ACLU defends the rights of child abusers

[skeeter]

The ACLU has decided to defend the "rights" of NAMBA (North American Man BOY Association). This group of sicko's believes it is "good" for adults to have sex with very young children. The ACLU really went more off the deep end than when they defended the rights of the Nazi party to vocalize their hate filled ideas. Hope people stop supporting the ACLU for this one.
The ACLU is not defending the actual actions (which are illegal) but rather their right to write, enlist and talk openly about this. This is how I understand it. If I am wrong can someone please explain it better. And explain why it is not under the area of conspiracy to commit a crime(s).?

 

[Thairlar]

Do you disagree with any gun laws? Do you feel you have a right to voice your disagreement? Does my saying that I would like to repeal every anti-gun law on the books, that I think all of them are wrong at all levels of government, mean that I am actively breaking those laws or commiting a conspiracy to do so?

As long as no action is performed violating a law, there is no crime. It doesn't matter how reprehensible the speech or opinion, the right to have them and voice them is there. I don't know about you, but I much prefer to live in a society without thought police.

 

[Destructo6]

I would argue that there is a crime when the information discussed/presented is a guide to breaking the law and not be caught. NAMBLA advocates the molestation of children and does everything possible, without getting physically involved, to mak that happen.

 

[Thairlar]

Do you think the ATF would consider a gunsmithing manual that shows how full auto works detailed instructions on how to break the law? Setting precedents regarding speech and diseminating information can be dangerous.

 

[LawDog]

NAMBLA published a book entitled 'Rape and Escape', which was found in the possession of one Charles Jaynes, after Mr. Jaynes and an associate abducted, raped and murdered ten-year-old Jeffrey Curley.

One of the chapters in the book 'Rape and Escape' gives a detailed suggestion on how to kidnap a targeted child by stealing the childs bicycle, offering to help the child look for the bicycle, and then offering to buy the child a new bicycle when the stolen bicycle is not found.

This is the exact method used by the two men, right down to the finer suggested points, in the abduction, rape and murder of this child.

We often champion personal responsibility around here. If NAMBLA wishes to train paedophiles in advanced 'Rape and Escape' tactics, and the paedophiles take advantage of this training to rape, murder and escape, then NAMBLA ought to damn well take responsibility for their part.

LawDog

 

[Elizabeth Petersen]

I'm with LawDog on this one...

If NAMBLA has a right to hold meetings wherein they disseminate information on how to go about committing acts of sexual violence against children, then I surely have the RIGHT to treat their meetings like a target rich environment.

Despite what some people might think in regards to NAMBLA, the issue is not free speech and preservation of the first amendment. It is that NAMBLA is actively encouraging and advising its members on how to violate the law and commit heinous acts of sexual violence against minors. Oh and let’s not forget the fact that they are practically trafficking in child pornography on their website. Don't believe me? Check out their "Letters from boys" section. :barf:

And there IS precedence already as to why their publications should not be considered protected under the First Amendment. Production, distribution and possession of child pornography is illegal. There have been successful arrests and prosecutions of pedophiles for being in possession of literature detailing the sexual abuse of minors, including diaries and short story type fiction written by themselves or other pedophiles. How are NAMBLA’s “true life” stories different? In regards to their “How To” pamphlets, I say, if you advocate a criminal act, and someone acts upon your advocacy, then yes, indeed, you do share responsibility.

The ACLU is defending NAMBLA because the parents of a 10 year old boy who was slain by a NAMBLA member (it was a sexually motivated homicide) are suing NAMBLA, and rightly so. As I said before, if you advocate an illegal act, and someone acts upon your advocacy, then you share the blame. The ACLU is defending NAMBLA's right to publish child pornography and their call for legalizing child sexual abuse, but doesn't think they should be held accountable for their actions.

So much for personal responsibility, eh?

The ACLU defends those rights and liberties that are in line with their left leaning politics. Hence, they will defend the right of groups like NAMBLA to publish the first-person accounts of sexual activity between an eleven year old boy and an adult man without being held accountable , but will not defend the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Constitutional rocket scientists, they ain’t.

Until they support all rights equally, they are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites with an agenda, and not the champions of civil rights that they claim to be.

They take cases such as NAMBLA and the Ku Klux Klan not because of their passionate love for the Bill or Rights, but because it always means plenty of press coverage.

Perhaps the ACLU is against the Second Amendment because the exercise of that right sometimes results in the loss of their clientele.

 

[Fred Hansen]

Thairlar,

The examples that you give are pure nonsense and have no bearing on the type of conspiratorial efforts that NAMBLA makes, and the AKLU defends. Holding meetings to discuss the best places from which to ambush, kidnap, rape and kill children, can in no way, be compared to mere possesion of books that discuss machining gun parts. Of course your inability to distinguish between two wholly different subjects goes a long way to explain your affinity for the Libertarian party.

To review, NAMBLA is a cabal from hell that is given over entirely to evil. There is no provision in any civilized country on the planet Earth for the abduction, rape and murder of children.

Conversely, even in the Communewealth of Massachew$h*ts, there are provisions within the law for the lawful ownership/possesion and yes even machining of parts for automatic weapons. Hence the possesion of manuals for such leaves one with a defense for said possesion.

On earlier threads I had begun to form an opinion about the viability for your run for public office. I will no longer need to ponder it, and I will be certain to tell my few remaining relatives that are unfortunate enough to reside in the Communewealth, my considered opinion. I don't blame you per se, the sickness and filth that has a death-grip on the minds of otherwise good people living within that den of iniquity seems to be overpowering everyone. Perhaps I should ask the CDC to look into it.:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

 

[Tamara]

I have a book on my desk...

...called The Anarchist's Cookbook. It is freely available in bookstores or over the internet. It offers advice on murder of soldiers/guards/LE, demolitions/destruction of public property, manufacture of illicit drugs and explosives, and more. Perhaps we should ban it, too?

Definitely books on the conversion of semiauto weapons to full auto.

Probably military field manuals, too; especially those dealing with unconventional warfare.

For sure those How to {Be a Hitman/Become A Mercenary/Create A New Identity/Kill Someone With Your Bare Hands} books need to go.

Society needs to be protected from this advocacy of criminal behavior!


I've even heard about places on the WWW where folks discuss disobedience to future gun laws! Better shut them down, too.

 

[LawDog]

If the Anarchist's Cookbook gives

• Instructions on locating a victim, detailed instructions on how best to dominate that victim, step-by-step flowchart on abducting the victim, precise details on raping the victim, precise instructions on murdering the victim, and step-by-step instructions on disposing of the body,
• and somebody follows those instructions to the letter, resulting in a kidnapped, raped and dead victim

Then the author of The Anarchist's Cookbook should be sued by the grieving relatives,too.

Notice the relatives part. Not the Government, since the First Amendment prevents Governmental interference on the Right to Free Speech.

Just like the people suing NAMBLA for the death of their son aren't the Government, but rather grieving relatives.

LawDog

 

[Fred Hansen]

Perhaps we should ban it, too?

Who is talking about a ban?

I've even heard about places on the WWW where folks discuss disobedience to future gun laws! Better shut them down, too.

This, while cute, doesn't really address the issue either. I don't need to tell you as a moderator at TFL about the great job that the folks who run TFL (with the help of the membership) do with shutting down threads dealing with illegal activity.

NAMBLA is quite the opposite, give them an inch, and they will rape a mile. Hunting and killing the members of NAMBLA is, unfortunately, illegal. Attempting to sue them out of existence will have to suffice for now.

Other sites that are less vigilant in that regard should be willing to have the courage of their convictions if they are sued on conspiracy charges. Accountability was perhaps the most admirable trait of the founders of our country, they were willing to commit treason against what was at the time, the most powerful empire on the planet. Not only that, but they then signed on the bottom line and when captured, took their punishment as men. A concept alien to the membership of the AKLU and NAMBLA.

 

[reprobate]

NAMBLA members are true sickos. If I met one of those creeps in a bar, there is a very good chance that I would be arrested for commiting a violent felony.

However, there is a huge difference between advocating a sick act in a book, and actually doing it. The day that we blur that line is the day that this society can no longer even pretend to be a free one.

The ACLU can be very goofy, but on balance, they do far more good than harm.

 

[Fred Hansen]

The ACLU can be very goofy, but on balance, they do far more good than harm.

Care to substantiate that?

 

[Scix]

There's a little bit of difference when dealing with the NAMBA booklets VS. the Anarchist's cookbook et al...

With the right papers, you ARE allowed to build fully automatic weapons.

The military needs military field manuals.

It is conceivable that you might kill someone with your bare hands legally.

Repressed peoples (ie. German jews in 1940) could really use a book on "how to kill a soldier". (That one's stretching it, but you see my point. )


But no way, now how, is it EVER "right" to kidnap, rape, kill, and dispose of the body of a minor.

 

[Ed Brunner]

A MAJOR difference...

There is NO inalienable right to molest a child.
The Anarchist's Cookbook et al provide information.
NAMBLA is an advocacy group that provides instruction on how to commit a heinous crime.
ACLU will support one and not the other, but they have apparently chosen on grounds other than the constitution which is the LEGAL basis for civil liberty.

I'm sure there are adults who really do enjoy sex with a child, but this does not fall within the sense of their right to the pursuit of happiness for obvious reasons.

Is this really firearms related?

 

[Marko Kloos]

Moved to Legal & Political.

The ACLU has decided to defend the "rights" of NAMBA (North American Man BOY Association). This group of sicko's believes it is "good" for adults to have sex with very young children.

Regardless of your position on the legality of NAMBLA's free speech on this issue, it is a gross distortion of reality to say that they believe it's "good for adults to have sex with very young children". They also defended the free speech rights of the KKK, but that doesn't mean they believe in slavery.

 

[stevetuna]

OPEN INVITE TO NAMBLA MEMBERS -

Please come to the shooting range and hold targets for me... Any time.

The murder of Jeffrey Curley was one of the most heinous stories I've ever heard. Killing is much too good for those two P.O.S. who did that. I cannot see how the A.C.L.U. could ever defend this group. The A.C.L.U. needs to get A CLUe...:barf:

 

[Apple a Day]

You should be able to say whatever the heck you want... and then deal with the consequences.
If you give someone instructions on how to commit rape and murder, doesn't that make you an accessory? I'm a physics teacher, not a lawyer, so somebody help me out with this.
Give them enough rope and let them hang themselves. The ACLU may be doing prosecutors an inadvertent favor if the prosecutors have an ounce of sense.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Jmbg29, please tone down the personal insults. I know you know better, so we can leave it at that.

Look, folks, it seems to me we have to make a decision here. We can NOT have both sides. Either it is acceptable to ban literature that advocates illegal acts or it isn't. Now, if it isn't acceptable to ban literature on how to make a submachine gun in your garage (for instance, the one that shows how to make a basic 9mm full-auto "pipe gun") then it isn't acceptable to ban literature that advocates child abuse, as sick as that sounds. If it IS acceptable to ban the literature on child abuse, then it MUST be acceptable to ban the literature on how to break certain gun laws.

I am not suggesting that child abuse and owning or making a submachine gun are equivalent. But I don't get to make that decision for everyone else! Neither do you, no matter how satisfying and righteous it would feel to do it.

You and I feel very strongly that there is nothing wrong with owning firearms; indeed, we believe it's a healthy idea and a sign of a strong mind, able to face the world objectively. The NAMBLA troops believe the same thing about an adult man having "consensual" sex with a 10-year-old boy. If we want to ban their literature because they're not right, who gets to decide whether or not to ban our literature? Your OPINIONS about gun ownership will not save it in a nation where even the discussion of an activity that isn't sanctioned by the majority can be prohibited by that majority.

Do you doubt for a second that there are people out there who are just as physically ill at the thought of you or anyone else owning a gun as you and I are at the thought of NAMBLA? Why do you get to ban the things you hate and revile, if they don't?

NO, again, I am not saying the two activities are equivalent. I'm saying the law must treat them as if they were. You and I don't have to do that. Grieving parents don't have to do that. But the law cannot be trusted to start picking and choosing between good and bad speech.

The time to steel yourself to this is now. The only real way to protect the rights of the minority is for people in the majority to speak out. By the time the precedent takes its effect and we've gotten to where speaking about your religion or your guns or your idea to let a third party take place in the elections is about to be banned and lost to you, it will be TOO LATE. You will already be a part of a small minority.

 

[Aion]

Free speech means just that. Anyone who wants to live in a society that doesn't believe in free speech is free to move to Iran.

- Aion

"Sir, I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." - Patrick Henry

 

[LawDog]

NAMBLA has the right to call for the legalization of sex between men and 8 year-old children.

Fine.

NAMBLA has the right to explain their postion in a public forum.

Fine.

NAMBLA has the right to portray sex between men and children and put whatever spin they like on it.

Fine.

NAMBLA most assuredly does not have the right to train predatory paedophiles in better and more efficient methods of stalking, raping and killing children.

Patrick Henry said: "Sir, I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Patrick Henry did not say: "Sir, I may not agree with what you are doing, but I will defend to the death your right to do it."

In the spirit of Patrick Henery, if NAMBLA wants to talk about their paedophilia, fine. If they want to do their paedophilia, and train others how better methods of paedophilia, then they should pay the price.

LawDog