The American Civil Liberties Union

no.and that's the beauty of this country. i don't have to. so long as i keep my nose out of your business, and your right to hold and express your opinions.welcome to america, where even the wrong get their rights.

---

אָרַח

yes. such would be a directed specific threat, and clearly and presently endangering the lives of those doctor. and as such, NOT protected under the first amendment.

---

אָרַח

do you fantasize about having sex with young girls?is fantasy and imagination legislatable? This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-14-2005 06:34 PM

---

אָרַח

jar: my post is really at the heart of the issue.can we prosecute people for THINKING differently?

---

אָרַח

no just to you, holmes. to the law as well.

---

אָרַח

everyday was 80's days when i was in kindergarten. This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-15-2005 03:17 PM

---

אָרַח

well, let's start with this bit, which i think you may have mentioned before.why is nambla different than the kkk march on skokie?

---

אָרַח

no, i am just fishing for an argument. it's a valid question. both groups propose views distasteful to the majority. both advocate breaking the law, and the kkk even advocates violence. whether or not nambla does may be an issue, but at worse they're about equatable. yes, and again you have your priorities backwards here. the march through skokie was stopped. they sued, and won their case in the supreme court, which said that the government did not have the right to stop them.supreme court > congress > state legislature > city + county ordinance > police. not the other way around.so, now, tell me how they're different in the case of LAW. what makes one set different than the other? what makes the kkk LESS harmful than nambla? or do you just not agree with the skokie case?

---

אָרַח

actually, i was asking you to support yours. trivia for the day: when you argue a case in the supreme court of the united states, the justices will commonly butt in, in the middle of your argument, with questions and comments. sometimes directly related to precedent. for instance, if you were arguing against nambla's right of free speech against the aclu, one might interrupt you and say "well what makes nambla different than the kkk?" not very sufficiently. the point was not whether or not the march had occurred. you made it seem like i was comparing apples and oranges, or pedophiles and racists. well, i am. but the features they have in common are the essential question, and the standards used on one are used on the other as precedent.so a sarcastic response of "nambla are pedophiles amd the kkk never actually marched" isn't really the issue. what makes the nambla advocating pedophilia different than the kkk advocating violent anti-semitism in a neighborhood of holocaust survivors? if anything, raping children is probably less harmful than killing people, and posting on the internet is less of an immediate threat than marching into the neighborhood of potential victims.so, no, you did not answer my question.

---

אָרַח

my position is the in the eyes of the law, nambla's speech is about the same as the kkk's. if they are different, it's because nambla is less harmful. while the kkk adovocates violence often of a mass scale, and it's members often go out and brutally kill people, as opposed to just raping them. i could even argue that the kkk marching through skokie would have constituted a relatively direct threat, and a clear and present danger for the residents of the suburb.but the point is that the supreme court did not agree. they felt that there was no immediate danger, and that the city was not allowed to restrict the rights of speech or demonstration. and because nambla is of equal or lesser harm, in a similar or safer context, the same ruling should apply as direct precedent.in the eyes of the law, skokie, and the clear and present danger test apply as direct precedent. but it shouldn't have taken a mind-reader. it's logic, most people have some sense of it.

---

אָרַח

the city, who did. ....because that's what the thread has been mostly about? you said that the march never occured, which, while true, is not the point. you've been assuming the entire thread that it is. you quoted a law to me in response to the very case that overturned that law. alright, time for more american gov't 101. the supreme court, through marbury v. madison has the power of judicial review. this means that they can look at laws passed in congress, decide that they are not fitting with the constitution, and strike them down. in this respect, the supreme court does have power over congress.do you really not know this? yes, fine. gray area, etc. now explain to me EXACTLY why nambla's rights would not be protected when the kkk's were in skokie? NO. not "casual link." not even direct link. "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER." we've been over this. i posted the court cases that establish that test. heck, "high times" has a direct link to illegal activity. really? cite them here please. kkk, neo-nazis, and the national socialist part. i do think they were all party to the case. but i'll check that if you want. see, here i thought "kkk" and "strange fruit" were somewhat synonymous. no, i'm pointing out that if you were to argue your case in front of them, this would the very first question they'd ask you. no, you don't. that's the beauty of this country. but the fact remains that unless they violate certain standards, they have the right to express their opinion as much as you do yours. and i also have the right to tell you that you're wrong. advocating illegal activity cannot be punished. that's what i keep trying to say. it just can't, unless there is a clear and present danger. yes, every legal means. ironically here, you're advocating illegal means. in other words, you're excercising the very right that protects them.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-17-2005 03:07 PM

---

אָרַח

im ake typoes all teh time.(fixed)

no, YOU seem to think that this is a point of debate. this is what the law says.also, you chould make sure stuff you quote actually supports your argument. in other words, the action it would provoke would have to be immediate. exactly. you must not have actually read the case. because, interestingly enough, an excerpt from the hit-man manual is part of the case. so, if such a pamphlet in and of itself was dangerous, why would the ruling judge COPY that form of speech into his decision? makes little sense. let's look at WHY it wasn't protected:

quote:

---

A conclusion that Paladin directed Hit Man to a discrete group rather than to the public at large would be supported, even if not established, by the evidence that Hit Man is not generally available or sold to the public from the bookshelves of local bookstores, but, rather, is obtainable as a practical matter only by catalogue.

---

context.and just so you know for future reference, a circuit court of appeals does not overrule the supreme court. no, it doesn't apply at all, because nambla is a public organization. anyone and everyone can get stuff from them, not JUST people who are specifically interested in molesting children. the paladin case was about a book specifically written for, and marketted to hitmen and only hitmen, not the general public. they lost on the grounds that the group was not trying to influence public opinion.reading the cases helps, btw.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-18-2005 08:43 AM

---

אָרַח

no, he was actually slightly confused, and i was trying to figure how to word "clear and present danger" on little sleep, and not having had a law course in more than a year. if you look down a bit from there, we sorted out the misunderstanding, i found the correct wording, and we're on the same side. actually, it's not absurd. you're advocating breaking of prior restraint laws for case where there is no clear and present danger as defined by the courts. if this were acceptable behaviour, rosa parks and mlk would have probably been stopped. in fact, as i recall, mlk was. and malcom x -- well... [edit]you know, it just occured to me that apparently i'm dyslexic. i've been reading that as "casual" not "causal." sorry for the misunderstanding.now, can you show how and where a causal link as been established? in a court of law, of course.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-18-2005 04:09 PM

---

אָרַח

you gone and rented "kids" yet?or "american beauty?" robert mapplethorp would disagree. yes, i actually quoted the case earlier. they found that the statute was NOT overbroad, and did not violate the constitution. compare to the ashcroft case. yes, i sure am. have you seen "kids" yet? or "american beauty?" or franco zefferelli's "romeo and juliet?"

---

אָרַח