The ACLU defends Baptist Protests

It's funny how people look at things differently, mp...

Evidently you see the aclu support of Nambla as a free speech issue without regard to what that speech advocated.

I see the aclu support of Nambla's written agenda as ennabling pedophilia.

Nobody's twisting anything at all.

I'm just applying a moral standard to what the written material actually says that you evidently disagree with, as the aclu does.

 

Yeah right - if I should choose one and do the actual research which debunks it, what are the chances that that particular one wasn't the one you meant?

If it's all right there, then it should be no problem for you to pick out the ones you were consider valid and link to them. I'm not a mindreader - you know which ones you think are valid, I don't, so it's really up to you to present some evidence beyond "presto!".

No, it's your list, so it's up to you to back it up with the best references you can find.

 

Mike, again you confuse the issue. ACLU explicitly states they are not promoting NAMBLA's horrifying agenda. They are defending the Constitution and the First Amendment.

I find NAMBLA as reprehensible as you and carpro do, but let's not make appeals to emotion by misstating the facts.

Since NAMBLA promotes criminal behavior, I think there are far greater issues with that group of perverts. If I were an ACLU attorney reviewing the cases to take, I may well have passed on this one.

My point is, the ACLU defends positions on all sides of the spectrum, which IS appropriate. I don't want censorship from the right or from the left.

As for praying at graduations, you sure can do it, just as long as you don't force it on others, given it is a public school. You can also have a non-school sponsored baccalaureate for prayer. What you can't do is have a public institution promote religion. If you want that, you are also able to attend a private, religious institution. No problem.

 

I will add that if the Phelps' bunch, the Nazis, the KKK, or any other group doesn't have freedom of speech, who is to say that some day YOUR ideas (oh, let's say opposition to gay marriage) will be deemed hate speech. On that day, you may be glad to see the ACLU defend your rights.

 

Yeah right - if I should choose one and do the actual research which debunks it, what are the chances that that particular one wasn't the one you meant?

If it's all right there, then it should be no problem for you to pick out the ones you were consider valid and link to them. I'm not a mindreader - you know which ones you think are valid, I don't, so it's really up to you to present some evidence beyond "presto!".

No, it's your list, so it's up to you to back it up with the best references you can find. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh Daisy, please stop the nitpicking.

The same info is also available from the aclu website, albeit with their own unique spin on each issue.

Go there. I'm sure you'll enjoy their versions better. No chance of cluttering up your thinking there.

 

All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to keep silence...

In taking the case they legitimized the organization and enabled their twisted and perverted ways...

As such they are as guilty if they did the acts themselves...

Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

The greek for "Have Pleasure" can mean to enble by assent

From G4862 and G2106; to think well of in common, that is, assent to, feel gratified with: - allow, assent, be pleased, have pleasure.

 

You're probably right, but carpro will have to speak for himself. Thank you for providing links to sources.

Yes, it is about free speech. The ACLU did not defend the two men who actually did the deed, but NAMBLA in a civil suit. SMM, did you read the WND article? They stated the case remarkably well:

It's repugnant speech that needs protection - approved speech simply does not.

Sure you can, but the school can't make you.

Strawman - the ACLU does not promote child rape.

wiki (linkie):

I suppose to you it is a distinction without a difference that the ACLU protects free speech without condoning what is said.

It protects civil liberties and it takes on some sleazy, yet diverse clients such as the nazis & NAMBLA to do it - as I said before, stands for principles not parties.

 

That is hardly nitpicking to maintain that I cannot read your mind, so I again ask you to pick the example which you consider valid.

Spin? They say very simply what and why, that is not spin. Twisting their intent is spin.

You're correct, I do prefer someone's own statement on their intent over someone who's out to destroy them's deliberate twist and spin.

That's right - you should go there to tidy yours up - throw out those misconceptions you grasp so tighty.

 

Of course it's about "free speech" as long as you agree that openly advocating the rape of little boys bears no responsibility when one acts on that advocacy.

 

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...

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?

But, it is "Free Speech" and according to the ACLU (and apparently you) it's protected and must be allowed...

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...

Mike Sr.

 

Who advocated the rape of little boys?

 

That was the NAMBLA free speech that the ACLU was protecting.

 

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?

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.

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.

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."

 

Can you show me, by PM or email if necessary (this being a family-friendly site), that that was what NAMBLA and the individual men had advocated? If you can, I will state here that you did. This seems to be a wrong assumption on your part from what I have read concerning the case.

 

Daisy has nailed the legal issue spot on. Like her, I won't even read their literature, however my understanding is they are advocating change in the law...not endorsing child rape, as has been alleged. Yes, I hate to look like I am even defending these twisted people, but what I understand is they are an advocacy group to petition the government to do things like reduce the age of consent. This is a far cry from advocating the rape of children, at least from a legal standpoint. This is in my mind, an analog to NORML, (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). I don't think they push anyone to smoke marijuana, but want to change the law to make it legal.

Is NAMBLA a bunch of sick people? You bet! Are they entitled to free speech? Absolutely. If they break the law, should they face justice? Without a doubt!

I know the distinction is hard for some to grasp, but it is a fundamental distinction to make. Again, someday the government could deem Christian preaching to be hate speech, and like I said before, I would want my free speech protected, popular or not.

 

This is the type of "free speech" the aclu believes is worth protecting.


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


NAMBLA is "not just publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law," says Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who is arguing the Curleys case in federal court. NAMBLA, he says, "is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them."

Frisoli cites a NAMBLA publication he calls "The Rape and Escape Manual." Its actual title is "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships."

"Its chapters explain how to build relationships with children," Frisoli tells me. "How to gain the confidence of children's parents. Where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught...There is advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight. It's pretty detailed."

"In his diary, Jaynes said he had reservations about having sex with children until he discovered NAMBLA," Frisoli continues. "It's in his diary in 1996, around the time he joined NAMBLA, one year before the death of Jeffrey Curley."

The practical, step-by-step advice Jaynes followed goes far beyond appeals to sway public opinion in favor of pedophilia. Such language aids and abets felonious conduct. If such conspiracy results in homicide, it is reasonable for NAMBLA to face civil liability if not criminal prosecution.

Ohio's Court of Appeals found NAMBLA complicit in an earlier child-rape case. NAMBLA's literature, discovered in a defendant's possession, reflected "preparation and purpose," according to the Buckeye State's top bench.

 

Well, I can't get you link to work right now carpro, but as this is the defendant's attorney, his statements need evidence...evidence which I will not go looking for. If we take him at his work, then yeah, there is more than free speech at stake.

Still, it is gross error to state that the ACLU condones child rape, as they are interested in the free speech aspects of the case. Like I said, and especially if the defendant's attorney is telling the truth, if I had been an ACLU attorney, I would not have taken the case. I still stand behind the fact that offensive and unpopular speech needs protection, not popular speech. But to tell you the truth, either way, on a personal level, NAMBLA sickens me to my stomach, and probably on a deeper level than the KKK, Nazis, and the disturbing bunch that goes by the name Westboro Baptist Church.

 

Murdock also quotes the aclu:

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."


Changing the law is a red herring put out by the aclu to excuse their advocacy of nambla's materials.

As a Christian, I can understand why you have to split hairs on the issue. But I won't. The aclu did not have to take this case. They chose to. By doing so, I believe they intend to further their goal of breaking down the institutions and social mores of America.

 

Well, once again, I don't believe the ACLU is advocating NAMBLA's agenda at all. We will continue to disagree on that unless you have evidence to the contrary.

We can agree that NAMBLA is made up of some people in severe need of help.

 

i think we should all give the ACLU a round of applause.

they were the ones up in arms about the ten commandments being displayed weren't they?

i thank the Lord that the news stations video'd the ten commandments over and over and over again on television reminding these people what sin is.

praise the Lord.