Of course illegal behavior 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."
Encouraging illegal behavior does not suggest causing such behavior. Advocacy would be encouraging, incitement would be causing. Perhaps there was a miscommunication because you used encouraging (which could be read as advocacy) instead of a stricter term which would imply just language which causes actions?
If this is true, am I to understand that your position is that only speech which has a causal connection to actions should be restricted?
This then degenerated into accusations by you and others that I would have prevented MLK, rosa parks, and a whole assortment of civil rights issues dating all the way back to the founding of this nation. Absurd
The MLK and Rosa Parks issues were secondary to the discussion of advocacy being unprotected speech. You claimed that no one should act in a way that is illegal until the laws have successfully been lobbied and changed. I said it was practically a duty, and have gone on to cite those civil rights examples. Advocacy to commit illegal actions and the commission of illegal acts, prior to successful lobbying for change has been a key part of civil rights movements.
If you are now suggesting you are okay with this, what is the difference between pedophiles advocating and doing what they think is right, compared to previous civil rights issues where people were arrested and convicted and those convictions upheld? Remember Rosa was not the first, just the last.
After all, it was you who corrected Arach’s misunderstanding in this area when in message 26, you wrote:
Apparently you missed the message where Arach and I ironed out the miscommunication between ourselves.
A pamphlet can be non specific by NOT being directed at a specific person, yet can still be considered incitement depending on the text of the pamphlet.
First, thank you for answering my question. However, I do not agree with the above statement and would like you to explain how a court determines incitement based on "text" involved. With the exceptions of commercial speech and obscenity (which has lately been losing support) and libel, the nature of what is written is not important for protection, and has not been indicated to address degree of incitement.
I guess I would like and example and a description why one set of text is more inciting, outside of context and wholly toward content.
You are wrong to say a causal link has not been established. You can’t possibly be definitive in a case that is still pending.
I will note that I had within the very quote you cited, mentioned that I was uncertain of the outcome of the trial. My argument regarding causality was based on issues outside of the court decision, and I tried to make that clear. First there was a discrepancy regarding the text and the action. Second, a verdict (even if one was rendered) does not prove causality, especially in a civil trial with weaker rules of evidence and of course may involve bias. People were once jailed for handing out information on contraceptives... we would not consider that causative at this point in time, while the public did back then.
Your statement that the perpetrators did not follow the literature is nonsense. You have nothing to support this claim. It’s wishful thinking on your part.
Uhhhh... I am not a member of NAMBLA, and neither do I support them. You may find threads where I specifically describe how they mistake literature as if it advocates their position (when it doesn't), and how the laws I do think are appropriate regarding sex and age while not overtly making them criminals would often enough put a practical crimp in their practices and many would probably end up on the wrong side of the law.
Thus there is no "wishful thinking" on my part at all. There is simply a lack of hate, and so I am looking directly at what you presented as evidence regarding the case.
There are inconsistencies specifically with regard to causality. Regardless of cp (which would end up being prosecuted on its own issue aside from incitement), and the unsubstantiated claims of child trading (is there anything besides assertion on that?), causality would require their language ("text") to be followed by the perpetrators.
I suggest you go back and look at your own sources. While technically they do advocate rape, in the sense of statuatory rape, and describe how to avoid detection or capture, these were absolutely not the actions followed by the perpetrators.
Remember your own sources, after conveniently misnaming one book in an inflammatory way, state that it tells members how to approach children and ingratiate themselves with the parents, and then how to get away if they get into trouble.
The perpetrators kidnapped and violently raped the kid and then did not flee in the way described. Heck even if they fled in the way descibed, which I can only assume follows many other publicly available guides on false identities and avoiding detection, they certainly did not follow the suggestions about how to go about getting into a sexual relationship with a child.
If there is other evidence I am not aware of and you are, you cannot blame me for that oversight. Please present the additional evidence you have. If this is all you are working on then you are overreaching in suggesting causation.
Further, there is nothing in the articles about the perps not following NAMBLA’s literature. That is exactly the opposite point of view and the whole reason NAMBLA has been dragged into court in the first place.
Look back at the description of the literature by the prosecution, and the actions of the defendants. Without the prosecution's deliberate mistitling of the literature as "Rape and Escape", there is little connection between the stated contents and the actions undertaken.
As far as what any prosecution can claim and what they can indict, that is separate from what they have offered as evidence. You can indict a ham sandwich if you want to accuse it and you get enough people that hate ham sandwiches on a jury.
But you knew that. You also know the term used when someone purposefully misrepresents information as you have done.
I did not misrepresent evidence, but the prosecutors certainly did. Isn't there a difference between the title of teh book they claimed NAMBLA published, and the actual title? Isn't there a difference between the recommendations of that book and the activities of the perpetrators they claim to have been "caused" to commit the crime by said literature?
I doubt the admins, if they are watching, are stupid enough that they can't figure out you are calling me a liar.
Sure, but since neither you nor I have the details of the court case, the verdict could have been achieved by a fair minded jury who examined the evidence and found NAMBLA guilty.
While this is true I am making the assumption that they and you have presented some of the most damning evidence. If this is not the case, then you are right. But then who are you to claim the causal connection has been made? You remember you did claim that?
Yes I do and there is case law to support it. In Message 125 I quoted Rice vs Paladin Enterprises where Paladin was the publisher of a pamphlet giving instructions on how to commit murder.
Again I point out to you that the suggestions in the NAMBLA literature that were mentioned have little resemblance to the actions undertaken.
If you agree that encouraging behavior is the same as causing it to occur when others do them, despite not being exactly what the person's wrote or intended, then there are some follow up questions I have.
Over the last several years there have been a few cases of women, and sometimes men, killing children because of their Xian beliefs. They cite Xian doctrine that allows for it (and it most certainly does) and why they felt compelled to do so based on the reverence of their faith. Some were murders and others were unintentional killings as a result of physical punishments prescribed by religious tenets.
According to your theory of causality then, the publishers of Bibles as well as any religious people which they may have had contact with and encouraged their literal interpretation of the Bible as well as fervent following of God's will, should be liable for conspiracy charges?
If not, what makes them different? Let's use two cases, one in which the actor is not a member of a specific church, and one which is and whose tenets are strict (and mandate exorcisms or restraint from certain medical care).
I wouldn’t say my dislike for pedophiles makes me a bigot.
Actually it does, but don't take it so bad. We are all bigots about something, even me. I guess I could have used the word "biased" but I felt "bigot" was more accurate. You have a dislike of these people and their behavior and cannot feel good about them. Fair enough, and I cast no dispersions on the fact that you have such feelings.
The point of a plural society is to somehow manage to keep all the bigots living together as best as can be.
I dislike an organization who is publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children, actively trains their members how to rape children and get away with it, distributes child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them.
Some disliked organizations that published materials that says its okay to have sex with people of the same sex or other race or etc etce, trained their members how to criminally have sex with said group and get away with it. In some cases they distributed porn regarding those activities as well as creating networks for people to share that interest.
What is the difference between the two situations except that at present sex with children is disliked and labelled as statuatory rape? Heads up: please do not use the circular excuse "the people they are having sex with are children".
Everything is disliked and illegal until such time as it is accepted and/or legal. Those that want to see it legal will act in such a way and fight for that right. And this brings me back to the third question which you did not really answer, though it may have been an oversight...
Given that the business of the ACLU is to fight cases which involve appeals to civil rights, why would they turn down NAMBLA which is appealing to civil rights?
How is denigrating the ACLU for making that choice, not similar to criticizing a defense organization which specializes in medical malpractice suits for defending any specific doctor (even if openly despised) for a malpractice case?
In this case I have shown, even if you disagree with whether it is going to be upheld, that the NAMBLA issue impacts 1st amendment issues beyond pedophilia literature. A ruling in one case may impact others by precedent.
It is true that some of the ACLU’s actions in right wing causes go unreported in the media. That does not mean that I agree with every single thing the ACLU does. Do you? Are all of their causes automatically correct? Do you blindly follow their opinions and consider all of their actions automatically beyond question? Are they always the perfect bellwether for liberal opinion in this country?
Actually I had already answered this question, and just did above once more, but let me repeat it... The ACLU takes on cases which involve the Bill or Rights. They take the stance of defending and enlarging the spectrum of rights. Their cases niether have to be popular nor "correct" in order to be part of the field they take cases in.
They are not the moral police, nor the front for liberal thought (which should be obvious when they defend Nazis). They address any appeal to civil rights as encoded by the Bill of Rights.
I guess it is fair to ask in any particular case whether it fits a general perception or idea of what the Bill of Rights say, that is are they fighting for a consistent interpretation of the Bill of Rights, but I don't see where there is a question of this in the case of NAMBLA. Do you see an inconsistency based on the cases they have taken?
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2