The American Civil Liberties Union

Yeah, but I think he's saying I'm right. Because... y'know, I'm awesome.

Not at all. Are you suggesting that while those laws were active and in force it was ok to break them? It’s fine to actively pursue lobbying efforts to change existing laws that are disagreeable to a particular philosophy, but it is quite another to flagrantly disregard those laws under the flag of injustice.If so then murder advocates have a right to put their philosophy in practice while waiting for lobbying efforts to change laws they disagree with. Questioning authority and fighting for freedom is part of US patriotism to be sure, but so is respect for existing laws while those laws are the law of the land.To do otherwise would lead to anarchy. Unjust laws should be actively protested and all lawful means employed to change them. The key word here is lawful means.

There is a difference here and it seems to me there is a gray line regarding incitement to violence. When the Neo-Nazi’s tried to march in Skokie they were defended by the ACLU and despite the distasteful nature of the event occurring in a predominantly Jewish suburb, I agree they had a right to march and the ACLU was justified in defending them. (Ironically, they didn’t march and the whole affair cost the neo-nazi group a lot of members).But the nazis only wanted to march, they weren’t encouraging illegal behavior, they weren’t going to carry signs saying Kill all the Jews, they simply wanted to march.Would it be freedom of speech for a nazi website to openly promote the extermination of jews among its members and provide means and methods to accomplish that goal? Maybe that situation could be protected by the first amendment, but it is really very close to the line.But the whole issue of Skokie is relegated to the history books. The event had a beginning and an end, it’s over. Contrast this to NAMBLA whose sole purpose is the continued advocacy of child molestation.While they exist, there is no end to their influence. Some of their members may be arrested and convicted for rape and pedophilia but these will be replaced with a new crop of pedophiles. The list of potential victims has no limit.Take it a step further, would it be protected under the first amendment to have a website openly promoting murder? Plain and simple murder. It’s members don’t like the human race and wants all people dead. Period. The last act of each member would be suicide.The website would host conferences, provide literature on methods and means, and its members would exchange list of previous escapades. Would this be protected? Would this be considered incitement to violence?NAMBLA says they do not incite violence and their website may not do so directly, but it is clear it serves as a clearinghouse for pedophiles to exchange information. Any organization with the motto sex before eight or it’s too late should be shutdown IMO.They are currently involved in a series of lawsuits and it’s questionable whether they will continue to exists. I find it interesting the little known fact that former Catholic priest Paul Shanley of Boston and a convicted rapist, was a founding member of NAMBLA.I suppose the ACLU can choose to do whatever, but it seems to me there are plenty of more legitimate organizations to promote other than one whose sole purpose is the promotion of child molestation and whose members freely distribute child pornography and are routinely arrested and convicted for child rape and murder.The ACLU is not obligated to defend NAMBLA, nobody is forcing them to defend that organization, it is their choice. As to the legality of NAMBLA and it’s right to exist, well, they may be protected by the first amendment but that is not preventing the FBI from tracking down its members and arresting them wherever possible.

I should have made myself more clear. For some reason I was thinking of Dan's rebuttal of Monk, as Crash rebutting something you had said. I guess I can't be sure who has to feel insulted by the comparisons. Oh it was all a mistake.In any case it was your not stressing the immediacy that was my issue and you have sufficiently corrected that miscommunication between us. All's well.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It was not only okay to break them, it was almost a duty to break them. That is what the founding fathers argued and practiced while forming this nation, and leaders such as Dr Martin Luther Kin argued more recently.Unjust laws are to be defeated. While one will be commiting a crime to break the law and so it will certainly be illegal, illegal does not equal "wrong".Advocacy to break laws because they are unjust is protected speech. And I hope it always will be. Who the hell is a murder advocate? Okay, well hypothetically speaking they have a legal right to advocate the practice, and they have the moral right to practice it in spite of laws due to their injustice.I'm uncertain how laws against murder, which by definition is the violation of another's rights, could be called "unjust", but its a hypothetical. My guess is no one is going to try it and no one is going to buy it. So as a reductio it just doesn't work.I'd love to see one of their meetings though. "It's good to kill people against their will"... "I agree"... hilarity and blood ensue. That is in direct opposition to the stated opinions and actions of the founders of this nation. I'm not sure where you got your code of conduct, but I'll take mine from them.Indeed if they followed your advice we wouldn't have this nation. I assume you feel they were right and this country is good. How then would you address this inconsistency?Yes laws need to be respected, but only up to certain limits. You will obviously be held accountable as long as they are in place, but you can break them and advocate others do as well.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I believe that there have been anti-abortionist murder advocates. They apparently believe the rights of the unborn outweigh the rights of the abortion clinic staff members.Would the ALCU defend this variety of "murder advocate"?MooseAdded by edit: Disclaimer - No I haven't been researching this. But in regards to the above stated, I believe the "murder advocates" went so far as to target specific individuals.Quite late edit#2: Changed "outway" to "outweigh". This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-13-2005 01:43 PMThis message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-14-2005 05:00 AM

I suppose it depends on who's moral rights we are speaking of. They would argue that in their moral code it is justified. But they don't live in a vacuum. Well, child molestion is a violation of a child's right to be protected against pedophile predators. It is irrelevant whether you believe anyone is going to try it or not.The fact is, it is possible. Frankly, I would not be suprised if it was tried. The one thing I have learned in my short stint on this planet is that if it is physically possible, then somewhere, somehow, somebody has done it.This message has been edited by Monk, Fri, 05-13-2005 12:06 PMThis message has been edited by Monk, Fri, 05-13-2005 12:07 PM

In what way does holding up a Nazi swastika not say "Kill all the Jews"? Funny you should mention that...So... freedom of speech is okay, as long as you stop speaking?

quote:

---

In what way does holding up a Nazi swastika not say "Kill all the Jews"?

---

The symbol is on the edge, the phrase is over it. IMO

quote:

---

So... freedom of speech is okay, as long as you stop speaking?

---

No, I've said NAMBLA has a first amendment right to speech. Just as many others have a right to try and shut down their operation.BTW, your website link...amazing. As I said to Holmes, if it can be done, somebody will do it.

Well... no. That's just it. By the Constitution, they don't have the right to shut down their operation.That's not gonna stop 'em from trying, sure, but in an ideal world where we all obey the laws we've agreed on, there's no question who has the legal standing. Eh. I feel that way sometimes. Then I settle down, have a nice cup of tea, and think, "yeah, things ain't so bad."(Edited because something went flooey with the formatting, there.)This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 05-13-2005 04:04 PM

quote:

---

Well... no. That's just it. By the Constitution, they don't have the right to shut down their operation.
That's not gonna stop 'em from trying, sure, but in an ideal world where we all obey the laws we've agreed on, there's no question who has the legal standing.

---

Disagree. People have every right to fight against what they perceive as immorality, injustice, or for that matter any other reason they choose. Besides, the NAMBLA case is far from being an open and shut case of free speech.NAMBLA has no Constitutional right to post online descriptions of juvenile abduction and molestation techniques, and assuredly has no amnesty in relation to civil, as opposed to criminal, claims.They are actively training their members to rape and abuse young boys. The ACLU case is being adjudicated in Massachusetts where a NAMBLA member murdered a young boy. I’m sure the verdict will make news whichever way it turns out. But right now, the verdict is out.

Well, that's not the case when you're trying to apply subjective terms such as immorality to objective arenas like the law.Don't get me wrong... somebody wants to put up a website saying how horrifically immoral NAMBLA is (or for that matter, how horrifically immoral chocolate chip cookies are), that's their right. But we do have a system set up to prevent wrongful prosecution and frivalous lawsuits. Why not?It's perfectly legal to post instructions on how to build explosives for use in terrorist acts, or how to consume illegal drugs, or any other illegal activity. Why is this one special?This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 05-13-2005 04:53 PM

Being on the internet doesn't make it legal. Child pornography is on the internet and if the webmasters are caught, they are prosecuted.

yeah, a good section of it my fault. yeah, i'm pretty sure we agree here, i was just fumbling with terminology. i should have looked it up first.

---

אָרַח

editted to add cases. well, in this issue (now that i've looked up the standard) it's not context.instructions on how to kidnap and rape a child is considered a future indeterminant indirect threat. preventing the speech here of the illegal action is something called prior restraint. which is unconstitutional.

quote:

---

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

​

Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity."

---

quote:

---

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

​

In his work on the Constitution (5th ed.), Justice Story, expounding the First Amendment, which declares "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press," said ( 1880): "...It is plain, then, that the language of this amendment imports no more than that every man shall have a right to speak, write, and print his opinions upon any subject whatsoever, without any prior restraint, so always that he does not injure any other person in his rights, person, property, or reputation, and so always that he does not thereby disturb the public peace or attempt to subvert the government."

---

quote:

---

New York Times v. United States (1971) ("pentagon papers")

​

But the First Amendment tolerates absolutely no prior judicial restraints of the press predicated upon surmise or conjecture that untoward consequences may result

---

and speaking of how to make nuclear bombs:

quote:

---

United States v. Progressive, Inc. (1979)

​

What is involved here is information dealing with the most destructive weapon in the history of mankind, information of sufficient destructive potential to nullify the right to free speech and to endanger the right to life itself.

​

Stripped to its essence then, the question before the Court is a basic confrontation between the First Amendment right to freedom of the press and national security.

---

(they did not overturn the gag order, because they determined that the article did pose a clear and present danger to national security)whereas with child pornography, the crime has already happened. it's not stopped because it creates a clear and present danger to children, but because the children have already been affected. the speech (photography) itself is condemned because it is generally ruled as obscene (by just about everyone) and can be seen to have no valid purpose in the exchange of ideas.

quote:

---

Miller v California sets out the "modern" test for obscenity. After years in which no Supreme Court opinion could command majority support, five members of the Court in Miller set out a several-part test for judging obscenity statutes: (1) the proscribed material must depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, (2) the conduct must be specifically described in the law, and (3) the work must, taken as a whole, lack serious value and must appeal to a prurient interest in sex.

---

quote:

---

MILLER v. CALIFORNIA (1973)

​

...in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966), the Court veered sharply away from the Roth concept and, with only three Justices in the plurality opinion, articulated a new test of obscenity. The plurality held that under the Roth definition: "as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value."

---

quote:

---

MILLER v. CALIFORNIA (1973)

​

We acknowledge, however, the inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression. State statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited. As a result, we now confine the permissible scope of such regulation to works which depict or describe sexual conduct. That conduct must be specifically defined by the applicable state law, as written or authoritatively construed. A state offense must also be limited to works which, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

---

now, one of the two examples one would bring up as a counterpoint would be art, such as jock sturges and mapplethorp. here, if the photographs of naked children can be shown to valid artistic intent, they are protected. i do believe the standard is based on intent.

quote:

---

NEW YORK v. FERBER (1982)

​

The Miller standard, like its predecessors, was an accommodation between the State's interests in protecting the "sensibilities of unwilling recipients" from exposure to pornographic material and the dangers of censorship inherent in unabashedly content-based laws. Like obscenity statutes, laws directed at the dissemination of child pornography run the risk of suppressing protected expression by allowing the hand of the censor to become unduly heavy

---

quote:

---

Aschcroft v Free Speech Coalition(2002)

​

As we have noted, the CPPA is much more than a supplement to the existing federal prohibition on obscenity. The CPPA, however, extends to images that appear to depict a minor engaging in sexually explicit activity without regard to the Miller requirements. The materials need not appeal to the prurient interest. Any depiction of sexually explicit activity, no matter how it is presented, is proscribed. The CPPA applies to a picture in a psychology manual, as well as a movie depicting the horrors of sexual abuse. It is not necessary, moreover, that the image be patently offensive. Pictures of what appear to be 17-year-olds engaging in sexually explicit activity do not in every case contravene community standards.

​

The CPPA prohibits speech despite its serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The statute proscribes the visual depiction of an idea that of teenagers engaging in sexual activitythat is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages. Under the CPPA, images are prohibited so long as the persons appear to be under 18 years of age. This is higher than the legal age for marriage in many States, as well as the age at which persons may consent to sexual relations.

---

quote:

---

Aschcroft v Free Speech Coalition(2002)

​

The artistic merit of a work does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene. Under Miller, the First Amendment requires that redeeming value be judged by considering the work as a whole. Where the scene is part of the narrative, the work itself does not for this reason become obscene, even though the scene in isolation might be offensive.

---

the other one would be normal pornography. normal pornography, i think, relies on context. cable can show certain things [at certain times]. magazines can show other things. but free tv and radio cannot show or describe certain things. this is because opt-in services can also be opt-out service. one does not have to pay for cinemax, if they don't want their child watching "hotel erotica" at 2 am. the internet is considered an opt-in service, since you have to pay for access. the government cannot restrict the rights of adults to do what they want with their money, so long as it everything is consentual. so here, the standard is based on payment, and consent. children, by definition, are under the legal age of consent. so a child may not legally consent to watching porn, or being in one.

quote:

---

Aschcroft v ACLU (2004)

​

While the statute [COPA] labels all speech that falls within these definitions as criminal speech, it also provides an affirmative defense to those who employ specified means to prevent minors from gaining access to the prohibited materials on their Web site. A person may escape conviction under the statute by demonstrating that he
"has restricted access by minors to material that is harmful to minors-
"(A) by requiring use of a credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number;

​

"(B) by accepting a digital certificate that verifies age, or

​

"(C) by any other reasonable measures that are feasible under available technology." 231(c)(1)....

---

they turned the case back to the appelate court, but this standard above is, i think, generally accepted for everything.

quote:

---

United States v. Playboy (2000)

​

This case presents a challenge to 505 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 505 requires cable television operators who provide channels "primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming" either to "fully scramble or otherwise fully block" those channels or to limit their transmission to hours when children are unlikely to be viewing, set by administrative regulation as the time between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

---

quote:

---

United States v. Playboy (2000)

​

Playboy Entertainment Group owns and prepares programs for adult television networks, including Playboy Television and Spice. Playboy transmits its programming to cable television operators, who retransmit it to their subscribers, either through monthly subscriptions to premium channels or on a so-called "pay-per-view" basis. Cable operators transmit Playboy's signal, like other premium channel signals, in scrambled form. The operators then provide paying subscribers with an "addressable converter," a box placed on the home television set. The converter permits the viewer to see and hear the descrambled signal.

---

quote:

---

United States v. Playboy (2000)

​

Appellee Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., challenged the statute as unnecessarily restrictive content-based legislation violative of the First Amendment.

---

quote:

---

United States v. Playboy (2000)

​

The Government has failed to show that 505 is the least restrictive means for addressing a real problem

---

uh, i can't find the exact standard at the moment, but those two cases hint at it. playboy was sued only for poor scrambling techniques, as its other methods of safeguarding content inappropriate for minors were sound, as that case states.

quote:

---

United States v. Playboy (2000)

​

Section 505 was enacted to address the signal bleed phenomenon. As noted, the statute and its implementing regulations require cable operators either to scramble a sexually explicit channel in full or to limit the channel's programming to the hours between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

---

edit: ah here we go. the following case is over george carlin's "flithy words" monologue being broadcast over the air, and overheard by a child and his father.

quote:

---

FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978)

​

1. The FCC's authority to proscribe this particular broadcast is not invalidated by the possibility that its construction of the statute may deter certain hypothetically protected broadcasts containing patently offensive references to sexual and excretory activities. Cf. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367. Pp. 742-743.

​

2. The First Amendment does not prohibit all governmental regulation that depends on the content of speech. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52. The content of respondent's broadcast, which was "vulgar," "offensive," and "shocking," is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection in all contexts; it is therefore necessary to evaluate the FCC's action in light of the context of that broadcast. Pp. 744-748.

---

quote:

---

FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978)

​

The reasons for these distinctions are complex, but two have relevance to the present case. First, the broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans. Patently offensive, indecent material presented over the airwaves confronts the citizen, not only in public, but also in the privacy of the home, where the individual's right to be left alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment rights of an intruder. Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U.S. 728. Because the broadcast audience is constantly tuning in and out, prior warnings cannot completely protect the listener or viewer from unexpected program content. To say that one may avoid further offense by turning off the radio when he [749] hears indecent language is like saying that the remedy for an assault is to run away after the first blow. One may hang up on an indecent phone call, but that option does not give the caller a constitutional immunity or avoid a harm that has already taken place.[note 27]

​

Second, broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children, even those too young to read. Although Cohen's written message might have been incomprehensible to a first grader, Pacifica's broadcast could have enlarged a child's vocabulary in an instant. Other forms of offensive expression may be withheld from the young without restricting the expression at its source. Bookstores and motion picture theaters, for example, may be prohibited from making indecent material available to children. We held in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, that the government's interest in the "well-being of its youth" and in supporting "parents' claim to authority in their own household" justified the regulation of otherwise protected expression. [750] Id., at 640 and 639.[note 28] The case with which children may obtain access to broadcast material, coupled with the concerns recognized in Ginsberg, amply justify special treatment of indecent broadcasting.

---

"cohen" refering to cohen v. california in which a man wore a shirt saying "FUCK THE WAR!" his right to do so, as protest, was constitutionally protected. very famous little dictum from there too:

quote:

---

Cohen v. California (1971)

​

For, while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric. Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual.

---

also, one of the reno v. aclu (1997) cases basically rules that the fcc has no jurisdiction over the internet, if i recall. so as for child porn on the net, your point may indeed be wrong. but the three reno cases are a lengthy and confusing read.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-13-2005 11:57 PM

---

אָרַח