do you think the ACLU went too far siding with nambla.?

Answer 1

I sincerely believe the ACLU should get their heads out of their a$$ and try to weigh the benefits to society against the civil rights of an individual or group - and base some of their totally off the chart positions based on just a tiny, little smidgen of common sense. Too many damned greedy lawyers involved. Don''t get me wrong - civil rights are paramount in a democracy and an organization like the ACLU is very good at protecting our basic rights - but as I said before - just a little, tiny sprinkle of common sense wouldn't cripple them.

Answer 2

They are attorneys. They don't take sides. They have clients.

I don't know what case you are referring to, but the actual issue in question makes a huge difference.

Example: fighting for the right of the KKK to rent a meeting hall to hold a rally or their right to march down a public street is completely different than fighting for the right of the KKK to burn crosses on people's lawns.

So, it really depends on what the case was about. And the only case I can find where the ACLU defended NAMBLA was in a 2000 lawsuit where people tried to force the organization to take down their website.

The ACLU didn't defend their right to pursue sexual relations with children. That was never an issue in the 2000 case. The only legal issue that ACLU was involved in was whether the court could order the NAMBLA to take down their website, a site that (while I personally find it offensive) is very careful not to actually advocate anything illegal. And that means it is protected by the 1st Amendment. Barely.

That's the thing about Free Speech. If it really means anything, it has to protect everybody, whether we like what they are saying or not.

Answer 3

Sorry, but the ACLU is way down on the totem pole for me.
They are MAKING laws by taking them to the Supreme Court for them to write opinions on, then all of a sudden they're LAW.
What's wrong with this picture?
How is NAMBLA discriminated against?
Child predators have formed a group protected by the ACLU.
What next?

Answer 4

I am not familar with the case you're referring to, although I do know what NAMBLA is. However, it is absolutely essential in a democracy where majority votes win that an organization like the ACLU exist. Without such an organization, the rights and protections of the minority will be trampled every time. And you better believe that sooner or later, you will find yourself on the minority side with an issue that is vitally important to you. The tyranny of the majority must always be tempered. If you believe that the majority has always prevailed, we wouldn't have women's rights, civil rights, and many criminal defense protections that we as a society now take for granted.

So, now, good for the ACLU. At least it wants to preserve the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Because once you've lost your rights to the government, it is going to be terribly difficult to get them back.

Answer 5

As I read this case, the ACLU says that the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is being sued for simply posting "vile material on the Internet"... protected free speech in the ACLU's view. They say that NAMBLA is not culpable for an unrelated crime committed by their followers.

The lawsuit by the family of a sexually assaulted and murdered 10 year old boy says that NAMBLA is indeed responsible for inciting these men to act in a way that caused their child's death.

This should be a simple enough assessment for us (and for a jury, if the case goes forward). Protected free speech does not include "fighting words" (Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire 1942). Simply put, fighting words are expressions of speech which would incite an individual to act so as to harm another person. While activist courts have watered down the fighting words provision since 1942, the original precedent stands and several additional rulings have been upheld.

Some more recent examples of fighting words not protected as free speech (see link below):

- Flashing a sexually suggestive sign repeatedly to a young woman driving a car (State v. Hubbard, Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2001).
- Yelling racial slurs at two African-American women (In re John M., Arizona Court of Appeals, 2001).
- Repeatedly yelling the words “whore,” “harlot” and “Jezebel” at a nude woman on the beach (Wisconsin v. Ovadal, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2003).

OK...here are the facts in the NAMBLA case, as reported in WorldNetDaily. (see link below):

"Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes picked up fifth-grader Jeffrey Curley and took the boy to the Boston Public Library where Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website. Later, the men attempted to sexually assault Curley, but the boy fought back. Attempting to restrain him, Jaynes gagged the 10-year-old with a gasoline-soaked rag, eventually killing him. The men put Jeffrey's body in a tub with concrete and threw it in a river."

"According to Curley family attorney Larry Frisoli, Jaynes kept a diary in which he wrote that he turned to NAMBLA's website in order to gain psychological comfort for what he was about to do. The killer had been stalking Curley prior to the boy's murder and possessed various materials from the clandestine group."

We, and hopefully a jury, are asked if NAMBLA's words caused these men to act. I say, had NAMBLA not existed, it's reasonable to believe that the boy would be alive today. In a civil case, there is a lower level of proof required (remember OJ Simpson). A jury need only find by a "preponderance of the evidence" that it believes the plaintiff’s case is proven.

Here's the bottom line: if an organization tells it's members that it's OK to have sex with young boys, and then one of them does and a boy is killed in the process, I say the organization is culpable for that result. A reasonable person could expect that if enough grown men have sex with enough young boys, some of them will be killed….and ALL of them will be seriously harmed.

We all know this…NAMBLA knows this…and the ACLU knows this. To try to prove otherwise is to try to use an intellectual rationalization on a point of law to weaken our rights and protections as citizens, not strengthen them.

Answer 6

I think in general the ACLU needs to get A C L U E

Answer 7

They have definitely gone too far to fight for the right for perverts to have sex with children. It is an illegal act whether boys or girls
are involved. I am not a ACLU fan, but this is low even for them.

Answer 8

Any rational American would agree with the perversion of man boy love. The question is why are they even allowed to form an association? It would seem that illegal activity should be cracked down on, apparently that is not always the case. Actually it is quite a rarity to see the government crack down on many things that destroy America. This is a true conspiracy.

Answer 9

Yes. ACLU is good at defending the degenerates of society.

Answer 10

Anti Christ's Legal Unit will have accomplished it's purpose when america is totally destroyed by it's own decadence