And Thank God they do (sorry if the God statement offended you) If that wasn't the case the D.C. would've been upheld, which would crack the foundation we've built for gun rights. (but back to the topic at hand)[/quote]

Disclaimer #1 - NAMBLA, bad. Any sexual contact between an adult and a child is by definition either forced or coerced. Forced / Coerced sex is rape, therefore what NAMBLA advocates is rape. Hence, NAMBLA, bad.

Disclaimer #2 - As stated before in this thread, I am in no way a supporter of the ACLU. I think they do more harm than good, and I would recommend to all the people who listen to my recommendations (both of them!) that they too refrain from sending them money or giving them any other kind of support.

However, I once again find myself agreeing with Dick on this one. (What the heck is happening here? Have I entered some twisted version of the Twilight Zone???)

In a rational world, only those whose actions caused harm would be prosecuted &/or punished by the legal system. No matter what the influences were on his way of thinking, it is still within his power to act morally & within the bounds of the law. He made a choice - a horrible choice - and he alone must pay the penalty. The ACLU is correct in this case to defend NAMBLA based on this principle. I understand that the fact they are doing so without explicitly stating that they find the beliefs NAMBLA propounds to be abhorrent can lead some to think they agree with NAMBLA. Lack of condemnation does not equal agreement (didn't I cover this principle a few pages back...?) and the ACLU is not required to make any judgment at all of their client in this case. It could certainly help their public perception among people like myself if they did, but not doing so doesn't mean they're wrong.

This doesn't mean we can't condemn NAMBLA, or shun / shame their members, or call them nasty names. It simply means that the writers of words, no matter what those words are, cannot be held responsible for the actions of someone who read those words. This is the only moral, rational way to run a society or the legal system of that society.

Of course, we don't actually live in anything close to a rational society or have a truly rational legal system. So lets just hang the bastards and be done with it... I mean why not - since there are no principles being consistently followed, we can just make up the rules as we go along, right?

JGalt, I respect you and your views, so take this in the spirit of debate in which it is intended.




Using that logic, I could offer someone $100,000 to kill someone and I could not be prosecuted for anything. After all my actions did not kill anyone, they just gave a motive to someone to kill someone.

Or buying stolen property. That wouldn't be illegal, since the crime was already committed, so my action of buying the stolen item could not have caused further harm.

If I like kiddie porn, and offer to pay someone to provide it to me and they go out and victimize some kid and give me the pictures, he is the only one to have committed a crime, right? I would not have been responsible for any harm that came to that kid.

In each case, the other guy made the horrible choice so he alone faces the consequences?

This is where i think that argument falls flat.

What about conspiracy crimes?

Speech can also be CONDUCT. It's always been illegal conduct to pass a bogus check, to offer to kill somebody, make threats, or the classic example, falsely shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Calling it "protected speech" is not a defense in these cases.

I've never read Nambla stuff; I would imagine they advocate making sex with children legal. It is apparently legal, or at least, not illegal in other places.

We've had a child sex abuse case with some people from Guatamala. When we asked the relatives what would happen in Guatamala, they said as far as they know it's common and not illegal there; or at least police would not be interested in that, it's just a private matter.

In any event, if somebody wants to propose legalizing such matters, I'm opposed, and not too worried they will convince the legislature to pass it. Let them propose what they want, it'll probably have the opposite effect.

We probably don't need to change the Constitution of the United States for simple crap like this.

NAMBLA is less an advocacy group than it is a "How do you get away with it" instruction provider. Their literature is a step by step how to, for the novice pedophile, along with some stories.

NAMBLA outright advocates illegal(and abusive, disgusting) activity and provides instructions on how to do said activity.

So you don't actually know what they wrote on their website? You've been arguing the point all along as if you understood it.

How about if they gave instructions on how to win the trust of a young boy's parents? How about if they gave recommendations on how to get out of the country fast (and illegally) if you get caught? How about if they gave lessons (written) on how best to get a boy to enter your car in today's world of "stranger-danger" and "go-tell-a-grown-up!"?

Many countries have laws against child sex abuse just ask Gary Glitter. He was jailed for a couple of years in Viet Nam ofr it and then deported.

I am pretty sure most modern industrialized nations have laws against child sexual abuse. Hell it is even against the law in Thailand where pretty much everything sexual is legal (or condoned).

Then I've been doing a poor job of arguing. I didn't read it because the CONTENT is IRRELEVANT. The Court can't look at that. That's what I've been saying.

There is nothing illegal about reommendations, lessons, pickup lines. Legal, no matter how shocking.

This stuff is like ballistics. Some folks who don't like guns are shocked that that information is available.

Thank you for that, and I will!



The best way to illustrate the difference between your examples and what NAMBLA is doing is to use a little story. Something I'll come up with totally off the top of my head, on the fly, that has never been thought of or described before... ( )

Let's say that me and my daddy are a couple of rich guys who are throwing a party. We'd love to have some beer for our party, but we can't get the kind we want - you see, it isn't sold in the state where we live. We decide to design a way that two guys - one with an 18-wheeler and one with a really fast car, say a Trans-Am, could get that beer from where it is to where the party is going to be. We know we aren't going to do this ourselves, but it would be fun to make the plan and post it on the InterWeb (probably on our Face Book or MySpace accounts...) Besides, maybe some other rich guys might want to do the same thing, and maybe they're willing to actually do it but just don't know how. Or maybe, we post it because we think it is ridiculous that we can't get this beer here in our state, and we want to encourage others to take up this 'cause' as well.

We might even get as detailed as to how best to avoid getting caught. I mean, we could call the guy driving the Trans-Am "Bandit", and give all sorts of suggestions about how to avoid any LEOs - we'll call 'em "Smokeies" - they might encounter on the way back. You see, we know what we are writing about is illegal, but its not like we're going to do it!

Now, if some guy (well, guys) find our plan up on Face Book and decide it looks like a pretty good idea, then go out and do it, but get caught, is it the fault of me & my daddy that they made the decision to actually act on something they saw written down somewhere? We didn't ask them to do it, and we derived no benefit from it. Apart from laughing our butts off when we heard that someone was crazy enough to actually do what a couple of guys they don't know wrote about on the InterWeb.

Alternatively, if my daddy & I actually hire the two guys who try to make this illegal beer run, then it is now definitely our fault, and I'd argue that we are at least as guilty as the Bandit & his truck-drivin' buddy (let's call him "Snowman" for kicks...) for the whole fiasco. We actually asked them to do it, we paid them for their service, and we derived a direct benefit from their actions.

I presume you see the difference between the two scenarios, right? In the first scenario, the guys acted of their own volition, and the writers themselves played no part in the illegal act. In the second scenario, as I said, the writers paid Snowman & the Bandit for their services, and derived a direct benefit for themselves from the two driver's actions.

I understand that current law may state that the writers of the "how-to" manual to commit illegal acts may in fact be held liable &/or accountable for the actions of others. What I am arguing is that, if this is the case, then I want some group - the ACLU, for example - to stand up and fight this, because the law is wrong in principle. And I really couldn't care less what the "how-to" writings are about, so long as the authors had nothing to do with the carrying out of the illegal act, and derived no direct benefit from the illegal act having been carried out.

(Boy, somebody should make a movie out of the story I outlined above - I think it could be hilarious!)

To present this in a little bit of a different way, how about if they were giving instructions on how to beat a murder charge? What if those instructions were to go to a lawyer? What if you were on trial after having shot someone? What if you were defending yourself if you shot someone? Does the context matter? If so, must we first determine if you are guilty of a crime before that information can be communicated to your lawyer? Kinda defeats the purpose, huh?

What if someone was communicating to another person how to break into a car? What if that person didn't intend to break into a car? What if the person receiving the information was a criminal justice student? What about a police officer?

The point of this, as poorly communicated as it may be, is that the content and context of the content is irrelevant. Speech is protected. If the manner of doing something illegal is being communicated, it is law enforcement's job to learn how people are doing illegal things and learn how to legally stop them with this new information. It is not the individual's job to be sure never to discuss illegal things. That's a horrible slippery slope. Do you really want a complex set of laws describing all of the illegal things to discuss, who is allowed to present what kinds of information and to whom, how to verify the identity of those sending and receiving that information, etc?

Legal vs illegal and morally right vs wrong unfortunately can not and should not always align with one another.

OK, I checked out the links. I did not read each in detail, but now I know the subject matter, which the authers believe is relevant to whether the ACLU should be involved.

1. Can a non-profit organization get special public benefits if it discriminates? (gays and Boy Scouts)

2. Should a public school sponser prayers? (Navel Academy)

3. Do Military Tribunals with operate with secret custody, torture, hearsay and no jury violte the American constiturion?

4. Access to Nambla's brochures

5. Do people have a right to use their money to spread their political message? (Political contributions)

6. Do we have the right to punish and brand somebody for conduct they MIGHT (or might not) commit? (Jessica's law)


A. All of these matters seem to raise substantive or procedural legal questions that it would be appropriate to question from a civil liberty viewpoint.

B. All the the websites contain materials that seem, in my opinion, to unfairly state that the ACLU supports all the actions of their clients.

C. That's why I called this stuff "propaganda". Simply, it is. An intentional effort to mislead the reader.

D. That's why I noted that no lawyers seemed to be publicly involved with the websites. Lawyers usually know better; this is pretty basic stuff.

But it's still hard for everyone. And the leadership of the ACLU, after brilliantly discussing and defending every nuance of the First Amendment, falls victim to their own bias and prejudice with the Second Amendment.

Thanks!

Now I have Jerry Reed and "East Bound and Down" in my head!

Earworms!!!

For everyone born after 1977 (and since Dean's probably at the Fair today)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xN8dP4CoFaw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xN8dP4CoFaw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

FORUM OWNER PLEASE DELETE THIS WHOLE THREAD!!

I NOW REGRET STARTING IT

I think I'm offended.

I caught this earworm and had to watch the first movie this morning.