A good comparison (NRA was a bad one BTW) is probably the MOB
You've still provided no evidence or precedent, or even so much as an opinion akin to this, as to how you make this comparison. The MOB generally pays people to commit crimes. They don't simply write about it and publish "instructions" in periodicals or on the internet. People don't read an issue of "Mob Monthly" and say, "I think I'll participate in extortion and raqueteering now, since the MOB showed me how". The MOB comparison is the bad one.
It's one thing to have a group like NAMBLA having free speech, and it is an enitirely other thing to have a them DOING the acts they are condoning and breaking the law. This group(s) members are actively breaking the law at the consent of NAMBLA.
Any members of the group who commit such a crime are subject to punishment provided by existing laws, regarding the abuse of children. Unless the ENTIRE group, acting as single entity
, like the MOB, commits a crime, you cannot prosecute the ENTIRE group for that crime. ONLY those members that committed the crime can be prosecuted. You can't put someone, individually, on trial for something that someone ELSE in the group did. That would be like putting me on trial for Chappaquddick, and you on trial for Watergate, for example. (Assuming you're a Republican... Feel free to choose your own criminal to replace Nixon from your party... Every party has them, I'm sure. I'll bet you understand what I'm saying, at any rate.) Just because we are affiliated with the same organization as a criminal, doesn't mean we can be tried for another member's crimes.
One last point on this... This post is ABOUT NAMBLA's right to free speech
, specifically the ACLU's defense thereof... Not about the crimes of some/most of their membership, which seems to be what you are trying to get me to defend, and I will not. There is no defense for attacking, or abusing a child in anyway. I do not condone the group's activities, but have to stand behind their right to free speech, because if I don't, it may very well jeopardize ALL OF OUR rights to express ourselves without enticing government retaliation. In your statement above, you've essentially conceded that they have a right to freedom of expression.
It's one thing to have a group like NAMBLA having free speech,
Is this the case, then, that you agree with what I've been saying all along about the first amendment?
Stefan - holes are cut in the law all the time - it's called 'equity' law. The law is constantly being re-shaped.
I don't think the founding fathers, nor the majority of Amercans would support some power of the government to "cut holes" in the Bill of Rights, particularly that of freedom of speech. They were very clear on this in writing:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech
, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
There is nothing to cut here. The amendment allows for no exceptions
to these rules, regardless of how you feel about what is being spoken. If you can find somewhere in this amendment that suggests there are, or should be exceptions to the rules set therein, I invite you to point it out to me. There are
, laws to which your statement applies, but this is not one of them.
I'm afraid I may have been too general in my "blanket" statement in the use of the word "Law". I actually was referring, primarily, to the Bill of Rights, specifically the first amendment, which is what this thread is about.
My friend, it's not a matter of 'getting it' - that demeans the opinions of others. It is possible to have a variance of opinion - in fact huge books are written about the variance of opinion regarding law. That's why there is almost always dissenting opinion, which is written at the same time that the majority opinion is written.
I apologize for that. As you can probably tell, I'm very passionate about my stance on freedom of speech, and it is an emotionally charged issue for me. We've all had our 'passionate' moments in debates here, though, haven't we?