ACLU & NAMBLA - Is this really free speach?

Question

The Manhattan-based public-interest law firm is defending the North American Man-Boy Love Association in a $200 million civil lawsuit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Curley. The Curleys claim that Charles Jaynes was driven by the literature and website of NAMBLA, an outfit that advocates sex between grown men and little boys, reportedly as young as age 8.

As ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein sees it: "Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."

Please see
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

Is this really free speach? Do we really want more of this in this country after Novembers election? This is what the democrats are all about.

Reported for what? Asking a serious question that liberals cannot handle.

The right to free speach is not being given up here. You cannot go into a crowded movie house and yell fire. When the speach of someone actually is harmful, people tend to hide under the 1st Amendment. I am not giving up my right to free speach, but when they publish a book encouraging the harm of little kids, that is pushing it way too far.

Loz T - The reason you cannot find it is because they took it off their web page. I am sure it is around somewhere if you look hard enough.

Jogong, I am not asking for them to give up free speach. The issue here is that what they discuss and stand for is a crime. So is this really free speach when society in general has indicated that what they stand for is wrong?

Answer 1

It's gotten harder and harder to judge which organization is worse, NAMBLA or ACLU. I suppose that, given this situation, the ACLU would defend a publication of the KKK encouraging whites to do harm to other races. This is stupid beyond the pale. The ACLU has become a joke and a threat to everything good in this world.

Answer 2

The ACLU in this case is basically saying that the individual is responsible for their own actions. They are also saying that the threat of a law suit is a form of censorship because it would inhibit free speech. A case like this goes beyond NAMBLA and goes beyond republican or democrat. If this couple successfully sues it sets a dangerous president. Anyone could be sued for anything they wrote or posted on a web site if a lawyer can some how argue that someone who committed a crime was influenced by that writing.
I have no use for NAMBLA. However freedom is speech is fundamental to all of our freedoms. It's worth defending even if you have to hold you nose some times when you do it.

Answer 3

Defending free speech is an important American cause. No matter how much we detest the garbage being peddled by groups like NAMBLA and the KKK, we have to protect their right to say it. Being offended by someone's words is not a good reason to take away their civil liberties. I'm sure that many people that answered this question would gladly take away the free speech rights of Democrats and others with opposing views.

Answer 4

You are, as is usual for the Republican spin mechanism, oh, so wrong. Equating the ACLU and their defense of NAMBLA to the Democratic Party is a supreme leap of assumptive logic. So, are you inferring that Democrats support pedophilia? Perhaps it would do you good to remember neither party has the exclusivity of sexual scandals, do they? How about talking about real issues instead of trying to have people not look behind the curtain?
Happens so, I as a Democrat, think it was one of the most stupid things the ACLU has done in quite awhile. So, equating Democrats with support of pedophilia is yet another stupid, dirty tactic the Republicans are so famous for.
Get another line, one with substance and merit.

Answer 5

The ACLU supported the right of American Naz1s to march through a Jewish neighborhood. Does this make them pro-Naz1sm? No, they correctly argued that even American Naz1s are entitled to the First Amendment. Similarly, they argue that has a First Amendment right to express their views. But should any of their material exploit under-aged children, THAT would not be protected.

Answer 6

What are you reporting Abe? A question YOU don't like? Typical liberal hypocrisy and vomit. I am so sick of it.

As for the OT, public written print condoning and even encouraging sexual abuse of young boys is NOT free speech. It is a crime and should be treated as such. It is high time these disgusting organizations be held accountable for their actions.

Answer 7

Show me where in NAMBLA's literature it says anyone should commit rape and murder, and I'll consider the Curleys' case has having a case to answer. I certainly couldn't find anything on their (bady designed) website that implied such.

And what's the electrion got to do with it?

Answer 8

properly, as a lot as all of us hate Nambla (the nationwide association of Marlin Brando seem Alikes?) there's a distinction between advocating loose speech and somewhat partaking in an criminal pastime. ACLU tend to be Libertarian purists. they could legalize drug use and do truly some different doubtless radical issues, all in the call of freedom and liberties for anybody. I somewhat ought to ask your self notwithstanding, if their contributors might want to all be so gung-ho if something persons did not positioned some checks and balances on them. each and every time I see an unpopular stream like those who smoke or the KKK or the Peace and Freedom social gathering (*snigger*) - i'm reminded of a poem by technique of German pastor Martin Niemoller who suggested: "at the same time as the Nazis got here for the communists, I remained silent; i replaced into no longer a communist. at the same time as they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; i replaced into no longer a social democrat. at the same time as they got here for the commerce unionists, i did not talk out; i replaced into no longer a commerce unionist. at the same time as they got here for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. at the same time as they got here for me, there replaced into no man or woman left to talk out." If i opt to be loose - I somewhat ought to tolerate the right to expression, notwithstanding no longer unavoidably the undesirable habit, of different communities. it is what i imagine the ACLU is doing. they could unlike pedophiles both, yet they prefer to carry the line on particular rights - even for dingleberries - so as that our extra important rights are literally not sacrificed.

Answer 9

seeing that Republican congressman Mark Foley was into little boys, I'd not make the assumption that this is a democratic/liberal thing... ok??

And if you prevent NAMBLA from having free speech, what about the GAYS? what about the LESBIANS? who's next? YOU???

I don't agree with NAMBLA at all, but maintaining free speech is very very critical in this country.

tom

Answer 10

I don't like the KKK or the nazi's but I do support their right to free speech in the USA. that is what makes free speech so hard and so important. recognizing that even though I disagree with what you believe or what you stand for I will defend your right to free speech.
free speech isn't just about "allowing" what is polite or politically correct or socially acceptable to be said but about allowing EVERYONE'S voice to be heard.