Aclu? - Page 4

Heh. More likely Thrasymachus.

Cheers
Scott

Actually, no, they came out against the recall because there had been a lawsuit regarding the civil rights of voters that said that a certain amount of transition away from questionable voting systems had to take place before the next general election, which at that point was 2004. By Fall 2003, with the recall, that transition was not complete, and the ACLU sued because holding a general election (the recall) before the transition was sufficiently complete was in violation of the court order.

In other words, they were doing their job.

Kirk

I don't defend NAMBLA. I hate NAMBLA and all they stand for. But everyone deserves absolutely equal right to free speech.

That means NAMBLA, whom I hate.

That means the Southern Baptist Convention, whom I hate.

That means the ACLU, whom I support.

Freedom means everyone. Or it's not freedom at all.

Kirk

In a democracy, everyone has the right to organize and petition for the change of laws. Every group that opposed Prohibition was an "arguably criminal organization on its face" by your definition. So was every group opposing sodomy laws until last June.

NAMBLA's right to protest laws they don't like and try to get them changed must be protected, or YOUR right to do the same becomes endangered.

The fact of the matter is that civil liberties are more important than your children. Or any children. They are more important than our lives. That's why we have soldiers who fight and die for them. If the words of the Constitution weren't worth more than human life, then America could never morally go to war. That's the cold, hard reality. You may hate it. But that means you hate America.

Kirk

Well said Kirkland

Fellowship

So if someone disagrees with you about age of consent laws, they have no right to publish their opinions or form groups with other like-minded individuals?

Kirk

That is a ridiculous argument.

We cannot have absolute freedom to do or say what we please. That would be total anarchy. Nambla is a criminal organization, promoting criminal behavior. That is where the difference is. I don't care about their rights to speech. i care about protecting innocent children from their criminal behavior.

You guys keep arguing that even nambla deserves a criminal/civil defense. I would agree with that. Any defense lawyer can sit there and make sure their case is being handles fairly. Why do they need the ACLU there to legitimize them.

There is a difference between providing a fair defense and becoming an activist.

Wow. I think I've figured it out.

Your beef isn't with the ACLU, buddy. It's with the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I suggest you take a good look at that link and then decide whether or not you want to continue living here.

Cheers
Scott

The birthing process is a painful thing.

It's ok, NaplesX, I went through it as well.

No, those are the facts. Did you follow the case, read the legal briefings? I dare say my knowledge of politics and current events is better than yours, since it's by far the thing I obsess most about.

Kirk
--
Mind the Gap: Punditry, Done Right.
--
This week: Bush is right, we must go to Mars. But can we afford to?

Correct. We cannot through our speech libel someone, slander someone or put them in the immediate danger of harm. Note the word "immediate." However, everyone has every right to gather and speak out in order to overturn laws they don't like including age of sexual consent laws.

I ask again: You say NAMBLA is a criminal organization because they want to overturn the age of consent laws. Does that mean that the gay groups who sued about and protested the anti-gay sodomy laws were criminal organizations?

What about the black groups that marched to overturn the Jim Crow laws?

What about those who worked to overturn prohibition?

What about those who lobbied Congress to raise the federal speed limit?


No, NAMBLA is a rather disgusting organization that is attempting to have certain kinds of behavior no longer classified as criminal. I don't agree with their aims, but I support their right to seek change in the law.


Why do you hate America?


The rights enshrined in the Constitution are more important than any child or children. They're even more important than any human life.


Despite your poor punctuation I'll assume this is a question. The matter is a civil rights one, particularly the First Amendment rights to speech and assembly. Those must be protected, no matter how unpopular the speech or group, be it NAMBLA, the KKK, the Nazis, Fred Phelps or Pat Buchanan. Everyone has a right to speak. Everyone has a right to encourage political change. Everyone has a right to meet and gather with like minded individuals.

Even if their goal is something disgusting, like changing the age of consent.

Kirk

any time i see that wedged into an argument, i pretty much assume the argument is crap. if you have a good point to make, you don't need to go "BUT IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!"

cheap emotional ploy.

if what someone is saying or doing is criminal, file a complaint and let the city/state prosecute them. saying they have no right to speech is crap.

That's how NAMBLA describes themselves - an organization devoted to changing the law. But as I understand it they are being accused of providing a manual with specific instructions on how to break the law. That's not the same. Here's some analysis of various tests of the conflict between free speech and the advocacy of criminal conduct. I think they could be in trouble if they specifically advocate having sex with minors and then give concrete suggestions on how to do that. I still can't find anything on the facts of the case though.

Because the BSA wishes to be treated as a private organization. If it were to be permitted to hold activities on public property free of charge it would be a public accommodation. The scouts don't want this, because it'd mean having to let gays join.

Edit: just saw that this question has already been addressed by Midwinter on the previous page. My bad...



You're absolutely spot on with this. It's kind of bizarre, really. Watch a 40 year old comedian make a joke about how long he's been waiting for the Olson twins to come of age on Comedy Central...then flip to Fox News for an 'are-your-children-safe' expose on pedophile priests / teachers / scout-troop leaders. It has yet to reach the levels of hysteria it did in the UK a couple of years back, however. One memorable incident had a pediatrician in Wales being harassed by a vigilante group with an 8th grade reading level.

Even just describing how to break the law is not against the law. I could write a book on how to fly an airplane into an office tower, and that wouldn't be against the law.

Now, if they are actively encouraging folks to break the law, and after that encouragement those folks go out and do so and a clear link between the encouragement and the actions can be proven then they should be held accountable for that.

Kirk

I've been asking since the beginning of the thread for some facts, but scott refuses to share.

did you try looking on the "spinsanity" site?

that was low.

I thought it was an interesting free speech issue when someone discovered how to break DVD copy protection, and the movie industry attempted to block the spread of that information.

The key to breaking the encryption fit within a single short page of C code. I couldn't fathom the idea that a simple algorithm could be considered unprotected free speech. How can you say that telling someone how to perform a particular sequence of calculations is illegal?

You can't even say that the only use for the algorithm is illegal, since their are legit fair use reasons for copying DVDs.

I don't know how that law suit turned out in the end. I do, however, currently own a T-shirt that has the entire offending algorithm printed on the front. There's no hope of keeping information like that secret.

the case went in favor of the code writer for free speach reasons.

It's a good thing we don't live in a pure democracy. Can you imagine how quickly free speech would evaporate if we ran a public referrendum in the US with a list of questions "Do you believe the government should prohibit broadcast and publication of materials that discuss... X, Y, Z, etc.?"

A huge mass of mindless voters, many of whom would be the kind to proudly wave their American flags and speak glowingly of American freedom, would answer those questions, and cast their votes, exactly the same way as if the questions had been "Do you think X, Y, Z, etc. are bad?".

that's what i thought about the flag-burning amendment idea, create an amendment restricting free speech to an object that stands for free speech. that's ironic.

don't have me start on that...i thought it absurb that we couldn't pass an equal rights amendment, yet wanted to pass a law protecting the flag...yeah, over 50% of the population is not entitled to amendment protections, but a colorful piece of cloth does...
plus it would have just increased the flag burnings about 1 million fold...we have sooo few today, pass the amendment and you would have several burned every day in protest...

oops

back to topic

g

If they Constitutionally ban burning the flag, protesters will just burn the Constitution.

Flag burning is good for the economy. In order to burn a flag, one must either buy one or make one from purchased materials. If someone wants to forage the wilderness and create their own cloth, dye, needles, and thread, more power to him.

Edit: Well, I guess you could steal a flag. Of course that's illegal anyway.

The Korean economy maybe...

Did you even look at their site?

They are encouraging men to have sexual relationships with minors

If all they were doing was fighting to change the law I would have no beef with them or the ACLU defending them.

And the civil rights activist were just telling blacks to drink out of whites only water fountains, sit in whites only sections of buses.

Not that I agree with this NAMBLA movement but it is a common strategy in non-violent protest.

Once again, that is not the only purpose of this group. I would hove no problem if that was their only purpose. They are encouraging men to have sexual relationships with minors.

Have you even read their website? From what I can tell, NAMBLA is intent on exposing the arbitrary ages for sexual consent as they pertain to homosexual relations. In other words, what if a 17 year-old homosexual wants to have sex with a 30 year-old? Under current law, it is child abuse and molestation and rape, whereas if the same thing happens in a heterosexual relationship, it is a matter of statutory rape.

Here:


Cheers
Scott

What about them. They won the fight. But if they had encouraged or helped people drink or had a drinking party in those days he would have been doing something that could be criminally charged.

Comparing those people with Nambla is like comparing peppers and oranges.

I read somewhere that inside the Nambla circle they proclaim "Eight is too old." I don't think they are just wanting to lower the consent law a couple of years!

Um, that is fine and good but they have a "Boys Speak Out" book page where they quote 11 year old boys stating how good this and that is.

I say to that quote you gave, That is their official stand, but the rest of the crap on their pages say otherwise. Just look at the links, it is shameful.

Um, my wife might agree with you. I just watched and she squeezed my hand. So, I guess it was painful.

And the Korean economy is good for our economy.

You know, the FBI is tracking your web usage and they'll be knocking on your door soon...

...and it will sound like such a weak defense when you say "But I was only trying to explain to other people how disgusting it is! It was research!"

Welcome to the New USA. Freedom for good people. Jail* for bad people.™

*Where we encourage homosexual rape and do nothing to control it so we can wink and look the other way while adding defacto cruel and unusual punishment to our "justice" system. That'll show 'em!

Hey, it worked for Pete Townsend.

well obviously Rush is on the out of the Republicans.