Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
So, Daisy, even though I would be banned for doing so...
I have the right to come on this forum and advocate that a mob of aids patients drag you kicking and screaming into an alley and sexually assault you en masse...
No, you don't because this is a private BB - free speech is not an issue. You could, I suppose, set up your own private website and be as vile as you please - although inciting violence against a particular person may not be protected. Can you show me where the particular people named in the lawsuit advocated violence?
And, when the forum bans me I can them have the ACLU sue them to reinstate me
I'll bet you wouldn't like *that* application of free speech? would you?
No, but I don't like NAMBLA's either, nor the nazis'. My liking or disliking isn't the point - or perhaps it is exactly the point: cases should be decided on law, not on popularity.
But, it is "Free Speech" and according to the ACLU (and apparently you) it's protected and must be allowed...
Again, you have no grasp of the concept of what "free speech" is. In a private BB, the owners make the rules to which we have both agreed.
Daisy, I have nothing against you...
And, I would never do such a thing...
But, I hope you understand the seriousness of the issue especially when it's you or you child that people are being incited to assault...
From what I understand, which is limited because I've spent
no time on the website, have never and will never read the literature and I couldn't find the court brief, "assault" is not what is advocated, nor torture, nor murder - but "seduction". They were not sued for advocating the
seduction of boys (which they might have lost). NAMBLA is an unincorporated association - if it had been incorporated the Curleys probably would have won. It was also not proven that the individual men named in the suit advocated assault, torture or murder. If they had, the case might have had a different outcome.
Lawsuits are generally closely adjudicated - they are decided on the details - as opposed to legislation which is usually considered on broad principles. I think this whole issue is so horrible that you skipped over the actual facts of this case, but I think the actual facts matter.
Which ones? Does it matter to me that a boy was brutally raped and murdered? Yes.
Does it matter to me that the culprits were incited to this heinous act by the environment NAMBLA and the men named in the suit created? Well,
that there is the problem -
that had not been proven to be the case. The ACLU argued, according to WND, '... there was nothing on its website that "advocated or incited the commission of any illegal acts, including murder or rape"'.
Suppose for a moment that the ACLU was correct and there
was nothing on its website that "advocated or incited the commission of any illegal acts, including murder or rape" contrary to the plaintiffs' arguement, on
what basis should they be found guilty? That what they actually do advocate is wrong and harmful? That wasn't the charge.
You can't say, "Even though you are not guilty of the actual charges, we don't like you so we're going to find you guilty anyway."
