The American Civil Liberties Union

i'm reasonably sure you are. see the standards i posted.(maybe i should find the actual caselaw for the ones i just posted to monk)

---

אָרַח

not totally. see my post to monk. i added a bit about prior restraint, and how now matters of grave importance to national security CAN be gag-ordered.

---

אָרַח

i could probably argue that one either way convincingly, actually.you raise some good questions. but unfortunately, for the reason i responded to you (prior restrait, and no direct and specific threat or clear and present danger) they are protected. no one here LIKES nambla or what they stand for. but they, like everyone else, have the right to voice their opinions in their proper contexts, however distasteful they may be.it's almost a slippery-slope argument, really. if we shut down nambla and the kkk by removing things like prior restraint and clear and present danger standards, what's to stop other political movements from not being shut down too? ideally, the best solution, would be to revise the standards some. which the court does from time to time.

---

אָרַח

this is quite true. civil disobedience, the declaration of independence, etc.many of the landmark cases in freedom of speech were in essence rigged. people broke the laws especially to get arrested, and make a case against the law in appellate courts, up to the supreme court. tinker (the first case mentioned here) was certainly rigged. they knew the schools restrictions and purposefully broke them. their ten day suspension (and i think even the war they were protesting) was well over with by the time they made it through the supreme court. it's the principle of the matter.if i recall, larry flint rigged a NUMBER of cases. (another famous rigged case was the scopes monkey trial...) i watched "national treasure" the other day. cute disney action flick, sean bean playing a bad guy as usual. anyways. there's a really good quote nick cage makes, regarding breaking laws and the founding fathers.

quote:

---

A toast -- to high treason.

​

That's what these men were committing when they signed The Declaration. Had we lost the war they would have been hanged, beheaded, drawn and quartered -- oh, and my personal favourite, had their entrails cut out and burned! So, here's to the men who did what was considered wrong, in order to do what they knew was right.

---

this country was founded by law breakers, breaking unjust laws. and here is their argument, the declaration of independence.

quote:

---

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

​

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

---

---

אָרַח

Wow, that was a very cool point. I think as long as they said "we need to kill the people who are killing children" they would be safe, but specifics of who to kill would cross the line as incitement.But this does raise an interesting question.

---

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

If they feel they are morally justified then they are, aren't they? That's the idea of living in a morally plural society. The fact that they don't live in a vacuum, and so all have personal civil rights which are protected, is what will prevent their position from ever having a logical, much less legal, consistency. Although I am not a spokesperson for NAMBLA, and neither am I going to say there are no victimizers in NAMBLA, the fact is that NAMBLA (as an organization) is not advocating the kidnapping and rape of children. I'm uncertain where you got that idea.They are advocates of relationships between men and young boys ala past societal roles along those same lines, like the greeks and romans and such.Currently the law views sex below a certain age (depending on state) as a crime. While these laws are certainly constructed with the idea of preventing the rapes you are suggesting, NAMBLA's position (as far as I could tell from a documentary on them) was that these laws are unjust as they persecute not just innocent adults (because not all cases of sex are harmful) but also to children who happen to be in such relationships.Similarly they would argue that the label of "pedophile" as something ugly, and always in connection to "predator", is similar to bigoted hate language used against interracial relationships and gays (not to mention the other long list I gave earlier)...If they did advocate running around raping kids, then I'd say they certainly would start running into the same civil issues that a murder advocacy group would face. Do you have evidence that they advocate that?

---

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

All I can say to that is... AMEN.Oh yeah, and you should have replied to Monk with that. He's the one that needs the education on civil disobedience. According to him Rosa Parks was a criminal... sheesh.Obey, until you convince everyone that you are right and the agree to change the laws. Yeah, that works.

---

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

rosa parks WAS a criminal. so were the japanese citizens interned in ww2 who refused to be subject to draft. so were the tinkers and their friend.but laws had to be broken, because laws are not always just. eh. if he doesn't see it, refer him to it later.

---

אָרַח

"what not to wear (prom edition)"http://news.yahoo.com/..._pr_on_od/oddity_prom_dress_dispute
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/may05/325104.asp he was fined 250 dollars and suspended three days from school for what they called "disorderly conduct" but it's pretty clear it was the dress that did it.personally, i know i did some pretty wacky stuff in high school. i would occasionally paint my nails (for spirit week, i did them in the school colors), and i even appear in my senior yearbook dressed as alex from "a clockwork work orange." high school is full of weird-dressing events. we had class colors day, weird hat day, weird hair day, 80's day, pajama day, and the not-so-successful toga day. (a little more nudity than intended...)and i've been to a number of school dance events. the bit the popped him on, the disorderly conduct and lewd dancing -- well. high school dances are full of so-called lewd dancing.basically, they're infringing on his freedom of symbolic speech. he was not disrupting a school day, was not on school grounds, and was not doing anything out of the ordinary other than dressing differently. cohen and tinker apply immediately, and show that he's well with the acceptable standards.

---

אָרַח

OK, here is my 0.02Let N = any act that is currently a criminal offense (we'll not specify it to avoid emotive debates for specific values of N about
whether legalizing N is or is not moral, just, a good idea, etc.).1) An organization advocating that N be legalized, and using media campaigns, lobbying, and supporting legislation and candidates to that end, is operating totally legally and in the American tradition.2) An organization advocating that individuals commit N as an act of civil disobedience is on the borderline. It must be understood that individuals committing N must be prepared to face criminal sanctions
for committing N. The organization, however, is IMO within its First Amendment rights if its advocacy is only in a general sense.3) An organization actively aiding and facilitating the commission of N by individuals (providing information on how and where to commit N, financial support for N actions, or any other action that directly facilitates N) is IMO a criminal conspiracy and is subject to criminal charges on this ground.Whether such charges are actually brought depdends on law enforcement's assessment of the severity of N and available resources, but the fact that charges are not brought does not imply legality of the organization's activities in case 3)I am not a lawyer, so this is all IMO.This message has been edited by paisano, 05-14-2005 08:44 AM

well, since i'm full of quotes in this thread, to quote the great poet jay-z:

quote:

---

i haven't passed the bar but i know a little bit
enough that you won't illegally search my shit.

---

well, the standards that posted previously say that such a charge would be prior restraint. in this country, you cannot punish people for acts they have not YET committed. the only reason, in this case, to break the prior restraint standard is if a clear and present danger can be shown: if advocating the illegal activity immediately puts people in serious and specific danger.

---

אָרַח

If you're talking about the guy on the right I would have to come down on the side of the school. I haven't seen an outfit like that since the 70's.As to the guy on the left, I just assumed he was doing his best Uncle Milty impression.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Rap IS an effective tool of communication, YO.

This kid at my work (Safeway) likes to wear dresses on the weekends when he goes clubbing. He is eccentric but he is far from what I would call "weird>" He is probably going to turn out more "normal" than most of his peers> What does everyone think of the A.C.L.J.?

Is yet another attempt to create a base for the coming Theocracy. A truly damaging organization. IMHO it, along with the Propaganda Arm (TBN, CBN, etc) is the beginnings of a Government in Exile being prepared for the takeover.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion