe Schlubb cases, that should give
> > > you enough empirical data to make an accurate forecast.
> > >
> >
> > I think celebrities should spend their own money to do what the ACLU
could
> > do for them. It is like corporate welfare when the ACLU uses
> contributions
> > form "the little people" to defend people like Rush who is worth
hundreds
> of
> > millions of dollars. If Rush made a huge contribution to the ACLU to
> > compensate them for their services, then I wouldn't have a problem with
> this
> > situation. I don't see that as a likely outcome. I see the ACLU as an
> > organization that levels the playing field to give access for people
> without
> > the means to litigate civil rights cases themselves.
> >
> >
>
> It's a mistake to think that the ACLU spends a lot of money "defending"
> wealthy people like Limbaugh. In such cases the defendant is spending his
> own money on his own lawyers - all the ACLU does is file a brief with the
> court explaining why they think the case should be decided one way or the
> other.
>

In that case I guess I don't have a big problem with this.