The American Civil Liberties Union

i'm pretty sure he's thinking of flanders field, "crosses row on row."

---

אָרַח

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. yes, but, as i explained, this case is different because it is agreed upon by a vast majority of society to be disgusting and offensive to the point being detrimental to society, as well as violating the age of consent bits of the law. this part of the law was found to be overbroad and not allowing for artistic, journalistic, other legitimate uses. what if you're running a news story on child pornography? what if you're making an educational tape on child abuse? what if you're robert mapplethorp or jock sturges? it also does not allow for the context. is it one scene in a legitimate artistic movie? or is all pre-pudescent genitalia all the time? and computer-generated images? you can't even draw a picture? this part is even MORE overbroad. appears to be? so it could really be a young-looking adult? tell me, have you ever watched american beauty? seen franco zeffereli's production of romeo and juliet? both depict minors in engaged in sexual explicit conduct. is the important word here. just one of these standard need apply. and, at least one of them was overturned by the cases i posted, such as:

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.

---

quote:

---

Aschcroft v Free Speech Coalition(2002)

​

The Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech. Protected speech does not become unprotected merely because it resembles the latter. The Constitution requires the reverse. [T]he possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech of others may be muted . The overbreadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process....

​

In sum, 2256(8)(B) covers materials beyond the categories recognized in Ferber and Miller, and the reasons the Government offers in support of limiting the freedom of speech have no justification in our precedents or in the law of the First Amendment. The provision abridges the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of law-ful speech. For this reason, it is overbroad and unconstitutional.....

---

so basically, that's nice and all, but the supreme doesn't agree with you. why the title still reads the same way, i don't know. let me get back to you on this one. i'm relatively positive that the server containing the images has to be in this country. for instance, in england the age of consent is 16. so in england, you can find pictures of what we consider minors, naked and engaged in sexual activities. -- on the internet. viewing them is downloading, technically, so stumbling across a few constitutes ownership of sexually explicit material of minors. which, although legal there, is not legal here. but the us can't sue and isp in britain over it. we do not own, nor have jurisdiction over the entire internet.i'm also pretty positive that the fcc and other governmental organizations have had their rights to restrict anything on the internet severly question, if not overturned, in one of those reno v. aclu cases.so, basically, i posted those cases for a reason. nobody agrees with or likes child porno. but, and i'll quote it again:

quote:

---

The Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech. Protected speech does not become unprotected merely because it resembles the latter. The Constitution requires the reverse. [T]he possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech of others may be muted . The overbreadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process

---

---

אָרַח

monk, i've been very careful to post only opinions consistent with the ruled opinion of the court. all of the text i have posted from sup.ct. cases have been of the majority opinion, and delivered by the justice speaking for the court.you are quoting breifs, lawsuits, and allegations. not the rulings. there is a difference here. basically, although we're both arguing only one side of the battle, you're citing the arguments made by one side, and i'm citing the decisions by the highest court in the country.the only bit i've really overlooked is whether cases have been overturned. but because it only happens occasionally, i've been a bit lazy with it. and a good section of the cases i've cited overturned previous standards from previous cases.so uhh. how'd the nambla case turn out? how high did it get? cause i can't find a damned thing on it dated after 2000. no case, no decision, nothing.

---

אָרַח

Please do not make Tal's mistake and fail to read your cited literature as I will. If you actually read you citations, or understood them, you should find there is nothing to substantiate claims of training or encouraging people to rape. Or maybe I should put it this way, if all they did was what they were alleged to have done and that counts as training and encouraging rape, Xianity and the Bible will be considered illegal as well.First things first, the most inflammatory comments are coming from people attempting to put them in the worst light possible. That should be the first clue you need to take what they say with a grain of salt. The fact that some of it is Bill O'Reilly's opinion ought to act as the clincher.They continually equivocate in order to make the case seem justified. In this case continually referring to their advocacy as for "rape", which is what the two rapists had done, but what NAMBLA actually appeared to be advocating is sexual relations which is statutory rape and NOT the same thing.If you look between the articles you will also find inconsistencies. I notice that it one of the quotes you directly list you highlighted in bold that the police claim there was a manual titled "Rape and Escape". If you had read the first article you linked to you would have found that that was not true. The prosecutor had called it Rape and Escape, not NAMBLA. His details of its contents did not support that accusation.I'll tell you what, why don't you find the material which actively suggested what those two rapists did, and then start arguing your case. Uhhhhh... the article appeared to express one person's view point and it was shot down by the court. He then used backdoor tactics to get their corporate and non profit status revoked (which is separate entirely from cp).That said, if they were shipping cp then they would definitely count as having commited a crime. I don't think the ACLU was defending them in that (no mention of it), and if they did I would only suspect they would if they were challenging cp laws themselves. My guess is they would not deny that they are pedophiles, the point is the use of that term as an epithet, like "fag" or "blacklover", is what they'd object to. You claim it is ugly and I certainly will not deny your ability to say it is, just as they can claim it is beautiful. The point is that both are subjective opinions.If you mean to say that it is "harmful" well I certainly welcome you to find the threads here waiting for someone to present evidence to that effect. I have been 100% successful at refuting that claim. There simply is no scientific evidence to support that position. Most literature on the subject (investigating harm as it is connected to sex) admits that child sex is comparable to other minority sex acts that were considered harmful in the past (no evidence beyond societal effects).Given that predator itself has a definition/connotation, and it is one that does not fit all known examples of pedophilia, there is little justification in connecting them. Indeed I'd probably end up siding with NAMBLA in questioning how a predator of children would be considered someone who loved them.I'm not arguing that you should like pedophiles or pedophilia, just that you should keep the nature of what is going on in perspective. I want to get this straight. According to you, if a person reads a piece of literature that suggests a certain course of action is okay, and that person becomes obsessed with that idea to such a degree that they break laws to do it, it is not the person's responsibility but rather the literature and whoever published it? Do I have you correct on that? And you think the two cases you presented show the necessity of such level of proscription?I'm going to warn you in advance, you better think twice and maybe really think of the implications this might have on your own life, if such legal powers were mandated.

---

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

just for shits and giggles, and because i'm in the mood to whore my own art, i would like to post a picture. the final title i decided on was "eleven"the name is supposed to, with the image, connotate an age. in reality, it was shot 11 on the roll. the model, a close personal friend (and ex-g/f) was at the time of this shot twice that age, well within the age of consent.still, she gets carded rather regularly. on good days, she looks twelve. in the image, she appears very young, possibly under the age of consent. no nudity is shown, only implied. the stuff she's wearing connotates bondage and domination. it sort of implies sexual victimization, of someone who appears to be under the age of 18. a person i know who was molested as a child told me that this image gave them the creeps.

quote:

---

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

---

she appears to be a minor. and she appears to be engaged in sexual conduct. under usc title 18/110 2256(8)(b), this image it child pornography.note that while no nudity is contained in the image, the statute does not specify nudity, just sexual context or actions. child porn can be dry-humping, fully clothed. not also that i did photograph someone without legal consent. in fact, i could procure a model release and id if a court so demanded proving that she is not a child.it might be stretching it with my case, but it's an example of what the COULD apply to when it's not specific enough. but still, the code makes the SUBJECT of molestation a taboo. the statute is overbroad, and could easily to applied to legitimate works of art or documentary, and things that have nothing to do with children.so what do you think? should this image be considered child pornography, or not? am i breaking the law posting this or owning this?

---

אָרַח

This seems to be a parallel to the previous "Abortion Clinic Murders"situation, about which you responded to me in message 50. The question, as I see it, is at what point does the writer of the literature cross the line, over into becoming part of a conspiracy to commit a crime?I just have questions. I don't have the answers.MooseAdded by edit: OK, I now see that you've (sort of) already answered my question, in what I just quoted. But I would argue that being specific to an individual has WAY crossed the line. I would argue that even only being specific to "any abortion clinic doctor" has crossed the line.This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-14-2005 04:20 PM

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.

i asked that question earlier. nobody said anything. statutory rape (violating age of consent) and violent rape are different matters.also, they neglected to mention that the perps in the case also raped and murdered a 24-year-old. well out of the namble range, i believe.

---

אָרַח

no. please read more carefully. we're in argument as to WHY it is illegal. when the argument first came up, i explicitly stated why it was illegal, and the reason that did NOT apply. you are arguing one that does not apply.child pornography is illegal because of obscenity laws, and age of consent laws. yes, but you call also do all of those things WHILE depicting children in sexually explicit scenes, and still be within the realm of your constitutionally protected rights.tell you. this will settle this debate. go down to blockbuster, and rent a movie called "kids." i'm not gonna debate any further until you've seen this movie. not this law it's not. that's part of the problem, and WHY ashcroft overturned it. i'm advocating that the law was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court of the united states of america. do you debate that fact? shall i quote it again? yes, and i just told you what could be done, and why. yes, you will notice that bit in my description. possession of obscenity is different from distribution. prior restraint need not apply to possession.

---

אָרַח

First, I was giving you a heads up that those specific ones might have been nixed. I couldn't off the top of my head remember if those specific ones had been. I was telling you that the law in that area is fluid.Second, given that I have given you direct information in other threads and then you do not deal with it, I am wondering what is the point in doing more leg work for you. If you want to know, why don't you look it up?Third, here is where I do the legwork for you. Inside that link you will find most of the details. It appears that the ones you cited might not have been nixed, its hard to tell since you didn't supply the exact number. The SC was facing a challenge on specific parts of 18 2252 and 2256 and so only shot down specific ones.Since I was not challenging what you said, only giving you a heads up, I'll let you figure out which were nixed or not. By the way yahooing it was so easy its almost criminal you didn't do it yourself. What I can't figure out is how you missed it as the FRC has papers on it and Ashcroft had gone ballistic at the time. I just explained to you why they would be protected, and under what conditions they might fail to be protected. If you simply don't believe me, read the citation above, maybe you'll believe a lawyer.Just because something is made a law does not make it constitutional. Just because it has been found constitutional does not mean it will continue to be found constitutional. Thus your citing law is not as important as citing defense of that law in challenges brought before the SC, and the history and trends about SC decisions on the topic. Read Supreme Court decisions, or if you are too lazy then the cited article above. Specifically the mention of NY vs Ferber (1982). The court has cited that method of backing the law as the main one and are beginning to question its efficacy as govt cases are moving beyond the scope of protecting children. Are you a fortune teller or something? Given your complete inability to understand current events and history, I am not quite confident in your predictions for the future. Heck even I caveated my statement as a guess which might mean I will be wrong. I can't see the future. I think you were misunderstanding what I was talking about. Current child porn laws are a bit severe and do not take into account several issues...1) How one got the images (accidental, or intentionally placed for malicious purpose, images are possible and you get creamed either way).2) The nature of what is counts as child porn (there are varying laws from nation to nation and thus movement from one to another, even virtually, might result in a person becoming labelled as having "cp").3) The nature of how it is produced (the current assumption is based on for profit exploitation of minors, usually assumed to be abused. In reality, with increased ease of image production, profit is no longer necessary to drive image production... much of it traded freely... and kids themselves are MAKING the images for fun).All of these are going to have greater impact on cp cases, as the world "shrinks" and communication increases. I think the first and third in particular will become troublesome to people who get "caught" yet are "good people". Enough of that and people will (it is my GUESS) decide to change the parameters.Here is a thought experiment regarding cp and it is something at least a couple SC judges have noted. There is a difference between age of consent and cp laws, such that it is totally legal for you to have sex with a person and yet not take images of that activity... it counts as cp, despite the fact that for where you are you are both not commiting a crime and considered adults for sexual activity. There is a real disconnect there and it is one that hinders communication needlessly. Wouldn't you agree?

---

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

Yes, and there will be an even more disturbing and direct parallel for Monk if he answers in the positive. But I'm gonna stay mum till then.I'm going to have to think about abortion murder advocacy. Thanks for making me think.

---

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

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.

You have them? If so, show them. In any case that does not change the fact that what was in the articles you provided did not prove your point. Correct me if I'm wrong but the court did not find them guilty of cp, they found them guilty of having an incorrect status. The nature of the models' age were not determined and all you or I have to go on is what this guy said. You sure like stock dilemmas don't you? I only mentioned two, but there are more. I am not a member of NAMBLA and wouldn't want to be, which might indicate my own tastes. Awwwww, the dodge and the false riposte.Why can't you answer the question I posed to you, is it that you realize that level of dishing out blame is NOT constitutional and for good reason?As far as cp goes, what's with the warning? I already said I was aware of the laws and anyone breaking them would have to face the facts that there are laws against them, or if somebody trades it or sells it face those additional charges.But what's interesting is that I could turn around and ask you what you mean by "cp in my possession". In the Netherlands, where I am currently living, cp does not have the same definition, and how you got it does come into play. For example in the US Traci Lords videos are cp, but in most of Europe and all of Holland they are not. Just this last week a prosecutor was found to have cp on his computer, but since it was accidentally (or incidentally) obtained, he is not going to be charged.You seem to possess a distinct lack of perspective on issues. Perhaps you need to get out of the monastery a bit more and see that issues possess greater depth than their superficial appearances.

---

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