The American Civil Liberties Union

quote:

---

What do you think public school officials should and should not be allowed to do to restrict religious activities of students on campus?

---

Officials should not restrict religious activities of students at all IF those activities are non-disruptive to other school activities and IF those activities do not FORCE other kids to be involved.On the broader topic of the ACLU, I believe they do get a bad rap from the religious right. It seems only the extreme left wing cases are publicized and scores of other cases where the ACLU has defended conservative Christians go unreported. OTOH, I have a problem with the organization in cases where they defend illegal behavior in the name of freedom of expression such as their defense of NAMBLA, (North American Man/Boy Love Association).

quote:

---

Naturally, the defense of civil rights from our government is going to require the defense of illegal behavior. I'm not exactly familiar with what they've done for NAMBLA but is your position that men who have sex with boys or teens have no civil rights whatsoever?

---

Of course illegal behaviour has a right to be defended. But NAMBLA is encouraging illegal behavior through their website and the ACLU has stated that they have a right to do so. This is different than defending against a crime already committed.

quote:

---

The ACLU claims this is a case of freedom of speech and association. "For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case," said John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU. "It has to do with communications on a website, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever."

---

But it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor.

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 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

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.

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.

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

quote:

---

and there are no crosses

---

Perhaps he was referring to the crosses on the face of Christian tombstones. This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 05-14-2005 09:53 AM

Not correct. Most of the cases you cite deal with pornography in general and adults in particular. Some of your cases deal with profanity. Let's focus here. My previous comment was that child pornography was illegal and to operate a child porn web site would also be illegal.The fact that there is kiddie porn on the web does not mean it is legal in the US. The only reason it is not stopped is because the pornographers have not been caught. Free speech rights are superseded in this case. Here are the US statutes:

quote:

---

Title 18 of the United States Code governs child pornography. See Chapter 110, Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children. 18 U.S.C. 2256 defines "Child pornography" as:

​

"any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

​

(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

​

(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

​

(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct . . ."

---

18 U.S.C. 2252 prohibits the production, transportation, or knowing receipt or distribution of any visual depiction "of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." For the purposes of Title 18, 18 U.S.C. 2256 defines a "minor" as any person under the age of eighteen years, and "sexually explicit conduct" as actual or simulated:

quote:

---

"(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person"

---

The statute goes on to say "distribution by any means including by computer" So if your website displays images that a prosecutor believes involve minors engaged in sexual intercourse or bestiality, expect to be prosecuted.Many states also address this issue by prohibiting images of minors touching or displaying their bodies "for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer." California Penal Code 311.3-312.7.So there is both Federal and State law in place preventing the operation of a kiddie porn website. A pornographer might try to defend their porn website on the grounds of future indeterminant indirect threat and prior restraint. But they would lose the case and end up in jail.

From the case in Massachusets defended by the ACLU. According to the attorney who defended the parents of the murdered boy:

quote:

---

NAMBLA is "not just publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law," says Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who is arguing the Curleys case in federal court. NAMBLA, he says, "is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them."Source

---

The following quote is from the lawsuit brief:

quote:

---

The material portions of the amended complaint allege that its publications, meetings, and website NAMBLA encourages its members to rape male children ( 18), that all defendants, including each of the individual defendants and the Internet Service provider, acting intentionally, negligently, carelessly and recklessly, promoted, advocated, conspired and urged the general public to rape young male children and provided information to assist the general public in obtaining child pornography and pedophile related material.

​

( 26) The plaintiffs further allege that in 1996, Charles Jaynes, who until that time had been a heterosexual, joined NAMBLA, and thereafter he received and read the NAMBLA Bulletin and accessed and read the NAMBLA web site. ( 29) As a result of the alleged urging,
advocacy, conspiring and promoting of pedophile activity by the defendants, Charles Jaynes became obsessed with having sex with and raping young male children ( 30) and tortured, murdered and mutilated Jeffrey Curley, having just prior to the murder accessed NAMBLA’s web site at the Boston Public Library. ( 31) Source

---

A separate lawsuit is underway to sue NAMBLA under RICO laws:

quote:

---

Attorneys for Robert and Barbara Curley, of Cambridge, Massachusetts, have asked a federal judge to let them sue NAMBLA under RICO laws, which target criminal conspiracies. NAMBLA is a criminal organization that exists to train pedophiles to rape children, according to the suit.

​

The ACLU is also petitioning the court to gag the attorneys of both sides in an effort to keep the case out of the press. I am amazed at the irony of the ACLU, the self-proclaimed guardians of free speech, calling for a gag order, Steve Aiken, director of communications for the Traditional Values Coalition, told C&F Report.

​

The ACLU and other defenders of NAMBLA do not want the public to hear the truth about NAMBLA and the role it played in the death of Jeffrey Curley, he added.

​

Along with general NAMBLA materials, Cambridge police found a manual titled Rape and Escape published by the pedophile organization.

​

The book literally details how pedophiles can lure, befriend, and rape a child, then avoid detection and prosecution, Aiken said. Source

---

Holmes, these are the stated positions of NAMBLA. They are a little more saavy than to just come right out and declare child rape and molestation Ok. But once you are in the organization, there is explicit material and guidance available.In order to find out what was being distributed by NAMBLA, a concerned New York citizen joined the organization:

quote:

---

I received my membership package. It contained a NAMBLA Bulletin with hand drawings of young nude boys, and stories of men sexually abusing young boys. In July, 1995., as a member of NAMBLA I received a magazine called Gayme. The content page stated Gayme is currently published two times per year. The disclaimer states All nude models depicted herein are at least 18 years of age They also stated Make checks payable to Zymurgy Inc. for purchase of additional magazines. The Gayme magazine contains 15 front nude photos of boys, and these boys appear to be between the ages of 12 through 16 years.

​

In my opinion their disclaimer was false, therefore I immediately sent a copy to the Assistant Attorney General. When they received it, their opinion was the same. Thus, they filed a Amended Petition to include the Gayme Magazine,[in their lawsuit]. Source

---

So part of their revenue stream is to distribute child pornography. The article goes on to describe the explicit nature of the other magazines available. Pedophilia is something ugly and the fact that it is connected to the term predator is completely justified. This has absolutely nothing to do with interracial relationships or adult gay sex. NAMBLA may not like the use of the term pedophile, but if the shoe fits... Back to the Massachusetts case:

quote:

---

"In his diary, Jaynes said he had reservations about having sex with children until he discovered NAMBLA," Frisoli continues. "It's in his diary in 1996, around the time he joined NAMBLA, one year before the death of Jeffrey Curley." The practical, step-by-step advice Jaynes followed goes far beyond appeals to sway public opinion in favor of pedophilia. Such language aids and abets felonious conduct. If such conspiracy results in homicide, it is reasonable for NAMBLA to face civil liability if not criminal prosecution. Source

---

quote:

---

"As a result of reading a NAMBLA bulletin, he came to cope with his feelings and his desires and then he came to realize it's OK to rape little boys and that's what he went and did," Frisoli claims. Source

---

In a similar case in Ohio:

quote:

---

Ohio's Court of Appeals found NAMBLA complicit in an earlier child-rape case. NAMBLA's literature, discovered in a defendant's possession, reflected "preparation and purpose," according to the Buckeye State's top bench. Source

---

Where? Cite case law where these statutes have been overturned by the Court How would images of child porn be constitutionally protected? Free speech? I cited case law where child porn images are not protected and are separate from normal obscenity laws. The child porn laws cite their own definitions which I previously quoted. It wasn’t expediency. They were upheld for their own merits. Holding and distribution of child porn is illegal per the statutes previously cited. And your guess would be wrong. I don’t see child porn image making and distribution becoming more mainstream anytime in the foreseeable future regardless of the profit motive.

Ok, so then we are in agreement that child porn is illegal along with web sites containing such material. That was my original point. Running a news story on child porn...fine...you can do that without showing explicit sex scenes of children.Making an educational tape on child abuse?....fine.... you can do that without showing explicit sex scenes of children.is it one scene in a legitimate artistic movie?....fine...you can be artistic without showing explicit sex scenes of children.or is all pre-pudescent genitalia [prohibited] all the time? No. The law excludes things like showing pre-pubescent genitalia in medical text books, etc. Context is part of the law.Look, we can go back and forth on this. Each case is evaluated independently to determine whether the evidence is explicit enough to warrant prosecution. What are you advocating? Obviously, the US cannot pursue those individuals in other countries. The fact that they post their crap on the internet doesn’t make it right or legal in the US. We are only speaking of what can be done within the jurisdiction of US law enforcement.But I assure you that if you are caught in the US with child porn in your possession you will be prosecuted regardless of where the material was obtained. The laws may vary from State to State, but I’m relatively certain there is no State law that would allow it.

You don’t have access to the information submitted in the trials. All you can do is read NAMBLA’s web page and use that as evidence that they have not encouraged rape. As I told you, they are not going to be so forward about the information presented to the public. That does not mean they are not encouraging rape behavior in other ways. It wasn’t shot down by the court. It was used by the court to shut down their corporation which had falsified its claims of exempt status. As far as I know, The RICO case against NAMBLA is ongoing. The civil case where the parents of the raped and murdered boy sued the two perverts has been decided in favor of the parents. The jury agreed that the convicted murderers had been influenced by material provided via NAMBLA. Again, we don’t have access to all material presented in the case we can only read the results and peruse the NAMBLA website.I also previously mentioned a separate case in Ohio where NAMBLA was found complicit in child rape. Yes, they are subjective opinions. I’ve given you mine, do you agree with them and claim it as beautiful? I'm completely comfortable with my perspective. And I’ll warn you Holmes, if you have kiddie porn in your possession you could be prosecuted.

Do you fantasize about having sex with young boys?