NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/090100aclu-nambla.html

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts has decided to defend a group that advocates legalization of sex between men and boys in a $200 million federal lawsuit brought by the family of a murdered boy.

"It's not a real popular case," John Roberts, the executive director of the Massachusetts A.C.L.U., said yesterday.

"But the First Amendment issues are clear."

Last May, the parents of the boy, 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley, sued the North American Man/Boy Love Association in Federal District Court, charging that the group's Web site and literature had incited the killing and attempted sexual assault of their son three years ago in East Cambridge, Mass.

The child, who was lured into a car by the promise of a new bicycle, was missing for several days before his body was found in a tub of concrete in a river. Two neighbors, Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes, were convicted of kidnapping and murder and are serving life sentences.

Lawrence Frisoli, the lawyer for the boy's parents, said Mr. Jaynes was a member of the group, known as Nambla, and just before the murder was emboldened by its Web site.

"This lawsuit isn't about money," Mr. Frisoli said yesterday. "Jeffrey's parents are doing this to ensure that it never happens to someone else's child."

Mr. Roberts and other A.C.L.U. officials said Nambla did not advocate the rape and murder of children. It advocates changing the law to make sex between men and boys legal, and political advocacy, Mr. Roberts said, is protected speech.

"Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor Nambla's views," the A.C.L.U. said in a statement yesterday, "holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their material would gravely endanger our important First Amendment freedoms."

The A.C.L.U. said, "We join with all others in deploring the heinous crimes committed against Jeffrey Curley," adding, "those who commit illegal acts can be punished for wrongful conduct.

"But the expression of even offensive ideas is protected by the Constitution," the A.C.L.U. said.

Mr. Frisoli said Nambla's activities passed "far beyond free speech."

"We allege an ongoing criminal conspiracy for the rape of children in America," he said. "They've been hiding behind the First Amendment for a long time."

Last week in a Massachusetts state court, in a suit against the two men who were convicted of killing their son, the boy's parents were awarded $328 million, one of the largest wrongful death verdicts in Massachusetts history, Mr. Frisoli said. Now, the family hopes a federal jury will do the same.

"I respect the A.C.L.U., and on most occasions I agree with the positions they take," he said. "But we're not talking about gay rights. We're not talking about consensual sex between adults. We talking about the rape of children."

The A.C.L.U. office in Boston was deluged with phone calls yesterday, mostly from the news media.

"The threats haven't started yet," said Harvey Silverglate, a board member. "That usually comes a day later. But the phones haven't stopped ringing. I find it extraordinary that people find what we're doing extraordinary. You'd think by now that people would know that we take the Supreme Court seriously when it says that the First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech.

I've had to fight nausea to post this. This is not about gays...this is about grown men (pedophiles) demanding legalization of sex between men and boys wit no age limit. This is not an issue of free speech. This is a group of perverts cloaking themselves with the first amendment in order to legalize horrific abuse to children. And the ACLU is supporting them. :confused: Yet, the ACLU has determined that the Boy Scouts are a detrimental organization. Your opinions, please, because I can make absolutely no rational sense of this.

I'm still stuck on why the ACLU thinks "the people" means different things within the Constitution, depending on which parts of the Constitution the ACLU would like to keep in force.

Like any other organization, they have a political agenda, no matter what they say.

I would bet that some of their members are members of NAMBLA.

My opinion: It's very fucked up. It is the quintessence of fubar.

Like any other organization, they have a political agenda, no matter what they say.



Thank you, you are my new hero.

NAMBLA is real? they were in a south park episode... i thought they were made up :confused:

Its times like this that methinks southern justice is not so bad an idea. *Grabs shotgun and colt revolver*

NAMBLA is real? they were in a south park episode... i thought they were made up :confused:

Very real.

I'm just at a total loss to understand how there can be any constitutional protection for the advocation of rape of children. Shouldn't this give children the right to sue the ACLU for violation of their constitutional rights?

NAMBLA is real? they were in a south park episode... i thought they were made up :confused:

They are grossly real. They also have a website. Look it up if you have the stomach for it.

Traditionally, the ACLU has been the defender of, primarily, the First Amendment to its logical extreme, regardless of social cost.

Of course, they also will refuse to defend, and in writing negate, other Amendments and rights as they find politically expedient.

The ACLU is an uber-leftist organization that hides its politics under the pretext of protecting Constitutional rights. They have been getting way too out of hand.

Having constitutional rights doesn't equate to having no constitutional restrictions. This isn't a good call by the ACLU.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/090100aclu-nambla.html



I've had to fight nausea to post this. This is not about gays...this is about grown men (pedophiles) demanding legalization of sex between men and boys wit no age limit. This is not an issue of free speech. This is a group of perverts cloaking themselves with the first amendment in order to legalize horrific abuse to children. And the ACLU is supporting them. :confused: Yet, the ACLU has determined that the Boy Scouts are a detrimental organization. Your opinions, please, because I can make absolutely no rational sense of this.

1) They have a valid case, this is just another bullshit scapegoat case. This case is not about legalizing anything, its about defending them from some parents who cant come to grips with the fact they are bad parents. How many here support suing the game industry for Columbine by that crackwhore mother? (I saw her on TV and the first words that came to my mind were crackwhore)

2) You do know that for YEARS, at least 200 years ago, "affections" between a master and apprentice was fairly common (man and boy)

1) They have a valid case, this is just another bullshit scapegoat case. This case is not about legalizing anything, its about defending them from some parents who cant come to grips with the fact they are bad parents.

2) You do know that for YEARS, at least 200 years ago, "affections" between a master and apprentice was fairly common (man and boy)

Sort of like Jedis...

Yes, the guys at NAMBLA are perverts. No, it should not be against the law to talk about being a pervert. It's gross, but if to potential pedophiles want to talk about things they'd like to do, it falls under free speech. As long as they don't actually do them no one is harmed. Talking about bad things is not the same as doing them. It is legitamitely a free speech case. It's unpopular speech, but just speech.

Yes, the guys at NAMBLA are perverts. No, it should not be against the law to talk about being a pervert. It's gross, but if to potential pedophiles want to talk about things they'd like to do, it falls under free speech. As long as they don't actually do them no one is harmed. Talking about bad things is not the same as doing them. It is legitamitely a free speech case. It's unpopular speech, but just speech.

Oh, that's like terrorists talking about plans to commit a terrorist act. Oh, as long as they don't do it...

You know, there's a word for that. It's called "conspiracy". You can go to jail for conspiring to commit a felony. Even if you never, ever commit the felony itself.

1) They have a valid case, this is just another bullshit scapegoat case. This case is not about legalizing anything, its about defending them from some parents who cant come to grips with the fact they are bad parents. How many here support suing the game industry for Columbine by that crackwhore mother? (I saw her on TV and the first words that came to my mind were crackwhore)

I Hate Cows wins this thread.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/090100aclu-nambla.html



I've had to fight nausea to post this. This is not about gays...this is about grown men (pedophiles) demanding legalization of sex between men and boys wit no age limit. This is not an issue of free speech. This is a group of perverts cloaking themselves with the first amendment in order to legalize horrific abuse to children. And the ACLU is supporting them. :confused: Yet, the ACLU has determined that the Boy Scouts are a detrimental organization. Your opinions, please, because I can make absolutely no rational sense of this.
The ACLU have also defended KKK memebers and Rush Limbaugh, they are willing to help anyone with a free speach case. They don't support NAMBLA's message, only their right to express it. They also support the Boy Scouts right to discriminate. The case against them involved the special access they were granted in schools. Government support of an organization that discriminates based on religion is a no no.

I still don't understand all the ACLU hate. If you were arrested unjustly outside of their headquarters protesting the ACLU, I have no doubt they would still gladly offer you legal assistance.
"But the expression of even offensive ideas is protected by the Constitution," the A.C.L.U. said.
That says it all right there. You and I might not like what these people have to say, hell 99.9% of the country probably doesn't like what they have to say, but they still have a right to say it. The ACLU just defends this right in even the most unpopular cases.

Oh, that's like terrorists talking about plans to commit a terrorist act. Oh, as long as they don't do it...

You know, there's a word for that. It's called "conspiracy". You can go to jail for conspiring to commit a felony. Even if you never, ever commit the felony itself.
You have to prove NAMBLA instends to commit a felony.

The ACLU have also defended KKK memebers and Rush Limbaugh, they are willing to help anyone with a free speach case. They don't support NAMBLA's message, only their right to express it. They also support the Boy Scouts right to discriminate. The case against them involved the special access they were granted in schools. Government support of an organization that discriminates based on religion is a no no.

I still don't understand all the ACLU hate. If you were arrested unjustly outside of their headquarters protesting the ACLU, I have no doubt they would still gladly offer you legal assistance.

That says it all right there. You and I might not like what these people have to say, hell 99.9% of the country probably doesn't like what they have to say, but they still have a right to say it. The ACLU just defends this right in even the most unpopular cases.

Bullshit. They NEVER defend the 2nd Amendment.

Officially, to them, "the people" in the 2nd Amendment is not the same "the people" in the First Amendment, despite what the Founding Fathers wrote about the right to keep and bear arms. They also ignore the original definition of "militia".

They definitely have a political axe to grind.

Oh, that's like terrorists talking about plans to commit a terrorist act. Oh, as long as they don't do it...

You know, there's a word for that. It's called "conspiracy". You can go to jail for conspiring to commit a felony. Even if you never, ever commit the felony itself.
No thats not conspiracy. That would imply they are talking about commiting a specific illegal activity
e.g. saying "we are going to rape this boy", not "We should be allowed to rape boys"

I agree with ACLU here. Free speech is free speech even if you dont like what theyre saying. Sometimes i forget that but its something youve got to stick by and not be selective about.

Traditionally, the ACLU has been the defender of, primarily, the First Amendment to its logical extreme, regardless of social cost.

Of course, they also will refuse to defend, and in writing negate, other Amendments and rights as they find politically expedient.


Realize though that the literature NAMBLA published was something titled along the lines of, "The Rape and Escape Manual" which a pedophile used to lure a small boy into his clutches, and then abducted, raped, and killed him.

A "How-to" commit a crime manual is not protected speech, see the case of "Hitman: A Technical Guide For Independent Contractors" with Paladin Press being successfully sued after that man hired a killer to kill his ex-wife and disabled son (And the nurse was killed in the attack).

Supporting the repeal of certain laws must remain protected speech. This is the very foundation of democracy. Our right to voice our opinions against laws we dont agree with is fundamental for the democratic system to work. The right to dissenting opinions is precisely what separates a democracy from a dictatorship. Whether your opinion is that anti-marijuana laws should be repealed, or that pro abortion laws should be repealed, or that age of consent laws should be repealed (which is what NAMBLA advocates), you should have the right to voice those opinions without fear of prosecution, harassment, or law suits. The ACLU is doing the right thing in protecting this fundamental freedom.

Oh, that's like terrorists talking about plans to commit a terrorist act. Oh, as long as they don't do it...

You know, there's a word for that. It's called "conspiracy". You can go to jail for conspiring to commit a felony. Even if you never, ever commit the felony itself.

If they don't have a particuliar victim in mind, but talk about "Gee, wouldn't this be cool" it's not a conspiracy. If a group of mystery afficianados get together and start talking about the perfect murder, it's not conspiracy to commit murder. Saying "this is my fantasy" is not against the law, as long as there is no evidence the crime is going to happen. You can't ban speech because it grosses you out.

No thats not conspiracy. That would imply they are talking about commiting a specific illegal activity
e.g. saying "we are going to rape this boy", not "We should be allowed to rape boys"

I would bet that this is about them posting fantasy stories on their website - stories that come perilously close to things that they actually did. If you write a story like that, and you discuss it with others carelessly, I don't see giving you any protection against a conspiracy charge.

You don't have to mention a specific person as the intended victim to support conspiracy.

The ACLU is providing anonymity to individuals wanted by the police for various crimes against children. How does one defend this?

Bullshit. They NEVER defend the 2nd Amendment.

Officially, to them, "the people" in the 2nd Amendment is not the same "the people" in the First Amendment, despite what the Founding Fathers wrote about the right to keep and bear arms. They also ignore the original definition of "militia".

They definitely have a political axe to grind.
Official Position (http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25)

The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

Seems pretty damn reasonable. Congress should make reasonable restrictions on the ownership of firearms. Seems like thats current policy.

Bullshit. They NEVER defend the 2nd Amendment.

Officially, to them, "the people" in the 2nd Amendment is not the same "the people" in the First Amendment, despite what the Founding Fathers wrote about the right to keep and bear arms. They also ignore the original definition of "militia".

They definitely have a political axe to grind.
So? It's always been clear that the ACLU is composed almost exclusively of far left secularized Jews. I don't know how you are going to corroborate your claim that ACLU has a lot of NAMBLA members, but the ACLU is pretty rabid about "free speech," even though they are a bunch of Jews they always defending Nazis' right to go on parades and such. Their insistence on defending NAMBLA doesn't mean they are pedophile rapists.

Official Position (http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25)

Seems pretty damn reasonable. Congress should make reasonable restrictions on the ownership of firearms. Seems like thats current policy.

They have NEVER defended any case with that policy. That sounds like ass-covering to me.

I would bet that this is about them posting fantasy stories on their website - stories that come perilously close to things that they actually did. If you write a story like that, and you discuss it with others carelessly, I don't see giving you any protection against a conspiracy charge.

You don't have to mention a specific person as the intended victim to support conspiracy.

If it's a fantasy story, they should be able to post it. I don't have to read it. As long as no actual children are involved, let them get as sick as they want to. There are other things on the web that offend me almost as much. Neo-nazi stuff. Klan stuff. Hunting. Religious fundamentalism.

If somebody else can't air their unpopular opinions, are we all mainstream enough that none of ours will ever be banned?

If it's a fantasy story, they should be able to post it. I don't have to read it. As long as no actual children are involved, let them get as sick as they want to. There are other things on the web that offend me almost as much. Neo-nazi stuff. Klan stuff. Hunting. Religious fundamentalism.

If somebody else can't air their unpopular opinions, are we all mainstream enough that none of ours will ever be banned?

The problem is apparently that some of them have acted on their fantasy story. And children were involved.

That makes it conspiracy.

Why would you want a society that protects the rights of criminals over that of their victims? Especially in this case.

Of course it should be illegal to express opinions or material supporting the violation of an individual's rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

Free speech is not in the public good in this case, as allowing this group to exist and express its opinions unwittingly gift their opinion legitimacy.

NAMBLA :gundge:

Last I heard rape and murder dont generaly fall under 'freedom of speech'.
Anyway people, I think that you dont seem to realize the definition of 'boys', IE: Small children under, say ten.
As I am aware, most pedophiles go for this age group because they havent hit puberty yet and thus are more 'attractive'.
The ACLU really needs to get a better PR officer, even IF this is a valid case, they shouldnt have supported it simply because its going to cause more damage to their reputation than its going to boost their news-time.
PLUS its going to lure even more extreme organizations to get the ACLU to protect them.
And, as another poster said, certain types of speech arent protected by the first amendment. You cant run into a theatre and shout "FIRE!". you cant slander, or commit libel. You cant make death threats to public figures. You cant talk about raping small children then dumping them in a river.
The ACLU needs to get its head out of its own ass, but not around the NAMBLA members I hope, and take a look at what people think of them.
Although it is clear from this thread that they apparently have some die-hard supporters...although a poll of NationStates is a tensy bit biased.

NAMBLA is real? they were in a south park episode... i thought they were made up :confused:
Most issues in south park are real.

The ACLU is providing anonymity to individuals wanted by the police for various crimes against children.
No they're not. NAMBLA are pervs but the police are not after them, and NAMBLA has not commited a crime.

I would bet that this is about them posting fantasy stories on their website - stories that come perilously close to things that they actually did. If you write a story like that, and you discuss it with others carelessly, I don't see giving you any protection against a conspiracy charge.

You don't have to mention a specific person as the intended victim to support conspiracy.
I'm glad you don't see giving any protection, but you don't count. Current laws do give protection against a conspiracy charge stemming from a fictional story. Conspriacy implies planning a specific crime, and an intent to commit this crime. Fictional stories don't fall under this.

The problem is apparently that some of them have acted on their fantasy story. And children were involved.

That makes it conspiracy.

But not in all cases. Some militia members have committed crimes spoken of by the members. That doesn't mean everyone who talks about how neat it would be if the US government was overthrown is in a conspiracy.

The fact that some of them do commit crimes does not make them all conspirators.

I'm glad you don't see giving any protection, but you don't count. Current laws do give protection against a conspiracy charge stemming from a fictional story. Conspriacy implies planning a specific crime, and an intent to commit this crime. Fictional stories don't fall under this.

The problem arises when you post a fictional story, and then something remarkably similar takes place.

Even if you left the names out of the story, and called it "fantasy", if you actually committed the crime, they would nail everyone who participated in the writing of the story after they convict you of the actual act.

The problem is apparently that some of them have acted on their fantasy story. And children were involved.

That makes it conspiracy.
Just don't get it do you? If I had a fictional story on my website about being a serial killer and making a suit out of women, then someone actually went ahead and did this you're telling me I somehow bear responsibility for this? Fraid not bucko. The worst I would have to worry about would be copyright infringment.

The problem arises when you post a fictional story, and then something remarkably similar takes place.

Even if you left the names out of the story, and called it "fantasy", if you actually committed the crime, they would nail everyone who participated in the writing of the story after they convict you of the actual act.
Is there a precedential case whose outcome would support this?

I would bet that this is about them posting fantasy stories on their website - stories that come perilously close to things that they actually did. If you write a story like that, and you discuss it with others carelessly, I don't see giving you any protection against a conspiracy charge.

You don't have to mention a specific person as the intended victim to support conspiracy.
You can't declare works of fiction conspiracy otherwise Tom Clancy would be on Deathrow

But you can talk about raping a little boy and then throwing him in a river. there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to, i'm doing it now. Whenenver you say...

"My gosh, wouldn't it be just the darndest thing if someone were to kidnap rape cut up and duly dispose of that small boy over there, i think that would be a vary bad thing indeed, and dont support the action in any way."

Thatd be against the law for you beacuse you musnt talk about it.

What would be wrong is saying...

"Last night i went to [so and so's] house, knicked his son raped him cut him up and dumped his body in [your local rivers name here] river."

Not because its wrong to say that, but because thats proof that you commited a crime, and in fact its not wrong to say that, just a bit stupid considering that that's convicting yourself.

Free speach, you can say whatever you like so longs as its not a lie dressed up as fact.

Why would you want a society that protects the rights of criminals over that of their victims? Especially in this case.

Of course it should be illegal to express opinions or material supporting the violation of an individual's rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

Free speech is not in the public good in this case, as allowing this group to exist and express its opinions unwittingly gift their opinion legitimacy.

NAMBLA :gundge:
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill, like most other people on your side of the line. You are working on my favorite logical fallacy, that is claiming that because of the yare allweod to exist, it magically gives them legitimacy. No, inviting NAMBLA to a boy scout meeting is giving them legitimacy, defending them from scapegoat suits is not

What are the NAMBLA asking for?

They just want the right to have sex with a consenting young boy arnt they?

As much as NAMBLA disgusts me, and as much as I don't usually respect the ACLU, I do have to take their side in this one case. Free speech is free speech. If one of the "hot-to" pamphlets VoteEarly mentioned actually exists, then there'd be a case. Until then, NAMBLA is protected by the First Amendment.

And now, after taking the side of both NAMBLA and the ACLU, I feel the need to go take a shower.

Am I the only one who actually knows about this case? It seems like everyone here is just making things up as they go along. Let me give you the facts. These are the undisputed facts of the case.

1. Jeffrey Curley was murdered
2. Two people were convicted of his murder
3. One of those convicted of his murder had some NAMBLA bulletins in his car and had visited the NAMBLA web site
4. The family of Jeffrey Curley has filed a law suit against NAMBLA, alleging they are partly responsible for their sons death

We know this, and we say that the NAMBLA is not responsible it has the right to free speech.

As much as NAMBLA disgusts me, and as much as I don't usually respect the ACLU, I do have to take their side in this one case. Free speech is free speech. If one of the "hot-to" pamphlets VoteEarly mentioned actually exists, then there'd be a case. Until then, NAMBLA is protected by the First Amendment.

And now, after taking the side of both NAMBLA and the ACLU, I feel the need to go take a shower.
The pamphlet would have to exist AND they would have to prove the people who carried out the act actually read it. Thoguh they are OBVIOUSLY in this for the money. They actually sued the people who did it for hundreds of millions of dollars and are now suing NAMBLA? This is all about money and shirking off the responsibilities of being a good parent

Just don't get it do you? If I had a fictional story on my website about being a serial killer and making a suit out of women, then someone actually went ahead and did this you're telling me I somehow bear responsibility for this? Fraid not bucko. The worst I would have to worry about would be copyright infringment.

If you did it, however, you would be in trouble.

You can't declare works of fiction conspiracy otherwise Tom Clancy would be on Deathrow

If the author is involved in the actual commission of the crime, it's conspiracy, not fiction.

If the author is involved in the actual commission of the crime, it's conspiracy, not fiction.
I would hopefully presume you have something legal to back that up with?

But last I checked, fiction is fiction is fiction. You can't go around declaring fiction conspiracy and holding the author responsible because something like that happened.

Am I the only one who actually knows about this case? It seems like everyone here is just making things up as they go along. Let me give you the facts.
Which things have been made up so far?
These are the undisputed facts of the case.

1. Jeffrey Curley was murdered
2. Two people were convicted of his murder
3. One of those convicted of his murder had some NAMBLA bulletins in his car and had visited the NAMBLA web site
4. The family of Jeffrey Curley has filed a law suit against NAMBLA, alleging they are partly responsible for their sons death
The original link on the first post already gave this information.

Realize though that the literature NAMBLA published was something titled along the lines of, "The Rape and Escape Manual" which a pedophile used to lure a small boy into his clutches, and then abducted, raped, and killed him.

A "How-to" commit a crime manual is not protected speech, see the case of "Hitman: A Technical Guide For Independent Contractors" with Paladin Press being successfully sued after that man hired a killer to kill his ex-wife and disabled son (And the nurse was killed in the attack).

This is a common beleif based on an undisputed lie. The lawyer of the family suing NAMBLA said that certain literature (which was later proven had nothing to do with NAMBLA) may as well be called "the rape and escape guide". Not even he claimed that NAMBLA wrote anything entitled "the rape and escape manual", he claimed that in his opinion this manual (which was later discovered had no connection to NAMBLA) could be called "the rape and escape manual" (but wasnt). Keep in mind that NAMBLA is not only against rape but they are vehemently opposed to all violence against children, to the point of lobbying for the criminalization of corporal punishment. To blame them for someone doing something that the organization vehemently opposes is like blaming the christian coalition for abortion clinic bombings (which they vehemently oppose).

Which things have been made up so far?

The original link on the first post already gave this information.

The idea that there are some sexual fantasy stories involved in this case is totally made up. The " rape and escape manual" is also.

If the author is involved in the actual commission of the crime, it's conspiracy, not fiction.
Can you find a previous test case in which someone put away by a conspiracy law because they wrote some fiction that supposedly commisioned a crime? Here in the US we have common law so precedents are very important, and if you can't find one, then your point is basically moot.

Oh, that's like terrorists talking about plans to commit a terrorist act. Oh, as long as they don't do it...

You know, there's a word for that. It's called "conspiracy". You can go to jail for conspiring to commit a felony. Even if you never, ever commit the felony itself.

As long as all they talk about is legalizing it they aren't commiting conspiracy.

Can you find a previous test case in which someone put away by a conspiracy law because they wrote some fiction that supposedly commisioned a crime? Here in the US we have common law so precedents are very important, and if you can't find one, then your point is basically moot.

Paladin Press, the publisher of "Hitman", found that they weren't protected just because they published a book that was later used by someone they didn't know about (who killed someone).

They weren't protected.

The idea that there are some sexual fantasy stories involved in this case is totally made up. The " rape and escape manual" is also.
Ah.

Paladin Press, the publisher of "Hitman", found that they weren't protected just because they published a book that was later used by someone they didn't know about (who killed someone).

They weren't protected.
No court ruled that Hitman wasn't protected. The publishers of Hitman voluntarily decided to pay an out-of-court settlement to the victims before a ruling was reached. That case did not in any way clarify conspiracy law.

The idea that there are some sexual fantasy stories involved in this case is totally made up. The " rape and escape manual" is also.

I don't know about any sexual fantasy stories, but I'd think they deserve to be covered under the first amendment also. A warped mind does not a crime make. Bad thought police!

This is a common beleif based on an undisputed lie. The lawyer of the family suing NAMBLA said that certain literature (which was later proven had nothing to do with NAMBLA) may as well be called "the rape and escape guide". Not even he claimed that NAMBLA wrote anything entitled "the rape and escape manual", he claimed that in his opinion this manual (which was later discovered had no connection to NAMBLA) could be called "the rape and escape manual" (but wasnt). Keep in mind that NAMBLA is not only against rape but they are vehemently opposed to all violence against children, to the point of lobbying for the criminalization of corporal punishment. To blame them for someone doing something that the organization vehemently opposes is like blaming the christian coalition for abortion clinic bombings (which they vehemently oppose).
Well thats cleared up something for me and i have to say something :P...

In a way im gonna have to support the NAMBLA...

If what they are doing is the following...

"Campaigning for the legalization of consensual sex between men and "underage" boys."

Thus, kidnap rape murder etc, not on their agenda, all they get out of wining then is the ability to have sex with a boy IF they can prove he is capable of giving proper consent. Which in my opinion and in the opinion of the psychologist youd have to bring in to prove it, is a very rare boy indeed.

From their website:
"For various reasons -- including 1) the settlement of the Hit Man lawsuit against Paladin and the legal precedent it has set, and 2) the passing of Senate Bill S606 that criminalizes the distribution of information on explosives under certain circumstances -- Paladin has been forced to carefully evaluate some of the books and videos we sell. In light of the current political and legal climate in this country, we have concluded that it is no longer feasible to publish or sell certain titles on explosives, demolitions, improvised weaponry, and self-defense."

Apparently, you can criminalize the distribution of certain information - S606 in particular does this explicitly.

So you can get into real trouble just printing something. I know for a fact that you can't discuss details of explosives on US-based websites (especially if you're a licensed explosives expert) without going to jail.

It would be rather simple to criminalize discussion of pedophile acts.

I don't see any court decisions stopping or overturning S606, do you?

What exactly is the first amendment issue here anyway? You can be sued in civil court for some of the things you say, presumably in this case the parents believe that NAMBLA engaged in some kind of actionable speech, I don't really see what this has to do with the first amendment at all, it's not like the government is coming after those sick fucks.

I think this is more typical ACLU leftier than thou bullshit, and people who buy into should be ashamed.

:p I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and I'm leftier than you. Mwahahahaha!

From their website:
"For various reasons -- including 1) the settlement of the Hit Man lawsuit against Paladin and the legal precedent it has set, and 2) the passing of Senate Bill S606 that criminalizes the distribution of information on explosives under certain circumstances -- Paladin has been forced to carefully evaluate some of the books and videos we sell. In light of the current political and legal climate in this country, we have concluded that it is no longer feasible to publish or sell certain titles on explosives, demolitions, improvised weaponry, and self-defense."

Apparently, you can criminalize the distribution of certain information - S606 in particular does this explicitly.

So you can get into real trouble just printing something. I know for a fact that you can't discuss details of explosives on US-based websites (especially if you're a licensed explosives expert) without going to jail.

It would be rather simple to criminalize discussion of pedophile acts.

I don't see any court decisions stopping or overturning S606, do you?If someone violates S606 he (or she) would not be violating any conspiracy law. He would have to fulfill some very specific charges before getting put away by S606, none of which has to do with conspiracy. NAMBLA has not committed any crime that can be charged by S606, which pertains to explosives and guns, not sexual perversions. Once a law criminalizes discussion of pedophilia then come back to me, but right now writing about pedophilia is NOT a crime and you are totally mistaken to suggest that as of today there are any laws or precedents on the books which can lock NAMBLA up. And anyways, ex post facto laws are illegal here in the US so any future law on pedophilia discussion cannot prosecute this particular incident which has already happened.

The bottom line is, you can basically write whatever fucked up sexual fiction you want, and there are no precedents or laws to charge you with a crime if someone acts on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/090100aclu-nambla.html

I've had to fight nausea to post this. This is not about gays...this is about grown men (pedophiles) demanding legalization of sex between men and boys wit no age limit. This is not an issue of free speech. This is a group of perverts cloaking themselves with the first amendment in order to legalize horrific abuse to children. And the ACLU is supporting them. :confused: Yet, the ACLU has determined that the Boy Scouts are a detrimental organization. Your opinions, please, because I can make absolutely no rational sense of this.
I have to admit that I have supported the ACLU in principle in the past, largely because I think they are a necessary evil to counterbalance those organizations and people who would assault civil and individual freedoms in the US. However, this goes far, far beyond the pale.

It's in the nature of the ACLU to defend fringe organizations and unpopular causes, but this is just too much! My sons and I are in agreement that anyone trying to molest or harm any of the little ones in our family will be terminated with extreme prejudice, if we can manage to do so, and to do anything to encourage the pedophiles and molestors of children is, IMHO, totally dispicable and without justification.

I can no longer justify in my own mind any support of the ACLU whatsoever.

From their website:
"For various reasons -- including 1) the settlement of the Hit Man lawsuit against Paladin and the legal precedent it has set, and 2) the passing of Senate Bill S606 that criminalizes the distribution of information on explosives under certain circumstances -- Paladin has been forced to carefully evaluate some of the books and videos we sell. In light of the current political and legal climate in this country, we have concluded that it is no longer feasible to publish or sell certain titles on explosives, demolitions, improvised weaponry, and self-defense."

Apparently, you can criminalize the distribution of certain information - S606 in particular does this explicitly.

So you can get into real trouble just printing something. I know for a fact that you can't discuss details of explosives on US-based websites (especially if you're a licensed explosives expert) without going to jail.

It would be rather simple to criminalize discussion of pedophile acts.

I don't see any court decisions stopping or overturning S606, do you?
And what is the TEXT of that bill?

:p I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and I'm leftier than you. Mwahahahaha!

You do know they don't care about you don't you? All they do is take your money. Send it to a real legal defense fund instead, one that actually helps people who cannot afford lawyers, i.e. battered women.

I have to admit that I have supported the ACLU in principle in the past, largely because I think they are a necessary evil to counterbalance those organizations and people who would assault civil and individual freedoms in the US. However, this goes far, far beyond the pale.

It's in the nature of the ACLU to defend fringe organizations and unpopular causes, but this is just too much! My sons and I are in agreement that anyone trying to molest or harm any of the little ones in our family will be terminated if we can manage to do so, and to do anything to encourage the pedophiles and molestors of children is, IMHO, totally dispicable and without justification.

I can no longer justify in my own mind any support of the ACLU whatsoever.
I am disgusted by your pretending you ever supported the ACLU and are trying to use your influence to villify them in other people's eyes

I don't know about any sexual fantasy stories, but I'd think they deserve to be covered under the first amendment also. A warped mind does not a crime make. Bad thought police!
What the mind can concieve, behavior can make reality.

"The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty." -- Former Lord Chief Justice Halisham

That being said, the very thought of what NAMBLA stands for and wants is more than disgusting to me. But as far as this case goes, NAMBLA is not liable in any way that I can see from a legal perspective.

This has nothing to do with NAMBLA as an organisation and under the First Amendment they should be protected. The defence by the ACLU is in no way sanctioning them as a political group. They are defending NAMBLA from what they see as an illegitimate link between that organisation and the activities of the two men.

Legislating on the suitability of NAMBLA is a whole different matter entirely.

I am disgusted by your pretending you ever supported the ACLU and are trying to use your influence to villify them in other people's eyes
What you think or say are matters of total indifference to me.

That being said, the very thought of what NAMBLA stands for and wants is more than disgusting to me. But as far as this case goes, NAMBLA is not liable in any way that I can see from a legal perspective.
NAMBLA should be outlawed, their assets confiscated, and their members incarcerated as pedophiles and child molesters.

I have to admit that I have supported the ACLU in principle in the past, largely because I think they are a necessary evil to counterbalance those organizations and people who would assault civil and individual freedoms in the US. However, this goes far, far beyond the pale.

It's in the nature of the ACLU to defend fringe organizations and unpopular causes, but this is just too much! My sons and I are in agreement that anyone trying to molest or harm any of the little ones in our family will be terminated if we can manage to do so, and to do anything to encourage the pedophiles and molestors of children is, IMHO, totally dispicable and without justification.

I can no longer justify in my own mind any support of the ACLU whatsoever.

Really Eutrusca, get a grip. No one in the ACLU is suggesting molesting children. They are saying the idiots from Nambla have the right to discuss it's legalization. Is letting someone talk about eugenics the same as genocide? I'd to really nasty things to anyone who molested my nephews. But I'd just move to the other side of the street if I knew somebody was a NAMBLA member. And make sure I kept kids away from him. Being suspicious is not the same thing as forbidding someone to express an unpopular opinion.

That being said, the very thought of what NAMBLA stands for and wants is more than disgusting to me. But as far as this case goes, NAMBLA is not liable in any way that I can see from a legal perspective.

I can see how it is. For example if I sent pamphlets to the day release pyschotics and mentally ill homeless in NYC suggesting that the devil had spoken to me and told me to tell them to stab random people on the subway, I can well see how the victims might want to put me in Civil court for damages.

This is not dissimilar.

NAMBLA should be outlawed, their assets confiscated, and their members incarcerated as pedophiles and child molesters.
And there goes freedom of speech, assembly and association.

NAMBLA should be outlawed, their assets confiscated, and their members incarcerated as pedophiles and child molesters.
Im not sure thats what theyre campaigning for, as far as i can tell they not anything of the sort, officially.

If theyre aking for what i think they are then i wholly support them. If not, well the i dont. There s fine line here.

NAMBLA should be outlawed, their assets confiscated, and their members incarcerated as pedophiles and child molesters.

Personally I don't disagree with you, I also think the KKK should be too. However from a legal perspective, we have no leg to stand on.

You do know they don't care about you don't you? All they do is take your money. Send it to a real legal defense fund instead, one that actually helps people who cannot afford lawyers, i.e. battered women.

They do work I think is important. I don't want to be muzzled if someone doesn't like my opinion. Therefore I must grant others the same priviledge.

I can see how it is. For example if I sent pamphlets to the day release pyschotics and mentally ill homeless in NYC suggesting that the devil had spoken to me and told me to tell them to stab random people on the subway, I can well see how the victims might want to put me in Civil court for damages.

This is not dissimilar.
No, for that to be a true comparison you would have to prove NAMBLA's intentions are violent in nature, ie rape, molestation, etc

OK, OK, stop and someone for gods sake lay out to be what EXACTLY the NAMBLA is asking for, EXACTLY.

NAMBLA should be outlawed, their assets confiscated, and their members incarcerated as pedophiles and child molesters.

Incarcerated after trial, of course. One they would win if not engaging in such acts.

The rest is nonsense.

One of the things about the US is that freedom of expression is just about absolute. You express any unpopular idea, and your speech is protected. This is good. If NAMBLA wants to talk about legalizing their perversion, they have the right to. This right protected people who advocated such other unpopular ideas as the right to have interracial marriages, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right for women to vote. If you're going to have freedom of speech you have to accept the fact that somebody's going to say something you don't like.

I can see how it is. For example if I sent pamphlets to the day release pyschotics and mentally ill homeless in NYC suggesting that the devil had spoken to me and told me to tell them to stab random people on the subway, I can well see how the victims might want to put me in Civil court for damages.

This is not dissimilar.
As LazyHippies has pointed out, NAMBLA literature did not advocate violence or going out and raping boys right this instant, they are seeking to legalize man boy sex (as sick and unlikely such a legalization will be)

What the mind can concieve, behavior can make reality.

Then you approve of thought police? I've concieved a lot of things I'd never do. I have loads of wicked evil thoughts. But I know which ones are permissible to carry out. Even things that are legal, just not nice. I don't do things that are wrong because they might hurt someone. But I still think about them. If I was held criminally responsible for my thoughts, I'd be in big trouble. :eek:

No, for that to be a true comparison you would have to prove NAMBLA's intentions are violent in nature, ie rape, molestation, etc

Oh bullshit, it's a civil case. All you have to show is that they know, or should have known, that the group they were targeting was likely to respond in this manner. Fire in a crowded theater and all that.

I'm not saying it's an easy case to get judgment on - probably impossible - but to say it is without legal merit before factual inquiry is ridiculous. There plainly is a valid legal theory of culpability.

OK, OK, stop and someone for gods sake lay out to be what EXACTLY the NAMBLA is asking for, EXACTLY.

NAMBLA's goal is to "empower youth". They mainly support a repeal of the age of consent laws. But they also take a stance on other youth rights issues, such as banning corporal punishment and supporting the right of young people to choose which parent they want to live with. Their main goal, however, remains to repeal age of consent laws.

NAMBLA's goal is to "empower youth". They mainly support a repeal of the age of consent laws. But they also take a stance on other youth rights issues, such as banning corporal punishment and supporting the right of young people to choose which parent they want to live with. Their main goal, however, remains to repeal age of consent laws.
Well id support the NAMBLA in that case, if they were willing to accept that anyone falling below the old age of consent would have to be certified specifically and individually as being able to give proper consent.

No thats not conspiracy. That would imply they are talking about commiting a specific illegal activity
e.g. saying "we are going to rape this boy", not "We should be allowed to rape boys"
Well, to be honest, if they had their way, it wouldn't be considered rape. They're not asking to be able to grab a random boy and have sex with him, they're asking that (as long as its consentual) they be allowed to have sex with boys.

As LazyHippies has pointed out, NAMBLA literature did not advocate violence or going out and raping boys right this instant, they are seeking to legalize man boy sex (as sick and unlikely such a legalization will be)

Well:

a) NAMBLA actually advocates a little bit more than that. They also glorify the man boy relationship and talk about how it *should* be practised.

b) It all depends upon how they viewed the effect of said literature upon the target group. If in fact their intention - as may be shown through discovery - was to promote the formation of man/boy relationships regardless of the legality, you pretty much have a slam dunk case.

NAMBLA should be outlawed, their assets confiscated, and their members incarcerated as pedophiles and child molesters.

Being a pedophile is not illegal. Acting on the desire is. Their members can only be incarcerated as child molesters if they actually commit the act. Wanting to do it is not a prosecutable offense. People don't get locked up for their thoughts here.

Oh bullshit, it's a civil case. All you have to show is that they know, or should have known, that the group they were targeting was likely to respond in this manner. Fire in a crowded theater and all that.

I'm not saying it's an easy case to get judgment on - probably impossible - but to say it is without legal merit before factual inquiry is ridiculous. There plainly is a valid legal theory of culpability.
They of course have to prove NAMBLA actually has a specific TARGET. The target of yelling fire in a crowded theater is the crowd and the point is to cause a panic.

Personally I don't disagree with you, I also think the KKK should be too. However from a legal perspective, we have no leg to stand on.
[ shocked expression ] You mean ... could it be? ... that we agree on something?? Wow! :D

It's a well-established principle of law that some speech is unacceptable. In the US there are laws against what is termed "hate speech." Simply advocating a particular course of action is usually not considered hate speech, however advocating illegal or morally reprehensible behavior could easily be considered so, witness "advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government."

Some things are so vile and reprehensible that exceptions should be made for them: violent overthrow of the legitimate government, hate speech, inciting to riot, advocating the virtual enslavement of women, and advocating the molestation of children, all seem to fall into this category in my opinion.

Sorry, but this is one of those areas where I will never change my mind. Children are our future and anyone harming them or advocating their harm in any way are my sworn enemy.

What are the NAMBLA asking for?

They just want the right to have sex with a consenting young boy arnt they?


Anybody under 18 cannot consent, so if you even think for a second that a young boy can consent, well you're grossly mistaken in legal regards (and in my opinion, in moral regards)

NAMBLA's goal is to "empower youth". They mainly support a repeal of the age of consent laws. But they also take a stance on other youth rights issues, such as banning corporal punishment and supporting the right of young people to choose which parent they want to live with. Their main goal, however, remains to repeal age of consent laws.


Their slogan of, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." sums it up.

Anybody under 18 cannot consent, so if you even think for a second that a young boy can consent, well you're grossly mistaken in legal regards (and in my opinion, in moral regards)

Actually in some states the age of consent is as low as fourtenn.

They of course have to prove NAMBLA actually has a specific TARGET. The target of yelling fire in a crowded theater is the crowd and the point is to cause a panic.

Actually I think you only have to prove a specific harm - in this case a man boy relationship occuring - not a TARGET, but whatever.

If their intention in publishing their vile crap was to promote the formation of illegal relationships between men and boys, then the victims family has a pretty fucking good case under civil law.

It's not a criminal matter you know.

Anybody under 18 cannot consent, so if you even think for a second that a young boy can consent, well you're grossly mistaken in legal regards (and in my opinion, in moral regards)
Ive got a good perspective on this as ive had sex at some pretty odd ages and i can say that yes people below an certain age cont give consent, even if they think they can, however some children probably could at different ages. To ascertain which child is which would require some extensive and expensive psychological testing no doubt, and though i think the age of censent over here is 16 or possibly thats something else :P, my piont stands.

If you can prove that they can give consent, i see no reason in stopping them doing so.

Being a pedophile is not illegal. Acting on the desire is. Their members can only be incarcerated as child molesters if they actually commit the act. Wanting to do it is not a prosecutable offense. People don't get locked up for their thoughts here.
Pedophiles cannot be "cured." This has been proven time and time again. This is why most states now require the registration of convicted pedophiles.

Their slogan of, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." sums it up.
If they can find an 8 year old capable of giving consent and willing, i see no reason why they cant, and i think theyd also deserve some kind of award for achieving the impossible.

Their slogan of, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." sums it up.

It would sum it up if that was their slogan, but it is not. "Sex before eight, or it's too late" was the slogan of the Renee Guyon society, which was eventually proven to be composed of one guy pretending he was a larger organization.

And there goes freedom of speech, assembly and association.
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000842----000-.html

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 40 > § 842
§ 842. Unlawful acts


Here we go:
"
2) Prohibition.— It shall be unlawful for any person—
(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or
(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.

"

Their slogan of, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." sums it up.
OMG! They actually SAY that????

What sort of people are for all this NAMBLA crap?


http://www.americanfreepress.net/Censored/31_Educators_Advocate_Homosexua.htm


Harris Mir ken, a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, in the Journal of Homosexuality. He wrote that “children are the last bastion of the old sexual morality.”


Realize that, he is right, children are the last thing we are protecting, we as a society gave ground over teenage sex, we gave up and let our daughters and sons be sexualized at increasingly younger ages in the 60s-70s, under the guise of "Women's liberation" and "harmless counter-culture" etc. Well, are you going to let your children be victimized by perverts? Stand up and speak out against NAMBLA!

NAMBLA guys are sick perverts and all, and probably deserve the inability to met and what not, but you cannot deny them their constitution rights. Its a slippery slope here, you start shutting down organizations like that it sets precidint and it can move into other organizations that are deemed bad for society who knows.

OMG! They actually SAY that????

No, they do not. Renee Guyon, a French sex researcher said that and it was taken up as the slogan for the Renee Guyon society, a group that it was later discovered didnt really exist (it was one guy pretending to be a larger group).

What sort of people are for all this NAMBLA crap?


http://www.americanfreepress.net/Censored/31_Educators_Advocate_Homosexua.htm


Harris Mir ken, a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, in the Journal of Homosexuality. He wrote that “children are the last bastion of the old sexual morality.”


Realize that, he is right, children are the last thing we are protecting, we as a society gave ground over teenage sex, we gave up and let our daughters and sons be sexualized at increasingly younger ages in the 60s-70s, under the guise of "Women's liberation" and "harmless counter-culture" etc. Well, are you going to let your children be victimized by perverts? Stand up and speak out against NAMBLA!
Oh no, more homosexual influences! Watch out here comes SpongeBob, hide your young'ins!

Last I heard rape and murder dont generaly fall under 'freedom of speech'.
Anyway people, I think that you dont seem to realize the definition of 'boys', IE: Small children under, say ten.
As I am aware, most pedophiles go for this age group because they havent hit puberty yet and thus are more 'attractive'.
The ACLU really needs to get a better PR officer, even IF this is a valid case, they shouldnt have supported it simply because its going to cause more damage to their reputation than its going to boost their news-time.
PLUS its going to lure even more extreme organizations to get the ACLU to protect them.
And, as another poster said, certain types of speech arent protected by the first amendment. You cant run into a theatre and shout "FIRE!". you cant slander, or commit libel. You cant make death threats to public figures. You cant talk about raping small children then dumping them in a river.
The ACLU needs to get its head out of its own ass, but not around the NAMBLA members I hope, and take a look at what people think of them.
Although it is clear from this thread that they apparently have some die-hard supporters...although a poll of NationStates is a tensy bit biased.
Read the initial post. You'll see that ACLU isn't defending what the rapist/murder did, far from it. It is defending NAMBLA's right to talk about their wish to be able to have sex with young boys.

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000842----000-.html

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 40 > § 842
§ 842. Unlawful acts


Here we go:
"
2) Prohibition.— It shall be unlawful for any person—
(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or
(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.

"
Excellent! Now alter the language from explosives to pedophilia and you've got my support!

And there goes freedom of speech, assembly and association.


NAMBLA doesn't want to exercise freedoms, they want to rape little children by making it legal for them to gain consent by any means. (They'll bait an ignorant child into agreeing to have sex with them, for the price of a candy bar).

8 year olds are not mature enough to know anything about sex (God, I never thought society would reach a point where we'd be on the defensive trying to keep it so young children don't have to become victims to perverts. I just always thought it was a given that people would protect children)

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000842----000-.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 40 > § 842
§ 842. Unlawful acts
Here we go:
"
2) Prohibition.— It shall be unlawful for any person—
(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or
(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.

"

I posted that to demonstrate that you can get in real trouble for just "distributing by any means information pertaining to".

That's for explosives. However - if you passed a similar law about acts of pedophilia, I bet the legislature would pass it.

No one has contested the Code above.

OMG! They actually SAY that????

Yes, and "sex before nine, to get them in time".

Actually, they are constantly whinging about how a man boy relationship can be vital in the emotional development of some men. Sick fucks. I miss the fifties.

Excellent! Now alter the language from explosives to pedophilia and you've got my support!
Yeah, but the pervs are using their speech to lobby for changes in age of consent laws, that's not a federal crime. If they were using their free speech to teach people how to molest kids and get away with it, you would have a point.
The laws regarding explosives require that an intent to violate federal law exists before the speech is banned. That's where the analogy breaks down.

Their slogan of, "Sex before eight, or it's too late." sums it up.
I searched for that and found it solely on such unbiased sources as Fox News, American Partisan, and last day ministries

Well, to be honest, if they had their way, it wouldn't be considered rape. They're not asking to be able to grab a random boy and have sex with him, they're asking that (as long as its consentual) they be allowed to have sex with boys.


You don't get it, an 8 year old boy isn't mature enough to do his homework without parental supervision. Nobody under 18 (maybe 16 is the age for some) is really even nearly mature enough to know if they really want sex or not.

Yes, and "sex before nine, to get them in time".

Actually, they are constantly whinging about how a man boy relationship can be vital in the emotional development of some men. Sick fucks. I miss the fifties.

Personally, if any pedophile commited any sex act with any of my children, they would not have to worry about going to court. They would have to worry about living long enough for the police to arrive.

Read the initial post. You'll see that ACLU isn't defending what the rapist/murder did, far from it. It is defending NAMBLA's right to talk about their wish to be able to have sex with young boys.

The ACLU is also providing anonymity to sex offenders putting children at risk. Also, after reading some of the previous posts, this is not a homosexual issue...this is a child exploitation and molestation issue. It would be every bit as abhorrant if these jerks were demanding to be able to have sex with little girls.

So i guess im the only one that can see a way to support the NAMBLA ?

Take a logical look at things people.

I searched for that and found it solely on such unbiased sources as Fox News, American Partisan, and last day ministries

Search for it again and add the words renee guyon and you will find its true source, which surprise! its not NAMBLA. Try looking at the nambla web site for such a slogan.

OMG! They actually SAY that????


O'reilly covered this story, yes, they say it.

Excellent! Now alter the language from explosives to pedophilia and you've got my support!

You don't have to. It's a civil case, so you can use it to support the proposition that disseminating some types of information is culpable, and fit this case under that rubric by analogy. It's a novel question on these facts - probably - but I see no reason why it is insufficient to go forward to a jury. (Then they're fucked).

The ACLU is also providing anonymity to sex offenders putting children at risk. Also, after reading some of the previous posts, this is not a homosexual issue...this is a child exploitation and molestation issue. It would be every bit as abhorrant if these jerks were demanding to be able to have sex with little girls.
Paedophiles should have anonimity, too an extent, it is practice to make the identity of a paedophile public knowledge even if they have not actually molested a child so that the community can practice their own brand of vigilanti-ism upon them, thats not right, the police authority should look after it not trust the job to the mob.

If they can find an 8 year old capable of giving consent and willing, i see no reason why they cant, and i think theyd also deserve some kind of award for achieving the impossible.

If you even think an 8 year old is ever capable of consenting to something like sex, then we have nothing more to discuss as I won't be able to remain civil...

Personally, if any pedophile commited any sex act with any of my children, they would not have to worry about going to court. They would have to worry about living long enough for the police to arrive.
Let me know if you'd like the assistance of an old veteran who knows quite a bit about infiltration, exfiltration, small arms, etc. :D

O'reilly covered this story, yes, they say it.
I think its already been established by a more trust worthy source than you taht they do not. (officially)

Personally, if any pedophile commited any sex act with any of my children, they would not have to worry about going to court. They would have to worry about living long enough for the police to arrive.

That was my point about the fifties. People like this should have 'accidents' in the cells.

At any rate, I agree with you.

If you even think an 8 year old is ever capable of consenting to something like sex, then we have nothing more to discuss as I won't be able to remain civil...
My god, im glad you READ my post [/sarcasm].

I'm saying that if they CAN find a child of that age properly able to give consent then thats OK, but i also said that i dont believe one is likely to exist.

I think its already been established by a more trust worthy source than you taht they do not. (officially)


Fox news is reliable, your saying, "They don't say it." is not a reliable news source.

You don't have to. It's a civil case, so you can use it to support the proposition that disseminating some types of information is culpable, and fit this case under that rubric by analogy. It's a novel question on these facts - probably - but I see no reason why it is insufficient to go forward to a jury. (Then they're fucked).
I understand the difference between civil and criminal law. I was responding to earlier comments about making the advocacy of pedophilia a criminal offense.

Fox news is reliable, your saying, "They don't say it." is not a reliable news source.
So YOU are Fox news?

Get some proof.

The ACLU is also providing anonymity to sex offenders putting children at risk. Also, after reading some of the previous posts, this is not a homosexual issue...this is a child exploitation and molestation issue. It would be every bit as abhorrant if these jerks were demanding to be able to have sex with little girls.
This isn't even that. This is a scapegoat case with some parents who are trying to distract people from the fact they are bad parents by suing anyone they can find related to the murder of their child AFTER suing the people who did it and winning hundreds of millions of dollars; they are trying to milk even more money out of NAMBLA.

If this case didn't stink of bullshit, I wouldn't be on the side of NAMBLA

My god, im glad you READ my post [/sarcasm].

I'm saying that if they CAN find a child of that age properly able to give consent then thats OK, but i also said that i dont believe one is likely to exist.


There isn't a child alive under 16 who is fit to consent! Let alone 8! There aren't any! They won't find any! They'll be tricking them into agreeing! Can't you see what you're doing!

Parents have a right to protect their children, but not anymore! That's what they want!

In Florida, a 14 year old girl can get an abortion without her parents even knowing. A 14 year old girl ought not to even know what sex is!

What is happening to this country and this people.


And folks wonder why the world is so full of war, famine, disease, etc.

Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world because of offenses!

Pedophiles cannot be "cured." This has been proven time and time again. This is why most states now require the registration of convicted pedophiles.

But not all pedophiles act on their desires. One can desire children but never act on it. Cures for any type of predatory sex offender is extremely rare. That includes those who rape adults. But just desiring to commit the offense is not the same as committing it. A pedophile is someone who desires to have sex with children. If they can control that desire well enough to never act on it, then they have committed no crime. If they commit the crime once, it's likely they will again. But we cannot lock people up because they want to or might do something harmful. Who knows, I might throw a Klansman off a bridge someday. It has it's attractions. But they can't look me up because it's a possibility.

You can't convict someone for their desires. I'm not sure of the legal definition, but desiring children is psychological.

Main Entry: pe·do·phile
Pronunciation: 'pE-d&-"fIl
Function: noun
: one affected with pedophilia

Main Entry: pe·do·phil·ia
Pronunciation: "pE-d&-'fi-lE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
- pe·do·phil·i·ac /-'fi-lE-"ak/ or pe·do·phil·ic /-'fi-lik/ adjective

I don't think you can convict someone of being a pedophile, only of acting on it.

What are the NAMBLA asking for?

They just want the right to have sex with a consenting young boy arnt they?

NO! They want sex with boys younger than 10

So YOU are Fox news?

Get some proof.


I can't pull out a copy of a 2003 O'Reilly Factor, and place it online. Since 1) I didn't tape it. 2) I can't get it online.

Email O'Reilly and ask him about NAMBLA and their saying, he'll probably get you a copy of the episode for a nominal fee.

Let me know if you'd like the assistance of an old veteran who knows quite a bit about infiltration, exfiltration, small arms, etc. :D
And here we have the epitome of conspiracy. The plotting by one or more people to cvarry out a violent act against another person

As long as all they talk about is legalizing it they aren't commiting conspiracy.

Then lets legalize sex with people of any age then. Seems only fair.

And here we have the epitome of conspiracy. The plotting by one or more people to cvarry out a violent act against another person

That is so not the definition of conspiracy.

That is so not the definition of conspiracy.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm

CONSPIRACY - 18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

Then lets legalize sex with people of any age then. Seems only fair.
You can lobby for that law to be passed, but most people will argue against you. And rightly so. Freedom of speech is a wonderfull thing. It lets people ask for what they want, but doesn't force anybody to give it to them.

But not all pedophiles act on their desires. One can desire children but never act on it. Cures for any type of predatory sex offender is extremely rare. That includes those who rape adults. But just desiring to commit the offense is not the same as committing it. A pedophile is someone who desires to have sex with children. If they can control that desire well enough to never act on it, then they have committed no crime. If they commit the crime once, it's likely they will again. But we cannot lock people up because they want to or might do something harmful. Who knows, I might throw a Klansman off a bridge someday. It has it's attractions. But they can't look me up because it's a possibility.

You can't convict someone for their desires. I'm not sure of the legal definition, but desiring children is psychological.

I don't think you can convict someone of being a pedophile, only of acting on it.
I did say "convicted pedophiles." There is no such thing as "thought police" because thoughts are still the private property of those who think them.

I've had to fight nausea to post this. This is not about gays...this is about grown men (pedophiles) demanding legalization of sex between men and boys wit no age limit. This is not an issue of free speech. This is a group of perverts cloaking themselves with the first amendment in order to legalize horrific abuse to children. And the ACLU is supporting them. :confused: Yet, the ACLU has determined that the Boy Scouts are a detrimental organization. Your opinions, please, because I can make absolutely no rational sense of this.

What is a true pedophile?

It is not the true pedophiles you have to be wary of, for the true pedophiles are true to the real meaning of the word. "Pedo" means "child" and "phile" is lover. After all, anglophiles love all things British but do not necessarily have sex with Britons. The same is true with pedophiles... since children are unlikely to choose sex with an adult, most true pedo-philes will not have the luck to act on this desire, and would not use force or coercion under any circumstances. For true pedophiles love children, and would not wish to harm them or do anything to them against their will. Children are people to the true pedophile, and are thus treated as equals. A true pedophile, if blessed with sex with a child, would be more concerned with the child's pleasure than his or her own.


What is a child molester?

Child molesters are the sick ones, the ones who prey on children and rape and/or kill them. These people are not truly pedophiles, as they do not love their victims. To them, children are just a nice, easily manipulated hole to put their member in. Children are not people to child molesters, they are things. A true pedophile, if having sex with a child, would be more concerned with giving the child pleasure than his or her own enjoyment. But a child molester, when having sex with a child, is engaging in a form of "glorified" masturbation. This is why so many child molesters kill their prey before or after they've had their way with them... because once their sick raping masturbation has been completed, the child is now only a nuisance to them. So, since they do not love children, they are not true pedophiles.


What are some myths about pedophiles? And pedophillia?

1) Myth number one: "All pedophiles are mentally ill."
Like homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality, true pedophillia is just a sexuality. If you have it you cannot deny it for long before it asserts itself, nor can you think yourself evil for it. For, as with homosexuality and bisexuality, the worst problems stem from denial of it and/or thinking your desires evil. Regardless of which sexuality you're talking about, it is those who deny their sexuality or think themselves evil for it who are the most potentially dangerous. While not true pedophiles, many child molesters do have pedophillia as one of their sexualities, and because of society's attitudes about it, many potentially good pedophiles go over to the dark side. Generally the ones who fit this model tend not to kill or seriously harm their prey, but do use force or coercion. Meanwhile those who harm and/or kill their prey are merely heterosexuals (or errant homosexuals) looking for something easy and convenient to stick their pecker into. So in short, only SOME so-called pedophiles are mentally ill. The true pedophiles, meanwhile, are no more ill than homosexuals or heterosexuals.

2) Myth number two: All pedophiles can trace their criminal desires to a root psychological cause.
Well as I'm sure you've guessed, I am a pedophile. Thinking back, as I have done a great many times trying to find this supposed root cause of what is thought wrongly as a sickness, I cannot find anything that fits. I have never been abused by any adults, sexually or otherwise, and many people are bullied at school and turn out fine anyway. I did have a homosexual relationship as a child, but again many people have this experience and turn out to not be pedophiles. Furthermore, it would not explain why I have no sexual interest in male children, only in female children. In essence, I have probed the darkest inner workings of my mind and can find nothing that caused my pedophillia.

3) Myth number three: All pedophiles will go for children of either sex.
This is not true. Though I am bisexual, the homosexual part of my bisexuality extends only to adults. I have no desire whatsoever for male children, I do not find them attractive in the least. While this is not always true, since there are those who do go for both genders, it is not even a tendency in true pedophiles. Nor does it really apply to most child molesters either, since many child molesters are the sick breed of heterosexual or homosexual who simply want a hole to stick it in. But my point is that there is most often gender preference among pedophiles as well. For though I may be bisexual in the adult part of my sexuality, but in my pedophillia I am strictly heterosexual.

4) Myth number four: All pedophiles are ONLY pedophiles, and cannot have true sexual enjoyment with adults
This may be true of some, or even many, as this tends to be the norm where sexualities are concerned. After all, how many heterosexuals can be comfortable enough to get enjoyment from a homosexual relationship? Or vice versa? So this does tend to be the norm, but as with any stereotype, it is not ALWAYS true. I may be a pedophile, but I am just as comfortable and can get just as much enjoyment from relationships with adults as with children. Now you may wonder why I would accept the pedophile part of me? Well, it is still part of who I am, and in point of fact I do enjoy the company of children a lot. I like having intellectual conversations with adults, but sometimes I just like kicking back and being immature. It is my policy, after all, that being mature means knowing when to be serious and when to be silly.

5) Myth number five: All pedophiles are perverts.
If by pervert you mean someone who invades the privacy of others, sexually harasses others, or is so addicted to sex that they can't go anywhere for long without having to take a break every now and then to have sex or masturbate, then this myth is busted. For I, and the several other true pedophiles I know personally, do not invade the privacy of other people, nor do we sexually harass others or make unwanted sexual advances, and I at least do not need to masturbate even every week, let alone every few hours. In fact, I am so worried about inadvertently bothering the children I lust after that I try my best to look without looking... to be casual about looking in such a way that it seems to them that they're just another face in the crowd to me, and so they don't feel watched. I knew of someone who was so obviously in lust with children (an old man himself) that he would move around to keep his eyes fixed on his target. I consider this kind of person contemptible, a disgrace, and I am sickened to think that such scumbags are associated with people like myself. For the kind of people who would be such perverts towards anyone, much less children, are no better in my eyes than rapists, and rapists are little better than murderers.
My point, then, is this: I, who am a pedophile among other things, am a romantic at heart... kind and respectful, worshiping the delectable little girls I admire from afar and making my worship as un-noticeable as humanly possible. They are the masters, and I am the slave. To do any less in regards to them would be, to me, an utter blasphemy.

6) Myth number six: All pedophiles are criminals.
This is not true. I have three other pedophile friends, and as far as I know of none of them (myself included) has ever done anything illegal, except perhaps go over the speed limit. And as one doesn't even know how to drive, he doesn't even have that. None of us look up child pornography. My own reason, as a true pedophile, is that I can't be sure whether such pictures were taken willingly or not, and I could not stand the thought of having such pictures if the child was hurt in any way to get them. I love children, and want to keep them safe as possible. This means that THEY have total freedom of choice. As I've said before, I am the slave and they are the masters. That is the mark of a true pedophile. Those who act criminally towards children, those whose attitude is that they are the masters and children are the slaves, are the sick sh*ts that I, and other true pedophiles, want nothing to do with.

7) Myth number seven: All pedophiles are easily distinguishable from normal people.
Even the misguided "experts" who unfairly lump us in with rapists and murderers will tell you that pedophiles can come in all types... all intelligence levels, society levels, at every cross-section of society, and all genders. This phenomenon is true of all sexualities, pedophillia included. You can no more tell a pedophile (especially a true pedophile) by appearance than you can read minds.

8) Myth number eight: "Pedophillia is immoral."
Morality is an issue which is subjective at the best of times. Today's morality was not yesterday's morality, and doubtless will not be tomorrow's morality. There are places around the world even today that still have as the norm children getting married young, often to older men. This has gone on for as long as humans have existed, for a long time ago 30 years of age was considered elderly as most people didn't live past that; 15 was middle-aged, so most were married before that age.
The median age of puberty has been estimated to be about 13. Once a person reaches 13, they cease being a child and are a teenager. Anyone who tries to say that young people at this age are not mature enough to make responsible sex decisions are either blinded by their own delusions or have gone out of their way to raise sexually stupid children. I know of someone who is 14 years old and in love with a 30+ year old man (neither of whom is me), and this is just one example of younger people being in love with adults. And furthermore, being in love with an adult does not mean that the young person will engage in sex with that person. This particular relationship I mentioned is an Internet relationship over a hopelessly long distance---over an ocean. (Names not mentioned to protect their privacy.) If this isn't an example of true love, I don't know what is. I don't forsee any possibility of these two hooking up before the younger one is an adult, do you? If this were a sexual predator at work, surely he would go for easier prey? Surely anything that happens between two or more informed, consenting individuals cannot be immoral? It is this unfair restriction of sex based on age that is the immorality.

9) Myth number nine: "Young people are incapable of making responsible sexual decisions."
This is a myth brought about by this society's adamant denial of sexuality in general, and the misguided belief that children are somehow asexual. The truth is that humans, by our very nature, are sexual creatures from birth. It's in our very DNA, and manifests early. But because of our society's tendency to repress their children's sexuality and deny it, we don't tend to notice it. Babies touch themselves on their genitals and derive infantile masturbatory joy from it, until the disgusted adult's hand pulls it away. Children in past societies ran about naked until their late prepubescent days and no one thought anything about it, and now even babies are covered head to foot in clothes even in tropical climates. Then children are forbidden to have sex with each other, when it is perfectly natural. And then consider that the human lifespan used to be 30 years at best, and even today there are societies where children are wed as young as 10, and yet we consider, in this western society, a 17 year old engaging in sex to be somehow immoral. Why, even the laws of this country (USA) allow for children to wed as young as 13 with parental consent, and yet those laws are ignored most of the time; people who take advantage of these laws are then considered perverted.
Yet the true perversion is this puritanical view of sex. Sexual repression does far more damage to the human psyche than natural sexual development. The primary cause of most adult sexual frustrations and hangups is their having been denied their sexuality as children. For, if you are told something is wrong as a child, and yet find as an adult that it is really okay and even necessary, how can you be fool enough to think that it will not cause problems? It takes a special kind of blindness to ignore these problems. For this is insane... to disallow children and adults to mate is one thing, but when even the kids cannot enjoy each other, that is just sick and wrong.
Besides, it's stupid to think a 17 year old can't decide what she wants sexually for him/herself but an 18 year old can. It makes no sense. The laws need to be more flexible, taking into account the individual instead of drawing a line and saying, "Those on this side are stupid little children who need decisions made for them, but those on this side changed into a whole new creature overnight in a cocoon and magically are now responsible adults."

10) Myth number ten: "All pedophiles are men."
Just as pedophiles appear in all cross-sections of society, it is not just men who are pedophiles. There are women who are true pedophiles and women who are the sick child rapist type. Generalizations and stereotypes are rarely ever accurate, especially when it comes to sexuality.

11) Myth number eleven: "All homosexuals are pedophiles."
Statistically speaking, though many males raped by adults do not report the abuse, even among the sick rapist breed of so-called pedophiles there are far more HETEROSEXUAL pedophiles in the world. The sheer prevalence of heterosexuality is the cause of this. But even if you compare the ratio of child molesters to non child molesters in both homosexuality and heterosexuality, there are still far more heterosexual child molesters in comparison to normal heterosexuals than homosexual child molesters to normal adult-craving homosexuals. I see no reason for this to be any different among true pedophiles. People just tend to notice the homosexual pedophiles more partly because of their disapproval of homosexuality and partly because there are far fewer homosexuals and bisexuals in the world than heterosexuals. People also tend to see what they want to see, when they are blinded by self-righteous condemnation of things they don't understand.

12) Myth number twelve: "All pedophiles go out of their way to leer at children."
This generalization cannot be true, because I for one am always afraid of children noticing I'm looking, and so I try to look in such a casual way as to appear to even the most careful observer to not be looking... as though the child is just another part of the landscape, unless of course the child is asking a question or otherwise requiring my attention, or is related to me. Even then I put forth all my effort to appear to be normal. I don't go out of my way to be around children, either. I don't put myself into jobs putting me into contact with children. And nor do I move myself in any way to actively look at children. This is because such close scrutiny, especially in today's society, makes most children uncomfortable, and I have no wish to cause any discomfort. Nor do my other pedophile friends. It is only the sexual predators, those sick people who rape and/or murder the beautiful children, who resort to these. You will not be able to tell, in most cases, who the true pedophiles are... the ones who leer at children are the dangerous ones, and they disgust me. I am absolutely revolted by these kinds of people, and even more appalled that society lumps in innocent, innocuous hopeless romantics like me in with these sick bastards. Trust me kind ladies and gentlemen, I hate child molesters/child murderers as much, if not more, than you do.

13) (If anyone can remember what number 13 was, please let me know. I forgot to save it on the backup, so it left when Geocities killed my site.)

14) Myth number 14: "All pedophiles want weak-willed, disturbed, stupid, or un-loved children."
This myth came about because this is the type of victim that child predators [who are rarely pedophiles] prefer. Child predators are rarely child lovers [true pedophiles], because they see children as nothing more than a convenient and easy rape victim.
Myself, I despise weak-willed people, idiots, and people who follow blindly. I also don't like putting up with the stresses involved with knowing disturbed people, and so I avoid them at all costs. While I do think it's sad that some children grow up not knowing love, I don't agree with taking advantage of this for any purpose, much less for sex. Besides, with un-loved children, there is more of a chance of them betraying you because they usually don't know trust, either. And no relationship, platonic or otherwise, can work without trust.
My own personal preference is for strong-willed, highly intelligent people of any age. This goes with children. I've known some children who were real idiots like their parents, and I never liked them. No matter how racist, stupid, or mean an adult is, if their children take after them, the children will always be worse. And I can't stand people like that. Even if I fall for a child by their appearance, if I later find out that they're little assholes [for lack of a better word], I no longer like them.

http://www.glgarden.org/kalikokat/

Kat

NAMBLA should be outlawed, their assets confiscated, and their members incarcerated as pedophiles and child molesters.

I agree!

Lets form a posse and hunt down these assholes. Then string'em up on street corners as a warning to others that might want to do the same.

There isn't a child alive under 16 who is fit to consent! Let alone 8! There aren't any! They won't find any! They'll be tricking them into agreeing! Can't you see what you're doing!

Parents have a right to protect their children, but not anymore! That's what they want!

In Florida, a 14 year old girl can get an abortion without her parents even knowing. A 14 year old girl ought not to even know what sex is!

What is happening to this country and this people.


And folks wonder why the world is so full of war, famine, disease, etc.

Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world because of offenses!

Lets take this one step at a time.

I was fit to give consent below 16, i fit at 14, i was NOT at 12 but by 14 i was fully able to did and do not regret it.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD HOW MANY TIMES I DONT THINK ITSL IKELY THERE S CHILD OF 8 WHO CAN... thank it just everytime i say that you ignore it O.o

Trick them into agreeing, and continue to trick them whilst they under go the psychological tests nesessary in which they are evaluated as able to give consent and fully understand what they are being asked.. oh wait, that measn theyre not being tricked. That pionts gone too.

Parents have a right to protect their children but not to control them.

A 14 year old girl damn well ought to know what sex is, and if shes unlucky and unwise enough to get pregnant she ought to be able to get an abortion without her parents knowing because it could be aa risk to her well being if her parents knew as they might be some crazy christians who would punish her. and by punish that means anything up to kill.


im not in your country, im in a better one.

Consent has nothing to with famine and war etc, thats your responsibility as an adult, children have nothing to do with starting wars.

lastly.. the bible, has NO PLACE IN LAW.

I understand the difference between civil and criminal law. I was responding to earlier comments about making the advocacy of pedophilia a criminal offense.

My bad. ;)

I agree with you, I see no reason why making the advocacy of pedophilia a criminal offense couldn't happen, though I can see a problem with making advocacy to change the age of consent a criminal offence a problem. (Because of first amendment issues, due to it being more political discourse).

And here we have the epitome of conspiracy. The plotting by one or more people to cvarry out a violent act against another person
( shrug ) So sue me, dimwit.

OK, OK, stop and someone for gods sake lay out to be what EXACTLY the NAMBLA is asking for, EXACTLY.

To have sex with underage boys.

( shrug ) So sue me, dimwit.
Well if I hear some news about dead NAMBLA members or something I know where to turn the police

My bad. ;)

I agree with you, I see no reason why making the advocacy of pedophilia a criminal offense couldn't happen, though I can see a problem with making advocacy to change the age of consent a criminal offence a problem. (Because of first amendment issues, due to it being more political discourse).
No "bad" to it. :)

I agree that such a law would have to be very carefully phrased, with lots of qualifiers and definitions.

OO, got a thing there, humans are not BORN sexual beings im afraid, theres very little human in baby its mostly just instinct, weell in fact its ALL instinct, and theres no sexual instinct in a baby, its literally not there yet.

Being a pedophile is not illegal. Acting on the desire is. Their members can only be incarcerated as child molesters if they actually commit the act. Wanting to do it is not a prosecutable offense. People don't get locked up for their thoughts here.

Being a pedophile is illegal. There have been arrests of people looking at pix of underage people in compromising positions. They may not have acted on it but they have pics and that is in violation of the law.

Well if I hear some news about dead NAMBLA members or something I know where to turn the police

Yeah, like that file will ever get to the top of the case list.

At any rate, he has done nothing conspiritorial. Stop trying to abridge first amendment rights, or the ACLU will get very angry with you.

Well if I hear some news about dead NAMBLA members or something I know where to turn the police

Well, if I was in the situation where my children had been molested by a pedophile, and I ended up killing the pedophile, I would call the police myself.

If you're at the point where you want someone dead, you should have the balls to do it yourself. And if you do it yourself, and you felt you were right, you should be willing to take your lumps.

I would also plead guilty, gladly. Because no matter what they did to me, they would not be able to bring the pedophile back to life.

Being a pedophile is illegal. There have been arrests of people looking at pix of underage people in compromising positions. They may not have acted on it but they have pics and that is in violation of the law.
I think looking at the pics probably counts as acting on it.

Being a pedophile is illegal. There have been arrests of people looking at pix of underage people in compromising positions. They may not have acted on it but they have pics and that is in violation of the law.
Yeah, those people are supposed to be arrested. Child pornography is illegal because a child has to be abused in order to produce it.

Yeah, like that file will ever get to the top of the case list.

At any rate, he has done nothing conspiritorial. Stop trying to abridge first amendment rights, or the ACLU will get very angry with you.
Didn't he I saw plotting that involved breaknig and entering and fire arms. Carried out we have ourselves a felony

I think looking at the pics probably counts as acting on it.

In the US it certainly does. You can be arrested in the UK for "just looking at pics".

Here in Virginia, if they can get a traceroute between your home PC and a site that provides pedo pics, they'll prosecute - even if there are no pictures stored on your PC.

I agree!

Lets form a posse and hunt down these assholes. Then string'em up on street corners as a warning to others that might want to do the same.
Um ... in a word? No. I have to admit it's tempting, but taking the law into one's own hands is a decision never to be taken lightly. The only case in which I would do so is if anyone molested or harmed one of the little ones in my family, or perhaps to help somone I know do the same. This is simply an outgrowth of my personal beliefs and an extension of what would be my own rage at such an act.

In the US it certainly does. You can be arrested in the UK for "just looking at pics".

Here in Virginia, if they can get a traceroute between your home PC and a site that provides pedo pics, they'll prosecute - even if there are no pictures stored on your PC.
However even if you delete things on your PC they tend to hang around, physical evidence is usually not hard to come up with once you seize the PC, excepting of course the tricky job of searching through all the non-designated files.

So i guess im the only one that can see a way to support the NAMBLA ?

Take a logical look at things people.

Some of us have. I find you disgusting for supporting this outrage. Think of the children for a moment will ya?

Didn't he I saw plotting that involved breaknig and entering and fire arms. Carried out we have ourselves a felony

Needs and overt act. There is no overt act, therefore no conspiracy. He's okay.

Um ... in a word? No. I have to admit it's tempting, but taking the law into one's own hands is a decision never to be taken lightly. The only case in which I would do so is if anyone molested or harmed one of the little ones in my family, or perhaps to help somone I know do the same. This is simply an outgrowth of my personal beliefs and an extension of what would be my own rage at such an act.
That is why paedophiles need anonimity (from the public in general) because the urge to form such a "posse" is too much for some. And whilst i understand your need for revenge should such a situation occur you would also be wise not to seek revenge, but im sure you're aware of that :D.

Let me know if you'd like the assistance of an old veteran who knows quite a bit about infiltration, exfiltration, small arms, etc. :D

Count me in too. I know Karate.

OO, got a thing there, humans are not BORN sexual beings im afraid, theres very little human in baby its mostly just instinct, weell in fact its ALL instinct, and theres no sexual instinct in a baby, its literally not there yet.
I suspect you have no chilldren of your own, nor much experience with babies.

Needs and overt act. There is no overt act, therefore no conspiracy. He's okay.

One of the other hot spots where you don't have free speech to talk about something (aside from the explosives reference I gave earlier) is just talking about someone under Secret Service protection.

"Just talking" can get you thrown in jail. You don't actually have to go through with it.

Some of us have. I find you disgusting for supporting this outrage. Think of the children for a moment will ya?
I AM thinkinhg of the children, if youve read my posts you'll know what im saying.. now go off and read tham and you'll understand what im saying. I am NOT a paedophile, but i am thinking of this logically.

In the US it certainly does. You can be arrested in the UK for "just looking at pics".

Here in Virginia, if they can get a traceroute between your home PC and a site that provides pedo pics, they'll prosecute - even if there are no pictures stored on your PC.

Didn't SCOTUS just rule about files in the temporary cache or something though, saying that it was not enough for a conviction? Wouldn't that apply here too? (To be honest I don't pay attention to that sort of thing)

Didn't he I saw plotting that involved breaknig and entering and fire arms. Carried out we have ourselves a felony
As I said before ... sue me! Report me to the police!

Better yet, come get me! God, I would love that! PLEASE come get me! :D

But not all pedophiles act on their desires. One can desire children but never act on it. Cures for any type of predatory sex offender is extremely rare. That includes those who rape adults. But just desiring to commit the offense is not the same as committing it. A pedophile is someone who desires to have sex with children. If they can control that desire well enough to never act on it, then they have committed no crime. If they commit the crime once, it's likely they will again. But we cannot lock people up because they want to or might do something harmful. Who knows, I might throw a Klansman off a bridge someday. It has it's attractions. But they can't look me up because it's a possibility.

You can't convict someone for their desires. I'm not sure of the legal definition, but desiring children is psychological.

Main Entry: pe·do·phile
Pronunciation: 'pE-d&-"fIl
Function: noun
: one affected with pedophilia

Main Entry: pe·do·phil·ia
Pronunciation: "pE-d&-'fi-lE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
- pe·do·phil·i·ac /-'fi-lE-"ak/ or pe·do·phil·ic /-'fi-lik/ adjective

I don't think you can convict someone of being a pedophile, only of acting on it.

Tell that to people who have been convicted of having Child pornography in their homes. They are labeled pedofiles. I hate to see what the convicts in prison do to these morons.

I suspect you have no chilldren of your own, nor much experience with babies.
Id be pretty worried to find out i had, but i do have some experiecne with babies and a good knowledge of innate behaviour and its developement and implications.

What your piont?

[QUOTE=Pedostan]What is a true pedophile?


While I believe some of your post has merit, I don't think a child should engage in sexual acts with anyone except another child of similiar age. The ability an adult has to manipulate and dominate someone much younger is too great. If you truly love children, keep your hands to yourself. I have a pedophile in my family, and his victim suffered great harm. He's in prison where he should be, she's in therapy where she shouldn't have to be.

I do beleive pedophiles can't help their desires, but you must control your own actions.

Some of us have. I find you disgusting for supporting this outrage. Think of the children for a moment will ya?

"Think of the children, think of the children," the songbird chittered, afraid to think for himself.

But no, seriously. If anyone *ever* says 'think of the children', they should be taken out back and shot because those people are instinctively wrong.

There's miles of difference between the ACLU protecting NAMBLA from charges from parents based on literature that was found in the vehicle of the man who killed a child which turned out to not be from NAMBLA anyways and the legalization of sex with little children. Sometimes, you just have to focus on the bigger issues within context. Jeez.

Needs and overt act. There is no overt act, therefore no conspiracy. He's okay.
IF some one is killed, they can be investigated and if one of them did it, they both can be charged with conspiracy

You can lobby for that law to be passed, but most people will argue against you. And rightly so. Freedom of speech is a wonderfull thing. It lets people ask for what they want, but doesn't force anybody to give it to them.

I would never advocate such things. I just said it because it is basically what NAMBLA wants. They want to have sex with underage boys. What if certain people want to have sex with underage girls? The outrage would be even more pronounced.

One of the other hot spots where you don't have free speech to talk about something (aside from the explosives reference I gave earlier) is just talking about someone under Secret Service protection.

"Just talking" can get you thrown in jail. You don't actually have to go through with it.

I know that, but not for *conspiracy* though. Conspiracy requires an overt act in furtherence of the conspiracy (tho no necessarily a criminal one; mailing a letter is the usual example).

Didn't SCOTUS just rule about files in the temporary cache or something though, saying that it was not enough for a conviction? Wouldn't that apply here too? (To be honest I don't pay attention to that sort of thing)

That's apparently why they don't go on the basis of the files. They go on the basis of the content of the server you connect to, and the amount of traffic you've been doing with that server.

That, and they are filtering all of your packets - so they have the files you downloaded. That's pretty solid stuff. No need to go into your house and browse your hard drive.

They nailed two people in our county using that method.

Tell that to people who have been convicted of having Child pornography in their homes. They are labeled pedofiles. I hate to see what the convicts in prison do to these morons.
Thats because they HAVE acted upon the paedophilic desires. Obtaining pictures of such acts for your own pleasure is acting upon them as your are effectively playing a part in the molestation of the child.

Unless of course the child fulfills the criteria i stated in several of my above posts, however, again i severly doubt any such child exists.

Thats because they HAVE acted upon the paedophilic desires. Obtaining pictures of such acts for your own pleasure is acting upon them as your are effectively playing a part in the molestation of the child.

Unless of course the child fulfills the criteria i stated in several of my above posts, however, again i severly doubt any such child exists.

The sad thing is, if it's photoshopped art by a really talented artist and it's too close to looking 'real' with no real participants at all, they can still be put in jail.

Frankly, I think that looking at pictures that were not created from real occurances is far better than not having any material to gratify themselves.

Being a pedophile is illegal. There have been arrests of people looking at pix of underage people in compromising positions. They may not have acted on it but they have pics and that is in violation of the law.
Having the pictures is a crime because a crime had to be committed to get the pictures. A child has been harmed by having sexually explicit pictures taken of them. Desiring the child is not a crime. Harming a child is.

The sad thing is, if it's photoshopped art by a really talented artist and it's too close to looking 'real' with no real participants at all, they can still be put in jail.

Frankly, I think that looking at pictures that were not created from real occurances is far better than not having any material to gratify themselves.
Yes being punished for ficticious pictures is wrong, as after all no offence has been commited. although of course one would have to rpove the picture were fake.

"Think of the children, think of the children," the songbird chittered, afraid to think for himself.

But no, seriously. If anyone *ever* says 'think of the children', they should be taken out back and shot because those people are instinctively wrong.

There's miles of difference between the ACLU protecting NAMBLA from charges from parents based on literature that was found in the vehicle of the man who killed a child which turned out to not be from NAMBLA anyways and the legalization of sex with little children. Sometimes, you just have to focus on the bigger issues within context. Jeez.
Far too fine a line for my taste. I stand on my eariler statements about this issue.

I AM thinkinhg of the children, if youve read my posts you'll know what im saying.. now go off and read tham and you'll understand what im saying. I am NOT a paedophile, but i am thinking of this logically.

No your not. Your supporting an organization that wants sex with underage boys.

NAMBLA=North American Man Boy LOVE Association!

Sorry! These people ought to be banned. I'm all for free speech and all that however, these SOBs shouldn't be protected from it.

Having the pictures is a crime because a crime had to be committed to get the pictures. A child has been harmed by having sexually explicit pictures taken of them. Desiring the child is not a crime. Harming a child is.
Good point. :)

"Think of the children, think of the children," the songbird chittered, afraid to think for himself.

But no, seriously. If anyone *ever* says 'think of the children', they should be taken out back and shot because those people are instinctively wrong.

There's miles of difference between the ACLU protecting NAMBLA from charges from parents based on literature that was found in the vehicle of the man who killed a child which turned out to not be from NAMBLA anyways and the legalization of sex with little children. Sometimes, you just have to focus on the bigger issues within context. Jeez.

Dude, if anyone harmed my little cousins or my own niece, nephew, and soon to born niece/nephew, I would personally hunt them down and kill them in the most grusome fashion that I can think off.

That's apparently why they don't go on the basis of the files. They go on the basis of the content of the server you connect to, and the amount of traffic you've been doing with that server.

That, and they are filtering all of your packets - so they have the files you downloaded. That's pretty solid stuff. No need to go into your house and browse your hard drive.

They nailed two people in our county using that method.

I see, so it's more than just the conection you make - because it could happen inadvertantly I suppose - you actually have to download stuff and really use the site for a bit. That makes sense.

No your not. Your supporting an organization that wants sex with underage boys.

NAMBLA=North American Man Boy LOVE Association!

Sorry! These people ought to be banned. I'm all for free speech and all that however, these SOBs shouldn't be protected from it.
I take it you refused to take my advice and read my posts.

I am not unconditionally supporting NAMBLA merely saying that with certain conditions impossed what they are asking for could be sanctioned by law.

and also pionting out the irony of the fact that if it were sactions with the conditions i presented they would be unlikely ever to find a child that filled the condition, let alone raise the funds to get properly sanctioned concent. But just because its unlikely ever to happen doesnt mean it shouldnt be legal.

No your not. Your supporting an organization that wants sex with underage boys.

NAMBLA=North American Man Boy LOVE Association!

Sorry! These people ought to be banned. I'm all for free speech and all that however, these SOBs shouldn't be protected from it.

I think that because of their own disgusting views, the fundamental Christian right shouldn't be protected by Free Speech rights, either, but that's a private opinion I hold and rarely bring to bear. Frankly, even though it would include myself, I think that those who think that people should be 'banned' should be banned themselves. :P Would make the world a much better place.

Dude, if anyone harmed my little cousins or my own niece, nephew, and soon to born niece/nephew, I would personally hunt them down and kill them in the most grusome fashion that I can think off.
And at that piont you would probably be worse than the paedophile.

Tell that to people who have been convicted of having Child pornography in their homes. They are labeled pedofiles. I hate to see what the convicts in prison do to these morons.
Lock them in a cell with two huge convicts named Igor and Bubba who had been molested as children! Mwahahahahaha! :D

And at that piont you would probably be worse than the paedophile.
Not in the eyes of most people, including me.

I see, so it's more than just the conection you make - because it could happen inadvertantly I suppose - you actually have to download stuff and really use the site for a bit. That makes sense.

The police apparently know (and I'm not sure if this is State or Federal) if you so much as ping certain known sites.

Make that connection once, and they'll get a warrant to sniff packets at your ISP. Quickly.

With the warrant, they'll get any pics you download.

They apparently also watch IRC traffic for known files - and trace to see who talks to whom. The UK has been doing this for a while now - but they generally don't make immediate arrests - they wait until they have quite a few fish in the net.

And at that piont you would probably be worse than the paedophile.
NOTHING is worse than a pedophile! NOTHING!

Good point. :)

Glad to know you don't think I'm a child molester in disguise. :)
I was molested and think that it's inevitably harmful for the child. But if the guy that had molested me had stuck to drawing pictures and reading fiction, it wouldn't have harmed me. There are a lot of people with creepy ideas. If they keep them to themselves or only share them with the like-minded, I can live with it.

Having the pictures is a crime because a crime had to be committed to get the pictures. A child has been harmed by having sexually explicit pictures taken of them. Desiring the child is not a crime. Harming a child is.
And thats basically what im saying. If you can find a way act out your paedohpilic desires without in any way harming the child why stop them? But the likelyhood that that would be possible is, as i have said before, slim.

NOTHING is worse than a pedophile! NOTHING!
I submit people who propose to kill people in the most gruesome fashion imaginable are worse than pedophiles.

Dude, if anyone harmed my little cousins or my own niece, nephew, and soon to born niece/nephew, I would personally hunt them down and kill them in the most grusome fashion that I can think off.

If anyone harmed my own children or my sister's children, I would go after them with a vengeance, too. I know three martial arts and I'm trained in the use of handguns. And I don't agree that child molestors should walk free if they commit a crime. But there has to be a crime in order for people to be punished. NAMBLA, merely by existing, isn't breaking any laws. Some of its members may break laws, but that doesn't mean it should be shut down. I'm honestly on their side with this, even with two kids of my own.

I take it you refused to take my advice and read my posts.

Oh I've read them. You support their activities. You want the age of consent laws repealed. Sorry! I would toss out my representatives if they supported such things and I know most of the country would too.

I am not unconditionally supporting NAMBLA merely saying that with certain conditions impossed what they are asking for could be sanctioned by law.

No conditions apply. They want this. Its clear as day they want this. They wouldn't accept conditions. That is something that you don't seem to understand.

and also pionting out the irony of the fact that if it were sactions with the conditions i presented they would be unlikely ever to find a child that filled the condition, let alone raise the funds to get properly sanctioned concent. But just because its unlikely ever to happen doesnt mean it shouldnt be legal.

The sentence bolded proves that you support their activities. We have nothing further to discuss.

NOTHING is worse than a pedophile! NOTHING!
So you would advocate the destruction of a life over the possibly temporary harm of it.

Granted the cihlds life might be permanantly ruined and at that piont the paedophile would be commiting the worse act, but despiter this the destructiono flife can never be allowed.

I submit people who propose to kill people in the most gruesome fashion imaginable are worse than pedophiles.
Depends on who they're killing. Some people need killing. Like child molestors.

The sentence bolded proves that you support their activities. We have nothing further to discuss.

He was saying that if they can find a super-genius and very emotionally developed eight-year-old who, in the mind of psychologists who test him, can give consent, then they should be able to go at it. Personally, I think that 'the age of consent' is a tricky thing. People aren't emotionally ready for sex at the same ages. Most aren't, before 16. *shrug* But I wouldn't change my province's consent laws just because I thought that the kids who were having sex in the two years before I believe consent can be freely given shouldn't be doing it. *shrug* I don't support NAMBLA in lowering the age of consent, but I do support them in the fact that the organization is not responsible to the parents of the child that was killed by the molestor.

It appears that everyone is going around in circles at this point, rehashing the same arguments over and over. This is a good sign that the usefulness of this discussion has has come to an end.

Oh I've read them. You support their activities. You want the age of consent laws repealed. Sorry! I would toss out my representatives if they supported such things and I know most of the country would too.



No conditions apply. They want this. Its clear as day they want this. They wouldn't accept conditions. That is something that you don't seem to understand.



The sentence bolded proves that you support their activities. We have nothing further to discuss.
I see no reason that the age of consent should remain if my conditions were implemented, espescially as they effectively uphold the age of consent. changing in esscence nothing.

If they didnt accept my condition i swouldnt support their arguement simple as that.

I do not support any activities that would break the code i have laid down before, if you refuse to believe that we have nothing more to discuss.

Ciure your ignorance.

I submit people who propose to kill people in the most gruesome fashion imaginable are worse than pedophiles.

Oh, I wouldn't be using "the most gruesome fashion imaginable".

Same ammunition as the Virginia State Police. So if somehow that's remarkably heinous in method, then the Police had better change their weapons and ammunition.

Depends on who they're killing. Some people need killing. Like child molestors.
no-one NEEDS killing, just removing from society.

Granted the cihlds life might be permanantly ruined and at that piont the paedophile would be commiting the worse act, but despiter this the destructiono flife can never be allowed.

That's Tony Blair logic that is.

That's Tony Blair logic that is.
no its not, there is no such thing as tony blair logic, thats an oxymoron.

PS. ill admit that i put it all rather badly :P.

So you would advocate the destruction of a life over the possibly temporary harm of it.
I think it all depends on whose life you're destroying. Paedophiles aren't innocent people, they're subhuman filth and I could not condemn any crimes committed against them, no matter how brutal. I'm disgusted that anything like NAMBLA is allowed to exist. Freedom of speech is one thing but I think that it gets to a point where people can be so morally reprehensible that they should be banned. Plus I think that their disgusting literature could also encourage doormant paedophiles.

That's Tony Blair logic that is.

"Let there be a crime before there is punishment." Sounds like common-sense logic, to me.

no-one NEEDS killing, just removing from society.

Yes, by killing them. :rolleyes:

Honestly, isn't it actually kinder than locking them up for forty years.

no its not, there is no such thing as tony blair logic, thats an oxymoron.

PS. ill admit that i put it all rather badly :P.

It's the kind of thing old tony would say though. You know "freedom from terrorism is the most important freedom."

I see no reason that the age of consent should remain if my conditions were implemented, espescially as they effectively uphold the age of consent. changing in esscence nothing.

However, your conditions would not pass muster. Congress would reject them the instant its introduced. Think there's an uproar now?

If they didnt accept my condition i swouldnt support their arguement simple as that.

You shouldn't support them in the first place.

I do not support any activities that would break the code i have laid down before, if you refuse to believe that we have nothing more to discuss.

Oh I believe it. What I can't believe is you supporting this organiztion in this case. If they get their way, age of consent laws WOULD BE repealed.

Yes, by killing them. :rolleyes:

Honestly, isn't it actually kinder than locking them up for forty years.
Well no not really. Prisons do not fulfill the role of removing someone from society effectively.

Glad to know you don't think I'm a child molester in disguise. :)
I was molested and think that it's inevitably harmful for the child. But if the guy that had molested me had stuck to drawing pictures and reading fiction, it wouldn't have harmed me. There are a lot of people with creepy ideas. If they keep them to themselves or only share them with the like-minded, I can live with it.
LOL! No, I don't think you're a cild molester, hon. Sexy? Yes. Fiesty? Definitely! But not a child molester. :D

I think the vital issue here is intent. IMHO, possessing graphic photos of adults having sex with children, writing stories about sex between adults and children, "casing out" playgrounds and schoolyards and other places where children congregate, offering gifts to children other than family members or friends, and perhaps other acts as well, should be considered "intent" to molest.

I love being a voice of sanity that everyone ignores. Ha.

Well no not really. Prisons do not fulfill the role of removing someone from society effectively.

Well what do you propose then, a huge pederast colony in the middle of the pacific? I know of no other method than prisons at the moment.

I'm just at a total loss to understand how there can be any constitutional protection for the advocation of rape of children. Shouldn't this give children the right to sue the ACLU for violation of their constitutional rights?
They aren't advocating the legalization of the rape of children, theyr'e advocating the legalization of sex with children. Not something most anyone would agree with, but still aggitating for the legalization of *any* act is protected speech, so long as you don't advocate breaking the law.

Well no not really. Prisons do not fulfill the role of removing someone from society effectively.

Unless someone gets killed in there. Read up on the reports of what happens to child molestors/rapists/murderers/kidnappers. Be surprised what happens to them.

I love being a voice of sanity that everyone ignores. Ha.

That kind of thing has no place on NS. :)

However, your conditions would not pass muster. Congress would reject them the instant its introduced. Think there's an uproar now?



You shouldn't support them in the first place.



Oh I believe it. What I can't believe is you supporting this organiztion in this case. If they get their way, age of consent laws WOULD BE repealed.

OK gonna get this out of the way...

i do not support the NAMBLA*

*though i do in theory support a reasonable change to the age of consent as i have said before, something which the NAMBLA does not at the moment appear to be asking for, though i cant be sure of this as no-one has posted their exact aims from their site or something.

offering gifts to children other than family members or friends ... should be considered "intent" to molest.

What the hell are you on? So, if I see an unfortunate mother sometime near the holidays, walking past a WalMart or something with her kids, and I have a gift for one of my kids that I know she won't be able to afford, and I give it to her kid, I'm sexually interested?

Damn, you have issues.

Well what do you propose then, a huge pederast colony in the middle of the pacific? I know of no other method than prisons at the moment.
thatd do just fine thank you.

Well no not really. Prisons do not fulfill the role of removing someone from society effectively.
Actually, most pedophiles who wind up in prison are eventually killed by other inmates. It's interesting to note that there is a higher percentage of victims of childhood molestation in prison than there are in the general population. There seems to be a rather high correlation between having been molested or abused as a child with adult criminal behavior.

thatd do just fine thank you.

And when they starve?

Actually, most pedophiles who wind up in prison are eventually killed by other inmates. It's interesting to note that there is a higher percentage of victims of childhood molestation in prison than there are in the general population. There seems to be a rather high correlation between having been molested or abused as a child with adult criminal behavior.
I dont see exactly how that isnt my piont.

Prisons are there to rehabilitate, they should not be there to store people who should never go back to society.

What the hell are you on? So, if I see an unfortunate mother sometime near the holidays, walking past a WalMart or something with her kids, and I have a gift for one of my kids that I know she won't be able to afford, and I give it to her kid, I'm sexually interested?

Damn, you have issues.
That's rather specious of you. If you want to give a gift to someone else's child, I suggest you ask the parents' permission first. How does that equate to my having "issues?"

Actually, most pedophiles who wind up in prison are eventually killed by other inmates. It's interesting to note that there is a higher percentage of victims of childhood molestation in prison than there are in the general population. There seems to be a rather high correlation between having been molested or abused as a child with adult criminal behavior.

That's interesting to know :)

LOL! No, I don't think you're a cild molester, hon. Sexy? Yes. Fiesty? Definitely! But not a child molester. :D

I think the vital issue here is intent. IMHO, possessing graphic photos of adults having sex with children, writing stories about sex between adults and children, "casing out" playgrounds and schoolyards and other places where children congregate, offering gifts to children other than family members or friends, and perhaps other acts as well, should be considered "intent" to molest.

I agree when there is sign of intent. But saying "I'd like to" or "I wish it were legal" doesn't constitue intent. I'd like to rob Fort Knox, but it's not happening. It's wrong, it's not legal, and I'd just botch it anyway.
:p

And when they starve?
well obviousl theyd have to farm and food would be delivered and just use you imagination :P, im saying that prisons arnt there to lock people up and throw away the key, its expensive and really just torture.

Prisons are there to rehabilitate, they should not be there to store people who should never go back to society.

THen you support Capital Punishment?

That's interesting to know :)

Do you believe all "facts" people throw at you without presenting sources?

That's rather specious of you. If you want to give a gift to someone else's child, I suggest you ask the parents' permission first. How does that equate to my having "issues?"

Giving a gift to a child not related to you should be considered intent to molest? Since a great many children are molested by family members, why don't we just remove the relation restriction? If you give a child a gift, you go to jail! You obviously have sexual intent!

... See, the slippery slope can be used by both sides of this argument.

What the hell are you on? So, if I see an unfortunate mother sometime near the holidays, walking past a WalMart or something with her kids, and I have a gift for one of my kids that I know she won't be able to afford, and I give it to her kid, I'm sexually interested?

Damn, you have issues.

No, the correct way to handle that situation, is to give the gift to the parent to pass on to the child. You should never give a gift to a child you are not very close to as this gives them the idea that taking presents from strangers is acceptable. If and when a strange adult tries to give one of my grandchildren something in my presence, I intercept it, and tell them "Thank you, but we do not take gifts from strangers".

THen you support Capital Punishment?
NO FOR GODS SAKE.

Im sating, and im sure now that youre not actually reading any of my posts, that prisons are there to rehabilitate (or should be) another system must be worked out for removing those incapable of living in common society. and i do not mean killing tham as i have alreayd said.

Do you believe all "facts" people throw at you without presenting sources?

it is a rather known fact that child molestors are beaten up and killed in prison.

it is a rather known fact that child molestors are beaten up and killed in prison.
Yep, and so are prison guards.

it is a rather known fact that child molestors are beaten up and killed in prison.

it is a known fact that this happens, it is not a known fact that "most" end up dead in prison. There is a big difference.

Depends on who they're killing. Some people need killing. Like child molestors.
You are all going on the conspiracy list for conspiracy to intimidate and mruder members of NAMBLA

You are all going on the conspiracy list for conspiracy to intimidate and mruder members of NAMBLA

Of course. and if a NAMBLA member ends up dead and we can prove that the person who killed him read this message board, you are all going to be sued.

Ahh...the irony

It really seems as if The Emperor Fenix is one of the few, if not the only one, that has payed attention and has not been biased. He thinks that if there is an 8yr old that is fit to consent to have sex with a man, he should be able to. He also stated that there aren't going to be any 8yr olds that can give this consent. (The Emperor Fenix, if I messed up your words, sorry. But I'm pretty sure I got what you were saying.)

It seems as if a lot of people are ignoring what the ACLU is doing. This has been stated so many times already but... They are not supporting the beliefs or ideas of NAMBLA. This does not think that the ACLU thinks it's okay to have sex with children. There were some parents of a kid that got killed and now the parents have sued (or are suing, I forgot which) NAMBLA for something that a couple of people did. NAMBLA did not tell them to people to go do this to the child. NAMBLA is against hurting children. DAMMIT people, look at a few web pages, it's not difficult. It actually started to feel alittle nauscious while on the NAMBLA page, but I found out they don't condone the hurting of children.

There isn't a child alive under 16 who is fit to consent! I was probably ready at 14, but I didn't get any till 16. I was fit to consent.

In Florida, a 14 year old girl can get an abortion without her parents even knowing. A 14 year old girl ought not to even know what sex is! I just got done doing a paper on sex education. It's ridiculous how many people think things like this. I'm prettys sure most kids these days know what sex is by the age of 12, some have sex by that age. I knew what sex is when I was, maybe, 10. If a 14yr old doesn't know what sex is, that's because they have irresponsible parents. Other than that, I had irresponsible parents but I took sex ed in 7th grade, which was when I was 12.

What is happening to this country and this people.
People are starting that the government should have more control over people and be able to limit their "free" speech. And people think they can sue anybody for any reason.

Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world because of offenses! As The Emperor Fenix mentioned, the bible has no place in law.
______________________________________
I can't believe I read 12 pages of this crap.

No, the correct way to handle that situation, is to give the gift to the parent to pass on to the child. You should never give a gift to a child you are not very close to as this gives them the idea that taking presents from strangers is acceptable. If and when a strange adult tries to give one of my grandchildren something in my presence, I intercept it, and tell them "Thank you, but we do not take gifts from strangers".

And if I was committing a random act of kindness, I would probably end up grumbling for most of the day in general annoyance. Frankly, I don't see that it's that hard to teach children that they aren't to accept things from people when their parents or elders aren't around. Much like I don't see that it's that hard to teach children that things on TV aren't real unless they're on the news, and even then, not if they're on FOX. Meh, maybe it's just me.

well obviousl theyd have to farm and food would be delivered and just use you imagination :P, im saying that prisons arnt there to lock people up and throw away the key, its expensive and really just torture.

So we put them on an Island, and deliver food to them, but never let them off. I suppose we have to build a few houses and shit like that for them too. Oh yes, we should probably try and keep some kind of order there too.

Holy crap, I've seen this place before. Now where was it? Oh yes French Guiana.

A prison by any other name.

no-one NEEDS killing, just removing from society.
Yes, but permanently. Child molestors are often released from prison after just a few years. If thy manage to survive that long. Killing them is the best course of action unless our courts start handing out life sentances for kid-touching.

And at that piont you would probably be worse than the paedophile.

Worse than a pedophile, but not worse than a child molester.

OK, ive gotta go do work :P so lets get this cleared up about my character, even if my arguements wil fall by the wayside.

I do no support the harming of anyone, be they child or adult, this includes the death penalty and victims of child molestation, i do not support the NAMBLA unless their arguemnts happen to be the same as mine, which i dont know about, and i am not a paedophile though i see nothing wrong with my being so if i were able to live my life without harming others, which is something many non paedophiles find impossible too.

I dont see exactly how that isnt my piont.

Prisons are there to rehabilitate, they should not be there to store people who should never go back to society.
Rehabilitation is a myth. Society has a right to be protected from predators and perpetrators. Incarceration is expensive, but IMHO marginally better than simply executing them.

It really seems as if The Emperor Fenix is one of the few, if not the only one, that has payed attention and has not been biased. He thinks that if there is an 8yr old that is fit to consent to have sex with a man, he should be able to. He also stated that there aren't going to be any 8yr olds that can give this consent. (The Emperor Fenix, if I messed up your words, sorry. But I'm pretty sure I got what you were saying.)

It seems as if a lot of people are ignoring what the ACLU is doing. This has been stated so many times already but... They are not supporting the beliefs or ideas of NAMBLA. This does not think that the ACLU thinks it's okay to have sex with children. There were some parents of a kid that got killed and now the parents have sued (or are suing, I forgot which) NAMBLA for something that a couple of people did. NAMBLA did not tell them to people to go do this to the child. NAMBLA is against hurting children. DAMMIT people, look at a few web pages, it's not difficult. It actually started to feel alittle nauscious while on the NAMBLA page, but I found out they don't condone the hurting of children.

I was probably ready at 14, but I didn't get any till 16. I was fit to consent.

I just got done doing a paper on sex education. It's ridiculous how many people think things like this. I'm prettys sure most kids these days know what sex is by the age of 12, some have sex by that age. I knew what sex is when I was, maybe, 10. If a 14yr old doesn't know what sex is, that's because they have irresponsible parents. Other than that, I had irresponsible parents but I took sex ed in 7th grade, which was when I was 12.


People are starting that the government should have more control over people and be able to limit their "free" speech. And people think they can sue anybody for any reason.

As The Emperor Fenix mentioned, the bible has no place in law.
______________________________________
I can't believe I read 12 pages of this crap.


Okay, what exactly is the first amendment issue here? There is none. It is a private action, not a government one. Also it seems that the parents may in fact have a primae facie case under exisiting laws which the ACLU has not chosen to contest until NAMBLA ran afoul of them.

Is it not therefore reasonable to conclude that the ACLU is involved not because of commitment to general constitutional prinicipals, but rather because of some affinty with the message of NAMBLA itself. (Which judging by the reprehensible behavior of the ACLU I find all too likely).

Rehabilitation is a myth.
Its sad that you think that, and even sadder if thats the case.

(The Emperor Fenix, if I messed up your words, sorry. But I'm pretty sure I got what you were saying.)
Nope :D you've got it, i think :P.

And you can drop the The.

:D