ACLJ = the Antithesis of the ACLU

[Hedgehog]

Hedge a minor boy cannot legally consent to sex.  Sex between a man and a minor boy is rape, even if the boy allegedly consents. 

Sorry, you misinterpreted me, I was a bit unclear.

I think NAMBLA is horrible. Sex with a minor is never ok.

NAMBLA is a sick, sick, sick organisation, I believe I told y'all when I visited their website, and how it looked very normal (no nude pics or shit like that). But very disturbing nevertheless, because they had pamfletts argueing for how their sick ideas are somehow normal.

But I was referring to that ACLU doesn't defend kid rape or whatever actions that NAMBLA subscribes to.

ACLU simply defends the constitutional rights of everyone, including NAMBLA.

-Hedge

[Dos Equis]

Sorry, you misinterpreted me, I was a bit unclear.

I think NAMBLA is horrible. Sex with a minor is never ok.

NAMBLA is a sick, sick, sick organisation, I believe I told y'all when I visited their website, and how it looked very normal (no nude pics or shit like that). But very disturbing nevertheless, because they had pamfletts argueing for how their sick ideas are somehow normal.

But I was referring to that ACLU doesn't defend kid rape or whatever actions that NAMBLA subscribes to.

ACLU simply defends the constitutional rights of everyone, including NAMBLA.

-Hedge

Understood.  And I wasn't clear either.  I wasn't saying you support NAMBLA at all.

My point is that NAMBLA doesn't have a constitutional right to exist and the ACLU shouldn't do anything to support a criminal organization like NAMBLA.  This isn't the same as protecting the due process rights of criminals.  They shouldn't be doing anything that will permit a group like NAMBLA to continue advocating the rape of little boys.  I just don't see this as a constitutional issue. 

[OzmO]

because if Imus was being suspended for being gay, the ACLU would jump at it. Your claim is they won't because of buisness, I am just proving a point that they won't because of agenda. If hey were a flamer they would be there today in an uproar.

I'm not sure they would fire him for being gay, however if his listeners decreased they would.  suspending him for being gay is a little far fetched and unlikely also.  Imus made an attacking off color statement.  If I mus revealed he was gay the business would lose money because they would face serious public criticism for suspending him aqnd lose advertising revenue because of their actions.  Suspending Imus for his comments makes sense.  He's lucky he didn't get fired.  Frankly,  if saw any indication of losing money from his comments i'd fire him.  But you know what?  i think his audience increased as a result of this.

basically what i'm saying MM, is that it's a bad comparison.  Admitting gayness vs.  racially attacking a group of people.

[Decker]

C'mon Decker.  This isn't about free speech.  I understand the difference between crimes and "rights."  I also understand that things like the First Amendment were designed to protect unpopular or "bad" expression. 

But the rape of a child is a crime.  No one has a right to advocate this crime.  This is indefensible.  NAMBLA has no "right" to exist and/or talk about their criminal organization.  Shame on the ACLU for failing to draw the line with this criminal organization.   

This is about free speech.  The act of child enticement/molestation is a crime.  Talking about such crimes is not the same thing:  it is a type of speech/expression.

The content of the speech may be offensive and disgusting and the speakers perverts, but a wrongful act is an act and ruminations and utterances on that act are a type of speech/expression protected by the 1st amendment.

All this doesn't mean that ACLU agrees with the content of the speech; it's concerned with the freedom to speak granted by the 1st Amendment.

[militarymuscle69]

I'm not sure they would fire him for being gay, however if his listeners decreased they would.  suspending him for being gay is a little far fetched and unlikely also.  Imus made an attacking off color statement.  If I mus revealed he was gay the business would lose money because they would face serious public criticism for suspending him aqnd lose advertising revenue because of their actions.  Suspending Imus for his comments makes sense.  He's lucky he didn't get fired.  Frankly,  if saw any indication of losing money from his comments i'd fire him.  But you know what?  i think his audience increased as a result of this.

basically what i'm saying MM, is that it's a bad comparison.  Admitting gayness vs.  racially attacking a group of people.

Oz, I've grown to respect you and am really suprised you are so blind on this issue.

[OzmO]

Oz, I've grown to respect you and am really suprised you are so blind on this issue.

Well, I've give you the benefit of the doubt here.  Here's why:

-  I don't know too much about the ACLU as i probably should to definitively comment on there potential actions
-  I don't know enough about homosexual discrimination laws and racial slander laws


I'm assuming firing someone for being gay is against the law and the ACLU would step in.

I'm assuming that firing someone for racial slander isn't against the law and the ACLU wouldn't step in.

So that's why i see it as i do. 

I don't agree with some of the things the ACLU has done thyat i've read about in the past, but I've seen a few things i do agree with.  And the issue with the KKK indicated to me they are at least in some regard unbiased about who they defend and really are about defending our rights.

[Dos Equis]

This is about free speech.  The act of child enticement/molestation is a crime.  Talking about such crimes is not the same thing:  it is a type of speech/expression.

The content of the speech may be offensive and disgusting and the speakers perverts, but a wrongful act is an act and ruminations and utterances on that act are a type of speech/expression protected by the 1st amendment.

All this doesn't mean that ACLU agrees with the content of the speech; it's concerned with the freedom to speak granted by the 1st Amendment.

You're assuming all speech is protected.  It isn't.  You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  You cannot disrespect your superior in the military (or any job for that matter) and keep your job.  In fact, it can land you in jail in the military.  You cannot threaten the president and remain a free man.  "Fighting words" are not protected speech.  I don't view "speech" by NAMBLA any differently. 

And even if there is some valid argument that NAMBLA has a First Amendment right to advocate the rape of little boys, who the heck should be defending that "right"?  The ACLU should draw the line here already.

Imagine a group of men formed to advocate the rape of women.  That group would have a First Amendment "right" to exist and speak too?   

[Decker]

You're assuming all speech is protected.  It isn't.  You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  You cannot disrespect your superior in the military (or any job for that matter) and keep your job.  In fact, it can land you in jail in the military.  You cannot threaten the president and remain a free man.  "Fighting words" are not protected speech.  I don't view "speech" by NAMBLA any differently. 

You don't but our judicial system does draw such distinctions.

And even if there is some valid argument that NAMBLA has a First Amendment right to advocate the rape of little boys, who the heck should be defending that "right"?  The ACLU should draw the line here already.

Imagine a group of men formed to advocate the rape of women.  That group would have a First Amendment "right" to exist and speak too?   

The ACLU remains "content neutral" in defending the constitutional rights of others in first amendment cases.  You are confusing the content of the speech with the right to speak.

A long time ago I wrote a paper on the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and its effect on free speech on the Internet.  Let me tell you, there are plenty of authors out there that write 'rape fantasies'.  I don't agree with that.  But writing about rape is not the same thing as committing rape.

[Colossus_500]

You're assuming all speech is protected.  It isn't.  You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  You cannot disrespect your superior in the military (or any job for that matter) and keep your job.  In fact, it can land you in jail in the military.  You cannot threaten the president and remain a free man.  "Fighting words" are not protected speech.  I don't view "speech" by NAMBLA any differently. 

And even if there is some valid argument that NAMBLA has a First Amendment right to advocate the rape of little boys, who the heck should be defending that "right"?  The ACLU should draw the line here already.

Imagine a group of men formed to advocate the rape of women.  That group would have a First Amendment "right" to exist and speak too?   

Great post, Beach!  Great points!

[Dos Equis]

You don't but our judicial system does draw such distinctions.
The ACLU remains "content neutral" in defending the constitutional rights of others in first amendment cases.  You are confusing the content of the speech with the right to speak.

A long time ago I wrote a paper on the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and its effect on free speech on the Internet.  Let me tell you, there are plenty of authors out there that write 'rape fantasies'.  I don't agree with that.  But writing about rape is not the same thing as committing rape.

Decker I understand the difference between "content" and the right itself.  We regulate content all the time.  I just gave several examples.  For instance, laws/rules prohibiting "fighting words" are not content neutral at all.  They target specific words (like the "N" word). 

I'm talking about two issues here:  (1) the right of a criminal organization to freely advocate the rape of little boys and (2) the ACLU not having the moral courage to draw the line with representing an organization like NAMBLA.  They shouldn't walk around with blinders on.  What they're doing at the end of the day is helping a criminal organization prey on little boys.  That's outrageous.         

[Dos Equis]

Great post, Beach!  Great points!

Thanks Colossus.   

[militarymuscle69]

Well, I've give you the benefit of the doubt here.  Here's why:

-  I don't know too much about the ACLU as i probably should to definitively comment on there potential actions
-  I don't know enough about homosexual discrimination laws and racial slander laws


I'm assuming firing someone for being gay is against the law and the ACLU would step in.

I'm assuming that firing someone for racial slander isn't against the law and the ACLU wouldn't step in.

So that's why i see it as i do. 

I don't agree with some of the things the ACLU has done thyat i've read about in the past, but I've seen a few things i do agree with.  And the issue with the KKK indicated to me they are at least in some regard unbiased about who they defend and really are about defending our rights.

I know what you are saying and I'm not just blaming the ACLU...freedom of speach should be freedom of speac period....I don't like what he said, but hey we live in America right?

[Decker]

Decker I understand the difference between "content" and the right itself.  We regulate content all the time.  I just gave several examples.  For instance, laws/rules prohibiting "fighting words" are not content neutral at all.  They target specific words (like the "N" word). 

I'm talking about two issues here:  (1) the right of a criminal organization to freely advocate the rape of little boys and (2) the ACLU not having the moral courage to draw the line with representing an organization like NAMBLA.  They shouldn't walk around with blinders on.  What they're doing at the end of the day is helping a criminal organization prey on little boys.  That's outrageous.         

We do agree on the contemptibility of NAMBLA.  The examples you provide of prohibited content are context sensitive (note how the prohibitions deal with imminent public safety situations) and well established law.  NAMBLA's free speech is not tied to imminent harm of children, it's tied to discussions of the shared child perversion.

The ACLU has the moral courage to represent these monsters while upholding the seminal principles upon which this country was founded.  For the ACLU not to represent these people would be cowardly.

NAMBLA can discuss the propriety of consent laws all it wants.  It can oppose them.  But it cannot act on that impulse with an underage person.  That is against the law. 

The ACLU is in no way enabling NAMBLA to score with kids.  That's really a low blow against the ACLU. 

[Dos Equis]

We do agree on the contemptibility of NAMBLA.  The examples you provide of prohibited content are context sensitive (note how the prohibitions deal with imminent public safety situations) and well established law.  NAMBLA's free speech is not tied to imminent harm of children, it's tied to discussions of the shared child perversion.

The ACLU has the moral courage to represent these monsters while upholding the seminal principles upon which this country was founded.  For the ACLU not to represent these people would be cowardly.

NAMBLA can discuss the propriety of consent laws all it wants.  It can oppose them.  But it cannot act on that impulse with an underage person.  That is against the law. 

The ACLU is in no way enabling NAMBLA to score with kids.  That's really a low blow against the ACLU. 

They don't all deal with public safety.  Disrespecting your subordinate in the military has nothing to do with public safety.  But the point is these are all content-based exceptions to the First Amendment. 

Decker we have to agree to disagree on whether the ACLU's representation of an organization that advocates the rape of little boys is "morally courageous" or "morally contemptible."  I don't have a problem at all with defending unpopular speech.  But I draw the law here.  The ACLU doesn't. 

And I've said before that the ACLU has done some great things.  I just think on a few issues (religion, child porn, and child rape) they have lost their way. 

[Decker]

They don't all deal with public safety.  Disrespecting your subordinate in the military has nothing to do with public safety.  But the point is these are all content-based exceptions to the First Amendment. 

Decker we have to agree to disagree on whether the ACLU's representation of an organization that advocates the rape of little boys is "morally courageous" or "morally contemptible."  I don't have a problem at all with defending unpopular speech.  But I draw the law here.  The ACLU doesn't. 

And I've said before that the ACLU has done some great things.  I just think on a few issues (religion, child porn, and child rape) they have lost their way. 

Isn't disrespecting a superior military officer governed by Military law? 

I think we spoke our piece here. 

If I were to add anything it would be on the grounds of longterm policy implications where this effort to curb the  right to free speech could turn down a slippery slope.  "I'm not too keen about X, so we will have to abridge their rights to free speech just like NAMBLA's and so on. 

Once we start to pick and choose what we want to censor based on only moral grounds....well, there's nothing more prone to relativity than morality.

[Dos Equis]

Isn't disrespecting a superior military officer governed by Military law? 

I think we spoke our piece here. 

If I were to add anything it would be on the grounds of longterm policy implications where this effort to curb the  right to free speech could turn down a slippery slope.  "I'm not too keen about X, so we will have to abridge their rights to free speech just like NAMBLA's and so on. 

Once we start to pick and choose what we want to censor based on only moral grounds....well, there's nothing more prone to relativity than morality.

The military = federal government, which = "state actor," which would trigger First Amendment protection.  They are an exception.

I share the same concern about the "slippery slope."  But I also don't have a problem with drawing lines on fairly black and white issues.  This isn't a gray area IMO.