Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: ACLU
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Big Trials and Legal Cases
Google
GoAmerica
This is the most craziest thing the ACLU has EVER DONE!!

The Case

The Defense

NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association).
NAMBLA believed in men raping boys.
When 2 NAMBLA members tried to abduct a 10 year old boy, he resisted & they killed him.
The father of the boy sued NAMBLA & the ACLU was at their side.
The ACLU said NAMBLA's First Amendment rights allowed them to exist.
NAMBLA won & still exists today

Bill O'Rielly smashed the ACLU on this & of course, the ACLU never EVER came on his show to comment (I guess they knew that they were gonna lose the battle)

The Move to Dismissal


The ACLU thinks that what NAMBLA is doing is FREE SPEECH!! This is crazy.

What's your opinions? I'd like to know if anyone else thinks the ACLU is off their rocker
Google
Stefan Fargus
QUOTE(goamerica @ Jan 18 2003, 01:30 AM)
This is the most craziest thing the ACLU has EVER DONE!!

The Case

The Defense

NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association).
NAMBLA believed in men raping boys.
When 2 NAMBLA members tried to abduct a 10 year old boy, he resisted & they killed him.
The father of the boy sued NAMBLA & the ACLU was at their side.
The ACLU said NAMBLA's First Amendment rights allowed them to exist.
NAMBLA won & still exists today

Bill O'Rielly smashed the ACLU on this & of course, the ACLU never EVER came on his show to comment (I guess they knew that they were gonna lose the battle)

The Move to Dismissal


The ACLU thinks that what NAMBLA is doing is FREE SPEECH!!  This is crazy.

What's your opinions? I'd like to know if anyone else thinks the ACLU is off their rocker

What happened to the Curley's should never happen to any family. The horrible crime committed by the two men in question couldn't possibly be defended by anyone. I would like to say that before I address any other point in your post.

The two men who committed this crime were convicted, imprisoned, and also lost a $300Million+ wrongful death lawsuit. These individuals raped and killed that child with cold-blooded intent, and should rot in prison for the rest of their lives, IMHO.

As I mentioned in my post about the ACLU, I do not agree with every group or individual that they defend, and this is one of those groups I definitely do not agree with. The fact remains, however, that this heinous act was committed by two men, and two men only. Each of them made an individual decision to commit this crime, and nobody forced them to do it. To suggest that they were somehow brainwashed by an organization and coaxed into raping and killing that boy is ridiculous. It is like saying that someone was "convinced" to kill a police officer by listening to the rap song "Cop Killer". (The artist's name fails me at the moment). Regardless of what you read or listen to, you're still solely responsible for your own actions, and that's what makes this wrongful death suit invalid.

As much as I despise what NAMBLA stands for, I cannot condone the revocation of constitutionally protected free speech for any individual or group. By setting such a precedent, a virtual 'stampede' of lawsuits will ensue, to silence any organization that people disagree with, and in that way, we give up some of our freedom. My freedom to say what I choose, and express my beliefs is not a freedom I'm willing to give up, regardless of what people who support only "selective free speech", like Bill O'Reilly, say. I find it interesting that a man who makes his living based on the 1st amendment, repetitively advocates throwing it away.

If such a legal precedent were ever set, the consequences would be staggering. The NRA, for example, advocates the ownership and use of guns, and many people are killed by guns every year. Under such a precedent, the family of anyone who's ever been killed by a gun could sue the NRA for advocating their use. The ACLU does not advocate the behavior of NAMBLA, or the NRA, but would fight to protect either of them from being prosecuted/persecuted for their views. I hope this helps you to understand a little better where the ACLU is coming from.
Jaime
QUOTE(goamerica @ Jan 17 2003, 08:30 PM)
NAMBLA believed in men raping boys.

goamerica - could you please be a little more specific here? Do you mean statutory rape or forced rape?

You must understand that by making such statements you better be ready to back that up or you will be accused of being inflammatory.

I would also like to add that NAMBLA as a group is inflammatory. They are challenging an ideal many conservatives hold dear. I would warn anyone willing to participate in this debate to get ready to handle a little heat. This is not an easy issue to discuss.

However, keep in mind the Rules will be strictly enforced at all times.
GoAmerica
QUOTE(Jaime @ Jan 18 2003, 11:49 PM)
QUOTE(goamerica @ Jan 17 2003, 08:30 PM)
NAMBLA believed in men raping boys.

goamerica - could you please be a little more specific here? Do you mean statutory rape or forced rape?

Forced rape
Jaime
If that's the case, present some evidence that supports that this ENTIRE ORGANIZATION supports FORCED rape.

It's as Stefan Fargus said, we can not hold NRA members accountable for the illegal shootings committed by some of their members nor can we do the same to NAMBLA.
Wertz
Frankly, I was going to withdraw from this debate altogether - as well as the other ACLU debate and the NAMBLA thread - because I'm taking things a bit personally. To be very clear: I am vehemently opposed to NAMBLA - largely because they fall right into the hands of those who would perpetuate the negative stereotype of all gay men being child molesters. Yet I find, as I feared, that I'm just about the only one willing to criticize those who are attempting to exploit that stereotype.

Had GoAmerica posted something like "The NAACP believes in raping white women" instead of "NAMBLA believes in men raping boys" - or the similar nonsense he's been posting to a few other threads now - would everyone still have yawned and scrolled on down the page (Stefan and Jaime now excepted)? Or would there have been an immediate and widespread outcry? Maybe I'm being paranoid, but the fact that the more prejudiced participants here have been getting away with what they've been posting - without anyone else questioning their assertions - has, frankly, made me feel as though the consensus of America's Debate is that homophobia is okay - excusable, understandable, correct. However, if I'm not going to be daunted by the machinations of the entire Bush administration regarding civil rights in general, I'm sure as hell not gonna be turned away from a specific debate by a bigot or two.

I, too, await GoAmerica's evidence with keen interest. dry.gif

Stefan: Good analogy, by the way (NRA). In fact, good posting altogether. smile.gif
Jaime
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jan 18 2003, 07:43 PM)
...the fact that the more prejudiced participants here have been getting away with what they've been posting - without anyone else questioning their assertions - has, frankly, made me feel as though the consensus of America's Debate is that homophobia is okay - excusable, understandable, correct.

Please, Wertz. I have NO idea how you arrived at that. Just because some have chosen not to participate in this debate does not meant they tacitly condone homophobia. I need not remind you of the overwhelming support this forum has given to Gay Adoption and Gay Marriage.

I think our members deserve more than such a blanket condemnation.
Wertz
QUOTE(Jaime @ Jan 18 2003, 07:55 PM)
Please, Wertz.  I have NO idea how you arrived at that.  Just because some have chosen not to participate in this debate does not meant they tacitly condone homophobia.  

I think our members deserve more than such a blanket condemnation.

Hey - I said "I'm taking things a bit personally" and "maybe I'm being paranoid" before expressing how I felt. It's just that I can't recall many postings in which such outrageous unsubstantiated allegations were made and stood unchallenged. I didn't intend a blanket condemnation, though. What can I say? Sometimes I shoot from the hip without taking the gun from the holster.
blush.gif
Basheva
My problem with NAMBLA is not that it is - or has members - who are gay, or that it espouses homosexual acts, that doesn't bother me a bit.

What does bother me about NAMBLA is that, apparently from it's very name, it espouses these acts with 'boys' which to me means 'children,' under the legal age of consent.

My problem with the ACLU in this connection is not that it wants to defend an organization that espouses homosexual ideas/acts/rights, etc., but that, again, these acts are committed with children.

Were NAMBLA about forwarding gay rights/life style/etc., for adults, I would have no problem with it. And, consequently, I would have no problem with the ACLU for helping NAMBLA.

But I can't understand an organization (ACLU) aiding another organization (NAMBLA) in the commission of an illegal act with an underage child.

So, I don't see my opinion as against gays, but against an illegal act with children.
Darcaine
QUOTE(Basheva @ Jan 19 2003, 10:00 AM)
My problem with NAMBLA is  not that it is - or has members - who are gay, or that it espouses homosexual acts, that doesn't bother me a bit.

What does bother me about NAMBLA is that, apparently from it's very name, it espouses these acts with 'boys' which to me means 'children,' under the legal age of consent.

My problem with the ACLU in this connection is not that it wants to defend an organization that espouses homosexual ideas/acts/rights, etc., but that, again,  these acts are committed with children.

Were NAMBLA about forwarding gay rights/life style/etc., for adults, I would have no problem with it.  And, consequently, I would have no problem with the ACLU for helping NAMBLA.

But I can't understand an organization (ACLU) aiding another organization (NAMBLA) in the commission of an illegal act with an underage child.

So, I don't see my opinion as against gays, but against an illegal act with children.

Can you imagine if there was a group advocating sex between men and very young girls AND putting literature of HOW to do it without getting caught? ACLU has it's tit in a wringer on this. I hate to say it but, there are things that are right and wrong. Subverting in this case is a VERY good word. With everything that really needs to be fought for..the ACLU needs to make some value calls and allocate resources accordingly.

Darcaine
Google
Wertz
Basheva: Okay, you raised exactly the same point in the NAMBLA thread, so let me give you exactly the same explanation I gave you there. rolleyes.gif

NAMBLA is campaigning for legislative reform. They are seeking a change in age-of-consent laws so that some acts, now considered illegal, would no longer be considered illegal. In that sense, they are similar to NORML (the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). If a kid were arrested for possession of marijuana and it was discovered that s/he had visited NORML's web site or had a NORML pamphlet in their bedroom, would you believe that that kid's parents would have the right to sue NORML for encouraging their child to break the law? Perhaps you would. The ACLU would not. In defending NORML, would you consider the ACLU to be aiding another organization in the commission of an illegal act? Perhaps you would. I would not.

Unfortunately, there are not many groups which provide much of a parallel to NAMBLA. Since Stefan's - to me, very clear - NRA metaphor didn't work for you, let me put another hypothetical to you. At the moment, on the basis of Supreme Court decisions, it is illegal to deny a woman the right to have an abortion. There are some groups, like National Right to Life, who are campaigning in favor of the "illegal act" of denying a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy. Do you feel that National Right to Life is "espousing illegal acts" or would you see them as merely campaigning for a change in the law? If a member of National Right to Life murders someone who works for a Family Planning clinic, should National Right to Life be held accountable? Should the ACLU be condemned if they defend National Right to Life against a claim by the survivors of the murder victim? Would you really see them as aiding National Right to Life in the commission of murder? Or are they merely protecting the rights of an anti-choice group to lobby for change, regardless of the actions of any of their members? Do you see a double standard beginning to emerge??
Basheva
Wertz: I appreciate the time and care you have taken to explain this - I truly do. And I understand your position, but I don't agree with it. Metaphors don't work for me in this instance because the NRA is dealing with 'guns'......NAMBLA is dealing with children.

See Darcaine's post above - it states it better than I could hope to do.

There are some things that are right and wrong. Having sex with children is wrong. Lowering the age of officially when childhood ends, is a slippery slope. If 16 becomes the age, why not 14? Why not 10 for girls who become sexually (though not emotionally) mature?

Generally, I can accept a bit of relativism, but when it concerns children, sorry I can't.
Wertz
Basheva: I appreciate your position and your concern for the welfare of children - though I always find "slippery slope" arguments a bit suspect. The main point I was trying to make in relation to your postings was the neither NAMBLA nor the ACLU are advocating illegal activity. NAMBLA is advocating a change in the law and the ACLU is advocating their right to pursue such a change.

I agree that there is a big difference between NAMBLA and the NRA: one is concerned with consensual relationships, the other with the right to bear deadly weapons without restriction; one is potentially promoting sex, the other is potentially promoting death. I guess it depends on how one wishes to characterize the argument.
smile.gif


Regarding Darcaine's speculative posting, I have never seen any NAMBLA literature on "HOW to do it without getting caught". Presumably, he has.

Still waiting, btw, for GoAmerica to come up with the goods...
Stefan Fargus
Some of us here are missing the point, so I'm going to re-explain.

The fact of the matter is if you set legal precedent with a group like NAMBLA by silencing them because you don't agree with their views, you have to face the consequences thereafter.

The law is NOT going to differentiate between the NAMBLA case, and a similar case against the NRA because one of their members kills a child with a gun. You differetiate between the two, because you possibly agree with the NRA, while obviously disagreeing with NAMBLA. The law cannot have that same double standard. If the precedent is set, it is set across the board.

The ACLU defense of NAMBLA was not about supporting or condoning the memberships' behavior, it was about preventing a legal precedent from being set that would allow any other group you can imagine from being silenced in a similar manner.

This case was about the 1st amendment, not about sexual abuse of children, and therein lies the difference. The 1st amendment, like it or not, applies across the board... You can't take it away from some people, and expect it to remain intact for you. It doesn't work that way. If you start to selectively place restrictions on freedom of expression, then it is no longer free, but controlled, and that is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and immoral in and of itself.
Darcaine
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jan 19 2003, 02:39 PM)
Basheva: I appreciate your position and your concern for the welfare of children - though I always find "slippery slope" arguments a bit suspect. The main point I was trying to make in relation to your postings was the neither NAMBLA nor the ACLU are advocating illegal activity. NAMBLA is advocating a change in the law and the ACLU is advocating their right to pursue such a change.

I agree that there is a big difference between NAMBLA and the NRA: one is concerned with consensual relationships, the other with the right to bear deadly weapons without restriction; one is potentially promoting sex, the other is potentially promoting death. I guess it depends on how one wishes to characterize the argument.
smile.gif


Regarding Darcaine's speculative posting, I have never seen any NAMBLA literature on "HOW to do it without getting caught". Presumably, he has.

Still waiting, btw, for GoAmerica to come up with the goods...

Wertz this exactly why they are going to court. They have been putting out literature on HOW to break the law and get away with it. They had this stuff on a web site for some time but, after the heat they removed it. The printed literature is what is going to get them in trouble though. Free speech is one thing, and there are limits on this, putting out literature condoning the breaking of law and how to do it is something totally different. IMHO the way to get them is not on the freedom of speech but, I would get them on RICO laws (Organized Crime).

Darcaine
Basheva
The difference I see between the NRA and NAMBLA is not only between guns and children - but between 'intent.'

Though it is true that all too often children may be killed by guns that is not the intent of the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA, and I don't own a gun, but from what I know of the NRA as part of their agenda they advocate the safe useage of guns to minimize any injury that may occur.

However, NAMBLA does advocate the use of children for sex - it's in the title of the organization.

As for the ACLU's position of defending this organization's right to speak and/or seek a change in law....as I see it, that is aiding and abetting NAMBLA's pursuit of an illegal act.

Yes, I realize we don't agree, and I respect that.
Stefan Fargus
QUOTE(Basheva @ Jan 19 2003, 11:37 PM)
The difference I see between the NRA and NAMBLA is not only between guns and children - but between 'intent.'

Though it is true that all too often children may be killed by guns that is not the intent of the NRA.  I am not a member of the NRA, and I don't own a gun, but from what I know of the NRA as part of their agenda they advocate the safe useage of guns to minimize any injury that may occur.  

However, NAMBLA does advocate the use of children for sex - it's in the title of the organization.

As for the ACLU's position of defending this organization's right to speak and/or seek a change in law....as I see it, that is aiding and abetting NAMBLA's pursuit of an illegal act.

Yes, I realize we don't agree, and I respect that.

Anyone could buy countless mystery novels that attempt to outline how to commit the "perfect crime" at the local bookstore. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to attempt the acts that they read about. I don't, in fact, hear of too many murderers using the defense, "Agatha Christie made me do it!" On the same token, you can't blame poor old Aggie for a murderer's actions, either... Even if the murderer followed her 'instructions' to the letter. Are you for allowing victims to sue mystery and horror novelists for publishing these 'instructions'? It amounts, once again to, if you set the precedent, it applies across the board, not just to this one group. The law will not differentiate between the two, as you do.
Darcaine
QUOTE(Stefan Fargus @ Jan 19 2003, 07:53 PM)
c
QUOTE(Basheva @ Jan 19 2003, 11:37 PM)
The difference I see between the NRA and NAMBLA is not only between guns and children - but between 'intent.'

Though it is true that all too often children may be killed by guns that is not the intent of the NRA.  I am not a member of the NRA, and I don't own a gun, but from what I know of the NRA as part of their agenda they advocate the safe useage of guns to minimize any injury that may occur.  

However, NAMBLA does advocate the use of children for sex - it's in the title of the organization.

As for the ACLU's position of defending this organization's right to speak and/or seek a change in law....as I see it, that is aiding and abetting NAMBLA's pursuit of an illegal act.

Yes, I realize we don't agree, and I respect that.

Anyone could buy countless mystery novels that attempt to outline how to commit the "perfect crime" at the local bookstore. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to attempt the acts that they read about. I don't, in fact, hear of too many murderers using the defense, "Agatha Christie made me do it!" On the same token, you can't blame poor old Aggie for a murderer's actions, either... Even if the murderer followed her 'instructions' to the letter. Are you for allowing victims to sue mystery and horror novelists for publishing these 'instructions'? It amounts, once again to, if you set the precedent, it applies across the board, not just to this one group. The law will not differentiate between the two, as you do.

Ah, Stefan...but, a "mystery novel" doesn't attempt to "subvert" laws by being printed. There isn't a "group" writing an "addenda" on a mystery novel. More likely they will fit into organized crime rather than trying first amendment issues.

Darcaine
Stefan Fargus
QUOTE(Darcaine @ Jan 20 2003, 01:16 AM)
Ah, Stefan...but, a "mystery novel" doesn't attempt to "subvert"  laws by being printed.  There isn't a "group" writing an "addenda" on a mystery novel.  More likely they will fit into organized crime rather than trying first amendment issues.

Darcaine

I'd like to see an elaboration, and perhaps some examples of how you think they'd fall under "organized crime" by publishing their ideology. Is there any precedent for that? Can writing about breaking the law be construed legally as an attempt to organize criminal activity?
Wertz
QUOTE(Darcaine @ Jan 19 2003, 06:28 PM)
Wertz this exactly why they are going to court. They have been putting out literature on HOW to break the law and get away with it. They had this stuff on a web site for some time but, after the heat they removed it. The printed literature is what is going to get them in trouble though. Free speech is one thing, and there are limits on this, putting out literature condoning the breaking of law and how to do it is something totally different.

I have not been able to find anything which indicates that "this exactly why they are going to court". I've been unable to locate any source claiming that the Curleys are citing any literature, either online or in print, in their case. Indeed, the ACLU has stated that the plaintiffs are not entering "any statements made by NAMBLA" but are merely arguing that the organization created an "atmosphere" which encouraged the crime. Can you point me to a source here? Thanks.


QUOTE(Basheva @ Jan 19 2003, 06:37 PM)
As for the ACLU's position of defending this organization's right to speak and/or seek a change in law... as I see it, that is aiding and abetting NAMBLA's pursuit of an illegal act.

Yes, I realize we don't agree, and I respect that.

I recognize that we disagree. We are all prone to reading into the actions of others, but as for the ACLU's position of defending NAMBLA's right to speak and/or seek a change in law... as I see it, that is the ACLU defending NAMBLA's right to speak and/or seek a change in law.


Stefan: The Curleys lawyers would have to be insane to use such an argument as the basis of their case. "Putting out literature condoning the breaking of law and how to do it" may seem "totally different" to Darcaine, but it is most certainly protected by the First Amendment. To answer your question, writing about breaking the law cannot be construed as an illegal act at all - never mind as "attempting to organize criminal activity". If that were the case - and should any court be so ridiculous as to set such a dangerously absurd precedent - there would be hundreds of thousands of cases which could be brought on these grounds. Any work which describes illegal activity would be subject to penalty - and I'm not just talking about The Anarchist's Cookbook or The Happy Hooker. Every heist movie ever made could be censured; every book which has ever described the workings of the Mafia or the international drug trade, every novel or movie or television program which features prostitutes or drug users or thieves or fraud or people smoking in no smoking areas could be subject to state censorship - as could every cop series in which a suspect is pursued and is seen exceeding the speed limit. It could be argued that all of the above are seeking to "subvert" the law. By Darcaine's argument, all these books, incuding all those Agatha Christie novels, could be burned, all these movies banned, all these TV shows cancelled, and just about every living writer, producer, and director prosecuted. The ACLU - and any judge or jury in their right mind - would disagree. The argument is ridiculous.
Stefan Fargus
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jan 20 2003, 03:51 AM)
Stefan: The Curleys lawyers would have to be insane to use such an argument as the basis of their case. "Putting out literature condoning the breaking of law and how to do it" may seem "totally different" to Darcaine, but it is most certainly protected by the First Amendment. To answer your question, writing about breaking the law cannot be construed as an illegal act at all - never mind as "attempting to organize criminal activity". If that were the case - and should any court be so ridiculous as to set such a dangerously absurd precedent - there would be hundreds of thousands of cases which could be brought on these grounds. Any work which describes illegal activity would be subject to penalty - and I'm not just talking about The Anarchist's Cookbook or The Happy Hooker. Every heist movie ever made could be censured; every book which has ever described the workings of the Mafia or the international drug trade, every novel or movie or television program which features prostitutes or drug users or thieves or fraud or people smoking in no smoking areas could be subject to state censorship - as could every cop series in which a suspect is pursued and is seen exceeding the speed limit. It could be argued that all of the above are seeking to "subvert" the law. By Darcaine's argument, all these books, incuding all those Agatha Christie novels, could be burned, all these movies banned, all these TV shows cancelled, and just about every living writer, producer, and director prosecuted. The ACLU - and any judge or jury in their right mind - would disagree. The argument is ridiculous.

Its nice to see that somebody understands that the law will not share the same double-standard that some of the posters in this thread do. I'll try yet another analogy to prove my point here...

Think of the law as a giant blanket, the size of our entire country, designed to keep us all warm and safe. If you start cutting holes out of that blanket, so that certain people/groups aren't covered up by it, eventually, that blanket becomes so tattered that it doesn't do anything for anyone, anymore. Get it, yet?
Basheva
Stefan - holes are cut in the law all the time - it's called 'equity' law. The law is constantly being re-shaped. It's meant to be that way. Equity was incorporated into common law (as an import from England - which also included a bit of ecclesiastic law) precisely because the law as a blanket cannot cover every contingency. That is why the law is not immutable, shouldn't be, and can't be. There are always exceptions.

Read some Blackstone. Read some Montesquieu.

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.

There are as many cases that come to appelate courts that end up with dissenting opinion as undivided opinion. Those judges don't say to one another "get it?" They respect the possibility that the other opinion also has a point, though they may disagree as a whole.

And sometimes, that dissenting opinion, in the future - down the road a bit - might become the majority opinion.

smile.gif


(Gosh - that tired me out - I think I'll go to bed!)
Darcaine
QUOTE(Stefan Fargus @ Jan 19 2003, 11:29 PM)
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jan 20 2003, 03:51 AM)
Stefan: The Curleys lawyers would have to be insane to use such an argument as the basis of their case. "Putting out literature condoning the breaking of law and how to do it" may seem "totally different" to Darcaine, but it is most certainly protected by the First Amendment. To answer your question, writing about breaking the law cannot be construed as an illegal act at all - never mind as "attempting to organize criminal activity". If that were the case - and should any court be so ridiculous as to set such a dangerously absurd precedent - there would be hundreds of thousands of cases which could be brought on these grounds. Any work which describes illegal activity would be subject to penalty - and I'm not just talking about The Anarchist's Cookbook or The Happy Hooker. Every heist movie ever made could be censured; every book which has ever described the workings of the Mafia or the international drug trade, every novel or movie or television program which features prostitutes or drug users or thieves or fraud or people smoking in no smoking areas could be subject to state censorship - as could every cop series in which a suspect is pursued and is seen exceeding the speed limit. It could be argued that all of the above are seeking to "subvert" the law. By Darcaine's argument, all these books, incuding all those Agatha Christie novels, could be burned, all these movies banned, all these TV shows cancelled, and just about every living writer, producer, and director prosecuted. The ACLU - and any judge or jury in their right mind - would disagree. The argument is ridiculous.

Its nice to see that somebody understands that the law will not share the same double-standard that some of the posters in this thread do. I'll try yet another analogy to prove my point here...

Think of the law as a giant blanket, the size of our entire country, designed to keep us all warm and safe. If you start cutting holes out of that blanket, so that certain people/groups aren't covered up by it, eventually, that blanket becomes so tattered that it doesn't do anything for anyone, anymore. Get it, yet?

I think you guys aren't getting the picture. 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. Thus, RICO is a perfect example of how to get NAMBLA for what it is really doing. You can't hide behind free speech if you are actively breaking the law. A good comparison (NRA was a bad one BTW) is probably the MOB.

Darcaine
Stefan Fargus
Darcaine:
QUOTE
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.

QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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?

Basheva:
QUOTE
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.

QUOTE
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? wink2.gif
Basheva
Stefan - there are exceptions - 'hate speech' - is now accepted as unacceptable. Though I don't agree that it should be actionable - it is now against the law. So, indeed certain speech is prohibited.

Another example would be: You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded room - unless it is true.

The law is full of exceptions (I didn't like the word 'hole' but I used it to respond to you, since it was the word you used.) It was meant to always have exceptions. The Founding Fathers knew that the law can/will/should change and made provision for it through the amendment process, through the legislative process, through the judicial process.

The Constitution was written as a scaffold, a basic structure, not a cast iron setting. They made room for change and even 'faction' as they called it.

Since the law must conform to the Bill of Rights, then that too is often stretched, reshaped, rewoven - sometimes to our benefit and sometimes not.

Your passion is admirable - stay passionate!
Stefan Fargus
Hate speech, nowhere in this country, in any state or locality, is in and of itself against the law. If I'm wrong, please post the statute which makes it so. Some states have passed hate crime legislation, wherein the said hate is the motive for a violent crime. There is an ENORMOUS difference between the two.

If you saw a white man beating up a black man crying racial epithets as he's doing so, I would think that would suggest to you, that his crime is racially motivated, and therefore falls under the "hate crime" laws.

If you saw a white man simply yelling racial epithets at a black man, but he in no way touches him or attempts to cause injury to him, he cannot, and will not be arrested for that under hate crime laws. The "hate speech" itself is not against the law. There are a large number of websites online that prove my theory, here. I will not link these sites publicly, because I refuse to spread their hateful messages any further than I have to. I support their right to free speech, but will excercise my right not to advertise for them. If you need to see the sites because you don't believe they exist or something, I'll be happy to send out PMs with the links for you to scrutinize.

If you yell "FIRE!" in a crowded room, you're not giving people a decision to make, you're creating a panic situation in which people could/probably will be injured, and in that, you violate everybody else's rights. It would be similar to calling the police or fire department and intentionally falsifying a report. The police have no alternative but to answer the call, and therefore, you become liable for any damages caused by your falsification, including possibly, the injury or death of someone else, because the officer(s) you called away should have been helping someone who was really in trouble.

In contrast, if you were to author a website that suggests everybody go to a crowded building and shout "FIRE!", or call in phony reports to authorities, you could/should not be held responsible for people who take those ideas and run with them. Your right to publish the INFORMATION is protected under the 1st amendment, your right to directly and blatantly cause damages to others is not, and I have never suggested that it was. Each person who reads the information that you author has an individual choice to make, as to whether or not he/she will commit the crime. Each individual is repsonsible for his/her own actions, regardless of what they've read or heard spoken, and if they break the law, they will be punished for it individually.
Darcaine
QUOTE(Stefan Fargus @ Jan 20 2003, 03:12 PM)
Hate speech, nowhere in this country, in any state or locality, is in and of itself against the law.  If I'm wrong, please post the statute which makes it so.  Some states have passed hate crime legislation, wherein the said hate is the motive for a violent crime.  There is an ENORMOUS difference between the two.

If you saw a white man beating up a black man crying racial epithets as he's doing so, I would think that would suggest to you, that his crime is racially motivated, and therefore falls under the "hate crime" laws.

If you saw a white man simply yelling racial epithets at a black man, but he in no way touches him or attempts to cause injury to him, he cannot, and will not be arrested for that under hate crime laws.  The "hate speech" itself is not against the law.  There are a large number of websites online that prove my theory, here.  I will not link these sites publicly, because I refuse to spread their hateful messages any further than I have to.  I support their right to free speech, but will excercise my right not to advertise for them.  If you need to see the sites because you don't believe they exist or something, I'll be happy to send out PMs with the links for you to scrutinize.

If you yell "FIRE!" in a crowded room, you're not giving people a decision to make, you're creating a panic situation in which people could/probably will be injured, and in that, you violate everybody else's rights.  It would be similar to calling the police or fire department and intentionally falsifying a report.  The police have no alternative but to answer the call, and therefore, you become liable for any damages caused by your falsification, including possibly, the injury or death of someone else, because the officer(s) you called away should have been helping someone who was really in trouble.

In contrast, if you were to author a website that suggests everybody go to a crowded building and shout "FIRE!", or call in phony reports to authorities, you could/should not be held responsible for people who take those ideas and run with them.  Your right to publish the INFORMATION is protected under the 1st amendment, your right to directly and blatantly cause damages to others is not, and I have never suggested that it was.  Each person who reads the information that you author has an individual choice to make, as to whether or not he/she will commit the crime.  Each individual is repsonsible for his/her own actions, regardless of what they've read or heard spoken, and if they break the law, they will be punished for it individually.

Stefan lets put it this way. If this group is found guilty, which I think they will be, of actively setting up meetings between men and boys and the group knows they are doing so...this will definitely fall under organized crime. We will see, from what I have seen on TV the ACLU is going to have one hell of a time defending 1st amendment issues on this case. Especially with the death of a boy involved in this fiasco.

Darcaine
Stefan Fargus
I agree with you 100%, that if the group was actively setting up criminal activity, all of the parties involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and found guilty. As I've stated in previous posts in this thread, my only interest in posting here is to defend the first amendment. Any criminal activity is obviously punishable by law, and I do not argue that point. I still maintain my position, however, that if all they did was write about it, they are protected by the 1st amendment.
Darcaine
QUOTE(Stefan Fargus @ Jan 31 2003, 12:12 AM)
I agree with you 100%, that if the group was actively setting up criminal activity, all of the parties involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and found guilty.  As I've stated in previous posts in this thread, my only interest in posting here is to defend the first amendment.  Any criminal activity is obviously punishable by law, and I do not argue that point.  I still maintain my position, however, that if all they did was write about it, they are protected by the 1st amendment.

Agreed.

Darcaine
Wertz
Would anyone disagree with this??? The problem as I see it is a matter of "innocent until proved guilty". Take a look back through this thread: Is there anyone criticizing the ACLU here who would prove an objective juror?
Darcaine
QUOTE(Wertz @ Feb 1 2003, 07:33 PM)
Would anyone disagree with this??? The problem as I see it is a matter of "innocent until proved guilty". Take a look back through this thread: Is there anyone criticizing the ACLU here who would prove an objective juror?

Probably not Wertz. I am not afraid to call NAMBLA what it is.

Darcaine
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.