Should NAMBLA's freedom of speech be infringed?

[xsited1]

Everyone knows these scumbags are evil.

And it seems many here would be just fine with the government stepping in and stripping them of the right to free speech.

So let's see where everyone stands.

I need to know more about Nambla before I can vote, but I dare not open their website. I guess they're getting by the child pornography laws, so I suppose they should have the freedom to say whatever they want. Need more info.

 

[rightwinger]

You are pathetic. You perhaps didn't bother to look, but 60% of those who voted no their speech should not be infringed are posters you consider right wing.

Moron.

Not an answer moron

Since it hit the news outlets in the late 1980s with a few whacko's trying to get on TV, I have not seen any mention of NAMBLA except for fear mongering purposes.
I doubt if they ever had more than a thousand members.

Do they even exist anymore?

Wasn't meant to be an answer, moron. It addressed your pathetic need to look at everything with a partisan slant even when there is nothing partisan about it.

Do you ever think at all or are you so wrought with partisan hatred that your mind is too clouded to think rationally?

Untwist your panties hon...

I am asking a legitimate question on the legitimacy of this poll. Does an organization that hasn't existed for twenty years have freedom of speech?

NAMBLA is just another right wing fear platform

Prove otherwise

 

[chanel]

Chanel welcomes the FBI to monitor her internet activity the next time she commits a crime against children, Which will be never.

If they are still in business and they are simply advocating for a change in the law, they have nothing to fear. If they are engaged in child porn or soliciting minors on line then they are already breaking the law and have no freedom of speech. Why is that such a difficult concept? Does blu want pedos to be able stalk children on the internet? Don't answer. I'd rather not see you embarrass yourself. Again.

 

[Zander]

Not an answer moron

Since it hit the news outlets in the late 1980s with a few whacko's trying to get on TV, I have not seen any mention of NAMBLA except for fear mongering purposes.
I doubt if they ever had more than a thousand members.

Do they even exist anymore?

Wasn't meant to be an answer, moron. It addressed your pathetic need to look at everything with a partisan slant even when there is nothing partisan about it.

Do you ever think at all or are you so wrought with partisan hatred that your mind is too clouded to think rationally?

Untwist your panties hon...

I am asking a legitimate question on the legitimacy of this poll. Does an organization that hasn't existed for twenty years have freedom of speech?

NAMBLA is just another right wing fear platform

Prove otherwise

NAMBLA is real and they are part of a larger group - IPCE " International Pedophile and Child Emancipation".

 

[Toome]

I am personally disgusted by NAMBLA's agenda. However, having said that, I oppose any step by the government that would infringe upon NAMBLA's constitutional right to free speech. Speech is not something that should be limited by government. The moment we allow government to do that, we allow tyranny into our lives.

As for NAMBLA, it's not until words become actions that a crime has been committed. Otherwise, even the pedophiles of NAMBLA should be free to express themselves. The rest of us have the choice to not listen.

Pretty simple stuff.

 

[rightwinger]

North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Today
More recently, media reports have suggested that for practical purposes the group no longer exists and that it consists only of a web site maintained by a few enthusiasts.[8] NAMBLA maintains a web site that shows addresses in New York and San Francisco and a phone contact in New York, and offers publications for sale, including the NAMBLA Bulletin.

 

[goldcatt]

Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would say that the invitation to fuck little boys causes a "clear and present danger".

The standard for unprotected speech where advocacy of a criminal act is concerned hasn't been "clear and present danger" for decades, Whitney was overruled in 1969.

Brandenburg v. Ohio

 

[Zander]

North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Today
More recently, media reports have suggested that for practical purposes the group no longer exists and that it consists only of a web site maintained by a few enthusiasts.[8] NAMBLA maintains a web site that shows addresses in New York and San Francisco and a phone contact in New York, and offers publications for sale, including the NAMBLA Bulletin.

They have an active website and a membership. They exist.

 

[goldcatt]

North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Today
More recently, media reports have suggested that for practical purposes the group no longer exists and that it consists only of a web site maintained by a few enthusiasts.[8] NAMBLA maintains a web site that shows addresses in New York and San Francisco and a phone contact in New York, and offers publications for sale, including the NAMBLA Bulletin.

They have an active website and a membership. They exist.

Yes they do. And they're disgusting. But they should be held to exactly the same standard as any other organization. No lower, but no higher either.

 

[Father Time]

I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers would have defended the NAMBLA's right to free speech.

People need to realize that the orginal intent for the founding fathers was for free POLITICAL speech.

The right to freely express your views against the government.

That right has now been twisted to mean defending the rights of even the most foul and vile speech people can come up with; including child molesting.

Leaving out the fact that I doubt that's the framers intentions, NAMBLA does protest the government, theyh spend a lot of time trying to scale back age of consent laws.

 

[Zander]

North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They have an active website and a membership. They exist.

Yes they do. And they're disgusting. But they should be held to exactly the same standard as any other organization. No lower, but no higher either.

We agree. They sicken me, but they have 1st amendment rights.

 

[Father Time]

If they are still in business and they are simply advocating for a change in the law, they have nothing to fear.

Translation: We think this cowardly rush to give the government more power is ok and if you disagree we'll imply you have something to hide.

If you think you don't have to worry about government abusing power you are an idiot.

 

[blu]

Chanel welcomes the FBI to monitor her internet activity the next time she commits a crime against children, Which will be never.

If they are still in business and they are simply advocating for a change in the law, they have nothing to fear. If they are engaged in child porn or soliciting minors on line then they are already breaking the law and have no freedom of speech. Why is that such a difficult concept? Does blu want pedos to be able stalk children on the internet? Don't answer. I'd rather not see you embarrass yourself. Again.

nice deflection

it's not my fault you want to break the law just to go after a group you have an issue with. if you hate the constitution & bill of rights just say it

 

[Si modo]

Not an answer moron

Since it hit the news outlets in the late 1980s with a few whacko's trying to get on TV, I have not seen any mention of NAMBLA except for fear mongering purposes.
I doubt if they ever had more than a thousand members.

Do they even exist anymore?

Wasn't meant to be an answer, moron. It addressed your pathetic need to look at everything with a partisan slant even when there is nothing partisan about it.

Do you ever think at all or are you so wrought with partisan hatred that your mind is too clouded to think rationally?

Untwist your panties hon...

I am asking a legitimate question on the legitimacy of this poll. Does an organization that hasn't existed for twenty years have freedom of speech?

NAMBLA is just another right wing fear platform

Prove otherwise

If you're going to make a claim, that NAMBLA hasn't existed for twenty years, you need to support that claim with something of substance.

Otherwise, you're just typing bullshit.

That's how it works among the rational thinkers, that is.

And fortunately for you, as you were too lazy to even back up your claim, others have already demonstrated that your claim is bullshit.

Your attempt to make this partisan failed miserably.

 

[chanel]

Chanel welcomes the FBI to monitor her internet activity the next time she commits a crime against children, Which will be never.

If they are still in business and they are simply advocating for a change in the law, they have nothing to fear. If they are engaged in child porn or soliciting minors on line then they are already breaking the law and have no freedom of speech. Why is that such a difficult concept? Does blu want pedos to be able stalk children on the internet? Don't answer. I'd rather not see you embarrass yourself. Again.

nice deflection

it's not my fault you want to break the law just to go after a group you have an issue with. if you hate the constitution & bill of rights just say it

Nice deflection. It was a 5-4 decision. I suppose those four dissenting Supreme Court Justices hate the Constitution as well.

I don't know the date of this transcript and cannot authenticate the source, but I thought it was very interesting.

[Anchor Pete Wilson:] Last night, our Target 4 investigative unit
broke the story that NAMBLA has been meeting in a San Francisco public
library for the past two years. And reporter Greg Lyon joins us now with
more on that. Greg?

[Greg Lyon:] Well, Pete, it does sound incredible. A group dedicated
to having sex with children meeting in the San Francisco library, and
with the library's permission. But emotional issues aside, the real
question is whether NAMBLA members pose a threat to society. Law
enforcement and child-abuse experts are telling Target 4 they're not
dangerous at all -- unless you're a child.

These are pictures of a NAMBLA meeting at the Portrero branch of the San
Francisco Public Library, taken with a hidden camera. It may seem
innocuous. But look at the magazine NAMBLA publishes ten times a year,
the "NAMBLA Bulletin." Letters to the editor smolder with stories of
sex with children, and advice on how to molest youngsters without getting
caught.

And the fact that such an organization has been meeting in the public
library while children play downstairs outrages Kathy Baxter, director
of the San Francisco Child Abuse Council. "I'm horrified and I'm
truly baffled, and I'm also very angry. I think the library has a
responsibility to our children, to protect them as best they can."

The library claims that, legally, its hands are tied, that it's an issue
of intellectual freedom. Besides, the library says, NAMBLA is not a
threat. Gloria Hanson is assistant director of branches: "No, as long
as it's lawful, they fill out the form with the contact people, and it's
a First Amendment issue. Anybody who wants to meet in the meeting room,
as long as it's lawful activity."

Target 4 wanted to ask NAMBLA directly whether they pose a threat at
this library. So we decided to go to their meeting ourselves, a meeting
that both NAMBLA and the library maintained was open to the public. This
is what happened when we told them who we were:

This is sergeant Tom Eisenman. He asked us not to show his face so he
wouldn't be recognized by the child molesters he investigates. He says
NAMBLA is a threat. "I think, in the last five years, I've personally
done about 12 people from NAMBLA, or people that I've tied in, that were
closely involved."

These are some of those people. One of them, Jeff White, who Eisenman says
was convicted for his involvement in a child-sex ring. Eisenman says White
is a member of NAMBLA and, in fact, in this mug shot you can clearly see
a NAMBLA T-shirt. And look at this: Eisenman says it's a list White kept
of 139 victims he molested. The youngest, five years old; the average age,
nine and a half. One other thing you should know about Jeff White: these
medical records indicate he is HIV-positive.

[Greg Lyon:] Yes, Suzanne, between 40 and 50 people are meeting upstairs in
this library right now, and the question on everybody's mind is whether
NAMBLA should be allowed to use this building. It's a classic First
Amendment issue: the freedom of speech of the members of NAMBLA against
what is seen by many in this community as a very real threat to their
children.

[Robin Acker, parent:] "I was shocked. I was shocked that the library would
allow a group like this to meet in the library. And mostly shocked that they
would do it -- I understand their issue on First Amendment rights, but that
they didn't let the community know that it was going on so that the community
could take steps to protect the children in the neighborhood."

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/orgs/NAMBLA/nambla-KRON.transcript

At least the cops were infiltrating the meeting. Do the NAMBLA supporters have a problem with that? Do the NAMBLA supporters think that the public has a right to know who is using the public library?

The ACLU has challenged just about every sex offender registry in every state. Fortunately, they keep on losing. But maybe blu can upgrade his membership so they might win next time. In the interest of the Constitution and all.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I defend their first amendment rights even though their beliefs sickens me.

I also defend America's Second Amendment rights. If one or all of these people were to run into an errant bullet, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

and there it lies....let them talk all they want....when they act on what they endorse....CRUSH them like the scum they are.....with extreme prejudice...

 

[Harry Dresden]

Oh, for crying out loud. Where did you twinks get the erroneous idea that inciting criminal activity has EVER been a protected First Amendment right? The First Amendment doesn't allow you to shout "Fire!" in a crowded building, ...

Honestly.

Really, where does it say in the 1st amendment that you cannot shout fire in a crowded building?

with free speech comes responsibility......

 

[Harry Dresden]

Other than as a right wingnut fear tactic..

Does NAMBLA even exist anymore?

well do you still have your card? .....ask Yukon he would know....

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, for crying out loud. Where did you twinks get the erroneous idea that inciting criminal activity has EVER been a protected First Amendment right? The First Amendment doesn't allow you to shout "Fire!" in a crowded building, ...

Honestly.

Really, where does it say in the 1st amendment that you cannot shout fire in a crowded building?

It doesn't, numbfuck. It says that you can't in the myriad state and local laws under which they prosecute your ass for reckless endangerment, which laws are held by the courts to be in accord with First Amendment civil rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where NAMBLA propagandizes for changes in the law, it's speech is protected. Where it attempts to subvert the existing law prohibiting child sex, the speech becomes criminalized. For instance, the 1st Amendment does not protect solicitation for child sex.