NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

"Rehabilitation is a myth" is propaganda spread by the most vicious elements of 'law-abiding' society. It's mostly used to support governmentally sanctioned murder. Some people cannot be rehabilitated. But most Americans aren't worried about rehabilitation anyways, because the aim of the incarceration system that you have is based on retribution rather than anything sensible.

Case in point: California's Three Strikes law.

Rehabilitation is a myth... for sociopaths.

It is possible for those with empathy/respect for others.

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.
Actually, they can. Collecting anything, however, is another matter.

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.
Rehabilitation works for some. I've done time, one of my good friends did 8 years upstate in NY. Neither one of us commits crime anymore. Sex offenders can't seem to be rehabilitated though.

Edit: I do own an illegal firearm. That's a crime.

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).

Obviously, you're confused. The ACLU is supporting NAMBLA's right to say what they want. Like has been said earlier, they have even supported the KKK. The parents are suing because of NAMBLA's message, rather than any direct, linking evidence.

And you, sir, lost a great amount of respect in my eyes by comparing ACLU to a group you believe to be an organization of child molestors.

"Rehabilitation is a myth" is propaganda spread by the most vicious elements of 'law-abiding' society. It's mostly used to support governmentally sanctioned murder. Some people cannot be rehabilitated. But most Americans aren't worried about rehabilitation anyways, because the aim of the incarceration system that you have is based on retribution rather than anything sensible.

Case in point: California's Three Strikes law.
The ideal would be to rehabilitate offenders so they could become valuable members of society, but I know of no statistics which serve to prove anything other than that rehabilitation is a miserable failure. I suspect the pendulum is beginning to swing back toward concern for victims and society's right to safety, and away from concern for perpetrators.

it is a rather known fact that child molestors are beaten up and killed in prison.
Yeah. COs will often put those guilty of heinous crimes in with a few very violent lifers. Then the CO mysteriously disappears for a while and when he comes back, surprise! No more molestor.

The ideal would be to rehabilitate offenders so they could become valuable members of society, but I know of no statistics which serve to prove anything other than that rehabilitation is a miserable failure. I suspect the pendulum is beginning to swing back toward concern for victims and society's right to safety, and away from concern for perpetrators.
There should be equal concern for both, however i fear the funds and the will for this is often lacking.

Yeah. COs will often put those guilty of heinous crimes in with a few very violent lifers. Then the CO mysteriously disappears for a while and when he comes back, surprise! No more molestor.
Aint that the darndest thing.

While I don't necessarily agree with Nambla's views, they do have the right to express them. What the ACLU is defending is NOT what Nambla has to say, rather, the ACLU is defending their right to say it.

When the position being defended is one like Nambla's, a lot of people confuse what the ACLU's purpose is. They're not trying to assist Nambla in their advocacy, they're reminding people that all of us have a right to free speech, no matter how controversial. Nambla has not broken any laws in promoting themselves, and cannot be held responsible for crimes committed by people reading their material. The "devil made me do it" defense doesn't work.

There are many times when the ACLU gets a bad rap for defending organizations that we don't necessarily approve of. Despite their own condemnation of the KKK, they have even defended that organization in the past. The ACLU, no matter what we say about it, does its best to ensure that _everyone's_ rights are upheld, no matter how popular or unpopular they are.

I may not agree with Nambla, but I agree with the ACLU's decision to defend their right to speak. I look at it this way- If someone looks at my website, then goes off and kills someone, and blames the material on my website for it, would I want the ACLU to help me? You bet I would, so I'm not going to condemn them for doing the same thing for someone else.

~*Hunter

The ideal would be to rehabilitate offenders so they could become valuable members of society, but I know of no statistics which serve to prove anything other than that rehabilitation is a miserable failure. I suspect the pendulum is beginning to swing back toward concern for victims and society's right to safety, and away from concern for perpetrators.

*shakes his head* We do it all the time. Canada. Our 'prison' system is set up to give the inmates counselling and life skills that they may have missed which cause them to turn to crime. That way, they become productive members of society, albeit ones with criminal records. And we give progressively harsher sentences and we're less forgiving of repeat offenders.

*shakes his head* We do it all the time. Canada. Our 'prison' system is set up to give the inmates counselling and life skills that they may have missed which cause them to turn to crime. That way, they become productive members of society, albeit ones with criminal records. And we give progressively harsher sentences and we're less forgiving of repeat offenders.
:D.

The idea that criminals could not be cured and should merely be punished is one that, in theory, went out in victorian times.

While I don't necessarily agree with Nambla's views, they do have the right to express them. What the ACLU is defending is NOT what Nambla has to say, rather, the ACLU is defending their right to say it.

When the position being defended is one like Nambla's, a lot of people confuse what the ACLU's purpose is. They're not trying to assist Nambla in their advocacy, they're reminding people that all of us have a right to free speech, no matter how controversial. Nambla has not broken any laws in promoting themselves, and cannot be held responsible for crimes committed by people reading their material. The "devil made me do it" defense doesn't work.

There are many times when the ACLU gets a bad rap for defending organizations that we don't necessarily approve of. Despite their own condemnation of the KKK, they have even defended that organization in the past. The ACLU, no matter what we say about it, does its best to ensure that _everyone's_ rights are upheld, no matter how popular or unpopular they are.

I may not agree with Nambla, but I agree with the ACLU's decision to defend their right to speak. I look at it this way- If someone looks at my website, then goes off and kills someone, and blames the material on my website for it, would I want the ACLU to help me? You bet I would, so I'm not going to condemn them for doing the same thing for someone else.

~*Hunter
That's the fourth or fifth time something like this has been said. While I thank you for your contribution, unless you're down in the muck, slinging s*** like the people who are suddenly anti-ACLU, your message is unlikely to get across. *sigh and eyeroll*

Someone said not sure who it was that the police weren't after them Well the FBI are on their trail and investigating them. In fact I watched an interview where the story was about Nambla and the FBI had managed to inflitrate their ranks and arrested 7 members. I will post the story when I find it. So yes NAMBLA has committed a crime and some of its memebers have been arrested.

Yes people do have freedom of speach...even for ideas we consider vulgar.But we as a people need to know that somethings are appropiate to talk about in a public forum and some things are meant to stay private.

Also anyone who thinks that the ACLU doesn't have a left leaning agenda...need to take there heads out of the sand. In the begining they where for protection of everyone's speach. But over the years they have moved towards a more far left agenda. Case after case they take up proves this.

Someone said not sure who it was that the police weren't after them Well the FBI are on their trail and investigating them. In fact I watched an interview where the story was about Nambla and the FBI had managed to inflitrate their ranks and arrested 7 members. I will post the story when I find it. So yes NAMBLA has committed a crime and some of its memebers have been arrested.

Yes people do have freedom of speach...even for ideas we consider vulgar.But we as a people need to know that somethings are appropiate to talk about in a public forum and some things aren't mean to stay private.

NAMBLA has not committed a crime. Members within the organization have committed a crime. Every Republican in the US was not responsible for the actions of Watergate. Keep this in mind.

NAMBLA has not committed a crime. Members within the organization have committed a crime. Every Republican was not responsible for Watergate. Keep this in mind.
There everynow and then i damn well wish they were :D

Obviously, you're confused. The ACLU is supporting NAMBLA's right to say what they want. Like has been said earlier, they have even supported the KKK. The parents are suing because of NAMBLA's message, rather than any direct, linking evidence.

And you, sir, lost a great amount of respect in my eyes by comparing ACLU to believe you believe to be an organization of child molestors.

No, you're confused. I'll ask again. What are the purported first amendment issues here? It is on that issue the ACLU *claims* it is defending NAMBLA.

But that is simply a pretext. No-one can articulate any first amendment implications with this case whatsoever. Therefore the ACLU must have other reasons for this, and I can only conclude it is that they, in fact, agree with the message. No other reasonable interpretation fits.

It is simple, this is a private action, not a government one. Moreover, it seems as if there is a primae facie case under exsiting law. Law which the ACLU to this point has declined to challenge. If these 'restrictions' in the manner of speech were good enough for the rest of us yesterday, why does the ACLU find them so onerous when applied to NAMBLA today.

I would further point out that while not rich, NAMBLA is hardly an indigent organization, given that it holds meetings, is able to publish pamphlets etc. and therefore is quite capable of conducting its own defense.

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.

If you only had best intentions for a child, you would understand that the parent was protecting their child, and take personal offense. It is difficult to get children to understand the concept that some people will hurt them, without scaring them. It is best to set a firm policy concerning all strangers and not cloud the issue with confusion. Give your gift to Toys for Tots and they can distribute to the poor family.

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.

For sex offenders rehabilitation almost never is effective. For other crimes it can be. IMHO most sex offenders have desires and compulsions they can't control. I would hardly want someone executed for things they can't control. But I don't want to live with them either. I think they should be treated as incurably mentally ill and stay under state control. If someone is criminal and incurably mentally ill, they should stay away from those they might harm, permanently.

No, you're confused. I'll ask again. What are the purported first amendment issues here? It is on that issue the ACLU *claims* it is defending NAMBLA.
The parents are saying that NAMBLA was responsible for the molestation and death of their child, merely because NAMBLA is for sex with boys.

But that is simply a pretext. No-one can articulate any first amendment implications with this case whatsoever. Therefore the ACLU must have other reasons for this, and I can only conclude it is that they, in fact, agree with the message. No other reasonable interpretation fits.
Reasonable interpretations don't come from unreasonable people. *scowls*

It is simple, this is a private action, not a government one. Moreover, it seems as if there is a primae facie case under exsiting law. Law which the ACLU to this point has declined to challenge. If these 'restrictions' in the manner of speech were good enough for the rest of us yesterday, why does the ACLU find them so onerous when applied to NAMBLA today.
Government or private, it makes little difference. Private citizens or organizations are not allowed stifling others any more than the government is.

I would further point out that while not rich, NAMBLA is hardly an indigent organization, given that it holds meetings, is able to publish pamphlets etc. and therefore is quite capable of conducting its own defense.
I feel no need to refute this as I care nothing about the wealth of NAMBLA. The ACLU isn't providing them with support because they're poor, they're providing NAMBLA with support because it is NECESSARY.

Shoo, and go play with the other people who have parts of their logic centers shorted out.

If you only had best intentions for a child, you would understand that the parent was protecting their child, and take personal offense. It is difficult to get children to understand the concept that some people will hurt them, without scaring them. It is best to set a firm policy concerning all strangers and not cloud the issue with confusion. Give your gift to Toys for Tots and they can distribute to the poor family.
Give to charity or give to the parent basically. Whilst i would hate to curtail the milk of human kindness if you give the iotem to the parent he/she/it can then give it to the child later, thus, no mis-education AND a warm happy feeling for all.

Give to charity or give to the parent basically. Whilst i would hate to curtail the milk of human kindness if you give the iotem to the parent he/she/it can then give it to the child later, thus, no mis-education AND a warm happy feeling for all.

Frankly, there are some parents that I don't trust to give much of anything to their children. While I can't be certain the gift would stay with the child, I'd be much happier knowing that the child was happy for a time. *shrug* I don't disagree, but I don't much agree, either.

Give to charity or give to the parent basically. Whilst i would hate to curtail the milk of human kindness if you give the iotem to the parent he/she/it can then give it to the child later, thus, no mis-education AND a warm happy feeling for all.

Exactly! Kids are able to spot and enlarge a loophole from a mile off.

Exactly! Kids are able to spot and enlarge a loophole from a mile off.

Lord knows I've done it enough. *chuckles* I see your point. I don't much like it, though. *shrug* But it's not your duty to make me like it any more than it's my duty to like it because you present it.

*grin*

Frankly, there are some parents that I don't trust to give much of anything to their children. While I can't be certain the gift would stay with the child, I'd be much happier knowing that the child was happy for a time. *shrug* I don't disagree, but I don't much agree, either.
Yes, there are some parents that probably would keep the gift and sell it, but regretable in such a case theres nothing really you could do about it :(.

However with a properly developed social services such a parent would have been re-educated. And yes im aware that this is veyr wishful thinking.

No, you're confused. I'll ask again. What are the purported first amendment issues here? It is on that issue the ACLU *claims* it is defending NAMBLA.

But that is simply a pretext. No-one can articulate any first amendment implications with this case whatsoever. Therefore the ACLU must have other reasons for this, and I can only conclude it is that they, in fact, agree with the message. No other reasonable interpretation fits.

It is simple, this is a private action, not a government one. Moreover, it seems as if there is a primae facie case under exsiting law. Law which the ACLU to this point has declined to challenge. If these 'restrictions' in the manner of speech were good enough for the rest of us yesterday, why does the ACLU find them so onerous when applied to NAMBLA today.

I would further point out that while not rich, NAMBLA is hardly an indigent organization, given that it holds meetings, is able to publish pamphlets etc. and therefore is quite capable of conducting its own defense.

The bill of rights and all of the amendments of the constitution do not only apply to the government. No individual can violate the freedoms you are granted by the constitution either. There is a reason that the rules for suing the media for defamation are very strict. Because law suits have a chilling effect, and successfully suing someone for exercising their freedom of speech causes others to limit their speech. That is the type of chilling effect that the ACLU wants to prevent. If this case succeeds, then it sets a precedent whereby freedom of speech is severely limited by the threat of law suits. This would mean that parents can sue NORML for causing their childs marijuana addiction, or that victims in an abortion bombing can sue focus on the family for causing the abortion bombing, and many other such ludicrous scenarios.

Anyways, I'm leaving this discussion as it seems all interesting debate about the topic has ceased. Certainly, there is semi-amusing discussion about child welfare, but the discussion about NAMBLA and ACLU has seemed to end.

Love and respect to those who have debated semi-peacefully, and to those advocating violence, I hope you get rehabilitated sometime soon. It's not our place to become so enraged that we circumvent the law over the loss of another, unless we have a direct link to the victims. And even then, we should target our anger appropriately.

This is all personal opinion but (and although I may be a little biased) I do believe that it makes good common and practical sense. *shrug*

*chuckle* Kudos, Lazy. But I'm still out. *grin*

Anyways, I'm leaving this discussion as it seems all interesting debate about the topic has ceased. Certainly, there is semi-amusing discussion about child welfare, but the discussion about NAMBLA and ACLU has seemed to end.

Love and respect to those who have debated semi-peacefully, and to those advocating violence, I hope you get rehabilitated sometime soon. It's not our place to become so enraged that we circumvent the law over the loss of another, unless we have a direct link to the victims. And even then, we should target our anger appropriately.

This is all personal opinion but (and although I may be a little biased) I do believe that it makes good common and practical sense. *shrug*

*chuckle* Kudos, Lazy. But I'm still out. *grin*

Yep, i'd better go too. I know i said that before and i never did but the lights failing and i must work damnit :P.

This said.

Toodles.

The parents are saying that NAMBLA was responsible for the molestation and death of their child, merely because NAMBLA is for sex with boys.


Reasonable interpretations don't come from unreasonable people. *scowls*

Is that what they are saying? Have you read the complaint? This is arguably identical in posture to cases where racists groups are sued, rightly so, for advocating violence against minorities by the victims of such violent acts. (And where is the ACLU then?).


Government or private, it makes little difference. Private citizens or organizations are not allowed stifling others any more than the government is.

Yes it does, it makes a world of difference. NAMBLA is not being sanctioned by the goverment for its speech. The parents however are seeking redress at law for the *consequences* of NAMBLAs speech.

Moreover, there has always been a distinction between the reach of the first amendment in the sphere of private action and government action. Libel laws come to mind. In that, this case is no different, yet all you can do is prattle on about "stifling speech." Well this may come as news to you, but the first amendment does not grant an absolute right to say whatever you want, whenever you want.

This case arguably falls clearly within already established restrictions, and implicates no genuine first amendment issues that I, or for that matter you, can argue. It has been a long accepted tenant of Anglo-American law that one is able to bring suit for the consequences of certain expression. If I were to be injured in a stampede after a man shouted fire in a crowded theater, I could bring suit and win, and the first amendment would offer no protection.

I feel no need to refute this as I care nothing about the wealth of NAMBLA. The ACLU isn't providing them with support because they're poor, they're providing NAMBLA with support because it is NECESSARY.

Shoo, and go play with the other people who have parts of their logic centers shorted out.

Either tell me what first amendment issues are implicated, or stop accusing other people of having shorted logic centers. It only makes you look ignorant.

Exactly! Kids are able to spot and enlarge a loophole from a mile off.
Yes. NAMBLA is very good at spotting and enlarging holes as well. :D

dude, you think it's sick that the ACLU is defending NAMBLA? it gets much worse...the ACLU defended RUSH LIMBAUGH.

talk about sickening.

dude, you think it's sick that the ACLU is defending NAMBLA? it gets much worse...the ACLU defended RUSH LIMBAUGH.

talk about sickening.

That was one ACLU Case I DID support! Doctor/Patient Confidentiality.

Yes. NAMBLA is very good at spotting and enlarging holes as well. :D
There may be a reason for that.

According to a 1992 study by Freund and Watson, "although homosexuals account for less than two percent of the population, they constitute about a third of child molesters."

A 1991 population study by the U.S. Department of Commerce showed that 6 to 8 million boys were sexually abused by 1 to 2 million adult homosexuals, a ratio of 3 to 5 victims for every gay adult. Since heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by about 44 to 1, as a group, the incidence of homosexuals molesting children is up to 40 times greater than heterosexuals.

Homosexuals, themselves, admit to underage sexual practices. The Gay Report, published by homosexual researchers Jay and Young in 1979, revealed that "73 percent of homosexuals had sex at some time with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger."

Okay the Watergate analogy doesn't work becuase the Republican party as whole didn't know that Nixon was doing that. If they did and gave him permission to do that then whole entire Republican party would be responsible However the NAMBLA organization as whole is okay with what their members do and supports it .They even print and supply there membeship with literature on how to rape small boys and get away with it. So the organization is responsible.

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


Sick shit

Okay the Watergate analogy doesn't work becuase the Republican party as whole didn't know that Nixon was doing that. If they did and gave him permission to do that then whole entire Republican party would be responsible However the NAMBLA organization as whole is okay with what their members do and supports it .They even print and supply there membeship with literature on how to rape small boys and get away with it. So the organization is responsible.

This entire post is lies (except for the stuff about republicans). The person over who they are suing was not even a NAMBLA member. He just happened to have some NAMBLA literature and visited the website a few times. NAMBLA does not publish literature on how to rape boys and get away with it. NAMBLA has a strong anti-violence stance to the point of being against corporal punishment and does not support force, violence, or coersion of any kind.

While I don't necessarily agree with Nambla's views, they do have the right to express them. What the ACLU is defending is NOT what Nambla has to say, rather, the ACLU is defending their right to say it.

When the position being defended is one like Nambla's, a lot of people confuse what the ACLU's purpose is. They're not trying to assist Nambla in their advocacy, they're reminding people that all of us have a right to free speech, no matter how controversial. Nambla has not broken any laws in promoting themselves, and cannot be held responsible for crimes committed by people reading their material. The "devil made me do it" defense doesn't work.

There are many times when the ACLU gets a bad rap for defending organizations that we don't necessarily approve of. Despite their own condemnation of the KKK, they have even defended that organization in the past. The ACLU, no matter what we say about it, does its best to ensure that _everyone's_ rights are upheld, no matter how popular or unpopular they are.

I may not agree with Nambla, but I agree with the ACLU's decision to defend their right to speak. I look at it this way- If someone looks at my website, then goes off and kills someone, and blames the material on my website for it, would I want the ACLU to help me? You bet I would, so I'm not going to condemn them for doing the same thing for someone else.

~*Hunter
Which is one of the primary reasons I've always supported the ACLU in principle, albiet rather grudgingly. However, IMHO it's virtually impossible to separate that which an organization advocates from anyone who supports the organization for whatever reason. The ACLU's support of NAMBLA, regardless of their rationale for doing so, places them in the position of indirectly supporting NAMBLA's right to advocate sex between adults and children, something which has been proven time and time again to be highly detrimental to children.

Call me "victorian," call me a dinosaur, call me unreasonable, irrational, or any of a host of other mildly ( or not so mildly ) derogatory names, but children are a soft spot for me. Child abuse, neglect or molestation are some of the very few things that will bring me close to true rage.

The bill of rights and all of the amendments of the constitution do not only apply to the government. No individual can violate the freedoms you are granted by the constitution either. There is a reason that the rules for suing the media for defamation are very strict. Because law suits have a chilling effect, and successfully suing someone for exercising their freedom of speech causes others to limit their speech. That is the type of chilling effect that the ACLU wants to prevent. If this case succeeds, then it sets a precedent whereby freedom of speech is severely limited by the threat of law suits. This would mean that parents can sue NORML for causing their childs marijuana addiction, or that victims in an abortion bombing can sue focus on the family for causing the abortion bombing, and many other such ludicrous scenarios.

One of the guys who assaulted and killed this child had visited the NAMBLA site several times, and had visited immediately before the attack. In view of the material available on the site, it is the parents' contention that the content of this site promoted the attack. This would hold NAMBLA responsible to a large measure.

There may be a reason for that.

According to a 1992 study by Freund and Watson, "although homosexuals account for less than two percent of the population, they constitute about a third of child molesters."

A 1991 population study by the U.S. Department of Commerce showed that 6 to 8 million boys were sexually abused by 1 to 2 million adult homosexuals, a ratio of 3 to 5 victims for every gay adult. Since heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by about 44 to 1, as a group, the incidence of homosexuals molesting children is up to 40 times greater than heterosexuals.

Homosexuals, themselves, admit to underage sexual practices. The Gay Report, published by homosexual researchers Jay and Young in 1979, revealed that "73 percent of homosexuals had sex at some time with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger."

Even if true, that's only sexual abuse of boys. I'm sure the incedence of heterosexuals abuse for girls is higher. :rolleyes:

Even if true, that's only sexual abuse of boys. I'm sure the incedence of heterosexuals abuse for girls is higher. :rolleyes:
I wouldn't be surprised.

But then again, the ones who abuse boys have their own public national organization and website.

Currently, I don't see a comparable one for men who abuse girls.

One of the guys who assaulted and killed this child had visited the NAMBLA site several times, and had visited immediately before the attack. In view of the material available on the site, it is the parents' contention that the content of this site promoted the attack. This would hold NAMBLA responsible to a large measure.

Thats what they are trying to prove. It is a hopeless case because anyone who has seen that web site knows it doesnt promote such things. But that is beside the point. The point remains that the ACLUs reasons for taking an interest in this case have nothing to do with supporting NAMBLAs agenda (which is what I was refuting in this post).

Even if true, that's only sexual abuse of boys. I'm sure the incedence of heterosexuals abuse for girls is higher. :rolleyes:
It would be interesting to see some statistics on this, but I seriously doubt they would accurately reflect the reality of abuse, most of which is never reported. :(

One of the guys who assaulted and killed this child had visited the NAMBLA site several times, and had visited immediately before the attack. In view of the material available on the site, it is the parents' contention that the content of this site promoted the attack. This would hold NAMBLA responsible to a large measure.

That doesn't constitute it being NAMBLA's fault unless they encourage assualt or killing of children. If I'm on NS and go kill someone afterwards, it's hardly the fault of NS.

That doesn't constitute it being NAMBLA's fault unless they encourage assualt or killing of children. If I'm on NS and go kill someone afterwards, it's hardly the fault of NS.
Just as long as it's not me you kill! :D

Somewhat OT. I've started a thread called "what the hell is going on in France?" to discuss the recent arrest of a pedophile ring there.

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.
.

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.


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.


1) Not to sound arrogant, but I could have lots of sex starting around age 12-13, cause, yeah, I was (and still am) just that good looking, and was quite popular with most folks in my school, well a number of folks. Anyway, I didn't have sex, never took up offers to, and I still have my virginity intact today. :D

2) I had vague ideas of what sex was around age 12-14, but I basically didn't know anything about positions, technique, etc, and I turned out fine. (My father explained all about sex to me later on, when I asked him about it, around age 17). No school has a right to teach children something that is really meant to be taught by a parent.

If I had a 14 year old girl who somehow got pregnant, I'd not allow her to have an abortion, period.

3) I will NEVER give undying loyalty or obedience to any government which won't acknowledge Jesus Christ as God. At the first chance there is to institute a theocracy, I will put all my efforts into helping it be established.

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.


I'd hope for "jury nullification", get a jury of 12 parents and they'll never convict you. Hell, if I was on the jury, you could stand up and shout, "I did it! I shot him! Yes!" and I'd still vote not-guilty. I vote with my conscience, not by what the law says (Of course I'd never let that be known when trying to get on the jury).

Even if true, that's only sexual abuse of boys. I'm sure the incedence of heterosexuals abuse for girls is higher. :rolleyes:

This isn't a question of gender preference. IMO, the protection and nurturing of children is our most important responsibility in life. I agree with Eutrusca, in that I have never taken physical action against another person except in the defense of a child. To see anyone mistreat a child makes me want to cause great physical harm.

I don't think a child should engage in sexual acts with anyone except another child of similiar age.




I don't think a child should engage in sexual acts with anyone, period.

Just as long as it's not me you kill! :D

Spank you, maybe. :D

That doesn't constitute it being NAMBLA's fault unless they encourage assualt or killing of children. If I'm on NS and go kill someone afterwards, it's hardly the fault of NS.

NAMBLA advocates for and instructs on the sexual molestation of children. As sex with children is a major felony, and since a kid that has been molested will no doubt tell someone what has happened, it is in the pervert's interest to silence the child. So, in effect, NAMBLA did support the murder of this child.

1) Not to sound arrogant, but I could have lots of sex starting around age 12-13, cause, yeah, I was (and still am) just that good looking, and was quite popular with most folks in my school, well a number of folks. Anyway, I didn't have sex, never took up offers to, and I still have my virginity intact today. :D

2) I had vague ideas of what sex was around age 12-14, but I basically didn't know anything about positions, technique, etc, and I turned out fine. (My father explained all about sex to me later on, when I asked him about it, around age 17). No school has a right to teach children something that is really meant to be taught by a parent.

If I had a 14 year old girl who somehow got pregnant, I'd not allow her to have an abortion, period.

3) I will NEVER give undying loyalty or obedience to any government which won't acknowledge Jesus Christ as God. At the first chance there is to institute a theocracy, I will put all my efforts into helping it be established.

Well i did have sex at 12, or possibly 11 i cant honestly remember waht and it did me NO good what so ever.

And i have a little thing to tell you.

The US government is intended to be secular, SECULAR. the UK government is not, but i should tell you, in a way that obviously doesnt cause you any harm, that you are not welome.

I wouldn't be surprised.

But then again, the ones who abuse boys have their own public national organization and website.

Currently, I don't see a comparable one for men who abuse girls.

That was in response to your post about homosexuals being more likely than heteros to assualt boys. Heteros are more likely to assualt girls.

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.You have to understand that tha ACLU doesn't judge the content of speach. Nambla, however disgusting, is very careful in all it's literature to say it doesn't advocate breaking the law.
They say that they want to change existing laws, now however repugnant that idea is, they are protected by the constitution to be able to say that. It shouldn't matter what the particular law is, you should be able to talk about it. Nambla will never succeed in it's goals but they are allowed to have them. As long as they don't break any laws or advocate breaking laws they are within protected free speech.

The crime was a tragic one and nothing can console the families, but I suspect this lawsuit is more about money and finding someone to blame for their loss (besides the actual perpetrators). Honestly, Nambla is not a S+M organization and doesn't promote killing or violence torwards children.

Well at least not beyond the repugnant homosexual relationships with minors........But even these sicko's draw a line.

i do not support the NAMBLA*



Then stop acting like it, if you want people to actually believe you that is.

I don't think a child should engage in sexual acts with anyone, period.

Children engage in sexual exploration at an early age, sometimes with other children. Even infants mastrubate.

That was in response to your post about homosexuals being more likely than heteros to assualt boys. Heteros are more likely to assualt girls.
And I'm saying I agree.

The official figure is 1 in 4 girls is the victim of father-daughter incest. That's quite a few.

But, I don't see a National Association for Father-Daughter Love out there, do you?

Then stop acting like it, if you want people to actually believe you that is.
NO, i will stand up for what i believe, and i believe in the freedom of the individual where this does not harm others.

And I'm saying I agree.

The official figure is 1 in 4 girls is the victim of father-daughter incest. That's quite a few.

But, I don't see a National Association for Father-Daughter Love out there, do you?

It's repulsive either way. But I still don't think it should be illegal to talk about it.

1) Not to sound arrogant, but I could have lots of sex starting around age 12-13, cause, yeah, I was (and still am) just that good looking, and was quite popular with most folks in my school, well a number of folks. Anyway, I didn't have sex, never took up offers to, and I still have my virginity intact today. :D

OK, everyone, be honest. How many of you went to player pics to see if this person was telling the truth? I did. :p

OK, everyone, be honest. How many of you went to player pics to see if this person was telling the truth? I did. :p
Yes i have to admit i was curious :P.

NO, i will stand up for what i believe, and i believe in the freedom of the individual where this does not harm others.


The very nature of pedophilia is harmful to others. You're basically saying, "I support rapists as long as they don't harm others." Rape is inherently harmful!

OK, everyone, be honest. How many of you went to player pics to see if this person was telling the truth? I did. :p


My picture isn't there, I don't go tossing my picture around online, sorry. :(

The very nature of pedophilia is harmful to others. You're basically saying, "I support rapists as long as they don't harm others." Rape is inherently harmful!
No, that is almost exactly what i am not saying.

Rapists cannot rape without harming others.

Paedophiles could, conceivably, not harm a child, it is possible, and all i am saying, and all i have ever said that is under these cirumstances it should not be illegal.

My picture isn't there, I don't go tossing my picture around online, sorry. :(

Really? Have you checked my picture out? I'm a cutie!!

NAMBLA advocates for and instructs on the sexual molestation of children. As sex with children is a major felony, and since a kid that has been molested will no doubt tell someone what has happened, it is in the pervert's interest to silence the child. So, in effect, NAMBLA did support the murder of this child.

No, they do not. They promote the repeal of age of consent laws. They do not advocate breaking the law or instruct anyone on how to do so. If they did, they would be a criminal organization and the government wouldve cracked down on them.

Really? Have you checked my picture out? I'm a cutie!!


BitchKitten has seen my webcam, she can attest that I'm a cute good ole boy. :D

The very nature of pedophilia is harmful to others. You're basically saying, "I support rapists as long as they don't harm others." Rape is inherently harmful!You still don't get it VE. There is a difference between "let's rape people" and "let's change the laws to allow rape". Both are repulsive ideas. But one is promoting breaking the law and the other is actually promoting changing the law.

Have you never heard the saying "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it"?

No, that is almost exactly what i am not saying.

Rapists cannot rape without harming others.

Paedophiles could, conceivably, not harm a child, it is possible, and all i am saying, and all i have ever said that is under these cirumstances it should not be illegal.


The very nature of an adult having sex with a child will likely emotionally ruin them. Just because it might be physically possibly not to harm the child (you seem to be implying physically so, and ignoring the massive emotional ramifications of child rape) it still would leave the child emotionally shattered.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to accomplish by supporting NAMBLA.

Have you never heard the saying "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it"?


Yes, and I don't believe in that. I say, "I may not agree with what you say, but keep away from me while you're saying it, and I won't have to resist the urge to harm you." (Although I don't really care what people say, unless they're advocating rape of children and other such awful things)

The very nature of an adult having sex with a child will likely emotionally ruin them. Just because it might be physically possibly not to harm the child (you seem to be implying physically so, and ignoring the massive emotional ramifications of child rape) it still would leave the child emotionally shattered.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to accomplish by supporting NAMBLA.

Again, ive sadi this in red already so i cant get any more ernest.

I. DO. NOT. SUPPORT. THE. OPINIONS. OF. THE. NAMBLA !

And for gods sake, wehn i say harm i mean harm, that includes psychological, do you think i am so stupid as to leave that out, i certainly did not assume you were so stupid as to believe i had not included it.

I am not saying that it is possible to find a child that can have consensual sex below a certain age, i am merely saying that SHOULD one exist it should not be against the law for that child to have sex.

You seem to be missing this piont, and i increasingly suspec it is deliberately.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to accomplish by supporting NAMBLA.Wow, what'd I miss!

I haven't read a single post that seriously supports nambla. Just people that support their right to free speech. Which in essence is supporting that right for all.

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?

http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=2989614&nav=EQlpWjof

Children engage in sexual exploration at an early age, sometimes with other children. Even infants mastrubate.


I don't believe that, infants may touch themselves (they touch everything though, anything that moves, animals, etc) but they don't masturbate themselves unto orgasm.

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


I saw a site talking about that from a link on an ex-JWitnesses home page I was at once. Had forgot all about it til you said that slogan. One of the men told his story at a conference about how when he was a young boy, an older man fondled him in a swimming pool etc. Not sure if that man was the one that started the "Sex before eight, or it's too late" or not, but he spoke of it.

Really? Have you checked my picture out? I'm a cutie!!



Can't say I have, got a link?

NAMBLA advocates for and instructs on the sexual molestation of children. As sex with children is a major felony, and since a kid that has been molested will no doubt tell someone what has happened, it is in the pervert's interest to silence the child. So, in effect, NAMBLA did support the murder of this child.

By your reasoning:

1) The NRA supports gun ownership as per the 2nd amendment
2) People own guns and sometimes kill with them
3) The NRA therefore should be held criminally responsible when a gun-related homicide is committed.

Nonsense obviously. NAMBLA does not advocate child murder and since they did not commit the crime they should not be prosecuted for it. Sadly, the 1st amendment does protect them from SAYING what they want but you have to commit a tangible crime in order to be arrested for said crime.

I don't believe that, infants may touch themselves (they touch everything though, anything that moves, animals, etc) but they don't masturbate themselves unto orgasm.
Maybe not to orgasm, but they do it for the same reason most people do, because it feels good.

i am merely saying that SHOULD one exist it should not be against the law for that child to have sex.





No children below 16 are mature enough to consent to sex, particularly with a grown man who is just taking advantage of them. The more you talk about how "some children might be able to" the more I start to believe you've got a stake of some sort in this.

I don't know what it is, I don't know why you're saying what you are, I'm not accussing you of being a pedophile or anything like that, but what you say sounds very suspicious, at least to me.

I saw a site talking about that from a link on an ex-JWitnesses home page I was at once. Had forgot all about it til you said that slogan. One of the men told his story at a conference about how when he was a young boy, an older man fondled him in a swimming pool etc. Not sure if that man was the one that started the "Sex before eight, or it's too late" or not, but he spoke of it.

That phrase was coined by French sex researcher Renee Guyon, and was used by the Renee Guyon Society, an organization that, as it turns out, had only one member. It is not used by NAMBLA.

Maybe not to orgasm, but they do it for the same reason most people do, because it feels good.


I'm living proof that children don't necessarily masturbate (at least some children abstain). I never masturbated as a child.

By your reasoning:

1) The NRA supports gun ownership as per the 2nd amendment
2) People own guns and sometimes kill with them
3) The NRA therefore should be held criminally responsible when a gun-related homicide is committed.

Nonsense obviously. NAMBLA does not advocate child murder and since they did not commit the crime they should not be prosecuted for it. Sadly, the 1st amendment does protect them from SAYING what they want but you have to commit a tangible crime in order to be arrested for said crime.

Excellent point. I also believe it's crap when someone sues a bar because someone who drank there got behind the wheel and killed someone.

You might notice from their website that the NRA is constantly using the word "law-abiding".

They are all for the legal use of firearms. Including for self-defense.

Currently, although some jurisdictions may restrict the use or carry of firearms, firearms are legal in most places, and you can easily get a concealed carry permit in the majority of US states.

Firearms have a longstanding history of use - both legal and illegal. But from a historical standpoint, they have always been a generally legal product in the US. And in quite a few other countries as well.

The same cannot be said of pedophilia - it is illegal in every part of the United States. You cannot get a permit for it anywhere. It has only an illegal history in the United States - and you have to go pretty far afield or back in time to find where it is or was legal. In most civilized nations on Earth, it's considered abhorrent - morally and legally.

So it's not a valid comparison.

Again, ive sadi this in red already so i cant get any more ernest.

I. DO. NOT. SUPPORT. THE. OPINIONS. OF. THE. NAMBLA !

And for gods sake, wehn i say harm i mean harm, that includes psychological, do you think i am so stupid as to leave that out, i certainly did not assume you were so stupid as to believe i had not included it.

I am not saying that it is possible to find a child that can have consensual sex below a certain age, i am merely saying that SHOULD one exist it should not be against the law for that child to have sex.

You seem to be missing this piont, and i increasingly suspec it is deliberately.

As children don't have the life experience, maturity, or developmental level to be able to have consenual sex without harm to them, how is this even a point to question? Should we pass laws allowing lizards to mate with people because one of them might want to some day? It's a non-issue.

No children below 16 are mature enough to consent to sex, particularly with a grown man who is just taking advantage of them. The more you talk about how "some children might be able to" the more I start to believe you've got a stake of some sort in this.

I don't know what it is, I don't know why you're saying what you are, I'm not accussing you of being a pedophile or anything like that, but what you say sounds very suspicious, at least to me.
My stake in this is the same every human being should have in this, up holding the rationality of the world, and ensuring fair treatment of all by all.

I am mildly insulted that despite my protestations to the contrary you sitll believe me to be a paedophile or at least one with some kind of strong ties to them in some way.

I have argued similarly and as vehementally that canabalism should be equally legal.

I believe that some children below the age of 16 can give porper consent, as i myself could at 14. i do not believe that this conintues down the ages indefinitly, but i am willing to admit that in some few (unlikely as this few may be) this may be the case.

I say some children may be able to because, in a universe where almost everything i spossible, somewhere it may just exist.

And by "take advantage of them" you prove to me you have completely misunderstood me and am frankly not worthy of my discussion.

Such a child would ahve to proven capable by extensive psychological testing, it is therefore impossible for the adult to take advantage of the child as it would be proven that the child understands exactly what is going on.

As children don't have the life experience, maturity, or developmental level to be able to have consenual sex without harm to them, how is this even a point to question? Should we pass laws allowing lizards to mate with people because one of them might want to some day? It's a non-issue.
Yes, id support a law saying that if an animal were ever able to express viable consent to sex with a human it should be legal.

You dont seem to get it, i support freedom where it does not harm others (who do ont wish to be harmed: see cannabalism).

This doesnt matter how unsavoury it may seem to you, i will supoort what needs to be supported.

This doesnt matter how unsavoury it may seem to you, i will supoort what needs to be supported.

Who are you to say what needs to be supported? I'm seriously starting to think you're somebody who latches to any cause that will create a stir, just to get a rise out of people.

I honestly hope you don't think pedophiles "need to be supported".

I am appalled. How can any one support the molestation of children? The ACLU went WAAAY over the line this time.

Who are you to say what needs to be supported? I'm seriously starting to think you're somebody who latches to any cause that will create a stir, just to get a rise out of people.

I honestly hope you don't think pedophiles "need to be supported".
I do not aim to cause a stir. shall i say this again.

Any action that does not harm others that do not wish to be harmed should be legal

period. without exception, i think. Im not suree there may be some previsos, but i cant think of one off the top of my head.

This is a cuase you evdiently dont understand.

Wow, what'd I miss!

I haven't read a single post that seriously supports nambla. Just people that support their right to free speech. Which in essence is supporting that right for all.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but unadulterated bullshit.

There is a universe of difference between advocating say, the right of vegitarians to advocate the abolition of the meat-packing industry on the one hand, or advocating the right of NAMBLA to advance the "cause" of sex between adults and children!

For God's sake, some states ban public smoking! How then can we allow the advocacy of adult/child sex which has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to harm children far, far more than smoking in public ever could??? :headbang:

I do not aim to cause a stir. shall i say this again.

Any action that does not harm others that do not wish to be harmed should be legal

period. without exception, i think. Im not suree there may be some previsos, but i cant think of one off the top of my head.

This is a cuase you evdiently dont understand.

See my sig, Fenix.

Whether or not legislation
is truly moral
is often a question
of who has the power
to define morality.
In a free society, standards
of public morality can be measured
only by whether
physical coercion
violence against persons
or property occurs.

Well, if I'm wearing my pistol, and someone attempts to rob me, and I show the pistol, and they run away, is that immoral?

I think not. I think it's the preferable solution to the imminent problem.

NAMBLA advocates for and instructs on the sexual molestation of children. As sex with children is a major felony, and since a kid that has been molested will no doubt tell someone what has happened, it is in the pervert's interest to silence the child. So, in effect, NAMBLA did support the murder of this child.

I fail to see where they instruct and they dont advocate either. Maybe you can provide a source for that? They want to lower or abolish the age of consent so that engaging with minors isnt considered molestation or rape anymore because it is legal.
While the whole concept is repugnant, it doesnt constitute a crime, doesnt endorse a crime, but rather calls for the reworking of laws so that no crime will happen in the first place.
Disclaimer, before any idiot comes along and accuses me of whatever: No, i dont support the Nambla but rather point out that fals allegations are soiling this discussion.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but unadulterated bullshit.

There is a universe of difference between advocating say, the right of vegitarians to advocate the abolition of the meat-packing industry on the one hand, or advocating the right of NAMBLA to advance the "cause" of sex between adults and children!

For God's sake, some states ban public smoking! How then can we allow the advocacy of adult/child sex which has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to harm children far, far more than smoking in public ever could??? :headbang:
Piont gone way over your head. you can see it up there, wow thats a long way up.

You can ban public smoking because it harms others, you cannot ban people from talking about smoking in public.

You can ban harming children, in this case through child molestation, you cannot (or shouldnt) ban people talking about it, as indeed we are now.

I do not aim to cause a stir. shall i say this again.

Any action that does not harm others that do not wish to be harmed should be legal

period. without exception, i think. Im not suree there may be some previsos, but i cant think of one off the top of my head.

This is a cuase you evdiently dont understand.


I am making an argument that children, and indeed most people under 18 or 16, cannot even consent to such activities because they're far too immature to understand and appreciate what they entail.

You have to be 16 to drive, but you want 8 year olds being allowed to decide if they have a sexual life?

Anybody under 14-15, ought not even know what the word sex means, or what sex is. Maybe 12-13 is the age to learn, but 8? (suspicious stare with raised brow)

Anybody under 14-15, ought not even know what the word sex means, or what sex is. Maybe 12-13 is the age to learn, but 8? (suspicious stare with raised brow)

Not disagreeing on whether or not an 8-year old has the capability to give consent (they don't), but are you sure you grew up in the United States?

For God's sake, some states ban public smoking! How then can we allow the advocacy of adult/child sex which has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to harm children far, far more than smoking in public ever could??? :headbang:
Yes, but you can peacefully assemble and call for a repeal of the public smoking laws all you want, that right is protected.

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.

They can talk about anything they like, that is their freedom. Blaming a murder on this group isn't legit since this group mentions nothing about killing anyone. This is quite simply a case of scapegoating.

The difference between the Boy Scouts and NAMBLA is that the Boy Scouts take federal money. If they accept federal money, then they cannot discriminate. If they want to discriminate, then they need to stop accepting government money. NAMBLA, as far as I know, accepts on government money.

Well, if I'm wearing my pistol, and someone attempts to rob me, and I show the pistol, and they run away, is that immoral?

I think not. I think it's the preferable solution to the imminent problem.

Funny. I don't believe it's immoral to use violence in direct defense of oneself or others.

Funny. I don't believe it's immoral to use violence in direct defense of oneself or others.
Awesome attitude, gal! You GO! :D

I am making an argument that children, and indeed most people under 18 or 16, cannot even consent to such activities because they're far too immature to understand and appreciate what they entail.

You have to be 16 to drive, but you want 8 year olds being allowed to decide if they have a sexual life?

Anybody under 14-15, ought not even know what the word sex means, or what sex is. Maybe 12-13 is the age to learn, but 8? (suspicious stare with raised brow)
Thats just stupid.

A 12 year old probably knows what sex is even if they cant put a word to it, sexual desires are innate, by not teaching children about them they merely find it impossible to put articularte their feelings.

And i am saying that someone qualified should be able to say if a child is able to decide if they have a sexual life.

and 8 has been used as an example beacuse it was quoted (erroneously) as having been said by the NAMBLA, i have repeatedly said that i dont believe an 8 year old would ever be considered old enough to give consent, but i also see no reason why a child that is able should be denied that right.

Ive said this several times and every time you misunderstand me, perhaps this time you will read this and try and work out what youve got wrong.

Yes, and I don't believe in that. I say, "I may not agree with what you say, but keep away from me while you're saying it, and I won't have to resist the urge to harm you." (Although I don't really care what people say, unless they're advocating rape of children and other such awful things)Interestingly, that statement puts you in the same catagory as Nambla.

Controversial stand that touches on illegal activity (harming others).

And I don't agree with you either but will defend your right to say your opinion.

Yes, id support a law saying that if an animal were ever able to express viable consent to sex with a human it should be legal.

You dont seem to get it, i support freedom where it does not harm others (who do ont wish to be harmed: see cannabalism).

This doesnt matter how unsavoury it may seem to you, i will supoort what needs to be supported.

There is no doubt that children are harmed in several ways by sexual activities with adults. To say that a child has the right to say they wish to be harmed and make child molestation legal is ridiculous.

are you sure you grew up in the United States?


If I didn't?

There is no doubt that children are harmed in several ways by sexual activities with adults. To say that a child has the right to say they wish to be harmed and make child molestation legal is ridiculous.
Luckily...

THAT'S NOT WHAT IM SAYING

I have said SO MANY TIMES, that someone qualified in psychology would have to do EXTENSIVE tests to prove that the child were able to give consent, adn that they would NOT be harmed.

LISTEN FOR GODS SAKE LISTEN, STOP BEING SO STUPID, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY YOUR INTERPRETATION OF MY WORDS IS WRONG BEFORE YOULL ACCEPT THAT THATS NOT WHAT I MEAN?

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.

NAMBLA wants it to be legal and they fight for it to be legal but its not their fault that someone kidnapped and murdered someones son.

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.


This is about First Amendment rights, I'm sorry. One of the downsides of free speech is that you are going to hear things that make you ill sometimes. The alternative of censorship is one I'd rather not risk.

As children don't have the life experience, maturity, or developmental level to be able to have consenual sex without harm to them, how is this even a point to question? Should we pass laws allowing lizards to mate with people because one of them might want to some day? It's a non-issue.
I've never met a lizard ( lounge or otherwise ) attractive enough to make me desire sex with them. :D

I've never met a lizard ( lounge or otherwise ) attractive enough to make me desire sex with them. :D
give it time :P just hold off sex for a while...

...

a long while.

Luckily...

THAT'S NOT WHAT IM SAYING

I have said SO MANY TIMES, that someone qualified in psychology would have to do EXTENSIVE tests to prove that the child were able to give consent, adn that they would NOT be harmed.

LISTEN FOR GODS SAKE LISTEN, STOP BEING SO STUPID, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY YOUR INTERPRETATION OF MY WORDS IS WRONG BEFORE YOULL ACCEPT THAT THATS NOT WHAT I MEAN?

Fine! I am obviously too obtuse to understand the validity of supporting a non-issue. No need to shout. That, being said, I'm really mad that I wasted my 1000th post on you. Now I'm the granny "pimp"...O, Lord love a duck!

This is about First Amendment rights, I'm sorry. One of the downsides of free speech is that you are going to hear things that make you ill sometimes. The alternative of censorship is one I'd rather not risk.
Fine. Just shoot the bastards and be done with it. Problem solved![/sarcasm] :rolleyes:

Luckily...

THAT'S NOT WHAT IM SAYING

I have said SO MANY TIMES, that someone qualified in psychology would have to do EXTENSIVE tests to prove that the child were able to give consent, adn that they would NOT be harmed.

LISTEN FOR GODS SAKE LISTEN, STOP BEING SO STUPID, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY YOUR INTERPRETATION OF MY WORDS IS WRONG BEFORE YOULL ACCEPT THAT THATS NOT WHAT I MEAN?


And I'm saying (and it seems others agree with me) no child is ever capable of consent, and some pro-pedophile psychologist with an agenda, saying the child can have sex with a fellow NAMBLA member, isn't going to fly, at least not in this country.

Fine! I am obviously too obtuse to understand the validity of supporting a non-issue. No need to shout. That, being said, I'm really mad that I wasted my 1000th post on you. Now I'm the granny "pimp"...O, Lord love a duck!
THe was need to shout as you and others had misunderstood me and continued to do so despite the fact that i tried to piont out nicely that you were.

I have spent the better part of this thread fenind of acussations of being a paedophile rather than being able to prove my piont.

When i sayu you're enterpreting my words wrong i should only have to say it once.

And I'm saying (and it seems others agree with me) no child is ever capable of consent, and some pro-pedophile psychologist with an agenda, saying the child can have sex with a fellow NAMBLA member, isn't going to fly, at least not in this country.
I should hope that more than one psychologist would be involved and that any pro-NAMBLA slant to the lot of them would be spotted by the independent control body.

You might notice from their website that the NRA is constantly using the word "law-abiding".

They are all for the legal use of firearms. Including for self-defense.

Currently, although some jurisdictions may restrict the use or carry of firearms, firearms are legal in most places, and you can easily get a concealed carry permit in the majority of US states.

Firearms have a longstanding history of use - both legal and illegal. But from a historical standpoint, they have always been a generally legal product in the US. And in quite a few other countries as well.

The same cannot be said of pedophilia - it is illegal in every part of the United States. You cannot get a permit for it anywhere. It has only an illegal history in the United States - and you have to go pretty far afield or back in time to find where it is or was legal. In most civilized nations on Earth, it's considered abhorrent - morally and legally.

So it's not a valid comparison.

Where and when exactly did NAMBLA ever advocate child murder? They have the right to say ANYTHING they want. Fortunatley for everyone, the 1st ammendment covers unpopular speach.

Sorry, but this is an attempt to create a scapegoat to satisfy someone's desire for revenge over the death of their child. While I respect their pain and anger, it is misguided. Scapegoating is not acceptable. We still have tribes in Africa that will kill a 9 year old girl for being a witch if a few people in the tribe come down with an illness. Scapegoating accomplishes nothing good.

I've never met a lizard ( lounge or otherwise ) attractive enough to make me desire sex with them. :D

I've seen some lot lizzards and I have trouble believing anyone wants them, but they seem to survive.

This is about First Amendment rights, I'm sorry. One of the downsides of free speech is that you are going to hear things that make you ill sometimes. The alternative of censorship is one I'd rather not risk.
That's my feeling about the whole thing. As a big-mouthed feminist atheist lefty, I have a bigger stake in this than someone with more mainstream views. I don't want to live here when someone decides my opinions are too dangerous to be heard.

THe was need to shout as you and others had misunderstood me and continued to do so despite the fact that i tried to piont out nicely that you were.

I have spent the better part of this thread fenind of acussations of being a paedophile rather than being able to prove my piont.

When i sayu you're enterpreting my words wrong i should only have to say it once.

I have understood that you were defending the right to advocate for whatever you want...I have also never accused you of being a pediophile or a troll. I am merely asking why support the rights of a group to demand a non-issue?

I believe that some children below the age of 16 can give porper consent, as i myself could at 14. i do not believe that this conintues down the ages indefinitly, but i am willing to admit that in some few (unlikely as this few may be) this may be the case.

A universal line has to be drawn SOMEWHERE. Most people are not mature enough in any way to properly consent at 14. Some are not mature enough at 40, but they are a infatessimally small minority. Most people are more or less mature enough at the age of 18, so that has been established as the universal point at which people are considered adults (at least in America), except when it comes to alcohol consumption (which seems like a rip-off to me).

I'm for tolerance and all that gay stuff, but dude! They fuck children!

I have understood that you were defending the right to advocate for whatever you want...I have also never accused you of being a pediophile or a troll. I am merely asking why support the rights of a group to demand a non-issue?
because i am saying that that is the only circumstances under which a child having sex with anyone else could ever be possible. It may well be a non-issue but my morality and character seem to have been spun into the arguement and i cannot leave without proving that what i am saying is neither immoral nor an indication that i am immoral.

North American Man Love Association. Lmfao. Man Love. I just physically laughed when I saw this. What a ludicrous name for an organisation. Shouldn't they have called it North American Organisation for Gay Rights or something less easy to make fun of?

I'm for tolerance and all that gay stuff, but dude! They fuck children!
and you havnt read the thread.

North American Man Love Association. Lmfao. Man Love. I just physically laughed when I saw this. What a ludicrous name for an organisation. Shouldn't they have called it North American Organisation for Gay Rights or something less easy to make fun of?
*cough*

no-one tell him.

I'm for tolerance and all that gay stuff, but dude! They fuck children!
South Park!

I'm not saying it's cool to fuck children, but this is misdirected scapegoating AND it's attacking unpopular speech. As much as we don't like what they're saying, they have a right to say it.

because i am saying that that is the only circumstances under which a child having sex with anyone else could ever be possible. It may well be a non-issue but my morality and character seem to have been spun into the arguement and i cannot leave without proving that what i am saying is neither immoral nor an indication that i am immoral.

Has everyone here questioned your morals and character? No. Do I question your morals on this issue? No. I understand that you have been debating that constitutional rights belong to everyone. My point in this is that in protecting the rights of one group (pediophiles) you are trampling the rights of another group (children).

Has everyone here questioned your morals and character? No. Do I question your morals on this issue? No. I understand that you have been debating that constitutional rights belong to everyone. My point in this is that in protecting the rights of one group (pediophiles) you are trampling the rights of another group (children).
In waht way am i trampling the rights of children? If anything i would be liberating a non-existant minority.

And others *steely glare at vote early and corneliu* have found it harder to accept the idea that i can say paedophile without being one myself.

South Park!

I'm not saying it's cool to fuck children, but this is misdirected scapegoating AND it's attacking unpopular speech. As much as we don't like what they're saying, they have a right to say it.

No, they do not. Even though they refer to themselves as a man/boy "love" group, what they promote is "hate speech". No one who loves children would do what they do.

I'm not even going to bother reading this thread. But I am glad the ACLU has taken up NAMBLA's case. If this case is lost by the ACLU, a legal precedent could be set that could be the ground for making other infringements on First Amendment rights - and I'd rather us not do that. The possiblity scares me.

I have a mixed opinion of NAMBLA. I feel sorry for the many paraphiles (I say paraphile, which includes pedophiles and ephebophiles. Pedophiles being someone who is sexually attracted to minors under the age of 12, and ephebophiles being someone who is sexually attracted to minors between the ages of 13 and 17). I support their write to believe what they believe, and to advocate the changing of laws and their fight against ageism. I am disturbed by it, but it's their right.

Now, in NAMBLAs defense - they do not advocate or support the abuse, rape, kidnapping, coercion, or physical harm of boys (of any age). The media and other organizations target the people who disguse themselves with NAMBLA in an attempt to better themselves, and thinking that the acts they commit are perfectly fine (rape, kidnapping, coercion etc).

It is my belief that the law needs to reflect not the age of the participants but the level of maturity and development of the individuals involved in sexual and other acts. I recognize, however, that many boys are not developed enough to make many decisions. But that does not give us a moral and ethical right to impose age restrictions on everything. That only harms the smaller percent of us who ARE capable of making informed decisions.

Interestingly enough, since the age of 14 I have been a registered sex offender. Current laws in relation to sexuality need to be changed. Most of them were set in the 1950s, 1961 for 720 ILCS 5/ (Illinois Criminal Code of 1961) which is the state in which I reside. Since I had sexual relations with someone who was under the age of 13, I got sentenced to 2 years intense probation, 30 days in a juvenile detention facility, 10 years registration as a sex offender, ordered to attend sex offense therapy, and an addition to my probation saying that I could not be in left alone without an adult present with someone 13 years or younger (with the exception of my brother who was 6-7 at the time).

Major changes do need to be made with many laws, and it is my fear that stopping NAMBLA from advocating the change of laws they believe restrict their natural rights as human beings then it could lead to stopping of other institutions and organizations from advocating the change of laws they believe are wrong and harmful. -shrug-

Has everyone here questioned your morals and character? No. Do I question your morals on this issue? No. I understand that you have been debating that constitutional rights belong to everyone. My point in this is that in protecting the rights of one group (pediophiles) you are trampling the rights of another group (children).
Protecting the rights of pedophiles to speak their mind doesn't trample the rights of children. Now if we were trying to protect the right of pedophiles to rape children it would be a totally different story. Until they attempt to commit a crime against a child they are not criminals. Just weird, creepy people.

and you havnt read the thread.

Word, but I did read most of the first post.

I guess if a child is like Mr Garrison from South Park and really does want to be molested by an adult man, then they should be able to do so.

North American Man Love Association. Lmfao. Man Love. I just physically laughed when I saw this. What a ludicrous name for an organisation. Shouldn't they have called it North American Organisation for Gay Rights or something less easy to make fun of?

Taken your SAT yet? Because I'd advise a little work on the reading comprehension part first.

Word, but I did read most of the first post.

I guess if a child is like Mr Garrison from South Park and really does want to be molested by an adult man, then they should be able to do so.
Bearing in mind that rigorous psychological testing would have to be carried out on the child to make sure that that really is waht they want :D

Its gettting easier to say that everytime.

I'm not even going to bother reading this thread. But I am glad the ACLU has taken up NAMBLA's case. If this case is lost by the ACLU, a legal precedent could be set that could be the ground for making other infringements on First Amendment rights - and I'd rather us not do that. The possiblity scares me.

I have a mixed opinion of NAMBLA. I feel sorry for the many paraphiles (I say paraphile, which includes pedophiles and ephebophiles. Pedophiles being someone who is sexually attracted to minors under the age of 12, and ephebophiles being someone who is sexually attracted to minors between the ages of 13 and 17). I support their write to believe what they believe, and to advocate the changing of laws and their fight against ageism. I am disturbed by it, but it's their right.

Now, in NAMBLAs defense - they do not advocate or support the abuse, rape, kidnapping, coercion, or physical harm of boys (of any age). The media and other organizations target the people who disguse themselves with NAMBLA in an attempt to better themselves, and thinking that the acts they commit are perfectly fine (rape, kidnapping, coercion etc).

It is my belief that the law needs to reflect not the age of the participants but the level of maturity and development of the individuals involved in sexual and other acts. I recognize, however, that many boys are not developed enough to make many decisions. But that does not give us a moral and ethical right to impose age restrictions on everything. That only harms the smaller percent of us who ARE capable of making informed decisions.

Interestingly enough, since the age of 14 I have been a registered sex offender. Current laws in relation to sexuality need to be changed. Most of them were set in the 1950s, 1961 for 720 ILCS 5/ (Illinois Criminal Code of 1961) which is the state in which I reside. Since I had sexual relations with someone who was under the age of 13, I got sentenced to 2 years intense probation, 30 days in a juvenile detention facility, 10 years registration as a sex offender, ordered to attend sex offense therapy, and an addition to my probation saying that I could not be in left alone without an adult present with someone 13 years or younger (with the exception of my brother who was 6-7 at the time).

Major changes do need to be made with many laws, and it is my fear that stopping NAMBLA from advocating the change of laws they believe restrict their natural rights as human beings then it could lead to stopping of other institutions and organizations from advocating the change of laws they believe are wrong and harmful. -shrug-

Yeah I heard some sex-offense laws in America are sick. A five year old was once accused of raping his three-year old sister. What utter bullshit.

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.
:starts typing:

Yeah I heard some sex-offense laws in America are sick. A five year old was once accused of raping his three-year old sister. What utter bullshit.
It's the same zero-tolerance crap that gets a girl thrown out of highschool for having a Midol in her purse and a five year old thrown out of kindergarten for going "bang bang" with his cocked finger.

I believe that sex offense laws need to be re-written by psychologists experienced in the field, like my old psychologist Dr. Terry Brelje of Clinical Systems in Springfield, Illinois. He's on the licensing board for Clinical Psychology in Illinois, and is one of the most experienced psychologists in the field of paraphilia.

He's a great man, and if I had to pick someone to be my "idol" I'd say it is him. He's truly brilliant.

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.
Didn't read it to hard did you? The ACLU isn't backing up the rapist/murderer. It's supporting NAMBLA in a secondary lawsuit by the now multi-millionaire parents. You sue the guy that kills your kid, fine, you win millions of dollars, okay, little much, but no big deal. You go after an organization that he just visited the website for? You have permission to kiss my ass.

It doesn't matter what they want, it matters what they do. "Wanting" is not illegal. "Doing" sometimes is.

these NAMBLA creeps make me what to puke! but this is talking about not doing the deed, but TALKING ABOUT IT! iF CREEPS LIKE THIS CAN HAVE PROTECTED SPEECH THEN THE REST OF US SHOULD BE SAFE IN YOUR OWN RIGHTS AT LEAST FOR NOW!

It's the same zero-tolerance crap that gets a girl thrown out of highschool for having a Midol in her purse and a five year old thrown out of kindergarten for going "bang bang" with his cocked finger.


I have no idea what Midol is.

No, they do not. Even though they refer to themselves as a man/boy "love" group, what they promote is "hate speech". No one who loves children would do what they do.
It doesn't matter what you call it, it is Constitutionally protected speech whether we like it or not.

Further, this suit is simply misdirected scapegoating. NAMBLA does not endorse killing anyone, so I don't see how they have anything to do with this child's murder.

I have no idea what Midol is.
MIDOL® helps you get rid of your symptoms so you can get on with your life. It's strong on menstrual cramps, plus it relieves bloating, fatigue and even breast tenderness.

This case is very interesting in a purely legal aspect. I have never personally viewed the Nambla website, but from what everyone has said I assume that it is primarily concerned with the repeal of a law (age of consent). If the website has no material concerning illegally breaking that law or the advocation of other illegal acts (such as rape) then there is no possible way that they can be held liable. The right to speech concerning the repealling of laws is one that the Founding Father's had specifically in mind when they wrote the First Amendment. That speech is on better legal footing than someone posting on this website "Let's find all the members of NAMBLA, cut off their balls, and stuff it down their throats!" Since that is advocating breaking the law (torture and murder), then that person COULD be found guilty if someone actually committed those acts.

However, one of the posters made an excellent point when they said that this is a civil case. Civil cases are more tolerant with the application of law. If Nambla posted fan fiction on their site or promoted fan fiction that portrayed illegal activities like rape or breaking the age of consent law, AND it can be proven that those that committed the crime PRIMARILY gained inspiration from that fan fiction, then Nambla is liable for the damages. There are many examples of people almost winning civil cases like this (i.e. suing videogame companies for copycat crimes). The crux of the argument is whether the pedophiles primarily gained inspiration from Nambla. From what I know of the case, that argument can easily be made.

I have no idea what Midol is.

Midol is a basic over-the-counter meunstral pain reliever for women. I believe it's just tylenol with a diuretic. To be honest, I never really looked.

But this basic OTC medication violates many school's Zero Tolerance Drug Policies.

In waht way am i trampling the rights of children? If anything i would be liberating a non-existant minority.

And others *steely glare at vote early and corneliu* have found it harder to accept the idea that i can say paedophile without being one myself.



I really am starting to wonder what is up with you, no offense, but really, what is your angle?

I mean, why are you saying this? What do you hope to gain by seeing laws aimed at protecting children, made null and void? (That is what NAMBLA wants, the consent age GONE

MIDOL® helps you get rid of your symptoms so you can get on with your life. It's strong on menstrual cramps, plus it relieves bloating, fatigue and even breast tenderness.


Breast tenderness? Is there anyway that might be used for some sort of sexual thing?

I really am starting to wonder what is up with you, no offense, but really, what is your angle?

I mean, why are you saying this? What do you hope to gain by seeing laws aimed at protecting children, made null and void? (That is what NAMBLA wants, the consent age GONE
Shall i say this one more time. and if you still dont get it i will spearhead a campaign for you to be deleted so you dont cause me a coronary.

I
DONT
SUPORT
THE
OPINIONS
OF
THE
NAMBLA

*sigh*

Please, you are damaging my health with your ignorance.

Breast tenderness? Is there anyway that might be used for some sort of sexual thing?
Who knows, who knows why your even saying that because its got nothing to do with this thread or any post within it.

shoo!

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'm torn between feelings over the ACLU at times as well. It seems one minute they're doing something wonderful for the downtrodden, the next they're wasting millions of dollars trying to wipe a tiny cross off a county seal for no good reason what so ever. Go figure. Maybe the problem is that many different agendas exist within the ACLU, and like most organizations, sometimes the most off the wall agendas like supporting pedophiles rear their ugly heads.

...
If Nambla posted fan fiction on their site or promoted fan fiction that portrayed illegal activities like rape or breaking the age of consent law, AND it can be proven that those that committed the crime PRIMARILY gained inspiration from that fan fiction, then Nambla is liable for the damages. There are many examples of people almost winning civil cases like this (i.e. suing videogame companies for copycat crimes). The crux of the argument is whether the pedophiles primarily gained inspiration from Nambla. From what I know of the case, that argument can easily be made.

They dont post fiction on their site. The closest to that would be some Allen Ginsberg poems of a non-erotic nature.

O'reilly covered this story, yes, they say it.
Um....
Should I shatter his fragile little world view or do you guys want to do it?

Fox news is reliable, your saying, "They don't say it." is not a reliable news source.
Hey, see the hobo on the corner? HE'S MORE RELIABLE THAT FOX NEWS!!!

Um....
Should I shatter his fragile little world view or do you guys want to do it?
You do it, he doesnt read my posts.

They dont post fiction on their site. The closest to that would be some Allen Ginsberg poems of a non-erotic nature.

Well, that works in their favor. Do they post links to fan fiction? That could be construed as promotion, and they would still possibly be liable.

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.
Fox News: Fair and Balanced, if your last name is bush.

Well, that works in their favor. Do they post links to fan fiction? That could be construed as promotion, and they would still possibly be liable.

No.
You can go look at the site yourself you know.

No.
You can go look at the site yourself you know.

Thanks. I would look, but my curiosity doesn't extend far enough to go searching into a pro-pedophilia website. To my knowledge of the case, I now think there is no court in the country that could find NAMBLA liable for the original crime. Which makes me angry that ACLU is supporting a group that really didn't need the help. I'm sure that money could be better spent somewhere else.

What is a true pedophile?
<--snip-->

Well said
:stuffs you in flame-retardant suit:

*cough*

no-one tell him.

Yeah, Yeah, I know, paedophiles etc etc. But does no one agree that North American Man Love Asscoationa is an extrememly funny name? Man love....lol

Yeah, Yeah, I know, paedophiles etc etc. But does no one agree that North American Man Love Asscoationa is an extrememly funny name? Man love....lol
Man Boy love... the boy bits the important bit here me thinks.

My point in this is that in protecting the rights of one group (pediophiles) you are trampling the rights of another group (children).


It's not trampling children's rights, it's attempting to change them. As has been established in this thread, over and over again.

And your answer is yes: You can support the free speech of other people regardless of directly agreeing with them or even liking them. It's called being empathetic, patriotic, and is the trait of a decent, non-sociopathic human being.

Any group that wants to lower the drinking age, driving age, or any other 'draw-the-line' type law is equally guilty of trampling on children's rights, by your definition, yet somehow I get the feeling you wouldn't be as outraged if the ACLU wanted to defend one of them.

And your answer is yes: You can support the free speech of other people regardless of directly agreeing with them or even liking them. It's called being empathetic, patriotic, and is the trait of a decent, non-sociopathic human being.

it's more than that; if you only support free speech for people whose opinions you like, that's not civil rights...that's called "agreement."

if you don't support free speech for EVERYBODY, including for the people who say things you hate, then your support of "free speech" is worthless.

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.
[...]
"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."
Just wondering, is it just me or is sueing for $200 million a lot about money, while sueing for cost would make the point as well?

Just wondering, is it just me or is sueing for $200 million a lot about money, while sueing for cost would make the point as well?

I should imagine the intention is to bankrupt NAMBLA.

it's more than that; if you only support free speech for people whose opinions you like, that's not civil rights...that's called "agreement."

if you don't support free speech for EVERYBODY, including for the people who say things you hate, then your support of "free speech" is worthless.

Here's an example of free speech:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 40 > § 842
<down near the bottom>
(p) Distribution of Information Relating to Explosives, Destructive Devices, and Weapons of Mass Destruction.—
(1) Definitions.— In this subsection—
(A) the term “destructive device” has the same meaning as in section 921 (a)(4);
(B) the term “explosive” has the same meaning as in section 844 (j); and
(C) the term “weapon of mass destruction” has the same meaning as in section 2332a (c)(2).
(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.

SO. If you so much as publish - in any public format - book, newsletter, magazine, webpage, internet forum - any information about how to make an explosive device - and you aren't careful about who reads it (on the Internet, Johnny Jihad could read your recipe from this forum), the US can lace your trachea into a reef knot.

Just for publishing.

It's not trampling children's rights, it's attempting to change them. As has been established in this thread, over and over again.

And your answer is yes: You can support the free speech of other people regardless of directly agreeing with them or even liking them. It's called being empathetic, patriotic, and is the trait of a decent, non-sociopathic human being.

Any group that wants to lower the drinking age, driving age, or any other 'draw-the-line' type law is equally guilty of trampling on children's rights, by your definition, yet somehow I get the feeling you wouldn't be as outraged if the ACLU wanted to defend one of them.

Laws are established to protect children from others as well as themselves. The 12 year old may want to stay out all night partying, but no reasonable person would support that wish as it would be harmful to the child. If the attempt to change the law were successful, and pediophiles could legally engage in sex with minors, the rights of children would be violated. They have the right to be protected from anything and everyone who would wish them harm. They not only do not have the maturity to make such a decision, they are easily influenced by adults, and the enactment of such a law would also make them vulnerable to more exploitation. You can lower or eliminate any or all of the "draw-the-line" laws, but you would be sacrificing the welfare of children to do so.

Laws are established to protect children from others as well as themselves. The 12 year old may want to stay out all night partying, but no reasonable person would support that wish as it would be harmful to the child. If the attempt to change the law were successful, and pediophiles could legally engage in sex with minors, the rights of children would be violated. They have the right to be protected from anything and everyone who would wish them harm. They not only do not have the maturity to make such a decision, they are easily influenced by adults, and the enactment of such a law would also make them vulnerable to more exploitation. You can lower or eliminate any or all of the "draw-the-line" laws, but you would be sacrificing the welfare of children to do so.

However, if the law change was successful, they would no longer be violating children's rights since the rights themselves would be changed. Mind; this would not legalize rape, it would legalize consensual sex. Rape is still illegal regardless of what the age of consent is set to.

And honestly, who are you to say when a child has that maturity? I can tell you that I was sexually active in 8th grade, and no adult ever had sex with me to make me that way. Many of my classmates were as well. The age of consent changes from country to country, so obviously there is not a general consensus of when that is.

Now, I realize that maturity varies from person to person, but if children were really in charge of their *own* rights, the age of consent certainly wouldn't be 18 in my school, and I live in Texas.

Now, I'm not entirely familliar with NAMBLA's platform, and I can say that if they are advocating pedophilia, regardless of age - as in, as opposed to pederasty - than I completely disagree with them, but I do feel it's entirely legitimate to question the age of consent, and you don't have to be a child molestor to feel that way. The welfare of children, and what defines a child, is subjective.

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.

Hell, the [Ancient] Greeks did it and they were friggin amazing anyways. Either way.

They won't succeed. Can you imagine straight pædophilia being legalized? No, so what makes you think gay pædophilia (combining two forms of sexuality hated in the US) has any chance of being legalized. I suggest you don't worry about it.

*reads article*
O_O

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.

No, they're not supporting them. They're just saying they have the right to speak their opinion, and they're right. That doesn't mean they support the stance they take when they open their mouths. Lots of people love to quote Hall's rather famous "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" as exemplifying the ideal of the principle of freedom of speech but surprisingly few appear to grasp what the words mean, and only think it applies when they personally find it convenient.

If this suit resulted in a ruling against NAMBLA it would set quite a terrifying precedent. Anyone who spoke out arguing that something should not be illegal could be held as responsible for anyone who goes out and violates that law.

Are the advocates of legalizing certain drugs legally responsible for anyone who goes out and does those drugs while they're still illegal just because they SAID the law should be changed? To be clear, the hypothetical advocates we are speaking of do not do the drugs themselves, they are completely law abiding, they just think the law should be different.

Do you want to have people hauled into court just for saying that a law should be different? If not, on what grounds do you argue that the people at NAMBLA can be held legally liable for doing just that?

Are the people at NAMBLA twisted perverts? Yes, IMO. Can they be sued for petitioning for a law to be changed to make their desired perversions legal? No. Not unless you want to toss out the Constitution.

Now, if the organization had advocated going out and having sex with little boys and to just forget what the law says... then yes, they could be legitimitely held as legally liable for deliberately inciting a crime. But that doesn't appear to be what they did.

EDIT: And for anyone actually concerned about this group succeeding, forget about it. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that they will EVER be able to make a case that a child could meaningfuly offer informed consent to sexual intercourse and without that it's rape any way you want to look at it. The U.S. legal system would have to virtually collapse before these people would have even the faintest chance of getting what they want.

I think things like child rape would happen unfortunately whether NAMBLA were legal or not. They have a right to free speech, but I the ACLU could use their resources better elsewhere.

I think things like child rape would happen unfortunately whether NAMBLA were legal or not. They have a right to free speech, but I the ACLU could use their resources better elsewhere.

They can't risk allowing a legal precedent to be set. Doesn't matter how disgusting they might think the defendents are, it undermines the Constitution just the same.

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.

Well, the ACLU supported Rush Limbaugh in his efforts to keep his medical records private despite his constant bashing of them for being a "liberal" group.

The ACLU isn't doing this to support NAMBLA. They're doing it to support freedom of speech.

SO. If you so much as publish - in any public format - book, newsletter, magazine, webpage, internet forum - any information about how to make an explosive device - and you aren't careful about who reads it (on the Internet, Johnny Jihad could read your recipe from this forum), the US can lace your trachea into a reef knot.

Just for publishing.

actually, no. it is perfectly legal for you to publish explicit directions on how to make every sort of explosive device. it is perfectly legal for you to make this widely available - you can buy any such book at borders and other chain bookstores. the operative clause in that law is

"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"

they get you on intent. in practice this means that you can get away with it provided you put in a disclaimer about it being for educational purposes only, and aren't a black anarchist from california named sherman.