Liberal BS

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

Yeah, i was just gonna ask you guys what you thought of that...

I think it's sick. When I first heard about it, I wasn't sure what NAMBLA was, so I went to their website. My word, I was shocked and felt the urge to vomit.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know. I am shocked by that as well. I mean consenting adults can roll around naked in ketchup screaming "I'm a french fry" for all I care. But, a child under 18 with a 45 year old man is quite another. I do not understand where the ACLU and others suppose that right exists. But, they do and that is a bad thing. Having said that, the rest of the ACLU's work is pretty good IMO even if some of it is in the abstract and hard to apply to reality a la the right to burn a cross in protest to the end of slavery I agree with the right, but that is a tough one

That's one of the funniest things I've ever read, dear.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Gross, dude. That "organization" is beyond disturbing. Since when is man/boy "love" a civil liberty ?

It would be inappropriate for me to research that on this comp. Can someone post exactly what the ACLU's reasoning was and/or what issue they supported, because I cannot imagine they support the general cause of that organization, just like they do not support Rush.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

It would be inappropriate for me to research that on this comp. Can someone post exactly what the ACLU's reasoning was and/or what issue they supported, because I cannot imagine they support the general cause of that organization, just like they do not support Rush.

I will, hold on a minute.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

That's one of the funniest things I've ever read, dear.

It came from some sitcom in the, I think, 80's - I laugh at it often, but and perhaps sadly, have never tried it

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

I think it's sick. When I first heard about it, I wasn't sure what NAMBLA was, so I went to their website. My word, I was shocked and felt the urge to vomit.

Well, i assumed, but i meant more what you thought of ACLU defending them.

[dissention]

Okay, sorry, I had to take out the trash, darlings.

Their argument was a simple 1st amendment one: they weren't breaking any laws (no child porn was posted, etc.) and they had the right to free speech. They said that even if it was offensive, they Constitution afforded them the right to publish it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

Well, i assumed, but i meant more what you thought of ACLU defending them.

It depends on what the ACLU was defending. I mean even the sickest and/or most heinous American citizen criminal deserves representation in court (well at least until now ) - so if they were defending that right, I have no problem with it even though I despise that organization and eveything it stands for.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Okay, sorry, I had to take out the trash, darlings.

Their argument was a simple 1st amendment one: they weren't breaking any laws (no child porn was posted, etc.) and they had the right to free speech. They said that even if it was offensive, they Constitution afforded them the right to publish it.

That is a tricky area because what is not present in the content is present in the intent. I gotta fall on the side of the govt. there, even though I am usually loathe to abridge any free speech rights.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

Well, i assumed, but i meant more what you thought of ACLU defending them.

I don't like it one iota, but the law sides with them and the purpose of the ACLU is to uphold civil liberties. No matter how offensive the content of NAMBLA was (and it is stomach-churning), it was their right to publish it and speak it.

[heyjupiter678]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

It would be inappropriate for me to research that on this comp. Can someone post exactly what the ACLU's reasoning was and/or what issue they supported, because I cannot imagine they support the general cause of that organization, just like they do not support Rush.

From the ACLU's FAQ:

Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU’s press release.


ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations
August 31, 2000

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

[heyjupiter678]

Originally Posted by dissention

Okay, sorry, I had to take out the trash, darlings.

Their argument was a simple 1st amendment one: they weren't breaking any laws (no child porn was posted, etc.) and they had the right to free speech. They said that even if it was offensive, they Constitution afforded them the right to publish it.

Yeah, what he said.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by heyjupiter678

From the ACLU's FAQ:

Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU’s press release.


ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations
August 31, 2000

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

A Ha - (thanks to you and Diss ) - this is a tough one, but I change my position based on this explanded explanation. And - let me repeat - I LOATHE that organization.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

That is a tricky area because what is not present in the content is present in the intent. I gotta fall on the side of the govt. there, even though I am usually loathe to abridge any free speech rights.

It was all about a case here in MA of a young boy being abducted, raped, and then murdered. the parents sued NAMBLA because the murderers had viewed the site before commiting the crimes. The crux of their argument was that NAMBLA actually particpated and helped commit crimes by posting how to lure young boys, how to avoid the cops, etc. I partially agree.

Did you ever see "The Accused" with Jodie Foster? A lot of sex laws in New England changed after that case (it happened in Connecticut), so the lawyers for the parents had more leg-room.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by heyjupiter678

From the ACLU's FAQ:

Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU’s press release.


ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations
August 31, 2000

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

Does this mean someone killed a member of NAMBLA based on content of their organization and then blamed that content for the murder? So the murderer filed suit?