The ACLU Defends NAMBLA

[UAL_TECH]

Childish name calling aside. Let’s take a look at the issue.

This law suit does not have a damn thing to do with NAMBLA. It has to do with freedom of speech (as far as I can tell). If the members of NAMBLA (or any other organization for that matter) are committing criminal acts, then put them on trial, convict them and put them in jail. From all that I have read, NAMBLA is a group advocating that certain laws be changed. Whether or not you or I like agree with them is not at issue. This is a freedom of speech issue.

As far as I am aware from my few law classes and readings, US law is based on precedent. Read a court ruling if you don’t believe me. I am not concerned with the ramblings of a few twists who are so far outside main stream society. I am concerned with some over zealous DA or legislature getting away with restricting speech just because it offends someone’s sensibilities.

You folks need to stop looking at things with such a narrow scope. Any limitation of free speech needs to be looked at very carefully. Thiings has nothing to do with NAMBLA, the march in Skokie had nothing to do with the Nazi’s. It has everything to do with the freedoms we all enjoy. I for one am not going to let them go with out a fight.

Free speech is fine until it advocates an action and/or reaction that are contrary to morality and 'common sense'. I understand that 'my' common sense tells me that adults that 'rump wrangling' children might not adhere to your 'common sense' position but at some point there has to be boundaries.

The recognition of this organization as some type of 'legal' entity is pretty disgusting in and of itself.

We do have 'Freedom' of speech but that does not give us license to freedom to become degenerates.

UT

 

[Ch. 12]

Free speech is fine until it advocates an action and/or reaction that are contrary to morality and 'common sense'. I understand that 'my' common sense tells me that adults that 'rump wrangling' children might not adhere to your 'common sense' position but at some point there has to be boundaries.

The recognition of this organization as some type of 'legal' entity is pretty disgusting in and of itself.

We do have 'Freedom' of speech but that does not give us license to freedom to become degenerates.

UT

And the KKK advocates violence against other races and the "purification" of the master race. Let's ban them, too.

 

[Garfield1966]

Free speech is fine until it advocates an action and/or reaction that are contrary to morality and 'common sense'.

Well, when you figure out a legal way to legislate what common sense and morality is, you let us know.

I understand that 'my' common sense tells me that adults that 'rump wrangling' children might not adhere to your 'common sense' position but at some point there has to be boundaries.

The question is where do you draw the boundaries so that next time some else who wants establish boundaries (like 700 for instance, do you really want him having a say on anything?) will not take them even further

The recognition of this organization as some type of 'legal' entity is pretty disgusting in and of itself.

It’s the price of freedom. Along with NAMBLA, you have the KKK, Arians, those separatist nut jobs in Texas, the Ruby Ridge nut cases, David Koresh and the list goes on and on.

The point I keep trying to make is that in order to have a free society, the laws must be applied equally to all. Most ‘civilized’ folks would like nothing more than to see NAMBLA, The KKK and all the rest not exist (my self included) but I do not feel it can or should be done by banning them. What happens when the majority of people do not like your group?

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
after all I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
after all I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
after all I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

The recognition of this organization as some type of 'legal' entity is pretty disgusting in and of itself.

Agreed. When they break the law, put them on trial, assuming they are convicted, put them in the deepest jail cell with Bubba who’s kid was molested and close the door.

Thought is still not illegal. It’s the price of freedom. No one said it was cheap. No one said it was perfect.

We do have 'Freedom' of speech but that does not give us license to freedom to become degenerates.

I believe it does.

 

[delldude]

It’s like talking to a brick wall.

Duh.....

 

[BeenThereDoneThat]

Just as with the KKK, until one of them commits a violet act against someone, they are not in violation of the law (having sex with a minor is , writing about it is not). Until a member of NAMBLA commits an act in violation of the law, there is little that can be done.

Using your example above: Why are so many people arrested for viewing child porno? Why are the idiots shown on Dateline arrested when they show up at a supposed child looking for an sexual encounter.

Free speech is the ability to yell "FIRE" if you elect to do so, if you do it in a public place and there is no fire, you get burned. KKK is wrong and so is this NAMBLA. Put them both out of business!

Like the old saying goes: All things are created equal; just some are more equal than others.

 

[delldude]

But if KKK stays within the confines of the law.....they have done nothing other than expressing their constitutionally protected views..... as long as they do not violate the law

NAMBLA on the other hand cannot express their desires or agenda without having the existing laws changed...they do not enjoy freedom of expression of their agenda within the confines of existing law.

As far as I am aware of ...there is no constitutional protection to get little boys in bed.

NAMBLA is wrong on all counts.

 

[700IAM]

NAMBLA is wrong on all counts.

They are way more than wrong...they are perverted reprobates who deserve nothing less then eternal hell fire. Like the Lord has said, “let no one harm the little ones“, and he means it, he is not kidding, he is not playing games and he surely isn’t an imaginary figure for emotional cripples, like you know, some who frequent these boards.

 

[Ch. 12]

But if KKK stays within the confines of the law.....they have done nothing other than expressing their constitutionally protected views..... as long as they do not violate the law

NAMBLA on the other hand cannot express their desires or agenda without having the existing laws changed...they do not enjoy freedom of expression of their agenda within the confines of existing law.

As far as I am aware of ...there is no constitutional protection to get little boys in bed.

NAMBLA is wrong on all counts.

You analogy is wrong. BOTH groups have done nothing other than expressing their constitutionally protected views. If EITHER group acts on their views, they are violating the law. Both have, IMHO, very despicable views but we have to let them air 'em out since that is free speech. But no...there is no diff between the groups b/c each is in their constitutional scope in stating their views and both would be going against the law if they carried out their views. What's sad to me is that there are humans that share the views of either of these groups.

 

[Garfield1966]

Using your example above: Why are so many people arrested for viewing child porno? Why are the idiots shown on Dateline arrested when they show up at a supposed child looking for an sexual encounter.

Free speech is the ability to yell "FIRE" if you elect to do so, if you do it in a public place and there is no fire, you get burned. KKK is wrong and so is this NAMBLA. Put them both out of business!

Like the old saying goes: All things are created equal; just some are more equal than others.

I believe your analogy is correct but your conclusion is wrong.. There is a difference between a member of NAMBLA saying "I would like to have sex with a minor" as opposed to actually setting up a "date" and going to the meeting place with the intent of having sex. Someone who watches child porn is committing a felony because using children for sex is a felony. Selling drugs is a felony, so using an illegal substance becomes illegal as well.

Yes we have free speech but all of our freedoms have limitations. You cannot yell fire in a theater because it places the lives of others in jeopardy. You’re right s stop when they infringe on mine. Supposedly the 2nd amendment grants the right to bear arms. Most rational people would agree that there need to be limitations. I do not know too many people would feel comfortable knowing that their next door neighbor had, fully auto machine guns, land mines, hell fire missiles, ground to air missiles, a tank, or what ever else is out there.

Freedom of speech in my opinion is the most important freedom we enjoy. Banning something that we do not approve of (valid or not) is a dangerous path. Who will make those decisions? Yes most rational people can agree that the world would be a far better place if NAMBLA and the KKK did not exist. What happens when some nut job gets in power and wants to ban something else? That will never happen? In the 1970’s the FBI tried very hard to shut Playboy down. Meese, Reagans attorney general and his "Meese commission" also tried the same thing. Remember the robe things that were placed on the statues so that the penises could not be seen? I look at history and I have learned never to say never.

While I have hope that the likes of 700IAM will never be given the reigns of power, should that happen, I would not want him to have precedent on his side to eliminate more rights.

 

[700IAM]

While I have hope that the likes of 700IAM will never be given the reigns of power, should that happen, I would not want him to have precedent on his side to eliminate more rights.

If a super freak "thinks" about having sex with a minor the next step is the actual act. Thoughts are powerful and the sparks that turn into flames. Your thinking process is corrupted, like everyone born. Your posts testify to that fact showing as all how lost and in need of the Christ you and everyone else including myself really are. Reasoning with a unclean mind brings what you would expect, twisted logic like you post almost daily.

 

[UAL_TECH]

And the KKK advocates violence against other races and the "purification" of the master race. Let's ban them, too.

Agree

 

[UAL_TECH]

Well, when you figure out a legal way to legislate what common sense and morality is, you let us know.
The question is where do you draw the boundaries so that next time some else who wants establish boundaries (like 700 for instance, do you really want him having a say on anything?) will not take them even further
It’s the price of freedom. Along with NAMBLA, you have the KKK, Arians, those separatist nut jobs in Texas, the Ruby Ridge nut cases, David Koresh and the list goes on and on.

The point I keep trying to make is that in order to have a free society, the laws must be applied equally to all. Most ‘civilized’ folks would like nothing more than to see NAMBLA, The KKK and all the rest not exist (my self included) but I do not feel it can or should be done by banning them. What happens when the majority of people do not like your group?

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
after all I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
after all I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
after all I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Agreed. When they break the law, put them on trial, assuming they are convicted, put them in the deepest jail cell with Bubba who’s kid was molested and close the door.

Thought is still not illegal. It’s the price of freedom. No one said it was cheap. No one said it was perfect.
I believe it does.

If you continue with these logical arguments I will be forced to bombard you with lies and half truths.....
A little defamation of character might help as well........


UT

 

[Garfield1966]

If you continue with these logical arguments I will be forced to bombard you with lies and half truths.....
A little defamation of character might help as well........
UT

I am glad that someone here understands the concept of the rule of law and precedent.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

I am glad that someone here understands the concept of the rule of law and precedent.

Although, under precedent and rule of law, we cannot ban this type of speech, the gov't can make NAMBLA members' lives a living hell.

For example, a teacher at a public school who was also a member of NAMBLA was fired for the community's reaction to NAMBLA. The court said that although the speech was protected by the 1st amendment, the involvement in NAMBLA caused disruption and, thus, allowed him to be teminated.

 

[Garfield1966]

Although, under precedent and rule of law, we cannot ban this type of speech, the gov't can make NAMBLA members' lives a living hell.

For example, a teacher at a public school who was also a member of NAMBLA was fired for the community's reaction to NAMBLA. The court said that although the speech was protected by the 1st amendment, the involvement in NAMBLA caused disruption and, thus, allowed him to be teminated.

I would agree with you if it only went as far as enforcing the law to the letter of the law. Again, the enforcement needs to be conduced equally to all people.

My biggest problem is with the example you cite. While I would be very uncomfortable with a child attending class with a potential pedophile, I am not sure I like the idea of community outrage being the determining factor in someone’s termination. If the teacher was in violation of the law or had a criminal background, then by all means, find a hole and drop him in. If his termination is allowed to stand (assuming that is all he was terminated for) then what is to stop a community from terminating a gay teacher, or a teacher who practices Wica or any number of other groups who do ‘not fit in with society norms’?

I guess it all boils down to degrees. Persecution is fine as long as it is someone else. I try and error on the side of caution. I liked the line in Star Trek from Spock: "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few."

As I said earlier, freedom is not easy, and it is not cheap. The cost for freedom is that we must tolerate some of the things we hate most. Unfortunately, there will be innocent casualties along the way. That is also one of the costs of freedom.