And if they aren't why the fu*k not
2007-01-21 13:12:42 · 10 answers · asked by Another۞Human 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I hate rascists but I still think the KKK should be allowed to exist if they aren't commiting crimes. Freedom of speech is important! But promoting molesting children should be along the same lines as plotting to kill the president or planning to bomb a school.
2007-01-21 13:29:22 · update #1
It is the sworn duty of governmental officials to protect the innocent and underage citizens. Clearly, NAMBLA members/supporters should be on a governmental/police 'watch list.'
I would posit an alternate question, to wit: What percentage of NAMBLA members/supporters are convicted pedophiles or those convicted of having engaged in sex crimes???
2007-01-21 13:20:45 · answer #1 · answered by dooner george 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The likelihood of a NAMBLA member committing a crime (statutory rape) is high. Whether one agrees or disagrees with whether NAMBLA's mission is irrelevant -- man-boy sexual relationships involving minors are illegal in the US.
Now, I would add that a man-boy love relationship can exist between an 18 year-old and a 50 year-old and these people can be NAMBLA members. In this case, they should be able to maintain their privacy and freedom to associate with the people they choose.
2007-01-21 21:22:49 · answer #2 · answered by padrejoseph 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That would be an excellent subject for an ethics essay about the constitution and the right to privacy. I feel the same way about the Ku Klux Klan and skinheads. They should not exist. I don't know how to reconcile that with the right to privacy. Is it illegal to discuss such subjects, or only to perform the acts discussed?
2007-01-21 21:21:43 · answer #3 · answered by firefly 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who knows? I don't think the government can watch everybody, better some terrorist than some nut from that orginazation. Did anyone know who N.A.M.B.L.A. was before that South Park episode?
2007-01-21 21:17:04 · answer #4 · answered by asmith1022_2006 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
every member of the american population is being watched by the government...right to privacy only applies if it really isn't a right to privacy issue, and only when it can most inconvience the person who is being "protected"
2007-01-21 21:17:35 · answer #5 · answered by captsnuf 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Of course not. That would violate their civil rights. The ACLU would file lawsuits by the thousand. For some reason, the ACLU doesn't think children have any rights.
2007-01-21 21:32:19 · answer #6 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I sure hope they are and I hope they can catch some of them.
2007-01-21 21:36:44 · answer #7 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Didn't they have Mark Foley in charge of that?
2007-01-21 21:18:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
They should be
2007-01-21 21:16:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Oh God I hope So!!!!
2007-01-21 21:15:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋