In the same week that former Catholic priest and (former?) NAMBLA member Paul Shanley was sentenced, the FBI netted a bunch of sick bastards who thought they were headed for a vacation in Mexico to have sex with little boys.


There was a court case in New York in 2002, where the NAMBLA member claimed his “constituational rights” were violated when the school district terminated him because of his membership.

What is UP with all the teachers belonging to NAMBLA?! One has to wonder how many there are who haven’t been caught.

I’m going to admit flat out and up front that I’m hypocritical when it comes to organizations like NAMBLA. I believe in free speech, freedom of association and individual freedoms and such, but I don’t believe this pond scum should be allowed to exist legally. And anyone belonging to such an organization should not come within miles of any child. I won’t even go into how sick a society must be when so many adults have twisted sexual interest in children.

NAMBLA exists merely to assist pedophiles in pursuit of their “interests”; how to avoid arrest, how to lure a child into sex, and the like.

How can an organization legally exist when its express purpose is to promote an illegal activity, i.e. sex with minors?

Should any profession that involves working with children be allowed to check prospective employees for membership in this (and any other similar) organization?

Is anyone else as conflicted about the existence of organizations such as these?

How can an organization legally exist when its express purpose is to promote an illegal activity, i.e. sex with minors?

There has been a lot of reporting on NAMBLA on the Fox news O’Reilly Factor. The last report on the Factor indicated the NAMBLA site had closed or went underground.

Should any profession that involves working with children be allowed to check prospective employees for membership in this (and any other similar) organization?

I would think school districts would do background checks for criminal history however I rather doubt a consolidated database list of such club memberships exist for screening.

Is anyone else as conflicted about the existence of organizations such as these?

I’m concerned as probably all parents about sexual predators but I think the problem of these sick people forming into groups is part of modern communications.

As a child such behavior by adults would be dealt with in very harsh terms. However, when America transitioned from punishing crime to rehabilitating citizens that commit crimes so many gray areas were glossed over on actual crime or illness. Civil liberties folks want to treat all citizens like government property and when a citizen commits a crime then it is the government’s responsibility to repair the citizen whether the act is criminal or mental health related. The government takes credit for being at fault for creating a situation where a perfectly good citizen was improperly influenced to commit a crime. I’m of the opinion all crime could be significantly reduced by returning to punishment of violators of law regardless of their mental status. All rehabilitated sex offenders would be electronically tracked and permanently tattooed on the forehead, R or CR should they not agree to sterilization if I ruled the prison release system.

I also think much publicity is given to these sick-oh’s in the right wing media to support moral values associated with conservative government. The right loves to corner a liberal or a member from the ACLU that defends these pukes so they can place them in the camp of the liberals and associate liberals to lack of moral values.

Some illegal activities are "victimless" (eg smoking pot, [arguably] prostitution, etc). Promotion of these activities IMO shouldn't be lumped in with promotion of the heinous crime of child molestation.

QUOTE

Oh lord I hope so. Every such organization should be allowed to check this. Can you imagine the lawsuits if an organization knew about such a person in its midst and didn't do anything, and then the member molests someone kid? If it were my kid, I'd crucify everybody who even seemed the least bit involved (Sorry if I seem het up - I have 3 sons)

QUOTE

People should be allowed to gather and talk or post about what they like. If they engage in child molestation, they should get put in jail forever and ever, to say the least. Membership in NAMBLA just makes them easier to keep an eye on.

A quick google search took me to Nambla's Homepage

How can an organization legally exist when its express purpose is to promote an illegal activity, i.e. sex with minors?

Well, how can a magazine like High Times exist when it's sole purpose is to promote an illegal activity?

NAMBLA is within its rights to discuss these topics even if most people find it distasteful. Individual members can certainly be punished for stepping outside the bounds of the law, but the organization itself has been very careful about not doing so.

Should any profession that involves working with children be allowed to check prospective employees for membership in this (and any other similar) organization?

I'm not certain what the rules are for public entities as far as screening goes. I would imagine that private schools have more freedom in this realm than the public school system. This almost seems to be an equivalent of examining someone's political views before hiring them. NAMBLA certainly has a lot of less than wholesome members, but membership to this organization doesn't necessarily mean that a person is engaging in illegal activities.

Is anyone else as conflicted about the existence of organizations such as these?

I can't say that I'm conflicted at all. I make a clear separation between illegal action and talking about illegal actions and/or reform of the system. I realize that even unpopular speech needs to be protected.

Not at all equivalent. If an organization has a mission that includes protecting a certain very vulnerable population, that organization should be able to refuse to hire a person who belongs to a group whose raison d'etre is the promotion of the victimization of that vulnerable population.

Have you read NAMBLA's mission statement?

While I may not agree with or support NAMBLA's stated goals, I don't see the organization itself as promoting the victimization of young people. They are talking about encouraging consensual relationships and putting an end to age of consent laws. That rings as being very political to me, and while there may be members who engage in illegal activities, membership in NAMBLA doesn't necessarily indicate that a person is a child molestor.

I think that organizations that get into doing background checks like this on their employees have to be very careful. There's quite a fine line here, and it's difficult to know where to draw it.

So they are talking about encouraging relationships which are currently illegal because such relationships damage their effectively helpless victims for life. Just because NAMBLA doesn't call it victimization doesn't mean it's not victimization.



I think the line is nice and wide. It's easy if you apply the criteria I mentioned in my last post.

The state contends that such relationships are damaging. NAMBLA believes otherwise, and they are allowed to talk about that belief and try to change the minds of others. It may be unpopular, but it is not victimization if they are not acting on that belief.



Your criteria is:



The problem with this statement is that NAMBLA is not promoting illegal activities. They are proposing an alteration of the laws, but they specifically state that they do not engage in illegal activities, and they do not advocate that their members do so. NAMBLA is about changing the current system regarding age of consent laws. It is an arguable subject, because there is no magical age that leads a person to sexual maturity. The state laws exist to maximize protection of adolescents, but NAMBLA is within its right to challenge the state's decision and present their own methodology.

Again, it doesn't necessarily mean that a member is going to molest a child. Screening prospective employees for membership in NAMBLA is a pre-emptive strike trying to avoid the actions of potential child molestors before they have committed an actual crime. To some, this may seem like a right action to take when the health of a child is concerned. Others place greater importance on privacy rights and freedom of association. Me? I haven't conclusively made up my mind, but with all of the tools that are already available to employers, I can't imagine why they would need to be able to delve into someone's private life even further.

Just look at what they already have available. Should they be able to look at our political history, as well, and what ramification would that have in other areas and fields?

How can an organization legally exist when its express purpose is to promote an illegal activity, i.e. sex with minors?

Nambla wasn’t always viewed with disgust.

In the 1970’s, then-New York Mayor Ed Koch proudly marched in the Big Apple’s Gay Rights Parade, which featured representatives carrying signs proclaiming the infinite goodness of Nambla.

It took years of strident protests from parents, (the people who face the risk), to get this group of perverts banned.

Should any profession that involves working with children be allowed to check prospective employees for membership in this (and any other similar) organization?

In Nambla, the members are specifically coached on how to infiltrate Boy Scout troops, the Little League or how to become Big Brothers or other types of mentors to young boys.

They are also taught how to deflect and divert suspicion from themselves. They feed off each other and share resources and tips on how to elude, not so much the law enforcement authorities, but suspicious parents.

EDITED TO REMOVE VULGAR, UNCONSTRUCTIVE COMMENT

Of course, there should be checks.

Because to not do so would invite a horrendous experience on a young child.

Most children who are molested as children end up becoming molestors themselves.

It has to stop.

Is anyone else as conflicted about the existence of organizations such as these?

I’m not conflicted at all.

This is an extremely dangerous group of men the entire planet, (but parents particularly), would be better off without.

Do you have a source for this?

How can an organization legally exist when its express purpose is to promote an illegal activity, i.e. sex with minors?I have been following this and believe that NAMBLA was set up to attempt to change the laws. It matters not that people do not want the changes. They are a lot like several PACs and I personally disagree with them, but they are still legal.

Should any profession that involves working with children be allowed to check prospective employees for membership in this (and any other similar) organization?Absolutely not, that would be against everything America stands for.

Is anyone else as conflicted about the existence of organizations such as these?Not conflicted in the least! I disagree with the organization, but I gave 9 years of my life to protect people's rights. That has not changed, nor did I ask if I agreed with them. Let's go after the criminals, but we have to allow these odiferous organizations to exist to be free ourselves.

Man it crashed my computer. The poor thing felt so disgusted by these vermin my AMD crashed.

Robert B--Feel at ease neighbor--if these guys really were caught in this sting they are going to do time and in the cesspit of prison they will be justly rewarded for their crimes against humanity. There is no way they will not get placed in GenPop and their dance card is gonna be flat out FULL. I doubt they last 6 months and will spend their time the objects of what they desired and worse. Afterwords cremate the bodies and drop the ashes into a septic tank.


In the issue of Free Speech--always protect it--regardless of the scum. Never infringe it one iota.

However for cases like this there is no reason that the public cannot find ways to eradicate slimeballs like these guys. Mission Statement my ..........................
Set up stings, set up false chatrooms to entrap these creatures.
Help keep the gene pool clean and find ways to flush out these sick abortions.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/

is a great place to check for inspiration.


Why should the free speech of the rest of us be infringed, restricted or in any way tampered with.

the orgainization should be allowed to say what they wish. no need to restrict free Speech at all, always other ways to skin a cat.

However just to make my feelings very clear:

Any person who abuses a child for pleasure has stepped so far beyond the boundries of any civilized society as to have forfeited their rights to breathe.

Should any profession that involves working with children be allowed to check prospective employees for membership in this (and any other similar) organization?

The school district I retired fom about three years ago had a problem with substitutes molesting students in the late 1980s. Despite the need for subs, the district started doing more thorough background checks. The procedure increased the period for getting on the sub list from almost instant to several weeks.

I don't know all the specifics districts check, but I know they check for criminal records.

I don't know about getting into organizations. I applied to become an exchange teacher in England at one point in my career. One of the questions I was asked was about memberships. I told them I was a membe of the Sierra Club and one of the interviewers asked me if I was one of those people who had been climbing over the fence at a nuclear power plant in Glenrose. I always resented that question.

In reverse order...

3. No conflict here. NAMBLA is repulsive and anyone who would be a part of this group is sick, sick, sick. Perverts like this enjoy getting together to discuss their perversions with like-minded freaks. Before I had kids I just thought NAMBLA was disgusting. Now I find them evil.

2. I'm a little wary of how much power employers should have to pry into the private lives of their employees. Of course, anyone with a proclivity toward preying on children is someone you don't want have working around kids. But I'm afraid that in their zeal to protect kids, some employers might use great investigative powers to go after all kinds of employees who belong to groups they personally dislike.

1. NAMBLA has the right to associate with like-minded individuals because not only popular groups enjoy the freedom to assembly. They are fronting as a political body trying to change age of consent laws, when in reality they're just a rat pack of child rapists. Still, unpopular groups must be protected as well regardless of how much their existence makes us want to retch.

On a personal note, several years ago I was in Philadelphia visiting my best friend. She worked as a manager at Giovanni's Room, a noted gay bookstore. She showed me around the store, but at one point I was stunned to see a magazine produced by NAMBLA for sale. The cover featured a story about traveling to Thailand where man/boy love is "accepted."

Furious, I angrily asked my friend how they could carry this filth in the store. She replied that the store staff wasn't into making judgments about what their customers wanted to read. I replied, that maybe they should start. NAMBLA members are straight men posing as gay men who like molesting young boys. By catering to these creeps, the staff was feeding they myth that gay men prey on little boys.

Cyan, read the legal documents on FindLaw in the link I posted in the first post. It talks about the NAMBLA bulletin, which offers pedophiles many helpful "tips".

As for abolishing the age of consent, I'm sorry...I can't see any scenario where a 40- or 50-something man having sex with an 8-year old is in any way, shape or form acceptable in any society, except one I'd want no part of.

Thank you, Daffy. I missed that link in your opening post.



Daffy, I don't think that most people believe it's acceptable for an adult man to have sexual relations with a child. Just the concept of it sends people off the deep end, but NAMBLA members have the right to talk about it. They can even publish information that you and I might find offensive as long as no laws are broken in the process. They can't publish pornographic photographs of children, but I'm pretty sure that it's lawful to provide information about how to break the law. If it weren't, books like The Anarchist Cookbook would be illegal as well.

NAMBLA members who break the law to indulge in their fantasy should be pursued within the criminal justice system, but persuing unpopular ideas by trying to eradicate them...well, I just can't grasp that concept. What's next? Do we ban Lolita because it has themes of pedophilia? Do we disallow BDSM clubs because some people feel that it promotes sexual violence?

I agree with Cyan totally when she wrote:


Even if members of NAMBLA do break the law, the organization is blameless as long as they are just pre-occupied with changing laws as they presently are. An organization is not it's members, and you can't get convictions based solely on association. If they made material advocated the breaking of the law, that would be another issue, but they must steer clear of that for the most part, since they would know that would be the end of their efforts to change laws.

This is also problematic in a way because I'm sure that individuals of somewhat independent wealthy means make such arrangements secretly on their own or in other networks of like-minded individuals. I doubt the most egregious offenders are ones that join a political group that seeks to change the law and in doing so, have the light of public attention cast upon them. It's a plus too because as a group, it's not too hard to figure out who is a member of it and to keep an eye on them in case they do break the law.



The majority of professions do. The problem is that places that hire employees have limited databases from which to do checks. Have a problem in one state? Move clear across the country!. It's like resumes-you hear that they check references, it doesn't mean that they necessarily do. A school district that I worked for had a law agency do it for them, even then, there were some errors.

Should any profession that involves working with children be allowed to check prospective employees for membership in this (and any other similar) organization?

Of course, any employer should be able to check membership to see if a potential employee belongs to NAMBLA-- and not just for jobs that work with children. If the job involves kids employers should be required to do such background checks and they should not be allowed to hire NAMBLA members.

Is anyone else as conflicted about the existence of organizations such as these

Yes I am very conflicted. I wholeheartedly support free speech and free association. So I don't support outlawing NAMBLA because I am fearful of the precedent and where we draw the line in the future. However, that doesn't mean membership comes without consequences. The public should know who is a member of such an organization. If they are truly concerned and have as their purpose -- to change the law to root out "ageism" then they should have no problem making their membership rolls known to anyone who asks. But I don't believe that is the purpose of the organization. Just reading through their webpage it is pretty clear that the "purpose" is a sham and is nothing more than pedophilia cloaked in the rhetoric of civil rights.

How can an organization legally exist when its express purpose is to promote an illegal activity, i.e. sex with minors?

The same way the KKK can exist. The same way Bomb making plans can be in the library and hacker websites showing how to make and distribute viruses can be legal. It is a matter of free speech. Not to mention the fact that none of these organizations officially promote actually committing illegal acts.

Just a note on that. I do not believe being a member of a group that advocates illegal activities is illegal as I think that still falls under the freedom of association concept. It is when you engage in illegal activities yourself, or cover up the illegal activities of others that is prosecutable IMHO. The reason all sorts of groups like this do not advocate illegal activities and even frequently preaches against them in their literature is to avoid liability suit, not prosecution, again IMHO.

I detest NAMBLA, and I am truly uncertain if I would resist the temptation to become violent If I came across a man or two walking down the street wearing "Man-Boy Love" t-shirts, while holding the hands of a 6 year old. However, freedom of speech is just that.

We could argue that society would be better off if we changed our rights to make NAMBLA, the KKK, 2600: The Hacker Quarterly, any other offensive group illegal. However, once we open that door, we open ourselves up to the possibility that the majority might decide one of our groups are offensive and make it illegal.

Should any profession that involves working with children be allowed to check prospective employees for membership in this (and any other similar) organization?

No, it violates privacy. However, if an employer discovered that an employee was a member of such a group because of the public actions of the employee then the employer would certainly be within their rights to fire that employee.

Is anyone else as conflicted about the existence of organizations such as these?

Sure! But freedom comes with risks and downsides. This is one of them. I just fail to see it as so bad as to risk loosing our freedoms to stop it.

Besides, so long as there are NAMBLA groups, KKK groups, hacker groups, etc, there will be law enforcement agents that will infiltrate these groups, weed out the pretenders from the real criminals and bust the real one. If these groups did not exist, it would be ALOT harder to find this sort of scum.

Big problem here that I just realized through the question. Members here would raise their hands if you asked who was against adults having sex with minors. But would the same number of hands go up if say....the situation was an 18 year old high school senior and a 17 year old or 16 year old girl? What about lowering the age of consent one or two years? If a person is a member of a group or believes that maybe things should be slightly different, would membership in this "other similar organization" be the same thing as being a member of NAMBLA in people honest opinions? What do ya'll think?

I dont believe in age of consent laws, does that make me a child molester?

I know its difficult to think rationally when we discuss things like under age sex, but really! I am appalled at some of the responses in this thread. I whole-heartedly agree with what Cyan has already posted.

NAMBLA has every right to exist, and employers should not have the right to fire someone because they are a member of NAMBLA. It's an invasion of privacy, and of course, infringes on the rights of freedom of association.

That doesn't mean Im advocating sexually abusing children, or anything like it. But why should everyone who defends NAMBLA's right to exist repeat ad infinitum that they think the group's disgusting?

This pretty well sums up my thinking. I have at times been a member of the Sierra Club, the ACLU, the Unitarian Church and the National Education Association, all of which are disliked by some conservatives. In Texas, the largest teacher organization, Texas State Teacher's Association, (TSTA) is affiliated with NEA, so that's no secret. Quite frankly though, I don't think the other three are any of an employer's business.

These things are more of a problem in small towns than in large urban districts. It's harder to hide.

Not at all, but it would be interesting to hear your reasoning for that.



For myself, I never said NAMBLA shouldn't exist, but I'll back up a little and say that we should indeed be careful about what kind of investigatory priviliges we give employers. However, if it does come to light that an employee who has any kind of oversight over kids is a NAMBLA member, then yes, the employer should be able to fire them for that. And I stand by the criteria I used earlier about victimization.

Regardless of the legality/illegality of child molestation, it is widely recognized as damaging to its victims. And even though a NAMBLA member may not believe in violating the law, his membership indicates that he doesn't the have moral and psychological makeup that prevents him from molesting children, or that compels him to protect the kids from molestation by others.

Maybe he's a model NAMBLA member and will only start molesting boys if and when it becomes legal to do so. But that does not mean that an employer (and the parents of the employer's young charges) have to ignore the implications of his NAMBLA membership.

If there was a group that went out of their way to advocate the legalization of burglary from wealthy corporations, should we prevent a bank security firm from firing members of this group?



I guess we're just affirming the taboo against child molestation.

A long time ago, I was warned not to be so open-minded that my brains fall out.

This organization can exist because the law's brains have fallen out and dried up in the sun. It takes an absolutist interpretation of the freedom of association when child predators can legally join together, like mafia bosses joining together to plot illegal activities.



Yes. Membership indicates interest, and that interest is unacceptable when working with children. It is part of our adult duty to protect children from preditors.



No conflict. I'd make them as unacceptable as mafia boss gatherings, were I to be king of the world.

I'll add that this organization is very different from the KKK or High Times magazine. The KKK attacks adults who can fight back. High Times promotes a relatively harmless herb to be legalized.

Neither organization promotes harming children. Any organization that does promote child harm should be made specifically illegal, as being extremely against the interests of society.

The KKK has frequently targeted youths as well as adults so they are no different there. As for High Times, that one I do not know, but I will say that promoting integration was once illegal in several states. What would have happened if the civil rights movement would have been outlawed? I shudder to think.

In California there is a constant outcry of 'protecting the children' to ban many actions. This is a farce, those that what to ban somebody from doing something only have to claim that they are protecting the children. Protecting children can not and must not be used an excuse to deprive the rest of our liberties.

I feel that groups like the KKK, neo-Nazis, pro-drugs or a myriad of others are against the interests of society as well, but I will continue to defend their rights. Why would I do something that is against my interests? Simple because I am protecting myself from ever becoming like them when I do.

What a great quote!

NAMBLA is not just a “club” where pedophiles can gather. The organization publishes information about how to evade the law and get away with illegal activities.

As Robert said


Um, because they are? I would imagine that even those who defend the organization’s right to exist do so with a bad taste in their mouth. It is easy to think of this in the abstract, but what if one of these “people” (and I use the term loosely) was teaching your son?

What I find appalling is those who would defend the organization and its goal. Do you really think the age of consent is too high? I found a chart of the age of consent around the world, and in the US by state, and it ranges anywhere from 12 for girls (Chile, Colombia and other Central American countries, Malta, Netherlands though boys must be 18 in some of these countries) to 20 (Tunisia) for heterosexual sex. There are still plenty of southern US states where the age of consent is 14 to 16. Does anyone really feel that the age of consent needs to be lower than 12?! I mean, c'mon, they have to say something in order to remain legal, but would you really want the age of consent lowered to 8 (since this seems to be the age NAMBLA says you need to catch them by)?

From the case against Peter Melzer, a teacher in New York, here’s a description of a NAMBLA bulletin article.

As far as I know (and I could be wrong) the Anarchist’s Cookbook doesn’t have helpful tips on how to elude the police and secure legal representation when you get caught. It merely describes how to make a bomb; from there I would assume you’re on your own. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me NAMBLA can be considered aiding and abetting criminal activity when one of its members molests a child.

The KKK has frequently targeted youths as well as adults so they are no different there.

Specifically? Please provide evidence of this.

But hey, ban the KKK too. You know, if I ran the show. I have no tolerance for organizations that exist to do harm to others in society, especially to children and a bit less especially toward races.

You want evidence that the KKK target youths?!?!? Okay

Lynching survivor to protest KKKHe was 16 at the time of the attempt.

The KKK's Attempt at Thought Control in Oregon SchoolsThe list goes on for over 100,000 different articles.

The KKK is also against Catholics and Jews so I guess that makes me as much a target of theirs as others. Still I must defend the organization. Just because I disagree with their goals and many of their members commit hate crimes, the organization itself is legal and they have a right to associate. I can not deny others the same rights I claim for myself.

How can an organization legally exist when its express purpose is to promote an illegal activity, i.e. sex with minors?

Same way NORML exists. First ammendment guarantees freedom of speech, not actions.


Should any profession that involves working with children be allowed to check prospective employees for membership in this (and any other similar) organization?

They Can't legally ask some of those questions. They can, and do legally run a criminal history check. It is important that we realize that the administration of any child care facility, or school is accountable for the actions of it's employees. They may not have the legal grounds to make such inquiries, but they have a vested interest in making sure they are not hiring perps.



Is anyone else as conflicted about the existence of organizations such as these?

Not really. I'm more conflicted with the existance of the Catholic Church than NAMBLA. At least NAMBLA is overt in their objectives. Catholic priests have been molesting boys for eons covertly.

I spent five years as a counselor with juvenile sex offenders. I don't think that the Catholic Church, or NAMBLA is the problem. It is far more widespread than we would like to think. It is an overall culture issue.

The source for this was newspaper accounts of this group back in the 1980's and continuing broadcast reports on this group.

One of them was during a 60 Minutes segment.

The only way members of these groups can strike here in the U.S. is to be befriend a child and then take advantage of him.

To do this, they have to make sure the parent is fooled into thinking the child is in no danger.

This is why members of Nambla endeavor to teach each other how to get to close to little boys and avert the suspicions of their care givers.

I don’t think NAMBLA has a right to free speech since it is outside of society norms to such an extreme that it warrants mental illness to have interest to desire such a change in law. The site, the organization should be a target collection area of information for sting operations. Any hits on the site not affiliated with mental health should be identified and monitored equal to terrorist 24-7.

The child molester criminal has no fear and that is because they know they will be excused as being mentally ill. I think if the conviction resulted in castration as required in my father’s youth the sick people would weigh choices with differing values. If you support an agenda that promotes protection of criminals or mentally ill citizens rights over those who respect law protected by the constitution then you are part of the problem in my mind. If a citizen wants a law changed then lobby a legislator, stand on the steps of lawmakers, do public speeches but to form an organization to subvert the law is not protected by the constitution. Just give them a fair trial and castrate them regardless if they are a schoolteacher or a Catholic priest. If you are sensitive to mental health recovery possibilities then let them live among the family of the doctor that certifies them cured, nah, just castrate them!

Most of the time child molesters are men. Recenty, however, there have been two, maybe three cases of female teachers having sex with underage male students. Now, I know you are a fair man and therefore want to apply the law in an equal manner. So, I have a question. How do you castrate a female offender?

Edited to say that the females have been accused of having sex with underage male students.

I'm happy to hear you find me a fair man and therefore I would answer your question with a very white hot or cold piece of steel.

The fact is sex between men and boys is not a universal taboo. From:

Semen Warriors Of New Guinea
For them, 'gays in the military' is a necessity
by Hank Hyena Published September 16, 1999 in Whoa!



Later in the same article:



Of course individuals should have the right to form associations to lower age of consent laws. We don't bar Muslim charities just because some support terrorism. Raise your children right and the odds of them being molested are quite low.

I don't think universality is relevant to this question. While the practice might be tolerated in other places, I would suggest it is all but universally taboo in the U. S. Of course, who knows, the neocons might want to force our sexual mores on other cultures. How many lives and how many billions would that be worth?

Dude, you have conservative in your description?

So, darn I hate to use this moral neutral analogy, if in individuals morality it is OK for an adult male or female to have oral sex with a six-month-old child since no permanent harm is done it would be good by you? I didn’t dream this crap up either; some German guy told me he did it with a baby. Vulnerable is vulnerable be it a six month old baby or young child or a person going through a stressful period in their life and there is no moral value, secular, Christian or atheist that should condone such activities between vulnerable and dominant – period!

Those populations of the civilized world should be barred from entering America!

If people with such morals visit my family they will be met with sharp, hot or cold instruments and I will not worry about my butt in jail nor their traditions or values!

That's an interesting sociological data point, but lack of universality is irrelevant. Pederasty doesn't work in our culture. Nor do female genital mutilation or "honor" killings. Just because somebody somewhere does it doesn't mean we have to tolerate it here.

But I agree about freedom of association.

I agree with everything but the right of association. If in a society where such “radical” behavior is condemned such association should be viewed equal to a group of people in a club discussing skinning people alive. Let them have their association in a mental hospital for the rest of their life or let them relocate to New Guinea and give up their citizenship, or just castrate them. Why do so many Americans want to adjust to the negative instead of upholding the positive?

If such behaviors visit my family I will correct the action because it is clear the government could care less about the victim’s rights just the subject’s rights of needs and governments requirement to repair them back to normal. Well, if the government has a responsibility to make citizens “normal” while leaving my family abnormal from victimization then I must take action. If the government assumes the need to rehabilitate to normality then apply preventative cure and collect these misguided broken citizens into a mental institution before they harm someone the government fails to represent.

I see where you're coming from but the thing is, I think it would be hard to write laws forbidding NAMBLA to meet without putting non-NAMBLA types at risk of wrongful arrest. Groups like law enforcement specialists, parents-of-victim groups, sociologist studying molestation, etc (not to mention folks posting about the subject on a political web forum) would feel a chilling effect. People would be afraid to discuss certain topics for fear of being "ratted out" and imprisoned. That ain't my America.



I also agree with you about the need to remove molestors from society for good rather than trying to rehabilitate them. And also about the desire to "pick up where the government left off" if one of my kids were molested. But even so, I think banning a group like NAMBLA from legal existence creates more problems than it solves.

Of course you are correct banning of groups will not solve the problem. There are many very strange groups that I dislike but to merely banning them would not solve the problem. I just think such a group sharing anti-society agenda would less likely exist if our laws were not so civilized for such an uncivilized crime.

The child molesters continue to be government certified fixed and returned to “productive life” and kids keep getting a lifetime hurt. On the news last evening a specialist said a NAMBLA rime that went something like this, “get them before the turn eight or it’s probably too late”. I guess I’m just too uncivilized to worry about a 95% cure rate when the 5% inflicts such harm. How could someone become so civilized to give away victims to a ?% of failures while doing nothing for the vulnerable? In my mind the gamble of less than 100% cure would lead a civilized government to secure these folks for their own protection and the protection of our most valuable assets, our youth.

I know we will never go back to the time of my youth when our family slept with only the screen door latched at night in the hot summer nights but I refuse to respect the rights of those who took it away.

I really don't see what business it is of the FBI stopping little Mexican boys from being sodomized. I also have a real problem with government entrapment schemes which attempt to conduce individuals into committing vice crimes.

The main issue is the 1st Amendment, The right to argue in favor of a political agenda should not be infringed. Every organization has individuals who commit crime. We could shut down the Roman Catholic Church under the criteria we are setting for NAMBLA.

Actually I should have stated what business is it of the FBI to prevent mythical little Mexican boys from being sodomized.

If they are men preying on boys, why should we assume they are not homosexual? Clearly, they are not heterosexual. This is besides the point, but since you opened the can of worms, I felt the need to comment.

I agree with NAMBLA's right to exist, but they should be closely monitored (and it looks like they are).

Just because I disagree with their goals and many of their members commit hate crimes, the organization itself is legal and they have a right to associate. I can not deny others the same rights I claim for myself.

L,

This thing about the right to associate seems to be a talking point these days. I've seen it brought up here and in a recent letter to the editor, yet this argument hasn't shown up in online debates before -- and I've been messing with online debate since the 1980s. Interesting.

So you claim the right to organize to harm people? Why? What possible constructive purpose does organizing to harm people have? I maintain that there is never a constructive purpose when the main thing is to either take advantage of young children under the legal age of consent, or to attack people of certain races or creeds, whether children or not.

BTW, I don't think the KKK attacks any white or non-Catholic/Jewish (whatever) children. Just an observation leading to the conclusion that age means nothing; race/creed means everything to the KKK.

I do understand the essence of your argument. It's very similar to defending freedom of speech -- no matter how odious.

I'm just against organizations that conspire to commit crimes against children. Lowering the age of consent is simply making the odious practice legal -- still doesn't make it right.

Same goes for the KKK, just to a slightly lower level of disgust for the organization's goals. Hey, if I were king of the world, things would sure be different!

But I'm not, nor will I defend these organizations' rights. The children of any race need and deserve defense from adult sexual predators, and of course to a slightly lesser degree, races and creeds need and deserve the defense from violent bigots.

These other outfits can go to the warm place as far as I care.

I guess that I have not said things very clearly. This organization's goal is not to commit a crime, but to change the law. If it was a criminal enterprise such as the Mafia (which was used before) then it is illegal, their stated goal is to get away with a crime. But organizations like NORML, KKK, NAMBLA, and thousands of others, stated goals are to change laws. So that their activity would no longer committing a criminal act because the law changed, then they are not illegal perse.

To me this is the one difference. How can one be allowed and the other not? I do not have that answer and until I hear a valid method I feel that we must not stoop to banning organizations like that.

There are a lot of groups that I do not support that want to change laws that they do not agree with. So I feel that they should be able to try and petition for those changes, others like NAMBLA no way would I support their changes, but still under our constitution I feel they have that right no matter what I think, even if I wish they too went to the warm place as well.

But AM, how do we prevent a NAMBLA-like group from meeting (as long as they are not breaking any laws) without the chilling effect I mentioned earlier?

I agree much vice probes on the surface appears a waste of resources but the nature of man requires law and order. I think legalized gambling and prostitution shouldn’t be a problem. However, practically anything practiced illegally results in victims, some sort of organized crime above the rights and will of the people and or penalizes the weak, innocent or vulnerable.

Child molestation is not a vice crime it is aggravated sexual assault a felony. Let’s say the victim in a FBI sting is “your identity” instead of a child and the FBI solicited employee identities from your employer’s personnel clerk who offered to sell them your identity. Other employees in your very large company had fallen victim to identity theft would that be a lawful way for the government to protect you?

[quote=DaffyGrl,Feb 16 2005, 07:24 AM]
[quote=Kimpossible]But why should everyone who defends NAMBLA's right to exist repeat ad infinitum that they think the group's disgusting?[/quote]
Um, because they are? I would imagine that even those who defend the organization’s right to exist do so with a bad taste in their mouth. It is easy to think of this in the abstract, but what if one of these “people” (and I use the term loosely) was teaching your son? [/quote]

What Im saying is that people who defend it are at risk to of being called child molesters or something equally preposterous, and I find it annoying that they must constantly reassure everyone else that they dont approve of such activities. But to be honest, no, I dont have a bad taste in my mouth for defending NAMBLA. Just like I dont have a bad taste in my mouth defending the KKK.

And I resent your second question. I reminds me of the same sort of "What if your family was brutally murdered?" questions when I say I oppose the death penalty. Just because youre a card carrying member of NAMBLA does not mean youre a child molester. End of story.

[quote]What I find appalling is those who would defend the organization and its goal. Do you really think the age of consent is too high? I found a chart of the age of consent around the world, and in the US by state, and it ranges anywhere from 12 for girls (Chile, Colombia and other Central American countries, Malta, Netherlands though boys must be 18 in some of these countries) to 20 (Tunisia) for heterosexual sex. There are still plenty of southern US states where the age of consent is 14 to 16. Does anyone really feel that the age of consent needs to be lower than 12?! I mean, c'mon, they have to say something in order to remain legal, but would you really want the age of consent lowered to 8 (since this seems to be the age NAMBLA says you need to catch them by)?[/quote][/quote]

I am not going to judge who is sexually mature and who isn't. And obviously, like most people, I think 8 is absurdly low, but I still don't agree with age of consent laws to begin with. It's not up to the law to say who can have sex and at what age, regardless. Sexual abuse can be determined without age of consent laws.


[quote]As far as I know (and I could be wrong) the Anarchist’s Cookbook doesn’t have helpful tips on how to elude the police and secure legal representation when you get caught. It merely describes how to make a bomb; from there I would assume you’re on your own. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me NAMBLA can be considered aiding and abetting criminal activity when one of its members molests a child.

[/quote]

I definately dont agree with literature being printed that informs people how to abuse children safely, but they can print what they want. I read a book by Abbie Hoffman if I remember correctly, it had information on how to avoid getting caught, and steal money from businesses (sadly it was from the 70s, so it wasnt of much use to me). Ive read the Anarchist Cookbook, but it was ages and ages ago, so I can't remember if what kind of info was in there (aside from a recipe about getting high off banana peels). Im also pretty sure there's probably quite a bit of info about how to avoid getting caught, if one were to look for it. It can be published legally, just like the stuff NAMBLA publishes.

[quote]And even though a NAMBLA member may not believe in violating the law, his membership indicates that he doesn't the have moral and psychological makeup that prevents him from molesting children, or that compels him to protect the kids from molestation by others. [/quote]

How does this even make any sense? If you don't believe in violating the law, wouldn't that pretty much mean you have the "right" moral and psychological makeup to uh...not violate the law?

To state it another way: If the only thing preventing a person from molesting kids is the fact that it's illegal, that person should not be allowed to work in job that includes caring for kids. Breaking the law impulsively is one thing if it means going 70 mph in a 55 mph zone, but it's completely different if it means molesting a child.