The ACLUs has gotten way too political to claim to be simply for civil rights. They came out against the California recall. Not because it was a civil rights issue but because they didn't want a democrat voted out.
They should stay out of politics.
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.
What is the purpose of nambla? You cannot give me any other purpose than to encourage Man-Boy "Love". They are encouraging romantic/sexual relationships between adult men and young non legal boys. That is it. Nothing else. You are defending the rights of a despicable and arguably criminal organization on its face.
Why would one do that? Are you trying to prove how fair and open your views are?
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.
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.
Unless you are a pedophile or a pedophile organization, what do you have to worry about? Those are the only people I want to take anything from here.
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?
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.
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 [/B]
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.
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.
We cannot have absolute freedom to do or say what we please.
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?
Quote:
Nambla is a criminal organization, promoting criminal behavior.
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.
Quote:
I don't care about their rights to speech.
Why do you hate America?
Quote:
i care about protecting innocent children from their criminal behavior.
The rights enshrined in the Constitution are more important than any child or children. They're even more important than any human life.
Quote:
Why do they need the ACLU there to legitimize them.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I'm still not sure why the Boy Scouts need to be chased out of public places? Care to explain midwinter?
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...
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
And to make this worse, this is a completely culturally sanctioned passive pedophilia.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
The ACLUs has gotten way too political to claim to be simply for civil rights. They came out against the California recall. Not because it was a civil rights issue but because they didn't want a democrat voted out.
They should stay out of politics.
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
Originally posted by NaplesX
All of you defending ACLU and Nambla should be ashamed of yourself.
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
Originally posted by NaplesX
What is the purpose of nambla? You cannot give me any other purpose than to encourage Man-Boy "Love". They are encouraging romantic/sexual relationships between adult men and young non legal boys. That is it. Nothing else. You are defending the rights of a despicable and arguably criminal organization on its face.
Why would one do that? Are you trying to prove how fair and open your views are?
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
Originally posted by Kirkland
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
Originally posted by NaplesX
Unless you are a pedophile or a pedophile organization, what do you have to worry about? Those are the only people I want to take anything from here.
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
Originally posted by Kirkland
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
You fell for the spin my friend.
Originally posted by Kirkland
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 [/B]
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.
Originally posted by NaplesX
That is a ridiculous argument.
We cannot have absolute freedom to . . . say what we please.
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
It's ok, NaplesX, I went through it as well.
Originally posted by Scott
You fell for the spin my friend.
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?
Originally posted by NaplesX
We cannot have absolute freedom to do or say what we please.
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?
Nambla is a criminal organization, promoting criminal behavior.
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.
I don't care about their rights to speech.
Why do you hate America?
i care about protecting innocent children from their criminal behavior.
The rights enshrined in the Constitution are more important than any child or children. They're even more important than any human life.
Why do they need the ACLU there to legitimize them.
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
Originally posted by NaplesX
...i care about protecting innocent children...
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.
Originally posted by Kirkland
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?
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.
Originally posted by Scott
I'm still not sure why the Boy Scouts need to be chased out of public places? Care to explain midwinter?
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...
Originally posted by midwinter
And to make this worse, this is a completely culturally sanctioned passive pedophilia.
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.
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
Originally posted by BRussell
I still can't find anything on the facts of the case though.
I've been asking since the beginning of the thread for some facts, but scott refuses to share.
Originally posted by bunge
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?
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
did you try looking on the "spinsanity" site?
that was low.
Originally posted by Kirkland
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.
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.